Same-sex marriage destroying Religious Freedom?!?

In a recent article conservatives are whining that religious freedom is under attack because of gay marriage. You might be saying to yourself, "that is freaking stupid, these guys are dickweeds." Well that’s true, but they are claiming that there are several instances were religious people have been punished for speaking out against gay marriage. In one example, Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich in June fired his appointee to the Washington area transit board after the board member referred to homosexuals as "persons of sexual deviancy." Apparently their reasoning here was that because the board member’s religion says that homosexuality is wrong it is okay for him to publicly state that opinion without any consequences. Of course if the man was Muslim and stated that his religion thought that American women were whores and should be stoned, I doubt that they would be protesting his firing. The conservatives are completely wrong on this issue. Firstly the appointee was a public servant for the public transit board. Being a public servant you can’t openly discriminate against people. What if his religion said blacks were inferior to whites, does that mean he should be able to pass regulations for blacks to sit at the back of the bus? If it was a private company he could then have whatever retarded opinion he wanted, but as a public employee paid by taxpayers, some of whom are gay, that kind of attitude cannot be tolerated. For some reason conservatives are associating religious freedom with being able to not perform the required tasks at your job. For example they have made a big stink about pharmacists being able to refuse to give birth control based on religious objections. If you can’t perform the duties of being a pharmacist then don’t be one. That’s like an Amish person being an electrician then coming over to your house and refusing to fix anything because his religion forbids technology. It’s just plain stupid. In the 1960’s I’m sure there were lots of people who were complaining that their freedoms were being infringed upon by having to serve black people at their restaurants. However times and attitudes have changed and now someone saying that would be publicly chastised. Being gay is not some sexual deviancy and a person’s sexual orientation should not be a determining factor in their rights. Social Conservatives seek to perpetuate the idea that being gay is a social taboo in order to promote their own agendas and keep control. However social attitudes continue to change and will not be held back and soon these “Conservatives� will be looked at as social dinosaurs much like those who supported racial discrimination back in the 1950’s. �

  1. While I agree with the specifics you’ve put forth – stop bitching about your job and just do it – I do have to disagree with you on your general message. The whole point to free speech is to allow ALL opinions – even the ones we don’t particularly like – to be expressed.

    You can draw a pretty good correlation between this guy saying he doesn’t like gays to this guy burning an American flag. Whether or not you find it reprehensible, it’s within his rights to express himself that way (last I checked). The best approach to the situation if you don’t agree with him is to offer your own compelling argument in return.

    As for Ehrlich – what, he didn’t know this guy was going to make some dumbass public comments? Generally, you should sniff out your friends and enemies with the same thoroughness, especially before you appoint them to public office.

    September 15th, 2006 at 7:34 am
  2. “If it was a private company he could then have whatever retarded opinion he wanted, but as a public employee paid by taxpayers, some of whom are gay, that kind of attitude cannot be tolerated.”

    That’s the whole point of the issue. The homophobe who was fired for classifying homosexuals as “sexual deviants” wasn’t fired because he was a homophobe. He was fired because he used his position as a public authority to broadcast his bias against homosexuals. As a private citizen he is entitled to whatever opinion he chooses, and he can’t be censored for expressing them. As a public servant, he is required to represent ALL of his constituents, not just the ones that meet his approval.

    Context is extremely important here.

    September 15th, 2006 at 12:46 pm
  3. The point is conservatives are trying to rally political support for themselves by creating this non-issue that peoples religious freedom is being taken away by they’re not being able to comment on gay marriage. No one has been put in jail for speaking out against same sex marriage, but thats what they are trying to make it seem like. Like people were fired because of teir religious beliefs.

    D Wallz
    September 15th, 2006 at 3:46 pm
  4. I also think it’s amazing how white religious conservatives have convinced themselves that they are somehow an oppressed minority, when 80% of the country is Christian, 80% is white, and their party they holds the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the Supreme Court. Waaah! I’m not aloud to lynch gays! Boo hoo! I’m not allowed to spend taxpayer money on my relgion’s idols! It’s a War on Christmas, I tells ya!

    September 15th, 2006 at 6:48 pm
  5. “He was fired because he used his position as a public authority to broadcast his bias against homosexuals…Context is extremely important here.”

    Did he use his position to make the statement? Without viewing the show itself, I can’t say for sure, but according to a couple sources, he regularly appeared on the show as a “Republican activist.” It sounded like he would have done this irregardless of his governmental position.

    Put the shoe on the other foot, now. If Smith got fired by a homophobic governor – after pressure from the religious right – for saying on a cable-access program that he defends the right of gays to marry, would you still support his firing?

    Maybe the whole issue boils down to the effective operation of government. The citizens of Maryland voiced their counter-opinions, which led to a state Congressional representative acting on their behalf by removing somebody from office that is not acting in the people’s best interests.

    If that’s the case, and that’s fine by y’all, then the hypothetical situation I posed two paragraphs ago should also be fine by y’all.

    September 15th, 2006 at 7:32 pm
  6. If Smith got fired just because he espoused a controversial view, not representing himself as the cabinet secretary to the governor, then no I don’t agree with him being fired. On the other hand, cabinet positions are appointed at the whim of the executive in question; the governor of Maryland has every right to hire or fire anyone he chooses for whatever reason. If Smith were defending gay rights as a private individual and got fired for it, I would be in the same position: I would disagree with the reason for his termination, but not the right of the governor to terminate him.

    September 15th, 2006 at 8:07 pm

Post a Comment

(or leave a trackback to your blog)