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

[semlogo]

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 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?

Did you read what I quoted from Card? It was very inflammatory.

Card has never said anything hateful about me. It's his treatment of minorities that I find disagreeable.

[semlogo]

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)

The courts have already ruled that marriage in general is a fundamental right. That has been settled. The issue of gay marriage has not been settled, but does anyone doubt the outcome. Within 20 years gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states. Probably sooner than later.

[semlogo]

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.

In this view of tolerance, civil rights advocates would have just rolled over and let George Wallace have his way.

Intolerance is prejudice against people based on things like race, gender, sexual orientation, able-bodiedness, etc. Prejudice based on things people do not choose for themselves. It is not intolerant to fight against prejudice, which is learned, not inborn.

I do support free speech rights for everyone - regardless of their views.

[CV75]

Did you read what I quoted from Card? It was very inflammatory.

Card has never said anything hateful about me. It's his treatment of minorities that I find disagreeable.

I did, but even "inflammatory" isn't necessarily "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" Does he really intend to incite angry feelings? Can you prove that? I don't know what his intentions are.

I'd rather be consistent in discussing this in terms of real intolerance.

How does one go about treating a minority as opposed to treating individuals? What has he done to them? Are minority advocates (in addition to gay interest groups that is) demanding his firing? These questions are really impertinent to the subject at hand anyway.

As I mentioned above, why are his politics about government (and now minorities in general) less significant than his politics about gay "marriage"? Why, after all he's said, is the only valid demand for his firing over his attitude about gay "marriage"?

[Damien the Leper]

It's ironic how intolerant this group of gay people are being while trying to punish someone else for not agreeing with them.

This reminds me of dark times in the LDS church not too long ago.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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

I think that " freedom of speech" is dead in America.

[bluebell]

This reminds me of dark times in the LDS church not too long ago.

No one is immune to being blind to their own weaknesses.

[bluebell]

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

If we really and truly support free speech, then we MUST support even derogatory remarks that we find horrible. Otherwise, we are in denial about our true feelings on the first ammendment.

So, i don't see how it would be possible for anyone to claim they supported free speech and then be o.k. with someone trying to get someone else fired for saying something negative about Jews.

[TAO]

It's not hypocritical at all.

Sure it is. You are saying tolerance is good universally, but then going against your own statement.

People concerned with social justice and equality have never tolerated intolerance.

Well then they aren't really tolerant people, are they?

Nor should we. It would be like a physician tolerating disease.

That's up to you. But in that case, you couldn't say tolerance was good universally.

[Glenn101]

Glenn101, on 13 February 2013 - 08:02 PM, said:

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

I have not noticed any such intolerance against Mr. Card

That is strange. I would consider agitating to have someone fired for stating their beliefs as rather intolerant. Maybe you have a different definition than the dictionary.

in·tol·er·ant

adjective

1. not tolerating or respecting beliefs, opinions, usages, manners, etc., different from one's own, as in political or religious matters; bigoted.

Glenn

[Sleeper Cell]

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.

Whatever happened to the classic liberal expression of tolerance?

I don’t agree with what you said, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Apparently, it has become:

I don’t agree with what you said. It is the product of a diseased mind and I will defend those who want to punish you.

I suppose that is the sort of thing that happens when “social justice” trumps justice and “equality” trumps liberty.

[Daniel2]

Whatever happened to the classic liberal expression of tolerance?

I suppose that is the sort of thing that happens when “social justice” trumps justice and “equality” trumps liberty.

Can you provide some examples of what you're referring to where "'social justice'" has "trump[ed] justice"?

Can you provide some examples of what you're referring to where "'equality'" has "trump[ed] liberty"?

Finally, would you say any of your examples are morally rational (according to your view of morality... i.e. "it is better for one man to perish, than for an entire nation to dwindle, because of unbelief")? Would you say any of your examples are Constitutionally justified?

From my perspective, the inflammatory comments of all parties in this thread (no matter how distasteful we may find any or all of them) are and should be protected by our shared freedom of expression---whether those comments are:

1. callls for either pro-gay or anti-gay boycotts, or

2. calling for the firing of anyone for their anti-gay views, or even

3. calling for the destruction of a pro-gay government by any means necessary.

(Though I wonder if the last one boarders on the perhaps-outdated-notion of "treason.")

Daniel2

[mrmandias]

mrmandias,

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

Daniel2

I don't know the man personally, but I have no reason to believe that he thinks people who believe in gay marriage should be fired from their jobs or made a hiss and a byword in polite society. Could be wrong, of course.

My recollection is that Card's hot rhetoric about insurrection and whatnot was in the context of judicially-imposed gay marriage. I don't think he actually believes that, and if he does I disagree pretty strongly with him, but I also agree with him that judicial imposition of gay marriage is an affront to the sovereignty of the people.

[BlueDreams]

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

Yes. If they did it on a blog on their own time that had no connection to whatever job they had. If it had no effect on the work they did. If it had no actual effect on the community or individuals in the community minus the fact that anyone who chose to read the blog was offended... Yes.

Same goes for race and sex, whether I'm apart of those groups or not: if you have an issue with mixed people, white, black, hispanic, mormons, or women I'm going to have a low opinion of you. But as long as it doesn't affect my life or the lives of the groups that I associated with and felt some affiliation to, I don't care and I wouldn't feel like I have the right to make them pay for their stupid beliefs. And this isn't stated purely hypothetically, there have been direct experience with it.

So change the group to whatever one you desire, my answer remains the same.

With luv,

BD

[thesometimesaint]

I don't know the man personally, but I have no reason to believe that he thinks people who believe in gay marriage should be fired from their jobs or made a hiss and a byword in polite society. Could be wrong, of course.

My recollection is that Card's hot rhetoric about insurrection and whatnot was in the context of judicially-imposed gay marriage. I don't think he actually believes that, and if he does I disagree pretty strongly with him, but I also agree with him that judicial imposition of gay marriage is an affront to the sovereignty of the people.

Any insurrection would be cause for great concern. We are supposed to be a nation of laws. Courts are a function of law. Any thing less is an appeal to mobocracy.

[ERayR]

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

http://radio.foxnews...man-writer.html

So much for tolerance.

[ERayR]

mrmandias,

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

Daniel2

It is not Mr. Card calling for their head on a pike.

[Storm Rider]

I guess it is perfectly acceptable for one group to call for another's head on a pike and hellfire and damnation upon anyone that should dare to think or feel differently than this group. This is the consistent example of the Left. They are as children without any boundaries. Their elitist doctrine is that you can think anything you want as long as you do not disagree with them. There are reasons they war exists in the world and this is the type of thinking that throws wide the doors of social revolution. All the while they sit in stunned pseudo-innocence that someone could conceive of thinking differently than they do.

[GingerRed]

I guess it is perfectly acceptable for one group to call for another's head on a pike and hellfire and damnation upon anyone that should dare to think or feel differently than this group. This is the consistent example of the Left. They are as children without any boundaries. Their elitist doctrine is that you can think anything you want as long as you do not disagree with them. There are reasons they war exists in the world and this is the type of thinking that throws wide the doors of social revolution. All the while they sit in stunned pseudo-innocence that someone could conceive of thinking differently than they do.

HERE ,HERE!!!

Red

[Daniel2]

I guess it is perfectly acceptable for one group to call for another's head on a pike and hellfire and damnation upon anyone that should dare to think or feel differently than this group. This is the consistent example of the Left. They are as children without any boundaries. Their elitist doctrine is that you can think anything you want as long as you do not disagree with them. There are reasons they war exists in the world and this is the type of thinking that throws wide the doors of social revolution. All the while they sit in stunned pseudo-innocence that someone could conceive of thinking differently than they do.

Hyperbole, much, ERayR and Storm Rider? Head on a pike...? Really? (CFR).

Hellfire and Damnation-----from "the gays"?!?! I think you have us confused with what the Southern Baptists say about us. FWIW: I've read several comments in this thread from both sides of the issue lamenting organized boycotts on both sides.

It's takes a jaundiced eye to only see "the gays" as being liberal in their condemnation, here.

Even so, Freedom of Expression covers everything said--and quoted--in this thread. You may not like that gays don't want Orson Scott Card penning the latest tome of the Superhero that stands for "Truth, Justice, and The American Way," and are calling for him to be fired; I may not like that Orson Scott Card penned an Open Ed Column published in the Deseret News calling to "destroy" any pro-same-sex-marriage government "by any means necessary," or that he equates us with pedophiles and worse; Love it or hate it, however, our Constitution guarantees freedom of expression of and by both.

Daniel2

[Daniel2]

This article has some interesting different points of view, including inconsistency in how many have/are approaching this issue.

I like the last store owner's approach best:

Three more stores decide not to stock Card’s Superman comic [updated]

by Kevin Melrose | February 15, 2013 | 284 Comments |

At least three more retailers have joined Dallas’ Zeus Comics in deciding not to stock the first issue of the DC Comics anthology Adventures of Superman, which features a story by sci-fi author and vocal gay-rights opponent Orson Scott Card.

Citing the author’s efforts against the legalization of same-sex marriage,Whatever Store in San Francisco, I Like Comics in Vancouver, Washington, and Ralph’s Comic Corner in Ventura, California, have all said they won’t carry the print edition of the digital-first comic when it’s released May 29. (However, Mike Sterling, manager of Ralph’s, said his store will still order “the couple of copies for customers who have preexisting, ongoing comic savers for Superman items.”)

Best known for his award-winning 1985 novel Ender’s Game, Card has become notorious for his outspoken views on homosexuality and his advocacy against gay rights. A board member of the National Organization for Marriage, a group dedicated to the opposition of same-sex marriage, the author has tried to link homosexuality to childhood molestation, and advocated home-schooling to ensure children “are not propagandized with the ‘normality’ of ‘gay marriage.’” Following rulings by “dictator-judges” in 2008 that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, Card infamously endorsed a government overthrow.

DC’s announcement last week that he would contribute to Adventures of Superman sparked almost immediate outcry, leading the gay-rights advocacy initiative All Out to spearhead a petition demanding the publisher drop the author. As of this afternoon, more than 12,000 people have signed. DC is standing firm, however, releasing a statement that said, “As content creators we steadfastly support freedom of expression, however the personal views of individuals associated with DC Comics are just that — personal views — and not those of the company itself.”

National Organization for Marriage President Brian Brown, whose group launched boycotts last year against Starbucks and General Mills for their support of marriage equality, spoke out against the Card backlash, saying, “This is completely un-American and it needs to be stopped, “Simply because we stand up for traditional marriage, some people feel like it’s okay to target us for intimidation and punishment.”

For the three retailers, the issue comes down to whether they can justify supporting, even in a small way, someone who advocates denying marriage rights to lesbians and gays.

“We refuse to give money to someone who will then turn around and use that money to fund more anti-gay hatred,”Whatever Store wrote on its Facebook page.

In an email to ROBOT 6, I Like Comics owner Chris Simons explained, “After reading about what he [Card] believes and what he does to back up those beliefs I’ve just made the decision not to carry that book either. While Washington just recently legalized gay marriage I’m in a part of the state that definitely leans to the conservative and I expect some fallout from my actions. I know how naive this may sound, but it’s what Clark Kent would do. To me, at their core, comics are mostly about doing the right thing no matter what the cost. If I can see this and back it up with my actions I can’t imagine why DC can’t do the same.”

Sterling, a longtime comics blogger, acknowledged his store’s position on Card is a little inconsistent, but said in this situation a boundary has been crossed. “I know, I know … we carried the Ender’s Game comics. We’ve carried other comics by creators with reprehensible positions (though mostly expressed via Internet hot air, rather than being on a board, like Card, to try to enforce those positions on people),” he wrote this morning on his blog. “But this particular Superman comic is the one where the line is being drawn, where a message is hopefully being sent that we don’t want to support someone who is on the wrong side of history, on the wrong side of progress, and, when you get right down to it, on the wrong side of basic human decency.”

UPDATE (Saturday, Feb. 16, at 6:45 a.m.): Funny Business in Nyack, New York, also won’t be stocking the comic,with owner Chris Barchuk writing in ROBOT 6′s comments, “I would never tell one of my customers that I will not order a book for them. They are the customer and have the right to read whatever they want. What I did tell my customers is that I will not stock this book on my shelves and if they want it they will have [to] special order it. (Just so that you know not a single customer has asked to order it.)”

“He continued, “What I really find odd in this whole thing is Mr Cards decision to work for DC. To me it shows a lack of conviction on his part. For Mr Card to have these wild opinions about gay marriage and then agree to work for a company that 7 months ago reintroduced a major character(Alan Scott) as a gay man who in his first appearance asks his gay lover to marry him just seems strange. I am very much so a supporter of equal rights and if I for example knew that a company was supportive of the KKK I would never turn a blind eye to that fact for a paycheck. Mr Card has made comments about overthrowing the government if the legalize gay marriage but yet he will work for a company that seems very open to the idea of gay marriage and gay rights? … Not to let DC off the hook I also find it is sending a confusing message when they so actively support the gay lifestyle yet they hire someone who is so against that. It shows a lack of forethought on their part not seeing this as a confusing message.”

Meanwhile, Challengers Comics in Chicago is taking a different approach to the controversy. In a blog post titled “All Things Being Equal,” the store revealed it will donate all of its profits from the sales of Card’s Adventures of Superman to the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay-rights advocacy group: “I think [Challengers co-owner] W. Dal Bush put it best when we were discussing this via email: ‘I’d rather take his book, that his royalties might go to anti-equality causes, and use it to fund pro-equality causes. Plus our profits per book are more than his royalties per book.”

[Daniel2]

And another great response by another sci-fi author, who's gay:

David Gerrold Volunteers to be Orson Scott Card’s Balance

February 18th, 2013

Author Graeme McMillan

Congratulations, David Gerrold, for the best response I’ve seen to the Orson Scott Card/Adventures of Superman story yet:

Dear DC Comics Editors,

I see that you have hired a writer for Superman who has written strongly of his opposition to equal rights for LGBT people. And I see that there is an online petition protesting that move.

Perhaps you could balance that decision by hiring an openly gay writer to draft a Superman story for a future issue.

I hereby volunteer.

I have been a fan of Superman since Bud Collyer played him on the radio. (Before TV was invented.) I can remember Brainiac’s first appearance, and Bizarro too. And I cried when George Reeves died.

I do have some small credential as a writer of science fiction and fantasy. I have published a few books and written a few teleplays. (You can look me up on the internet.) I have also written some mangas, and I wrote two issues of the Babylon 5 comic you published ten years ago.

I have some very good ideas that I think would work well for the series. I’d like the opportunity to write for you the very best Superman story ever.

Sincerely yours,

David Gerrold

“The Trouble With Tribbles”

Land Of The Lost

Twilight Zone

The Martian Child

(and a whole bunch of other stuff)

Hey, DC: You should really take him up on this offer, and not just because it’s a good PR save for an increasingly nasty PR situation. The more classic SF authors contributing to Adventures of Superman, the better.

[The Nehor]

Once again the obvious truth rears its head: Do not offend your customers.

[Storm Rider]

Hyperbole, much, ERayR and Storm Rider? Head on a pike...? Really? (CFR).

Hellfire and Damnation-----from "the gays"?!?! I think you have us confused with what the Southern Baptists say about us. FWIW: I've read several comments in this thread from both sides of the issue lamenting organized boycotts on both sides.

It's takes a jaundiced eye to only see "the gays" as being liberal in their condemnation, here.

Even so, Freedom of Expression covers everything said--and quoted--in this thread. You may not like that gays don't want Orson Scott Card penning the latest tome of the Superhero that stands for "Truth, Justice, and The American Way," and are calling for him to be fired; I may not like that Orson Scott Card penned an Open Ed Column published in the Deseret News calling to "destroy" any pro-same-sex-marriage government "by any means necessary," or that he equates us with pedophiles and worse; Love it or hate it, however, our Constitution guarantees freedom of expression of and by both.

Daniel2

PCome on Daniel; let's boycott Chick Fil'A, let's get that Card guy fired, in fact, let's boycott everyone that disagrees with our position. I support civil unions for everyone regardless of sexual preference. However, what angers me is the utter hypocrisy of this group. They are completely unwilling to critic their own house and yet feel quite free to critique everyone else. We have a militant admin that seems determined to prevent any condemnation of the dark side of the gay culture, so I will stop here before being banned again from a topic. The issue is that it is perfectly acceptable for the gay culture to demand that they be accepted en toto without any degree of criticism from anyone. Theirs is a cause celebre that the Left has embraced and the Right is left to stand in silence, unable to address the issue in a straight forward manner. It is an all or nothing proposition. The Mormon people were required to be sanitized before the US would accept them; but our society now must accept all things gay without any degree of reservation or criticism. This is farce at its best.

[Daniel2]

PCome on Daniel; let's boycott Chick Fil'A, let's get that Card guy fired, in fact, let's boycott everyone that disagrees with our position. I support civil unions for everyone regardless of sexual preference. However, what angers me is the utter hypocrisy of this group. They are completely unwilling to critic their own house and yet feel quite free to critique everyone else. We have a militant admin that seems determined to prevent any condemnation of the dark side of the gay culture, so I will stop here before being banned again from a topic. The issue is that it is perfectly acceptable for the gay culture to demand that they be accepted en toto without any degree of criticism from anyone. Theirs is a cause celebre that the Left has embraced and the Right is left to stand in silence, unable to address the issue in a straight forward manner. It is an all or nothing proposition. The Mormon people were required to be sanitized before the US would accept them; but our society now must accept all things gay without any degree of reservation or criticism. This is farce at its best.

Storm, Have you read the previous pages of this thread? I am not alone in calling out the hypocrisy of dueling boycotts. I do not understand how anyone can condemn the idiocy of the Chick-fil-A boycotts by the gays, yet ignore the idiocy of the Starbucks, JCPenny's, Ellen, General Mills, and One Million Mom boycotts by the "traditional marriage" groups. I am a gay man, and I am a personal example of being gay and "critiquing my own house" in that regard, in this very thread.

There ARE calm, reasonable ways to discuss these things--and a lot of that good discussion has happened, right here in this thread. A call for civility when discussing this issue (as I believe the Mods here do a great job of doing) does not silence dialogue--it allows meaningful dialogue to occur.

For what it's worth, I do not believe society "now must accept all things gay without any degree of reservation or criticism." I firmly believe that truth can withstand criticism and welcome the scrutiny. I support everyone's right to freedom of expression. I also believe we all do better when making our point by doing so thoughtfully, with compassion, a sense of empathy, and maintaining whatever conviction continues to feel right, as we do so.

Best,

Daniel2

BTW, I note that the CFR of anyone "calling for Mr. Card's head on a pike" went unanswered. I've found that hyperbole usually doesn't help advance good conversation or understanding.