Gays Trying To Get Orson Scott Card Fired As A Comic Book Writer

[bluebell]

Not those particular rights - different rights.

And those differing 'rights' actually make your argument much less valid than you believe it to be.

One thing-voting-has already been determined to be a right protected by the government. Gay marriage though, has not be determined to be a right protected by the government.

So, if a person was advocating keeping someone from voting, they would be advocating thwarting the law. It makes sense that they could lose their jobs over such an issue (i'm not saying that that would necessarily be a moral choice for the employer to make, but at least it wouldn't be only based on a disagreement of belief). That's not true for someone who is advocating to keep someone's marriage from being recognized by the government though. In that case, should they lose their jobs, it would be because their employer was intolerant of their beliefs.

But let's look at the whole picture here and see if this attempt to get someone fired for doing something that a group of people personally believe is wrong is congruent with the morals they are proclaiming they hold.

It's really pretty simple. If it's o.k. for someone to lose their job for not supporting gay marriage, then the reverse also has to be true. It also must be o.k. for someone to lose their job for supporting gay marriage. Unless this group of people calling for Card's dismissal is willing to apply their logic (that people can morally fire someone if they hold a belief they don't morally agree with) fairly in this case (which i'm guessing they aren't), then not only are they being intolerant, but they are hypocrites as well.

I personally never support any effort where someone tries to punish another person into agreeing with their beliefs (unless it has to do with breaking a law or causing physical harm). I don't support them because i would never want someone else to do that to me (and i'm guessing you would find anyone attempting to make you chose between supporting your family and your personal convictions morally worthy of derision as well, but maybe not-i don't want to speak for you).

Integrity is when someone's beliefs match their actions and i've seen very few people who call for these kinds of punishments who have that, because most would fight tooth and nail against such practices being leveled at them and their beliefs, but have no problem doing it to someone else.

[Daniel2]

Orson Scott Card has done far more than merely promote traditional marriage, and more than merely disagree with or oppose same-sex marriage. He has advocated that citizens should overthrow the government by "destroying it and bringing it down" if same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land. (If you missed it, it's here: http://www.deseretne...age.html?pg=all). Some excerpts:

Because when government is the enemy of marriage, then the people who are actually creating successful marriages have no choice but to change governments, by whatever means is made possible or necessary.

...

Why should married people feel the slightest loyalty to a government or society that are conspiring to encourage reproductive and/or marital dysfunction in their children?

Why should married people tolerate the interference of such a government or society in their family life?

If America becomes a place where our children are taken from us by law and forced to attend schools where they are taught that cohabitation is as good as marriage, that motherhood doesn't require a husband or father, and that homosexuality is as valid a choice as heterosexuality for their future lives, then why in the world should married people continue to accept the authority of such a government?

What these dictator-judges do not seem to understand is that their authority extends only as far as people choose to obey them.

How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.

Biological imperatives trump laws. American government cannot fight against marriage and hope to endure. If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die.

(bold added)

That kind of extremism goes beyond mere "disagreement." It goes beyond simply "supporting traditional marriage." It goes beyond simply "opposing same-sex marriage." If the government endorses both traditional and same-sex marriage, Card is openly endorsing the "destruction of government" and "the death of the constitution," and he explicitly states "by whatever means possible or necessary."

Thankfully, Mr. Card's view is not representative of any official position by the LDS Church (at least, none that I'm aware of), and I do not believe his sentiments reflect the majority of Latter-day Saints' view on that particular point.

My favorite blog post on this topic is here:

Brian Brown is OUTRAGED that some gays have threatened to boycott DC Comics over the hiring of Orson Scott Card.

“This is completely un-American and it needs to be stopped,” Brown said. “Simply because we stand up for traditional marriage, some people feel like it’s okay to target us for intimidation and punishment.” Brown called the attacks on Card frightening and said it’s another example of gay rights activists trying to punish those who believe marriage should be a union between a man and woman. “Marriage is the union of a man and a woman,” Brown said. “That is not hateful. That is not bigoted.” He said it’s not the first time gay activists have tried to have people fired for their personal beliefs. He recalled the story of a waitress in California who gave money to Proposition Eight. Pro-gay activists set up picket lines at the restaurant calling for her ouster. “We can disagree on core issues – but we can do so in such a way where we don’t try to hurt or intimidate each other,” Brown told Fox News.

Wasn't it just a few days ago that Brian Brown called for the chairman of the Illinois GOP to be fired for his "personal beliefs"? And let's not forget NOM's boycotts of Starbucks and General Mills.

Remember, when hate groups boycott, that's just God-fearing Americans taking part in free enterprise. When gay people boycott, that's evil homofascism. We'll take this statement from Brian Brown as his endorsement of Orson Scott Card's call to take up arms and "destroy the government and bring it down."

I wonder if Mr. Brown is Familiar with the phrase, "Pot, meet Kettle."

I have mixed feelings about boycotts, and about organizations firing people for personal beliefs. However, I find it ironic that extremists on both sides of an issue feign outrage, victimization, and cry bloody murder when they perceive that "the other side" is doing exactly what they've done "to the other side."

Daniel2

[bluebell]

Orson Card has done far more than merely disagree with same-sex marriage. He has advocated that citizens should overthrow and destroy the government if same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land. That kind of extremism goes beyond mere "disagreement."

My favorite blog on this topic is here:

Daniel2

I love that blog post too. It highlights just how hypocritical these issues become for some people, and how so often they are blinded to their own hypocrisy.

If a gay person (or anyone) would throw a fit if someone was threatening to fire an employee because they supported gay marriage, then they should be equally upset if someone threatens to fire someone for not supporting it. If someone who did not support gay marriage would throw a fit because an employer was going to fire someone because they didn't support gay marriage, then they should be equally upset if the opposite occurred. It's not rocket science.

A few years back i was on the email list of some group (focus on the family maybe, i really don't remember) who started to advocate boycotting certain companies who they found out were financially supporting gay marriage. I sent them a letter letting them know how morally wrong i found such an attempt and that since i would never want anyone to try to blackmail me into agreeing with them, i couldn't support anyone doing that to anyone else either without being a much less person that i thought myself to be.

If someone is trying to break the law, or get others to, or is being disrespectful or harming others, then that's a completely different story but when it comes to someone trying to live their beliefs, i'll support that as much as i can because i want that for myself and my children as well.

[Scott Lloyd]

Isn't that what Mr. Scott has advocated in regards to gay marriage rights?

So you think people who oppose gay marriage do it just because they're trying to punish somebody or some people?

That could be a big part of your problem right there.

Incidentally, the man's name is Orson Scott Card, so his last name is Card, not Scott.

I get this all the time. People trying to be formal write in and address me as "Mr. Scott" or "Brother Scott" instead of Mr. Lloyd or Brother Lloyd.

Must be something about the given name Scott that confuses folks.

[semlogo]

Pertinent to the OP: Where intolerance is a bigoted unwillingness or refusal to consent to or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, manifest in the hateful treatment of people who hold those contrary opinions or beliefs, I do not see, from the article anyway, how Card’s political position is “intolerant.” Petitioning for his firing for his beliefs on the other hand, seems to be a hateful act.

His expressed beliefs go far beyond a religious objection to gay marriage.

“I find the comparison between civil rights based on race and supposed new rights being granted for what amounts to deviant behavior to be really kind of ridiculous. There is no comparison. A black as a person does not by being black harm anyone. Gay rights is a collective delusion that’s being attempted.

The dark secret of homosexual society—the one that dares not speak its name—is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally.

[L]egalizing gay marriage is not about making it possible for gay people to become couples.

It’s about giving the left the power to force anti-religious values on our children. Once they legalize gay marriage, it will be the bludgeon they use to make sure that it becomes illegal to teach traditional values in the schools.

Our children will be barraged with the deceptions of the left. Parents will be forbidden to remove their children from the propaganda. Any child with any gender or sexual confusion will be pushed inexorably away from the decision to establish a traditional family. They’ll be told, again and again, that any sign of effeminacy or gender confusion or same-sex attraction is an irrevocable, lifelong compulsion and they might as well shape their lives accordingly.

The left is at war with the family, and they want control of our children’s education. That’s what those signs on the lawns are about.

Heterosexual pair-bonding has been at the heart of human evolution from the time we divided off from the chimps. Normalizing a dysfunction will only make ours into a society that corrodes any loyalty to it, as parents see that our laws and institutions now work against the reproductive success (not to mention happiness) of the next generation.

You can practically see the spittle flying. Disappointing, as I enjoy many of his books.

[Avatar4321]

Intolerance should not be tolerated. We would never have gotten rid of Jim Crow laws had we tolerated Southern intolerance.

And yet you tolerate gay intolerance. How ironic...

[semlogo]

And those differing 'rights' actually make your argument much less valid than you believe it to be.

One thing-voting-has already been determined to be a right protected by the government. Gay marriage though, has not be determined to be a right protected by the government.

So, if a person was advocating keeping someone from voting, they would be advocating thwarting the law. It makes sense that they could lose their jobs over such an issue (i'm not saying that that would necessarily be a moral choice for the employer to make, but at least it wouldn't be only based on a disagreement of belief). That's not true for someone who is advocating to keep someone's marriage from being recognized by the government though. In that case, should they lose their jobs, it would be because their employer was intolerant of their beliefs.

But let's look at the whole picture here and see if this attempt to get someone fired for doing something that a group of people personally believe is wrong is congruent with the morals they are proclaiming they hold.

It's really pretty simple. If it's o.k. for someone to lose their job for not supporting gay marriage, then the reverse also has to be true. It also must be o.k. for someone to lose their job for supporting gay marriage. Unless this group of people calling for Card's dismissal is willing to apply their logic (that people can morally fire someone if they hold a belief they don't morally agree with) fairly in this case (which i'm guessing they aren't), then not only are they being intolerant, but they are hypocrites as well.

I personally never support any effort where someone tries to punish another person into agreeing with their beliefs (unless it has to do with breaking a law or causing physical harm). I don't support them because i would never want someone else to do that to me (and i'm guessing you would find anyone attempting to make you chose between supporting your family and your personal convictions morally worthy of derision as well, but maybe not-i don't want to speak for you).

Integrity is when someone's beliefs match their actions and i've seen very few people who call for these kinds of punishments who have that, because most would fight tooth and nail against such practices being leveled at them and their beliefs, but have no problem doing it to someone else.

Marriage is a fundamental right, per many judicial rulings.

http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/

[semlogo]

And yet you tolerate gay intolerance. How ironic...

Yes, just like I tolerate intolerance of racism and sexism. In other words, I don't tolerate racism and sexism.

[semlogo]

So you think people who oppose gay marriage do it just because they're trying to punish somebody or some people?

That could be a big part of your problem right there.

Incidentally, the man's name is Orson Scott Card, so his last name is Card, not Scott.

I get this all the time. People trying to be formal write in and address me as "Mr. Scott" or "Brother Scott" instead of Mr. Lloyd or Brother Lloyd.

Must be something about the given name Scott that confuses folks.

If someone tried to take away my marriage rights, I suspect I'd feel plenty persecuted and punished. I feel that one can oppose gay marriage rights with a modicum of tolerance, but Mr. Card has not displayed it. His positions are extreme and inflammatory.

Obviously yes, his last name is Card. That's what I get for rushing.

[CV75]

His expressed beliefs go far beyond a religious objection to gay marriage.

So? I still see no actual hateful treatment of people who hold those opinions or beliefs contrary to his. He isn't even saying he hates them. He is stating his beliefs. Petitioning for his firing for his beliefs on the other hand, in my judgement is a personalized, hateful act.

You can practically see the spittle flying. Disappointing, as I enjoy many of his books.

I understand you are dissapointed by his politics (and don't you have strong political opinons also?). But spittle flying--isn't that an unfair personalization? What hateful thing has he ever said about you, or even in the quotes you provided, about anyone that disagrees with him?

[bluebell]

Marriage is a fundamental right, per many judicial rulings.

http://www.afer.org/...damental-right/

As everyone knows, the issue is far from settled-that's why it's not legal is every state.

And of course, marriage, if you want it validated by the government, has always be subjected to certain rules-it's not, in general, really a right anymore than driving is a right.

But we don't need to argue about this, as it's not really the issue the OP is addressing. I disagree with your views on marriage, but i would never attempt to blackmail you to make you change because i find that morally wrong and incompatible with how i want to be treated and my personal beliefs. You disagree with my views on marriage and it sounds like you would be willing to blackmail me to get me to change because you don't see any problem with that.

If that's how you want to be treated though, then it makes sense that you would be alright treating others that way (and i'm not trying to be snarky when i say that. Some people are fine with a metaphoric 'kill or be killed mentality' when it comes to these kinds of issues and that's their right)

[mrmandias]

Yes, just like I tolerate intolerance of racism and sexism. In other words, I don't tolerate racism and sexism.

Its easy to be 'tolerant' the way you do it. Anything you disapprove of you just label intolerance, and voila.

Real tolerance involves putting up with people and views that you don't like.

[Daniel2]

Pertinent to the OP: Where intolerance is a bigoted unwillingness or refusal to consent to or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, manifest in the hateful treatment of people who hold those contrary opinions or beliefs, I do not see, from the article anyway, how Card’s political position is “intolerant.” Petitioning for his firing for his beliefs on the other hand, seems to be a hateful act.

Strangely, the FOX News article in the OP definitely did omit the most extreme aspects of Card's intolerant political position. That is, assuming that one would agree that advocating taking up arms to "destroy" the government "by bringing it down by whatever means necessary" is a pretty "intolerant political position". In fact, I would suggest such a position fits your definition of "a bigoted unwillingness or refusal to consent or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, manifest in the hateful treatment of people who hold those contrary opinions or beliefs.

Daniel2

[Daniel2]

So? I still see no actual hateful treatment of people who hold those opinions or beliefs contrary to his. He isn't even saying he hates them. He is stating his beliefs. Petitioning for his firing for his beliefs on the other hand, in my judgement is a personalized, hateful act.

CV5,

It seems you are employing a double standard, defending Mr. Card, but condemning "the gays."

Do you equally consider Card's "the destruction of the government" (and therefore effectively 'firing' those who's beliefs led to the allowance of marriage equality) as "a personalized, hateful act"?

Daniel2

[Daniel2]

Its easy to be 'tolerant' the way you do it. Anything you disapprove of you just label intolerance, and voila.

Real tolerance involves putting up with people and views that you don't like.

mrmandias,

Do you believe Mr. Card is "tolerant" of those who disagree with his views on marriage?

Daniel2

[BlueDreams]

mrmandias,

Do you believe Mr. Card is "tolerant" of those who disagree with his views on marriage?

I'm not Mrmandia, but considering he works for DC comics that is known for a number of progressive comics that explicitly and implicitly promote gay marriage and/or gay rights...I'd assume that would be a fair sign of some level of tolerance of those that disagree with him.

His comments are excessive....but his comments on a ton of things are generally excessive and exaggerated He's one of more talk than actual bite. If there's indication that he's actually actively assuming a position to prepare for the destruction of the government, then there would be more of a case for it.

But to me, this is still subsidiary to the issue. To have an issue with his beliefs/stances is one thing and I would agree with the boycott if it actually had a direct effect of the rights and civil security of LGBT. But there isn't. He's writing a chapter about superman. If he was a politician making policies I can understand. Heck, if he was writing directly in a comic directly linked with gay content or characters, then I could see it. But he's writing about superman. His beliefs have no direct link to his job, have no direct prejudicial effect on the gay community or even a gay individual.

Yes, just like I tolerate intolerance of racism and sexism. In other words, I don't tolerate racism and sexism.

........

Intolerance should not be tolerated. We would never have gotten rid of Jim Crow laws had we tolerated Southern intolerance.

There is a big difference between the civil rights boycotts, petitions, etc and this petition here. It wasn't merely intolerance, it was overt prejudicial actions and policies that were actively implemented and enforced to keep another group of people as second class citizens. In short, their intolerance directly harmed others. Card's intolerance does not. Some random racist person who's racist and believes some crazy things about it doesn't mean much if all they're doing is handing me a burger through a window. I will tolerate all who have crazy ideals when those beliefs have no effect on my personal life. It's when those acts of intolerance effect my quality of life or impinge my freedoms then there's a case. Right now, from where I'm sitting, Card writing about superman has little to do with anything gay rights oriented.

With luv,

BD

[Glenn101]

Intolerance should not be tolerated. We would never have gotten rid of Jim Crow laws had we tolerated Southern intolerance.

I am glad that you do not think that the extreme intolerance by the gays against Orson Scott Card should be tolerated.

Glenn

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

What do his personal views have to do with writing "Superman"??

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/dc-comics-faces-boycott-over-anti-gay-superman-writer.html

The. Hatred of the person who has diffident views.

[RobertAC]

I'm a fan of Orson Cards writing since I read "Enders Game" many years ago.

Yes, Orson gets his pants in a bunch over gay marriage. His rhetoric has been over the top on the topic. However, he has also written gay characters into some of his writings, and he has been criticized for doing so.

Personally, I don't think his beliefs matter when considering the strength of his writing. I just don't think we should judge a work of art by the character of the person who made it.

I like most of Richard Wagner's music, and Eduard Degas and Auguste Renoir's paintings, although all three men were antisemitic.

I like Caravaggio's paintings too, even though many believe that he was a hit man for the medieval mob who eventually turned into a harsh, inconoclastic religious zealot at the end of his life.

Orson may have strong feelings, but I still like his work, even if I don't agree with what he believes. (And he has a heck of a lot less baggage than some of the other creative people whose work I like.) I hope cooler heads prevail and that his exceptional writing talent is put to good use.

[TAO]

Guys, you do realizing not tolerating intolerance is well... hypocritical =p.

Or at least if you want to be ideologically consistent with yourself, that is.

[CV75]

Strangely, the FOX News article in the OP definitely did omit the most extreme aspects of Card's intolerant political position. That is, assuming that one would agree that advocating taking up arms to "destroy" the government "by bringing it down by whatever means necessary" is a pretty "intolerant political position". In fact, I would suggest such a position fits your definition of "a bigoted unwillingness or refusal to consent or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, manifest in the hateful treatment of people who hold those contrary opinions or beliefs.

Daniel2

If that were truly the case, opposition against him should extend well beyond a strictly gay-themed interest, but there are no news reports addressing that so I'll stick to the OP. And I see no evidence from the choppy quotes you selected that he is advocating personal harm being done to anyone.

[CV75]

CV5,

It seems you are employing a double standard, defending Mr. Card, but condemning "the gays."

Where do I condemn "the gays" in the post you replied to? I said, "So? I still see no actual hateful treatment of people who hold those opinions or beliefs contrary to his. He isn't even saying he hates them. He is stating his beliefs. Petitioning for his firing for his beliefs on the other hand, in my judgement is a personalized, hateful act." I don't even use the term "the gays" in my post.

Do you equally consider Card's "the destruction of the government" (and therefore effectively 'firing' those who's beliefs led to the allowance of marriage equality) as "a personalized, hateful act"?

I don't think you have provided sufficient or credible documentation for me to comment on "the destruction of the government" for me to comment. As I mentioned before, if was a real threat, pro-government organizations would be addressing this issue (and why is it less important than his position on gay marriage?). This is as irrelevant to the conversation as the Moroski article. Why not stick to the OP?

[semlogo]

I'm not Mrmandia, but considering he works for DC comics that is known for a number of progressive comics that explicitly and implicitly promote gay marriage and/or gay rights...I'd assume that would be a fair sign of some level of tolerance of those that disagree with him.

His comments are excessive....but his comments on a ton of things are generally excessive and exaggerated He's one of more talk than actual bite. If there's indication that he's actually actively assuming a position to prepare for the destruction of the government, then there would be more of a case for it.

But to me, this is still subsidiary to the issue. To have an issue with his beliefs/stances is one thing and I would agree with the boycott if it actually had a direct effect of the rights and civil security of LGBT. But there isn't. He's writing a chapter about superman. If he was a politician making policies I can understand. Heck, if he was writing directly in a comic directly linked with gay content or characters, then I could see it. But he's writing about superman. His beliefs have no direct link to his job, have no direct prejudicial effect on the gay community or even a gay individual.

There is a big difference between the civil rights boycotts, petitions, etc and this petition here. It wasn't merely intolerance, it was overt prejudicial actions and policies that were actively implemented and enforced to keep another group of people as second class citizens. In short, their intolerance directly harmed others. Card's intolerance does not. Some random racist person who's racist and believes some crazy things about it doesn't mean much if all they're doing is handing me a burger through a window. I will tolerate all who have crazy ideals when those beliefs have no effect on my personal life. It's when those acts of intolerance effect my quality of life or impinge my freedoms then there's a case. Right now, from where I'm sitting, Card writing about superman has little to do with anything gay rights oriented.

With luv,

BD

Would you feel the same way about people trying to get someone fired for making derogatory remarks about Jews?

[semlogo]

Guys, you do realizing not tolerating intolerance is well... hypocritical =p.

Or at least if you want to be ideologically consistent with yourself, that is.

It's not hypocritical at all. People concerned with social justice and equality have never tolerated intolerance. Nor should we. It would be like a physician tolerating disease.

[semlogo]

I am glad that you do not think that the extreme intolerance by the gays against Orson Scott Card should be tolerated.

Glenn

I have not noticed any such intolerance against Mr. Card