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

[semlogo]

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.

Then you're appealing to law again, and not ethics, which was something you were complaining about when I did it.

[TAO]

Semologo, adhering to one's contract would be considered ethics I think. It could also be considered law.

[bluebell]

Then you're appealing to law again, and not ethics, which was something you were complaining about when I did it.

I'm not appealing to law. I answered a specific question which you asked as accurately as i could.

You asked me if a contract could be unethical and i gave you the different reasons that would make a contract such. Obviously, if a contract asks you to do something that's against the law, it can be argued as being unethical.

Now, i've answered your questions, you've contributed absolutely nothing more to the discussion, and have failed to even address my answers. I really am done with the conversation.

[california boy]

'Ender's Game' Author's Anti-Gay Views Pose Risks for Film

The new scrutiny of Card’s views could be a problem for the $110 million Ender’s Game movie, which stars Asa Butterfield, Harrison Ford, Viola Davis and Ben Kingsley and is directed by Gavin Hood (X-Men Origins: Wolverine). Summit, whose parent Lionsgate made The Hunger Games, sees the film as the next big YA sci-fi franchise.

Summit shifted the movie’s release date from March to November to take advantage of the holiday box office. The move also opens the door for producers to "maximize the joint marketing opportunities" with the November 22 release of the Hunger Games sequel Catching Fire, according to Digital Domain CEO John Trextor, whose company put up 37.5 percent of the Ender's Gamebudget.

Now Summit faces the tricky task of figuring out how to handle Card’s involvement. The first big challenge will be whether to include him in July's San Diego Comic-Con program. PromotingEnder’s Game without Card would be like trying to promote the first Harry Potter movie withoutJ.K. Rowling. But having Card appear in the main ballroom in front of 6,500 fans could prove a liability if he’s forced to tackle the issue head-on during the Q&A session.

“I don't think you take him to any fanboy event,” says one studio executive. “This will definitely take away from their creative and their property.” Another executive sums up the general consensus: “Keep him out of the limelight as much as possible.”

[semlogo]

I'm not appealing to law. I answered a specific question which you asked as accurately as i could.

You asked me if a contract could be unethical and i gave you the different reasons that would make a contract such. Obviously, if a contract asks you to do something that's against the law, it can be argued as being unethical.

Now, i've answered your questions, you've contributed absolutely nothing more to the discussion, and have failed to even address my answers. I really am done with the conversation.

I can see you're unable to detect your double standard on this. That's fine. I bear you no ill will.

[semlogo]

Semologo, adhering to one's contract would be considered ethics I think. It could also be considered law.

Great, then it's ethical to fire someone for speaking out against gay rights, because it's also legal. If that's our standard.

[TAO]

Great, then it's ethical to fire someone for speaking out against gay rights, because it's also legal. If that's our standard.

It definately could be ethical in the sense of obedience to a contract. It could also be unethical for some other reasons. Things aren't fully consistently ethical, and all, you know. It isn't a precise binary.

[BlueDreams]

I can see you're unable to detect your double standard on this. That's fine. I bear you no ill will.

You realize that she'd probably agree if the opposite were the case as well. That a contract was made up with full disclosure that they would have to support or at least not speak against gay marriage that they agreed to before working....and then they began posting things that were against gay marriage. It would be equally ethical to fire them. It's not a double standard, it's a different set of expectations.

Honestly, you're coming off as fighting windmills

With luv,

BD

[The Nehor]

You asked me if a contract could be unethical and i gave you the different reasons that would make a contract such. Obviously, if a contract asks you to do something that's against the law, it can be argued as being unethical.

This standard would mean every legal contract is ethical meaning the law determines ethics. I would disagree. I have seen unethical contracts either because they were unfair or misrepresented or misunderstood.

[thesometimesaint]

Or bind a third party not a signatory to the contract.

[bluebell]

This standard would mean every legal contract is ethical meaning the law determines ethics. I would disagree. I have seen unethical contracts either because they were unfair or misrepresented or misunderstood.

I didn't ONLY list legality. Go back and look at my full reply.

[bluebell]

This standard would mean every legal contract is ethical meaning the law determines ethics. I would disagree. I have seen unethical contracts either because they were unfair or misrepresented or misunderstood.

I didn't ONLY list legality. Go back and look at my full reply.

[california boy]

Gay marriage flap could cost Ill. GOP chair his job

Just weeks after the head of the Illinois Republican Party announced his support for same-sex marriage legislation, some state party bosses are moving forward with plans to oust the state GOP leader, the party chairman said Friday afternoon.

Chairman Pat Brady said he received a phone call Friday afternoon informing him that party bosses are calling a special meeting at which they’ll discuss why Brady publicly bucked the party line on same-sex marriage, as well as other issues such as fundraising, Brady said.

Brady has said his position on gay marriage is personal, and that he wasn’t speaking on behalf of the party when he made his original statement. He’s since refused to step down.

[Sleeper Cell]

Political leaders are chosen and removed largely on the basis of their personal political beliefs. Otherwise, why bother having political parties? Had OSC been the leader of the state Democratic party, it would be quite reasonable for that party to remove him for his SSM comments.

It is difficult to imagine how one’s personal political beliefs could possibly be relevant to writing Superman comic books. (Perhaps had OSC advocated the immediate deportation of all illegal aliens back to where they came from -- even if the illegal alien had entered the county as an orphaned baby and was raised by a childless couple in the conservative environment of a small rural town … )

[ERayR]

Are all contracts ethical per se regardless of specific content?

I would say not. If both parties are not an equal power footing an unethical contract could result.

[california boy]

School teacher fired after 15 years of teaching simply because he was gay.

Kevin worked as a public school teacher for fifteen years before retiring to run his farm full-time. A few years ago, he went back to work as the director of a day care center in Ashland, Kentucky. After being mocked and teased by co-workers and superiors at work, some of whom constantly referred to him as "twinkle toes", the center forced him to resign in spite of his spotless record.

He sued for wrongful termination and, though the judge agreed that he had been treated unfairly, there is no Kentucky state law regarding anti-gay discrimination at the workplace.

[Nathair/|\]

HERE ,HERE!!!

Red

I have Asperger's syndrome and sometimes I don't get things others do. Could you explain the pun on Hear, Hear (a call to pay attention to an especially good point made by a speaker)?

[wenglund]

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.

Ironically, as you evince, so-called anti-discrimination policies aren't anti-discrimination per se, but are only anti-discrimination in regards to select politically correct things. Otherwise, one would not discriminate between supporters and opposers on a given, and would treat them equally. But, as it is, anti-discrimination policies discriminatingly discriminate, and this supposedly under the guise credibility and ethics.

What this amounts to, in the mind of those pushing the anti-discrimination policies (i.e the self-appointed discrimination police on the Left), is that it is okay to be intolerant of non-politically correct views (i.e. Right-wing views that differ from those on the Left), but not okay to be intolerant of politically correct view (i.e. Leftist views).

As convenient a double standard as this may seem to some, and as entrenched as it has become given who has pretty much held power and sway, people like semilogo tend to justify it by using extreme examples such as the KKK, as if extreme example are somehow the rule rather than the exception. The supposed "logic" being, if it is okay to be intolerant to the KKK, then it is okay to be intolerant to opposing views on same-sex marriage--or any other absurd comparisons of the like.

In short, the people most practiced in discrimination, are the one's in charge of anti-discrimination. Such is the world we now live in.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[semlogo]

Ironically, as you evince, so-called anti-discrimination policies aren't anti-discrimination per se, but are only anti-discrimination in regards to select politically correct things. Otherwise, one would not discriminate between supporters and opposers on a given, and would treat them equally. But, as it is, anti-discrimination policies discriminatingly discriminate, and this supposedly under the guise credibility and ethics.

What this amounts to, in the mind of those pushing the anti-discrimination policies (i.e the self-appointed discrimination police on the Left), is that it is okay to be intolerant of non-politically correct views (i.e. Right-wing views that differ from those on the Left), but not okay to be intolerant of politically correct view (i.e. Leftist views).

As convenient a double standard as this may seem to some, and as entrenched as it has become given who has pretty much held power and sway, people like semilogo tend to justify it by using extreme examples such as the KKK, as if extreme example are somehow the rule rather than the exception. The supposed "logic" being, if it is okay to be intolerant to the KKK, then it is okay to be intolerant to opposing views on same-sex marriage--or any other absurd comparisons of the like.

In short, the people most practiced in discrimination, are the one's in charge of anti-discrimination. Such is the world we now live in.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You have your constitutional right to hold discriminatory positions. It is also your right to call your boss a jerk. While no one can take these rights from you, they can and do have consequences.

[wenglund]

You have your constitutional right to hold discriminatory positions. It is also your right to call your boss a jerk. While no one can take these rights from you, they can and do have consequences.

I haven't suggested otherwise. In fact, I will freely admit that you also have a constitutional right to hold your discriminatory positions, and boycott Chick-fil-A and be a jerk to employees and businesses owned by people who hold differing political views from you. And, while no one can take these rights from you, they, too, can and do have consequences.

It is just that since your discriminatory position bears sway at this time, and like thinkers with you appear to be in charge of anti-discrimination and political correctness, the political and social consequences tend ironically to weigh heavily in your collective favor.

I can and have accepted this and am able to deal amicably in spite of it. I am just not prepared to pretend that anti-discrimination policies and political correctness these day are really intended for mutual beneficence, but rather they are about political manipulation and propagandizing. Labels and the sort, like racists and sexist and prejudiced and discriminatory, etc., are now predominately clubs used to no real positive good except to beat opponents over the head so as to gain political and social advantage.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

wengland:

We have a constitutional right to swing our arm, until it contacts others noses. IOW We have every right to just as sectarian, bigoted, sexist, racist, nationalist, homophobic as we want to be until we interfere with someone else's rights as citizens.

[semlogo]

I haven't suggested otherwise. In fact, I will freely admit that you also have a constitutional right to hold your discriminatory positions

I certainly have the right to such positions the same as anyone else. However, as I am in favor of civil rights for everyone regardless of race, gender, culture, sexual orientation or religion, I hold no discriminatory positions.

[wenglund]

wengland:

We have a constitutional right to swing our arm, until it contacts others noses. IOW We have every right to just as sectarian, bigoted, sexist, racist, nationalist, homophobic as we want to be until we interfere with someone else's rights as citizens.

It doesn't necessarily stop at other people's nose (metaphorically speaking). People's right to education and work based on their abilities and accomplishments and the content of their character can now be infringed upon by those exercising their right to decline people's acceptance to schools and jobs based on the white color of their skin, all ironically under the guise of equality.

People's right to a rational government that works in everyone's best interest, can now be infringed upon by other people exercising their right to a government ruled by emotion and pop culture.

I could go on, but hopefully my point has been made.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I certainly have the right to such positions the same as anyone else. However, as I am in favor of civil rights for everyone regardless of race, gender, culture, sexual orientation or religion, I hold no discriminatory positions.

So, you are against discriminating based on race when it comes to affirmative action?

Are you against giving race and sex and sexual orientation preferential treatment under judicial review?

Are you against empowerment zones, where the government tends to discriminate in favor of certain races?

Are you against denying incestuous couples the right to marry?

Are you against the graduated tax, which discriminates heavily in favor of the poor?

Are you against multi-culturalism since its treatment tends to disproportionately favor certain cultures and ethnicities (how could it not since it is impractical to give equal treatment to the myriad of cultures and subcultures)?

What is your position on the constitutional, and thus civil right to bear firearms? Are you in favor of that civil right?

Are you okay with age discrimination in terms of marriage, voting, drivers licenses, contractual agreements, use of controlled substances like alcohol and tobacco, etc.? In other words, are you fine with infringing on the civil rights of minority-age children?

If certain civil rights conflict with practicality and safety, do you favor civil rights over practicality and safety? For example, do you prefer that airport security and passengers incur the sizable and highly inefficient cost of scanning and frisk everyone indiscriminately, rather than engaging in responsible racial profiling? And, what about wire-tapping? Should suspected criminals of any race, gender, culture, and so forth have the same right to privacy as everyone else?

Again, I could go on. However, hopefully as you look further than your superficial, black/white thinking, to the real world of colors and shades of gray, you can see just how discriminating you are in ways other than race and sex and so forth, but also even in terms of race and sex and so forth.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Nathair/|\]

I certainly have the right to such positions the same as anyone else. However, as I am in favor of civil rights for everyone regardless of race, gender, culture, sexual orientation or religion, I hold no discriminatory positions.

Do you not discriminate in favor of fresh food rather than spoiled for your dinner table (yoghurt, some cheeses and kimchee notwithstanding))?