Fired for religious beliefs?

151 posts / 0 new
Last post
GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4111
Fired for religious beliefs?

Is this religious discrimination? How is it different than if Chick-Fil-A fired someone for saying they support gay marriage?

College football analyst Craig James was fired after a brief stint with FOX Sports Southwest over anti-gay comments he made while running for political office in Texas, according to of the Dallas Morning News. James joined Fox Sports Southwest in late August but was fired after just one appearance.

A former college football standout at SMU and with the New England Patriots during the 1980s who went on to become a polarizing analyst for ESPN, James left broadcasting to enter the race for a vacant senate seat in Texas in 2011. During a debate in February 2012, James said that gay people would "answer to the Lord for their actions" and claimed that being gay was "a choice," according to USA Today. He also chastised opponent Tom Leppert for attending a gay pride parade.

?We just asked ourselves how Craig?s statements would play in our human resources department,? an unnamed Fox spokesman told Barry Horn of the Dallas Morning News after it was reported that James had been fired. ?He couldn?t say those things here.?

James made one appearance on FSSN during the first weekend of the college football season and then was sacked. Citing unnamed sources, Richard Deitsch of Sports Illustrated reported that James' hiring "had not been fully vetted at the highest levels of Fox Sports management."

"Craig James will not be making any further appearances on Fox Sports Southwest's football coverage this season," a Fox Sports spokesperson told Deitsch.

While at ESPN, James became embroiled in a controversy involving coach Mike Leach, then the coach at Texas Tech. In 2011, James left ESPN to run for office. When FOX Sports Southwest announced James' return to broadcasting, they touted the hire proudly.

?We?re excited to add Craig to the FOX Sports Southwest team,? FSSW executive producer Mike Anastassiou said when James was hired, according to the Houston Chronicle. ?He?s a talented broadcaster who I?ve admired throughout his career. His knowledge of college football and the experience he brings as an analyst will be a tremendous asset to our coverage.?

Craig James Fired By FOX Sports Southwest Over Anti-Gay Comments: REPORT

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

Nope, it's not religious discrimination. It's gay discrimination. Here we go again with hiding behind religion as a way to spout bigotry and hatred. Didn't God create us all and doesn't he love us all, even if he made some of us gay?

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3183

Those aren't "religious beliefs". Those are anti-gay statements made in public. Their mistake was in hiring him in the first place without doing their research, they should be faulted for that.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4111

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

Those aren't "religious beliefs". Those are anti-gay statements made in public. Their mistake was in hiring him in the first place without doing their research, they should be faulted for that.

They absolutely are religious beliefs.

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

Bah. Go ahead and chase your tail on this one, girls, no matter what side you're on. I can't be bothered to do this again.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3183

He didn't even mention any specific religion. Does invoking the name of the Lord mean that everything you say is a religious belief? What if I say that white people who marry non-white people will have to answer to the Lord? Does that make what I say a religious belief?

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4111

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

He didn't even mention any specific religion. Does invoking the name of the Lord mean that everything you say is a religious belief? What if I say that white people who marry non-white people will have to answer to the Lord? Does that make what I say a religious belief?

Why would he have to? What would you assume if someone said it is up to the Lord to judge gay people that he is Atheist? If talking about the Lord isn't religious than why aren't teachers allowed to do it in school? You can't have it both ways.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3183

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Why would he have to? What would you assume if someone said it is up to the Lord to judge gay people that he is Atheist? If talking about the Lord isn't religious than why aren't teachers allowed to do it in school? You can't have it both ways.

You're missing my point. I'm saying that you don't get to use the name of the Lord to say whatever you want and then call religious discrimination when you get in trouble for it. He got fired for being anti-gay, not for talking about God.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4111

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

You're missing my point. I'm saying that you don't get to use the name of the Lord to say whatever you want and then call religious discrimination when you get in trouble for it. He got fired for being anti-gay, not for talking about God.

No I still don't get the point. They are the same in this context. He was speaking about the morality of being gay according to his religious beliefs. It is clear when you read the whole context that he was talking about his Christian beliefs.

Republican U.S. Senate Candidate Craig James says he believes being gay is a choice and gays will have to answer to God.

James made those comments Wednesday during a Republican candidate debate in Dallas where Tom Leppert was also forced to defend his record as Dallas mayor.

At least twice while serving as Dallas’ mayor, Republican Tom Leppert marched in Dallas’ gay pride parade.

Opponent Ted Cruz has hammered Leppert for joining the marches, which prompted a question to Cruz that he sidestepped during Wednesday’s debate.

Moderator: Are you saying Mayor Leppert is in favor of gay marriage?

Cruz: What I am saying is that when a mayor of a city chooses twice to march in a parade celebrating gay pride, that’s a statement - and it’s not a statement I agree with.

Former Mayor Leppert has complained that Cruz has distorted his position on gays, and Leppert wanted to clear up misconceptions for the conservative voters who were listening.

Leppert: The mayor is against gay marriage. I believe marriage should be defined as one man and one woman. But I had the responsibility to represent everybody, but everybody understood where my faith was. I will tell my role as a Christian is to reach out and touch everybody.

Former television sports analyst Craig James then weighed in.

James: I think right now in this country, our moral fiber is sliding down a slope that is going to be hard to stop if we don’t stand up with leaders who don’t go ride in gay parades. I can assure you I will never ride in a gay parade. And I hear what you’re saying, Tom, but leaders - our kids out there people need to see examples.

Moderator: Do you think people choose to be gay?

James: I think it’s a choice, I do.

Moderator: It’s not in the genes?

James: I think that you have to make that choice. But in that case right there, they are going to have to answer to the Lord for their actions. We should not give benefits to those civil unions.

Craig James: Being Gay A 'Choice' | KERA News

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3183

So if he'd said that he believed white people shouldn't marry black people and that if they did they'd have to answer to the Lord, and then he got fired, would that be being fired for his religious beliefs?

Saying "being gay is a choice" has nothing to do with religion; I don't believe that particular part of the issue comes up in the Bible directly. So all he did was invoke the Lord, that doesn't mean he's being fired for religious beliefs. He wasn't fired for being Christian or for believing in the Bible. He was fired for saying negative things about being gay, which his employers absolutely should have known about beforehand since it was public record.

This is not about religion.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4111

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

So if he'd said that he believed white people shouldn't marry black people and that if they did they'd have to answer to the Lord, and then he got fired, would that be being fired for his religious beliefs?

Saying "being gay is a choice" has nothing to do with religion; I don't believe that particular part of the issue comes up in the Bible directly. So all he did was invoke the Lord, that doesn't mean he's being fired for religious beliefs. He wasn't fired for being Christian or for believing in the Bible. He was fired for saying negative things about being gay, which his employers absolutely should have known about beforehand since it was public record.

This is not about religion.

Saying being gay is a choice absolutely has to do with religion. How could it be a sin if it is not a choice you are making? That would be like God saying it is a sin to be black. It has EVERYTHING to do with religion.

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1683

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Saying being gay is a choice absolutely has to do with religion. How could it be a sin if it is not a choice you are making? That would be like God saying it is a sin to be black. It has EVERYTHING to do with religion.

You're right. It sure as hell ain't a biological argument that homosexuality is a choice therefore it must fall under religion. I'm glad we agree that only religious people would take the position that being gay is a choice.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3183

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Saying being gay is a choice absolutely has to do with religion. How could it be a sin if it is not a choice you are making? That would be like God saying it is a sin to be black. It has EVERYTHING to do with religion.

He didn't say it was a sin, at least not in the article you posted. He said it wasn't a choice.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4111

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

He didn't say it was a sin, at least not in the article you posted. He said it wasn't a choice.

Yes. It is a choice. He said it is a choice and that it is up to God to judge them (for their sin). That is a religious belief based on what the Bible teaches.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4111

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

You're right. It sure as hell ain't a biological argument that homosexuality is a choice therefore it must fall under religion. I'm glad we agree that only religious people would take the position that being gay is a choice.

Actually it is a biological argument also. There is absolutely no scientific proof that you are born that way. Therefore it is a choice.

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1683

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Actually it is a biological argument also. There is absolutely no scientific proof that you are born that way. Therefore it is a choice.

You can't have it both ways. If it is also a biological argument he wasn't fired for religious beliefs.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4111

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

You can't have it both ways. If it is also a biological argument he wasn't fired for religious beliefs.

He was making a religious argument and was fired for his religious beliefs. A biological argument CAN also be made but that is a whole different thing and wasn't what he said. He was speaking about his Christian beliefs in a moral context and that is what he was fired for.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4111

dp

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1683

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

He was making a religious argument and was fired for his religious beliefs. A biological argument CAN also be made but that is a whole different thing and wasn't what he said. He was speaking about his Christian beliefs in a moral context and that is what he was fired for.

That's a really big stretch.

In many high-profile, no/low-justice criminal cases, I often say, "God will judge." Or some variation. Am I making a "religious" assertion? No. Just trying to assuage the lack of justice.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3183

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Yes. It is a choice. He said it is a choice and that it is up to God to judge them (for their sin). That is a religious belief based on what the Bible teaches.

You added the sin part. He did not. The "choice" part is all his own and has nothing to do with religion, there is no specific religious book that says it's a choice. Saying something anti-gay (or racist, or sexist, or anything at all that someone would have an issue with) and then saying that the person doing that has to answer to the Lord doesn't turn it into a religious issue. It doesn't mean he's being fired for his religious beliefs. They don't care of he's Jewish or Christian or Muslim. They care that he made anti-gay statements and chastised someone for attending a gay pride parade. If he had been an atheist and made the same statements he'd be in the same trouble, whether or not he'd included the Lord.

There's a debate here but it sure isn't about being fired for religious beliefs. He was fired for anti-gay statements. I'm guessing many of the higher-ups who had to make the decision are religious themselves, as many people are.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3183

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Actually it is a biological argument also. There is absolutely no scientific proof that you are born that way. Therefore it is a choice.

There's no scientific proof that you're not.

Rivergallery's picture
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

Gloria - was he asked his opinion on gay marriage?

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

He was fired for being a bigot. He basically said that gay people are making a decision that will lead them to hell, and that they shouldn't even have the right to civil union, not even marriage. This wasn't a church conference or a bible discussion. It was a public debate for a secular political office. He could have said something innocuous like the mayor did, about how he doesn't personally believe in gay marriage but has a responsibility to represent all constituents, and he chose not to. He chose instead to gay-bash.

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

"Rivergallery" wrote:

Gloria - was he asked his opinion on gay marriage?

Read the article she posted. It's pretty much a transcript.

Rivergallery's picture
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"Spacers" wrote:

Read the article she posted. It's pretty much a transcript.

I did read it.. it isn't a transcript.. the questions asked were not posted.. just exerpts from what he said..
Let me put it this way.
If you have a KKK member running for office.. and you ask them what they think of blacks or jews et all.. and they say derogatory things.. why would you then be amazed.. or upset? Leave it alone..
If you ask a mother whose son died of drugs overdose if drugs should be legal .. and they say negative things about all drugs including marijuana and go on to bash all alchohol.. you would wonder why?

It is baiting.... if it happened the way it sounded.. The media KNEW his beliefs.. the baited him into taking a stand knowing he would loose his job for saying it.

In the cases I figuratively pointed out.. I would much rather any one of them state their viewpoint up front.. then hide and pander... like so many politicians.

Either vote with them if you agree or vote against them if you don't.

I do think it is ok to fire someone for pretty much anything.. though it sucks not to have freedom of speech in that regard.... AND as far as I can tell firing someone over their religious beliefs is illegal... course so is "harrassing" someone because of their sexual preference.. `not sure he was harassing anyone in particular.

I agree with Gloria (no surprise (usually) on this one) - invoking God/Lord et all is a religious view... as it is not just from ones own idea.. God Judges right from wrong.. what God judges as WRONG is sin. Sorry can't really get away from that.

He is getting fired because of his religious beliefs.. even though you think they are hateful.

There are many religious beliefs that are thought of as hateful in many religions.. From Bride Burning, hanging, loss of limbs, caning, multilation, sacrificing.

Trouble is ...
#1 to those looking in many of these seem on the face of them pure evil, but you are not in their culture/society.
#2 These are all way beyond the level of what this man is discussing in the article as his view on homosexuality.
#3 Don't ask a question and then attack someone when they answer truthfully.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3183

He wasn't attacked, he was just fired a year later when someone finally remembered where he stood on the issue.

That said, I still don't think that invoking the Lord means you get the protection of "religious beliefs". If I go out there and say "Jewish people are cheaters and have to answer to the Lord," and I get fired, am I being fired for my religious beliefs?

The Bible doesn't say being gay is a choice as far as I know. (not my area of experitise)

Are you allowed to make up a belief, ascribe it to the Lord, and then say, when you get in trouble for it, that you're being fired for your religious beliefs vs. your actual own political viewpoint?

The Lord has had nothing to say about civil marriage between gay people, as far as I know.

My point is, he didn't get fired for religious beliefs, he got fired for his anti-gay views. It wouldn't have mattered if he'd included the Lord or not. The same statements, with or without, would have had the same result....nor was he speaking about religion as he brought up two things -- choice and civil marriage -- that are not mentioned in religion.

I don't like when people hide behind religion, although I'm not sure that's what he did since the articles I've read say it's about his anti-gay stance and not his religion. As I said before, the people firing him are likely religious as well, as many people are.

mom3girls's picture
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1535

"Spacers" wrote:

He was fired for being a bigot. He basically said that gay people are making a decision that will lead them to hell, and that they shouldn't even have the right to civil union, not even marriage. This wasn't a church conference or a bible discussion. It was a public debate for a secular political office. He could have said something innocuous like the mayor did, about how he doesn't personally believe in gay marriage but has a responsibility to represent all constituents, and he chose not to. He chose instead to gay-bash.

Would you rather have politicians or other public figures give innocuous answers then state the truth? I am fed up with giving "political" answers. I would rather they say how they feel, how it would effect how they vote and then they can let the voters decide

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3183

"mom3girls" wrote:

Would you rather have politicians or other public figures give innocuous answers then state the truth? I am fed up with giving "political" answers. I would rather they say how they feel, how it would effect how they vote and then they can let the voters decide

I agree.

I have no problem with this guy expressing his views in a political arena when he's in one. What better time & place?

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4111

"Rivergallery" wrote:

Gloria - was he asked his opinion on gay marriage?

They were debating the subject of gay marriage yes

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4111

"Spacers" wrote:

He was fired for being a bigot. He basically said that gay people are making a decision that will lead them to hell, and that they shouldn't even have the right to civil union, not even marriage. This wasn't a church conference or a bible discussion. It was a public debate for a secular political office. He could have said something innocuous like the mayor did, about how he doesn't personally believe in gay marriage but has a responsibility to represent all constituents, and he chose not to. He chose instead to gay-bash.

That is NOT what he said. He said that it is a choice that is up to God to judge. He didn't say they were going to hell. That is the inference that YOU made. But if he did that would make it even MORE true that he is expressing his religious beliefs.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4111

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

You added the sin part. He did not. The "choice" part is all his own and has nothing to do with religion, there is no specific religious book that says it's a choice. Saying something anti-gay (or racist, or sexist, or anything at all that someone would have an issue with) and then saying that the person doing that has to answer to the Lord doesn't turn it into a religious issue. It doesn't mean he's being fired for his religious beliefs. They don't care of he's Jewish or Christian or Muslim. They care that he made anti-gay statements and chastised someone for attending a gay pride parade. If he had been an atheist and made the same statements he'd be in the same trouble, whether or not he'd included the Lord.

There's a debate here but it sure isn't about being fired for religious beliefs. He was fired for anti-gay statements. I'm guessing many of the higher-ups who had to make the decision are religious themselves, as many people are.

So are you going to tell me what my religious beliefs are? I'm pretty sure that a LOT of religions don't follow the Bible literally, Catholics sure don't. So you are going to say that because the Bible doesn't specifically say that being gay is a choice it isn't a religious belief? Well I am telling you that it IS. Because that is exactly what I believe and it IS a religious belief. I didn't just think it up on my own. I believe it is a choice because it is specified in the Bible as a SIN, and all sins are made by choice. That makes it a choice. You may not like it because you don't want to be told that he is being persecuted and fired for his religious beliefs. But like it or not that is what happened. They were discussing gay marriage and that is the context that he answered the question. He didn't just start spouting off that he hates gay people. There is nothing wrong with saying that he would not attend a gay pride parade, I wouldn't either. By doing that he would be endorsing the belief that there is nothing wrong with being gay, when it is a sin. And I added the sin part because it was IMPLIED.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3183

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

So are you going to tell me what my religious beliefs are? I'm pretty sure that a LOT of religions don't follow the Bible literally, Catholics sure don't. So you are going to say that because the Bible doesn't specifically say that being gay is a choice it isn't a religious belief? Well I am telling you that it IS. Because that is exactly what I believe and it IS a religious belief. I didn't just think it up on my own. I believe it is a choice because it is specified in the Bible as a SIN, and all sins are made by choice. That makes it a choice. You may not like it because you don't want to be told that he is being persecuted and fired for his religious beliefs. But like it or not that is what happened. They were discussing gay marriage and that is the context that he answered the question. He didn't just start spouting off that he hates gay people. There is nothing wrong with saying that he would not attend a gay pride parade, I wouldn't either. By doing that he would be endorsing the belief that there is nothing wrong with being gay, when it is a sin. And I added the sin part because it was IMPLIED.

I'm going to tell you that if you say God disapproves of civil unions, that is not a religious belief, it is a personal one, because there are no religious texts that cover it. How can it be a religious belief if there is no source for it in religion?

I have no problem with a campaigning politician expressing his true political views. I wasn't the one who thought he shouldn't have said it; in fact, I think he SHOULD have said it because it clearly expresses his stance on gay rights, which is that he is against them.

He is not being persecuted. He is being fired for his political stance on gay issues. Nothing less and nothing more. An atheist would have been fired in the same situation for espousing the same view. It's not because he's Christian (if that's what he is). It doesn't matter what his religion is in this case. He is being fired for making anti-gay statements, THAT is the objection, not his belief in God or his choice of religion.

If my religion says it's okay to kill for revenge, and I kill for revenge and get arrested, was I arrested for my religious beliefs? No, I was arrested for murder.

I'm not saying he doesn't have a religion he believes in. I'm saying it's not why he was fired. Do you seriously think they fired him because he's a Christian? Do you think they fire other Christians? Do you think it's because he believes in the Bible that they got rid of him?

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4111

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

I'm not saying he doesn't have a religion he believes in. I'm saying it's not why he was fired. Do you seriously think they fired him because he's a Christian? Do you think they fire other Christians? Do you think it's because he believes in the Bible that they got rid of him?

Yes I do. Because all of a sudden gay rights trump religious rights. Funny that religious rights are in the constitution but gay rights aren't.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3183

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Yes I do. Because all of a sudden gay rights trump religious rights. Funny that religious rights are in the constitution but gay rights aren't.

Are they firing other Christians for being Christian? No they are not. He was not fired for being Christian.

Slaves' rights weren't in the constitution either, as I recall. Women didn't have the right to vote, too.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4111

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

Are they firing other Christians for being Christian? No they are not. He was not fired for being Christian.

Slaves' rights weren't in the constitution either, as I recall. Women didn't have the right to vote, too.

No but they ARE going after every Christian that believes that being gay is a sin. He WAS fired for being a CONSERVATIVE Christian that believes that being gay is a sin. And other Christians who believe the same ARE being persecuted. Just like the Christian photographer that was sued because he didn't want to photograph a gay wedding that was against his beliefs and the Christian bakery that was sued because they wouldn't make a wedding cake for a gay couple. Religious rights are being trampled on in favor of gay activists.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

I agree with Laurie that he wasn't really fired for religious beliefs. If he had been an atheist speaking out against gay people, he still would have been fired.

Also, I don't think that your religious liberties protect you to the point of being able to alienate a company's customers and still retain your job. Lets say that a Christian felt that it was her religious duty to "share the good news" (many do feel it is their responsibility to try to convert people) with all of the customers that came into a shop, and she was making some of them uncomfortable. I believe that the shop owner would have a right to tell her to stop or even fire her because she is negatively impacting his relationship with his customers. This to me is the same, only more so because this guy wasn't giving a pro-Christian message, he was giving an anti-gay message. It would be more like if instead of saying "Have you heard about the great thing Jesus did for us?" our hypothetical shop worker was saying "Everyone but Christians go to hell." Even if that's what she believes, that's a pretty negative and alienating message for her to be putting out there to our shop owner's clientele. I believe in religious liberty but I don't think it's an automatic get out of jail free card to say whatever you want with zero consequences. In real life, words do have consequences sometimes. I can guarantee you that if I started calling my clients and telling them why I don't think god exists I would be fired before I could say "Christopher Hitchens" whether I have religious liberty or not.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4111

Except that he didn't say it on the job. It was something he said MONTHS before he was even hired and didn't have anything to do with his job. An atheist speaking out against gay people is a whole different thing, because they wouldn't be saying it because of their religious beliefs as he was.

It's the same exact thing as the mayor telling Chick-Fil-A that they can't open a business because the owner doesn't believe in gay marriage.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3183

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

No but they ARE going after every Christian that believes that being gay is a sin. He WAS fired for being a CONSERVATIVE Christian that believes that being gay is a sin. And other Christians who believe the same ARE being persecuted. Just like the Christian photographer that was sued because he didn't want to photograph a gay wedding that was against his beliefs and the Christian bakery that was sued because they wouldn't make a wedding cake for a gay couple. Religious rights are being trampled on in favor of gay activists.

If "they" -- as in his previous employers-- are going after Christians who are walking around SAYING that they believe being gay is a sin, then they are going after EVERYONE who says that regardless of their religion or lack of it.

Their issue is the anti-gay stance, not the Christianity of it.

As for the bakery, there are laws that you can't deny service to people based on sexual orientation. You can't refuse to rent an apartment to someone, you can't refuse to let them in your store or your movie theater, the cake falls under those laws. You can't refuse people's business based on sexual orientation, the same way you can't refuse their business based on their ethnicity. It's discrimination.

If you have prejudices about race or homosexuality or what have you, then come up with a fake legal reason for your refusal, don't tell people outright that you're discriminating, because it's against the law.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3183

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Except that he didn't say it on the job. It was something he said MONTHS before he was even hired and didn't have anything to do with his job. An atheist speaking out against gay people is a whole different thing, because they wouldn't be saying it because of their religious beliefs as he was.

I agree that it is ridiculous that they didn't discover this until later. They should never have hired him in the first place, their mistake, they definitely owe him compensation of some kind.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3183

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

An atheist speaking out against gay people is a whole different thing, because they wouldn't be saying it because of their religious beliefs as he was.

No, it's the same thing. That atheist would get in the SAME TROUBLE for the SAME ACTION.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4111

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

As for the bakery, there are laws that you can't deny service to people based on sexual orientation. You can't refuse to rent an apartment to someone, you can't refuse to let them in your store or your movie theater, the cake falls under those laws. You can't refuse people's business based on sexual orientation, the same way you can't refuse their business based on their ethnicity. It's discrimination.

If you have prejudices about race or homosexuality or what have you, then come up with a fake legal reason for your refusal, don't tell people outright that you're discriminating, because it's against the law.

Being against your religious beliefs is not a fake legal reason. They didn't refuse to serve gay people, they refused to serve a gay wedding. Two different things. I'm pretty sure they didn't ask someone who came in for a birthday cake if they were gay.

Its just like a kosher deli being told they have to serve ham.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Being against your religious beliefs is not a fake legal reason. They didn't refuse to serve gay people, they refused to serve a gay wedding. Two different things. I'm pretty sure they didn't ask someone who came in for a birthday cake if they were gay.

Its just like a kosher deli being told they have to serve ham.

Seriously? Ham is not people. You can't discriminate against ham.

The bakery can choose what flavor of cakes they serve. They can't break the law by choosing not to serve people. Again, if it were against their religion to serve black people, would it be okay for them to not serve black people? I don't know how you can try to break out "not serving a gay wedding is different from not serving a gay person." Really? So not serving a black wedding would be different from not serving a black person? How so? The wedding didn't place the order, the person did.

Going back to whether this guy could be fired for comments that he made before he was on the job, I agree with Laurie that they should have done their research better, but the bottom line is that he is (trying to be) a celebrity. They are always in the public eye, and their image is what makes them a celebrity. I think he would have been fired for anything that the network deemed inappropriate for the image that they are trying to project to their viewers - it doesn't matter if he did it while he was actually on air. Celebrities are basically never off air.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3183

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Being against your religious beliefs is not a fake legal reason. They didn't refuse to serve gay people, they refused to serve a gay wedding. Two different things. I'm pretty sure they didn't ask someone who came in for a birthday cake if they were gay.

Its just like a kosher deli being told they have to serve ham.

No, it's a like a kosher deli that serves ham to one group telling another they can't have it.

They absolutely refused to serve gay people, based on the fact that they are gay.

And discriminating against customers because of your religion is an ILLEGAL reason to not serve somebody. They should have made up a reason -- like "oh we're too booked then" -- instead of admitting they wanted to illegally discriminate.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4111

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

Seriously? Ham is not people. You can't discriminate against ham.

The bakery can choose what flavor of cakes they serve. They can't break the law by choosing not to serve people. Again, if it were against their religion to serve black people, would it be okay for them to not serve black people? I don't know how you can try to break out "not serving a gay wedding is different from not serving a gay person." Really? So not serving a black wedding would be different from not serving a black person? How so? The wedding didn't place the order, the person did.

It is absolutely different. Again they are not refusing to serve black people or gay people, they are refusing to cater to a specific event that they disagree with for religious reasons. Should it be against the law for a Jewish baker to refuse make a Christmas cake? It has nothing to do with who is placing the order, and everything to do with the event the cake is for. If I am a Christian who believes gay marriage is wrong I should not have to go against my conscience and condone the event by contributing to it or else go out of business. That is religious discrimination.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3183

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

It is absolutely different. Again they are not refusing to serve black people or gay people, they are refusing to cater to a specific event that they disagree with for religious reasons. Should it be against the law for a Jewish baker to refuse make a Christmas cake? It has nothing to do with who is placing the order, and everything to do with the event the cake is for. If I am a Christian who believes gay marriage is wrong I should not have to go against my conscience and condone the event by contributing to it or else go out of business. That is religious discrimination.

They make wedding cakes for weddings. They refused to do so, in this case, because the married couple is gay. How is that not discrimination?

A Jewish baker doesn't make a Christmas cake (whatever that is) for ANYONE. It's more like a Jewish baker refusing to sell rugelach to Christians when he/she is selling it to others.

A Jewish baker can't refuse to sell someone challah because they're Christians who want to serve it at Easter brunch. That's illegal.

Rivergallery's picture
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Except that he didn't say it on the job. It was something he said MONTHS before he was even hired and didn't have anything to do with his job. An atheist speaking out against gay people is a whole different thing, because they wouldn't be saying it because of their religious beliefs as he was.

It's the same exact thing as the mayor telling Chick-Fil-A that they can't open a business because the owner doesn't believe in gay marriage.

Exactly! Funny thing is the same people up in arms about this don't care that a former KKK member is A senator in their political party.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

They make wedding cakes for weddings. They refused to do so, in this case, because the married couple is gay. How is that not discrimination?

A Jewish baker doesn't make a Christmas cake (whatever that is) for ANYONE. It's more like a Jewish baker refusing to sell rugelach to Christians when he/she is selling it to others.

A Jewish baker can't refuse to sell someone challah because they're Christians who want to serve it at Easter brunch. That's illegal.

Exactly. If they don't sell wedding cakes to anyone, that is not discrimination, they just don't sell wedding cakes. If they will sell a wedding cake to one person but not another person, that is discrimination. Your Jewish baker presumably wouldn't sell a Christmas cake to anyone...that's not discrimination, he just doesn't sell Christmas cakes.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3183

"Rivergallery" wrote:

Exactly! Funny thing is the same people up in arms about this don't care that a former KKK member is A senator in their political party.

Which people are these? I don't belong to any political party. I can't even vote in this country.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4111

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

They make wedding cakes for weddings. They refused to do so, in this case, because the married couple is gay. How is that not discrimination?

It is not discrimination because according to their religious beliefs it is not a wedding, since a marriage is between a man and a woman. Therefore they should be able to refuse to supply a wedding cake to an event they think is wrong and not a wedding. It is discrimination to force them to do something that is against their religious beliefs. There is absolutely no reason that they would have of forcing their business on someone except for purposely hurting them and persecuting them because or their religious beliefs. If it had been me I would have supplied the cake and put a black frosting X across it and let them pay for it.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3183

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

It is not discrimination because according to their religious beliefs it is not a wedding, since a marriage is between a man and a woman. Therefore they should be able to refuse to supply a wedding cake to an event they think is wrong and not a wedding. It is discrimination to force them to do something that is against their religious beliefs. There is absolutely no reason that they would have of forcing their business on someone except for purposely hurting them and persecuting them because or their religious beliefs. If it had been me I would have supplied the cake and put a black frosting X across it and let them pay for it.

It is not discrimination to not allow vendors to illegally discriminate.

Ask the people who refused service to black people during the sit-ins. I'm sure they would have told you God was on their side, and that it was against their conscience and their religion to serve black people at the same counter where white people sit.

It's nice that you want to ruin someone's wedding cake, though, and publicly make them feel crappy about being in love and forming a union and a family. Is that protected under your religious beliefs too?

And no, if you're hired to make a wedding cake, you're hired to make a wedding cake. If that's your business, you do it. What if I wanted a wedding cake for a party that wasn't a wedding? They still have to sell it to me. It's not up to the bakers to decide if someone's event is legitimate, just like the Jewish baker who makes challah can't say that Easter is a made-up nonexistent holiday because Jesus didn't rise from the grave and refuse to sell bread to someone who orders it.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4111

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

It's nice that you want to ruin someone's wedding cake, though, and publicly make them feel crappy about being in love and forming a union and a family. Is that protected under your religious beliefs too?

If they are going to sue someone for not agreeing with them, then no I wouldn't feel bad about it at all. There are plenty of places that they could go to who would be glad to serve them, they shouldn't force someone to either go against their beliefs or give up their business.

Pages