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

[semlogo]

Apparently, it is not still strong. The entire point of the expression:

is that we should tolerate the expression of every viewpoint. You say that we should not tolerate the expression of every viewpoint and essentially admit that you are only willing to defend the right of someone to express those views which do not strongly offend you.

"Tolerance” does not mean “agreement” or “indifference.” Tolerant people fight against offensive viewpoints by exercising their own free speech to argue against what was said, not by trying to get people fired for saying it.

BTW, the above quoted expression of tolerance (to which you refer and which you say is still strong) has nothing to do with tolerance of gender, sexuality, race, nationality, etc (as worthy as these may be). It refers specifically to expression of viewpoints.

Again, Mr. Card's free speech rights remain intact.

[semlogo]

Wonderful. Simply define a person’s viewpoint as “backward” and you can get him fired for it and still call yourself tolerant. On that basis, one can justify firing someone on the basis of religion. After all, many people believe the doctrines of some churches are “backwards.” For that matter, some believe that mere belief in God is “backward.” Since one‘s religious belief and church membership is something one can help (unlike “sexual orientation, gender, race, etc.”), do you believe that no one is obliged to practice religious tolerance?

Fired is really the wrong word. Mr. Card is likely working under a contract basis.

Religious affiliation is protected under the constitution and no one can be fired for their religious affiliation. Proselytizing in the work place is not protected and can lead to unemployment. Spot the difference?

[semlogo]

Definately. Just make sure you are consistent about it. In other words, there are very few people who are truly tolerant, and so thus, it's not good to call oneself that unless one truly is and such.

It is not "tolerant" to tolerate the KKK.

[bluebell]

It's not really different. People get fired for the things they say all the time. Free speech doesn't cover guaranteed employment. Nor should it.

First, there is no evidence that he was fired for 'things that he said' so i have no idea why you keep arguing that point as if it were fact. We don't know that he was fired, and we also don't know that the firing, if it did occur, was based on what he said and not on assaulting a child. Let's at least try to stick with the information that we do have, and not make up stuff to make our arguments make more sense.

Second, would you be alright if a gay person (or any person i suppose) was fired for writing in suppport of gay marriage?

Our discussion pretty much boils down to how you answer that question.

If your answer is yes, then i have no argument with you. I would disagree but at least your reasoning would be valid.

If your answer is no, then I feel your philosophy is severely problematic and even a little bit scary. Your measure of what is acceptable to do to another person becomes 'what i agree with' and that's a frightening platform to preach from. Most of the ills of the world stem from that kind of thinking. As soon as we're alright with making people suffer because they disagree with our beliefs, we've lost the moral battle, in my opinion.

[bluebell]

It is not "tolerant" to tolerate the KKK.

That's actually the very definition of tolerance. The word has a specific meaning that we can't just ignore when it doesn't work with our arguments.

[semlogo]

That's actually the very definition of tolerance. The word has a specific meaning that we can't just ignore when it doesn't work with our arguments.

No, it's not. The KKK tolerate the KKK. That doesn't make them "tolerant."

[semlogo]

First, there is no evidence that he was fired for 'things that he said' so i have no idea why you keep arguing that point as if it were fact. We don't know that he was fired, and we also don't know that the firing, if it did occur, was based on what he said and not on assaulting a child. Let's at least try to stick with the information that we do have, and not make up stuff to make our arguments make more sense.

Second, would you be alright if a gay person (or any person i suppose) was fired for writing in suppport of gay marriage?

Our discussion pretty much boils down to how you answer that question.

If your answer is yes, then i have no argument with you. I would disagree but at least your reasoning would be valid.

If your answer is no, then I feel your philosophy is severely problematic and even a little bit scary. Your measure of what is acceptable to do to another person becomes 'what i agree with' and that's a frightening platform to preach from. Most of the ills of the world stem from that kind of thinking. As soon as we're alright with making people suffer because they disagree with our beliefs, we've lost the moral battle, in my opinion.

Apparently he has not been let go. But DC would be in their rights to do so if they wished.

Would it be all right as in legal to be fired for supporting gay rights? Yes. Would it be ethical or wise? No.

[bluebell]

No, it's not. The KKK tolerate the KKK. That doesn't make them "tolerant."

To tolerate something means to:

• Allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.
  
• Accept or endure (someone or something unpleasant or disliked) with forbearance.
  

I never said the KKK were tolerate (they aren't). What i said is that it is tolerant for someone who hates what the KKK stands for to tolerate them anyway.

[bluebell]

Apparently he has not been let go. But DC would be in their rights to do so if they wished.

Would it be all right as in legal to be fired for supporting gay rights? Yes. Would it be ethical or wise? No.

I'm not asking whether or not something is legal (legal and ethical or moral don't always agree, as you've point out concerning the civil rights movement of earlier decades, where it was very much legal for people to mistreat black people, though morally reprehensible). Let's not hide behind the law. What i'm asking is-

1) do you think it's morally acceptable and ethical for someone to try to get Card fired for opposing gay marriage and 2) do you think it's morally acceptable and ethical for Card (or anyone) to try to get someone fired for supporting gay marriage?

[semlogo]

To tolerate something means to:

• Allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.
  
• Accept or endure (someone or something unpleasant or disliked) with forbearance.
  

I never said the KKK were tolerate (they aren't). What i said is that it is tolerant for someone who hates what the KKK stands for to tolerate them anyway.

This is a very surface level approach to the term, not unlike equating apologetics with "saying you're sorry." The actual issue we're discussing has nothing to do with the dictionary definition you googled.

[semlogo]

I'm not asking whether or not something is legal (legal and ethical or moral don't always agree, as you've point out concerning the civil rights movement of earlier decades, where it was very much legal for people to mistreat black people, though morally reprehensible). Let's not hide behind the law. What i'm asking is-

1) do you think it's morally acceptable and ethical for someone to try to get Card fired for opposing gay marriage and 2) do you think it's morally acceptable and ethical for Card (or anyone) to try to get someone fired for supporting gay marriage?

I'm not asking whether or not something is legal (legal and ethical or moral don't always agree, as you've point out concerning the civil rights movement of earlier decades, where it was very much legal for people to mistreat black people, though morally reprehensible). Let's not hide behind the law. What i'm asking is-

1) do you think it's morally acceptable and ethical for someone to try to get Card fired for opposing gay marriage and 2) do you think it's morally acceptable and ethical for Card (or anyone) to try to get someone fired for supporting gay marriage?

1) Yes

2) No

For the same reason it's not ethical or acceptable to fire someone for supporting equal rights for blacks, but it is ethical to fire someone for making a youtube video stating that rights for black people should be abolished.

Vocally supports sexual harassment = it's ethical to fire them.

Opposed to sexual harassment = unethical to fire

Vocally supports rights for the disabled = unethical to fire

Vocally opposes rights for the disabled = ethical to fire

All credible and ethical companies have anti-discrimination policies. Most companies also care about their reputation, and a publicly extremist employee (especially in upper management) can damage the reputation of the company.

[bluebell]

I think we've probably said everything to each other that we can at this point and it's time to just agree to disagree.

I find your position hypocritical and unethical (and like i said, very scary), but it's yours to have and since this whole discussion is just opinions shared, what i think of you doesn't really matter.

[semlogo]

I think we've probably said everything to each other that we can at this point and it's time to just agree to disagree.

I find your position hypocritical and unethical (and like i said, very scary), but it's yours to have and since this whole discussion is just opinions shared, what i think of you doesn't really matter.

I don't tolerate bigotry, nor do I think it should be tolerated. I tolerate people, not bigotry. There is a difference that you fail to detect.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I think we've probably said everything to each other that we can at this point and it's time to just agree to disagree.

I find your position hypocritical and unethical (and like i said, very scary), but it's yours to have and since this whole discussion is just opinions shared, what i think of you doesn't really matter.

Glad to see the semlogo hasn't stopped with his crazy thoughts. He is, to date, the only person I have chosen to ignore. And it seems that I have not missed much of his misguided views.

[Daniel2]

would you be alright if a gay person (or any person i suppose) was fired for writing in suppport of gay marriage?

Our discussion pretty much boils down to how you answer that question.

If your answer is yes, then i have no argument with you. I would disagree but at least your reasoning would be valid.

Kinda like this?:

BYU fires teacher over op-ed stance

BY TODD HOLLINGSHEAD

THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE

PUBLISHED JUNE 14, 2006 12:49 AM

PROVO - As an American citizen, Jeffrey Nielsen felt compelled to publicly question the LDS Church's opposition to same-sex marriage. As a Brigham Young University instructor, he now is paying the price.

The LDS-owned school will not rehire Nielsen after spring term because of his remarks in an op-ed piece earlier this month.

"I believe opposing gay marriage and seeking a constitutional amendment against it is immoral," the part-time philosophy teacher and practicing Latter-day Saint wrote in the June 4 Salt Lake Tribune.

Four days after the column ran, BYU Department of Philosophy Chairman Daniel Graham sent Nielsen a letter informing him of his dismissal.

"In accordance with the order of the church, we do not consider it our responsibility to correct, contradict or dismiss official pronouncements of the church," the letter reads. "Since you have chosen to contradict and oppose the church in an area of great concern to church leaders, and to do so in a public forum, we will not rehire you after the current term is over."

Besides losing his BYU job, Nielsen now fears he could lose something more precious: his church membership.

"I have no desire to be anything but a member," he said Tuesday in an interview.

LDS Church spokesman Mark Tuttle said members are free to voice their own opinions. He cited Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Mormon who also opposes amending the Constitution to bar same-sex marriage.

The Nevada Democrat did, however, vote for a state constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage and also for the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

The problem for Nielsen is that he could not continue to collect a BYU paycheck while challenging church leaders.

Nielsen, who has taught at BYU for several years, said he was scheduled to teach classes summer, fall and winter. For now, he plans to finish teaching this term.

BYU spokeswoman Carri Jenkins said the decision to let Nielsen go came from the philosophy department.

"The department made the decision because of a recent opinion piece that publicly contradicted and opposed a statement by the First Presidency," Jenkins said. "Such contradiction is in violation of university policy."

In a statement read over pulpits the week before Nielsen's column ran, leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints urged members to support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and asked them to "express themselves on this urgent matter" to U.S. senators.

Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles went to Washington to show the church's support for the measure.

Despite that push and a flood of letters from Mormons, the Senate rejected the amendment June 7.

Like thousands of Latter-day Saints, Nielsen chose to express himself on the matter. His stand, however, was in public opposition.

"Further, to say that gay marriage will destroy traditional marriage and the family without giving any reasons why is the fallacy of appealing to fear," Nielsen wrote. "Indeed, once you get past the emotion, it is quite an unfounded claim."

Nielsen's column also criticized church leaders, saying he finds "quite troubling" their statement that God has ordained marriage as a union between one man and one woman - especially given the faith's history with polygamy.

He stressed he sustains the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles but rejected the premise that they are "immune from thoughtful questioning or benevolent criticism."

"In my mind, there is no contradiction between raising some questions and concerns and at the same time sustaining" church leaders, he said Tuesday. "Even though I realize, for the vast majority of church members, those two things are contradictory."

Nielsen maintains he wasn't attacking religious or theological claims, but rather commenting on a moral issue.

Former BYU professor David Knowlton can empathize with Nielsen's position.

Knowlton was denied tenure from the Provo university in 1993 after he criticized the church's missionary program in the independent Sunstone forum.

"Obviously, the decision is unfortunate," said Knowlton, now an associate professor of anthropology at Orem's Utah Valley State College. "I really feel for him and his family because it's a horrible thing. I've been through it."

Nielsen acknowledged the fallout has been rough on him, his wife and his children. He said he never meant to create conflict but added he felt the need to speak out.

The father of four conceded he has endured sleepless nights since the column appeared but reaffirmed Tuesday he is sticking by his views and his religion.

"I'm walking a very fine line here, trying to do what I think is morally correct," Nielsen said, "and at the same time maintain my membership."

thollingshead@sltrib.com

Other high-profile firings

* English professor Cecilia Konchar Farr in 1993 after she gave a speech supporting a woman's right to an abortion.

* Anthropologist David Knowlton in 1993 after publishing studies on the church in Latin America.

* English professor Gail Turley Houston in 1996 after she "publicly contradicted" doctrine.

* History professor Steve Epperson in 1996 because he lacked an LDS temple recommend.

- Source: Tribune archives

Nielsen has more questions

Opposition to same-sex marriage isn't the only LDS Church stand Jeffrey Nielsen questions. The part-time Brigham Young University instructor, who will not be rehired for contradicting church statements, said he wants to address other moral and social issues. He urges church leaders to:

* Commission BYU scientists to investigate the nature of the current scientific understanding of same-sex attraction.

* State clearly the the church's position on the past denial of priesthood to blacks.

* Clarify the nature of polygamous teachings in the church, both past and future.

* Reveal "real membership numbers" and churchwide activity rates.

* Allow worthiness interviews between church leaders and teenage members to occur only in the presence of a parent or guardian.

* Permit nonmember or non-tithe-paying parents to attend their children's LDS temple weddings.

- Todd Hollingshead

Daniel2

[TAO]

Daniel, from what I read in the article, it wasn't simply gay mairrage, but also the other things in his article.

I'm a bit disappointed in BYU though.

[BlueDreams]

I was referring to what this man called the child. People can and do get fired for racism, even when expressed off the clock. Homophobia is no different. In America employers have the right to terminate employees for this kind of conduct.

BB said it well enough...and this is probably a waste to type this out. But I'll just say my last bit.

Yes they can get fired for both. I never said that firing someone for expression never happens. What I said it's not necessarily right....especially when it has no direct effect on job performance or is against the law (or could be). Most of the cases that I found were fired not just for stating something but the means, place, specificity, etc that they were.

For example a sports caster could be fired for sexist comments....that were state to a female athlete directly. A woman was fired from her job for a racist facebook comment.....that wasn't just racist, but stated things that easily could be read as direct threats to the president's life. Likewise this person isn't being fired for randomly saying something racist to no one in particular. He's saying it specifically to an individual and assaults them...both actions are not just discriminatory but with potential legal consequences. That's what I found in the "real world" (a quick google search). Ironically the case that was closest to the Card issue was a reverse problem: A black woman fired for civilly responding to a racist/racially insensitive public remarks on facebook about her hair. http://shine.yahoo.c...-200400289.html. Most would agree this is wrong. She's defending her choices, views, and heritage. She shouldn't be fired for that. But the employer technically has the right.

But just to be super clear for you:

- I'm not saying that you shouldn't be fired for your views EVER. I'm saying you shouldn't be when it has no legal effect and have no effect for the work environment (ie discrimination policy, which doesn't attack latent views or beliefs, but ones that effect workplace environment)

- I'm not saying that many companies would still be able to. I'm saying that its not ethically sound

- And I also agree with BB's end note, its implications for the double standard presented are dangerous.

It implies that what is allowable or not isn't about equality in application of standards. If anyone can be fired for their views, even if it has little direct effect on the company/work environment whether the views lean to somewhere like Rhoda Lees or as screw-ball as Card's....then that's fine....at least it's equally applied.

But if the only standard is whether one disagrees or agrees with the view or if its "good" by terms decided by the general population or the ruling party....there's a problem. It means it's not based in theoretically equally applied justice, law and order but on personal/cultural whimsy. And of course you probably don't see the problem, because...again....the view the person holds is considered by you reprehensible. There are two major problems with that, that I personally see.

1. What is considered reprehensible changes and also means that no matter what there will always be a class or group of people of some sort who are unfairly treated. Heck, what is considered "marriage rights" isn't even nailed down yet, socio-politically speaking. What is considered wrong is still very dependent on who you're talking to (and not just extremist groups). So if you're in power then Card is fired but not for someone for gay marriage who talks/campaigns for it. If a person who espouses a similar idea (what is punished is based on what ideas we agree with) but reverse values (against gay marriage) keeping Card makes sense and firing the gay-marriage activist is what should be done.

2. It means that voices of people are unfairly oppressed and the expression of ideas are hindered. It's forcing the conversation to only hear one view and not all parties. Because it's not simply punishing a person, it's punishing diverse ideas. The people can pick and choose which voices in time will become more accepted or rejected. But for any group to have the power to enforce their ideas over another is an unfair field, limits dialogue, and is to me antithetical to the founding principle of free speech.*

To me an ethical decision about firing would include the questions:

- Was the view expressed meant to represent the company/job in question?

- Was it stated in the workplace?

- Does it effect their work?

- Does it break the Law?

- Does it threaten specific individuals?

If no, then I don't feel a company/job/etc should fire an individual. That's all I have to say. I'm done. It'll most likely just go in circles from here anyways.

With luv,

BD

* When I say free speech it does not entail discriminatory harassment and specific threats to a person.

[bluebell]

Kinda like this?:

Daniel2

I think it's already been discussed but religious institution obviously have more leeway in regards to their employees, because when they are hired they agree to uphold certain standards in exchange for the job.

Under such a contract I see nothing unethical about one party holding the other responsible for breaking the terms of the agreement and inflicting the before agreed upon consequences.

If BYU overstepped their bounds then that's a shame. If they were simple holding an employee to the standard they agreed to keep, then I see no valid reason to be upset with them.

[Sleeper Cell]

This is a very surface level approach to the term, not unlike equating apologetics with "saying you're sorry." The actual issue we're discussing has nothing to do with the dictionary definition you googled.

Maybe that’s the problem. The rest of us are using standard dictionary definitions. You, apparently, are not.

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,’" Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!’"

"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master--that's all."

[sheilauk]

Isn't the situation with Jeffrey Nielsen the point BD was trying to make? If it was wrong to fire him for stating his views, then, regardless of your opinion of those views, it should be wrong to fire Card for his views, unless he is in breach of his contract of employment or a law. If you complain about what happened to Nielson (who does seem to be in breach of his contract of employment), its hypocritical to ask for Card to be fired or support his firing (unless you can show he is also in breach of his contract, which he doesn't seem to be), if you believe in free speech.

[semlogo]

I think it's already been discussed but religious institution obviously have more leeway in regards to their employees, because when they are hired they agree to uphold certain standards in exchange for the job.

Under such a contract I see nothing unethical about one party holding the other responsible for breaking the terms of the agreement and inflicting the before agreed upon consequences.

If BYU overstepped their bounds then that's a shame. If they were simple holding an employee to the standard they agreed to keep, then I see no valid reason to be upset with them.

You were just objecting yesterday to discussion of legality vs discussion of ethics.

[semlogo]

Maybe that’s the problem. The rest of us are using standard dictionary definitions. You, apparently, are not.

I'm referring to tolerance as its actually used in terms of social justice.

[bluebell]

You were just objecting yesterday to discussion of legality vs discussion of ethics.

I'm not speaking about legality in this case either.

If an employee agrees that they will uphold a specific standard, in the way they communicate or behave, in exchange for a job, and then that employee doesn't uphold that contract, is there any ethical or moral reason why they should not suffer the consequences (which they agreed to before taking the job) for that breach?

[semlogo]

I'm not speaking about legality in this case either.

If an employee agrees that they will uphold a specific standard, in the way they communicate or behave, in exchange for a job, and then that employee doesn't uphold that contract, is there any ethical or moral reason why they should not suffer the consequences (which they agreed to before taking the job) for that breach?

Are all contracts ethical per se regardless of specific content?

[bluebell]

Are all contracts ethical per se regardless of specific content?

If they are legal, both parties agree to them with full and complete disclosure of what they are agreeing to do, and they agree to abide the terms without compulsion, then yes.