Lds Ched De Mission Steps Down....

[dirtius maximus]

Currently on Deseretnews is a article about Peter Vidmar's resignation from a position with the 2012 Olympic Team. Some might say "religious oppression" as Vidmar states he voted for a particular piece of legislation for religious reasons. *This discussion is not about the vote* By stepping down, though, what message does he send? All reports seem to be that He could have fulfilled his role and served the athletes despite his political views; I agree.

By stepping down though, is he sending the wrong message? Does his resignation give "ammo" to religious oppressors? I think he should have stayed on. Those athletes who can not work with him (likely they never would or rarely) can leave the team OR they can all just learn to get along. Having such a mix of political and religious views, is the perfect representation of the United States to the world; we hold opposing views and we work together. Yet by resigning Vidmar is saying "We the people of the United States, hold opposing views and we can not work together". I think is sad state of affairs that Vidmar resigned. Not because people are opposed to his religious views, but that his resignation gives credence to those who are opposed to his religious views.

[krose]

What is "DNS"?

Somehow I doubt you are talking about Domain Name System.

[Mars]

Perhaps you should do a whois and find out...

[BCSpace]

USOC official Peter Vidmar resigns after anti-gay marriage actions

It's too bad. I think he should have stayed.

[Deborah]

I don't think he had much choice. No one was going to cooperate with him and he wouldn't have been able to do his job. It's outrageous that this happened. The words that come to mind are thought police.

[Analytics]

Vidmar said, "I fully respect the rights of everyone to have the relationships they want to have...I respect the rights of all of our athletes, regardless of their race, their religion or their sexual orientation."

Interesting comment from a Prop 8 suporter. Have his views changed from when he took an activist role to deny same-sex couples the right to have the relationships they wanted?

[Walden]

I don't think he had much choice. No one was going to cooperate with him and he wouldn't have been able to do his job. It's outrageous that this happened. The words that come to mind are thought police.

I'm not sure about your "thought police" comment. The fact that Vidmar actively protested/demonstrated for Prop 8 and donated a large sum of money goes much further than "thought." As the article states, "In U.S. Olympic circles, there was concern that Vidmar wasn't just expressing his personal opinions on a controversial issue, but that he had moved into an activist role on an issue involving civil rights." He can think whatever he wants, nobody is arguing that....it is his activism that has done him in.....so no, there is no correlation to "though police."

In any business, once the boss loses the respect of his subordinates, it is all but over for that establishment, unless a change is made at the top.

[Deborah]

The fact that Vidmar actively protested/demonstrated for Prop 8 and donated a large sum of money goes much further than "thought."

So? It's still freedom of speech and it's still a right in this country. It's outrageous that for exercising his rights his civil liberties are infringed. And yes it is thought police.

[Jaybear]

Currently on DNS is a article about Peter Vidmar's resignation from a position with the 2012 Olympic Team. Some might say "religious oppression" as Vidmar states he voted for a particular piece of legislation for religious reasons. *This discussion is not about the vote* By stepping down, though, what message does he send? All reports seem to be that He could have fulfilled his role and served the athletes despite his political views; I agree.

By stepping down though, is he sending the wrong message? Does his resignation give "ammo" to religious oppressors? I think he should have stayed on. Those athletes who can not work with him (likely they never would or rarely) can leave the team OR they can all just learn to get along. Having such a mix of political and religious views, is the perfect representation of the United States to the world; we hold opposing views and we work together. Yet by resigning Vidmar is saying "We the people of the United States, hold opposing views and we can not work together".

You are slightly off target. Vidmar was not criticized for voting for Prop 8.

More precisely he was criticized for donating $2,000 and speaking in public to support Prop 8 which would amend the CA constitution, to deny gays the right to marry ... a right which they secured several months earlier from the CA Supreme Court.

Shockingly gays have took offense to having lost a precious constitutional right at the ballot box, and in this case exercised their first amendment right to publicly criticize the appointment of Vidmar, for the roll he played in depriving them of their civil rights.

Yeah, I know, gays did not have the right to marry. The CA court ruling was the result of a corrupt and/or incompetent and/or activist judiciary. We have heard that before.

And yes, we have heard that if the majority of citizens voted in favor of Prop 8, it can't be discriminatory, because Americans would never pass discriminatory legislation.

So? It's still freedom of speech and it's still a right in this country. It's outrageous that for exercising his rights his civil liberties are infringed. And yes it is thought police.

Thought police? No. That implies inhibiting speech through the color of authority.

Why do conservatives always get this wrong, no matter how many time its spelled out. I am starting to think, they are doing it intentionally. Let set the record straight.

Vidmar had every right to devote his time, talent and resources to the passage of Prop 8.

Likewise gay right activist have every right to protest his appointment to the position he secured with the Olympic committee.

In protesting Vidmar, gay rights activist are not going to the courts/police, but to the "court of public opinion."

His civil liberties have not been infringed.

[BCSpace]

The fact that Vidmar actively protested/demonstrated for Prop 8 and donated a large sum of money goes much further than "thought."

So? It's still freedom of speech and it's still a right in this country. It's outrageous that for exercising his rights his civil liberties are infringed. And yes it is thought police.

You are absolutely right. In it's statement, the USOC has shown intolerance to another's beliefs and therefore also shown to be hypocritical. Johnny Weir, who also figures prominently in the article is also unfortunately a gay activist, lending his support to organizations such as Equality California (EQCA).

[Pahoran]

Vidmar said, "I fully respect the rights of everyone to have the relationships they want to have...I respect the rights of all of our athletes, regardless of their race, their religion or their sexual orientation."

Interesting comment from a Prop 8 suporter. Have his views changed from when he took an activist role to deny same-sex couples the right to have the relationships they wanted?

As you perfectly well know, "Analytics," he did not take "an activist role to deny same-sex couples the right to have the relationships they wanted." As you perfectly well know, "Analytics," Prop 8 did not in any way prevent anyone from having whatever relationships, however corrupt, they might want. It merely prevented government sanction thereof.

That's what it did, and that's all it did.

Your heavily loaded question presupposes a falsehood. As, of course, you prefer.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Deborah]

Vidmar had every right to devote his time, talent and resources to the passage of Prop 8.

Likewise gay right activist have every right to protest his appointment to the position he secured with the Olympic committee.

Except that gays weren't harassed at their work places or homes for doing so. Vidmar apparently has put in a lot of time to do this and was doing a good job. To be railroaded because of his exercise of free speech is the work of thought police, whether it be the state or organized citizens.

[Walden]

So? It's still freedom of speech and it's still a right in this country. It's outrageous that for exercising his rights his civil liberties are infringed. And yes it is thought police.

You are still wrong about your classification of "thought police"....nobody protested his thoughts, but rather, his actions. If you can't understand the difference, then continuing this conversation is fruitless.

I love when proponents of Prop 8 use the argument that Vidmar's "civil liberties" were infringed upon.....black pot, meet black kettle.

So, do Vidmar's right to voice his opinion trump the rights of Olympic athletes to voice their concerns about his leadership capacity given the sensitive nature of teh topic?

[Walden]

Except that gays weren't harassed at their work places or homes for doing so. Vidmar apparently has put in a lot of time to do this and was doing a good job. To be railroaded because of his exercise of free speech is the work of thought police, whether it be the state or organized citizens.

Yes, you are right.....gays have always been protected from harassment

[BCSpace]

Except that gays weren't harassed at their work places or homes for doing so. Vidmar apparently has put in a lot of time to do this and was doing a good job. To be railroaded because of his exercise of free speech is the work of thought police, whether it be the state or organized citizens.

Yes, you are right.....gays have always been protected from harassment

Does that mean they should engage in the same? And against those who most likely haven't harassed any gays?

[Deborah]

So, do Vidmar's right to voice his opinion trump the rights of Olympic athletes to voice their concerns about his leadership capacity given the sensitive nature of teh topic?

What rights of the athletes were at risk by having a man who doesn't support gov't sanction of gay marriage in charge. Had he ever shown any prejudice toward the athletes in carrying out his responsibilities? Was there any reason to think he would except for the irrational hatred of the gay movement for anyone who disagrees with their views.

And you are mistaken about thought police. In 1984 the thought police weren't only looking for wrong thoughts. From Wikipedia: "The government attempts to control not only the speech and actions, but also the thoughts of its subjects...."

[Deborah]

Does that mean they should engage in the same? And against those who most likely haven't harassed any gays?

Exactly. There have always been ignorant people who have bullied and mistreated others because they are different. But those who are hard working citizens who exercise their right to vote and otherwise mind their own business would most likely not be among them.

[Jaybear]

What rights of the athletes were at risk by having a man who doesn't support gov't sanction of gay marriage in charge. Had he ever shown any prejudice toward the athletes in carrying out his responsibilities? Was there any reason to think he would except for the irrational hatred of the gay movement for anyone who disagrees with their views.

And you are mistaken about thought police. In 1984 the thought police weren't only looking for wrong thoughts. From Wikipedia: "The government attempts to control not only the speech and actions, but also the thoughts of its subjects...."

There is no government action, ie police. No one is attempting to control his thoughts.

Otherwise, your point is well taken.

[Hestia]

Your heavily loaded question presupposes a falsehood. As, of course, you prefer.

Pahoran, watch the personal accusations.

[Deborah]

Interesting comment from a Prop 8 suporter. Have his views changed from when he took an activist role to deny same-sex couples the right to have the relationships they wanted?

Contrary to what some of you seem to think supporting Prop 8 is a separate issue from "I fully respect the rights of everyone to have the relationships they want to have...I respect the rights of all of our athletes, regardless of their race, their religion or their sexual orientation." Prop 8 doesn't deny anyone from having the relationships they want. It simply prohibited the term marriage to be applied to relationship that is counter to the most traditional meaning of the word. Especially in CA gay couples have the same rights as married heterosexual couples.

[Analytics]

Contrary to what some of you seem to think supporting Prop 8 is a separate issue from "I fully respect the rights of everyone to have the relationships they want to have...I respect the rights of all of our athletes, regardless of their race, their religion or their sexual orientation." Prop 8 doesn't deny anyone from having the relationships they want. It simply prohibited the term marriage to be applied to relationship that is counter to the most traditional meaning of the word. Especially in CA gay couples have the same rights as married heterosexual couples.

I think I understand that point of view, but I don't buy it. A legal and lawful marriage is a different relationship than a civil union, even if they have the same legal rights.

Anyway, I don't want to rehash this debate. My point was merely that "I fully respect the rights of everyone to have the relationships they want to have" sounds more like something a prop 8 opponent would say, and I'm genuinely curious if his position has shifted.

[krose]

It's still freedom of speech and it's still a right in this country.

Yes, it is a constitutional right, which means that the federal government is not allowed to inhibit our speech. Our employers, however, are free to sack us for saying something that embarrasses them, or that they simply don't like.

"Freedom of speech" doesn't guarantee us the right to remain employed no matter what we say.

[Sleeper Cell]

The fact that Vidmar actively protested/demonstrated for Prop 8 and donated a large sum of money goes much further than "thought." As the article states, "In U.S. Olympic circles, there was concern that Vidmar wasn't just expressing his personal opinions on a controversial issue, but that he had moved into an activist role on an issue involving civil rights."

Suppose he had been an anti-Prop 8 activist. Do you think that he would have been forced to resign?

[Sleeper Cell]

Yes, it is a constitutional right, which means that the federal government is not allowed to inhibit our speech. Our employers, however, are free to sack us for saying something that embarrasses them, or that they simply don't like.

So a non-union employer is free to fire an employee for being a union activist?

[Jeff K.]

You are still wrong about your classification of "thought police"....nobody protested his thoughts, but rather, his actions. If you can't understand the difference, then continuing this conversation is fruitless.

I love when proponents of Prop 8 use the argument that Vidmar's "civil liberties" were infringed upon.....black pot, meet black kettle.

So, do Vidmar's right to voice his opinion trump the rights of Olympic athletes to voice their concerns about his leadership capacity given the sensitive nature of teh topic?

Funny how people of a certain stripe or religion lost their job because they supported a lifestyle or a way of life that others did not agree with. But then 1930's Germany was a pretty crazy place. Of course their civil liberties were not infringed upon when they were restricted from where they could work. The right to association and the right to work are not compatible civil liberties you know.

"So do the rights of Jews in 1930 for their life and beliefs trump the rights of Germans to voice their concerns about their leadership capacity given the sensitive nature of the topic of race?"

Such reasoning is an interesting echo of the past is it not?