Opinions you are not allowed to hold

[Bill Mattocks]

I find this frustrating:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...39.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009&ir=Politics

A Vermont inn's owners are campaigning against same-sex marriage in Maine -- despite the fact that their previously-expressed stance on the issue cost them $30,000 in a discrimination lawsuit.

Jim and Mary O'Reilly, owners of the Wildflower Inn in Lyndonville, Va., have joined the Maine-based. In a new ad, the O'Reillys speak out against Maine recognizing same-same marriage via "Question 1" on the Nov. 6 ballot.

Question 1 will ask voters: “Do you want to allow same-sex couples to marry?”

The anti-gay marriage ad warns of "consequences" if the legislation passes. "A lesbian couple sued us for not supporting their gay wedding because of our Christian beliefs," says Jim. "We had to pay $30,000 and can no longer host any weddings at our inn."

The article also takes note of another recent event:

Angela McCaskill, Gallaudet University Chief Diversity Officer, was placed on leave after it was discovered that she had signed an anti-gay marriage petition to overturn a Maryland law that would allow same-sex couples to wed. An ad by the Maryland Marriage Alliance features McCaskill and claims that Question 6 threatens the liberty and livelihood of anyone who is against gay marriage, the Baltimore Sun reported.

Now, the point is not really that the O'Reillys should or should not allow same-sex weddings at their inn. I get the argument that if they are open to the public, they may not discriminate in that way. But the article seems to be making the point that it is NOT OK for them to hold an opinion AGAINST same-sex marriage, NOT OK for them to support legislation ending same-sex marriage, and that frankly, they should have learned after being slapped to the tune of $30,000 for refusing to allow a same-sex wedding at their establishment.

I believe that they are allowed to have an opinion - whether or not anyone agrees with it. They are allowed to support ending same-sex marriage legality in their state. They are breaking no law. This makes it seem as if they are the worst people in the world, and even worse, it seems to be insinuating that they should NOT BE ALLOWED to feel this way; or at least to talk about it.

The same goes for the professor who was put on leave, Angela McCaskill. She was the 'Diversity Officer' of Gallaudet University, which is terribly ironic, and one could easily understand why it would be unprofessional in some sense. However, like anyone else, so long as she does her job and does not discriminate, (and it appears from other articles that no one has ever complained about the work she did), then I do not understand WHY she is NOT ALLOWED to have an opinion contrary to same-sex marriage.

Frankly, it's turning into a bit of a witch-hunt. This whole thing smacks of McCarthyism to me. It's like being accused of being a communist in the US in the 1950s; it's not just that being against same-sex marriage is not PC, apparently it's not to be permitted. That is, you may not hold the opinion that you're against it; or you lose your job, you get sued, you get 'noticed' in the newspaper, etc, etc.

Disturbing.

And again, it's not really about whether or not same-sex marriage is a great and good thing. It's about the right to hold an opinion on the issue that the same-sex marriage proponents do not approve of. I always get my back up a bit when someone tells me not to do something. But what really gets me riled up is when they tell me what I am and am not allowed to say or think.

 

[WC_lun]

Holding an opinion, even one that most view as ignorant is not against the law. Discrimination in a public venue is in many cases. Lets drop the gay marriage thing for a moment. Lets say it was serving blacks in a resteraunt or a whites only hotel. While some of our more Libertarian friends would not have as much an issue with that, those actions would be up for court action. As of now, same sex marriage is legal in Maine and therefore subject to discrimination laws. Just as many still offer up opinions that same sex marriage is wrong and have a right to do so, others have a right to call that opinion ignorant. The world is changing and always have. These type of differences in opinion will be happening as long as change does. Yes, I do think there is a line. That line is between persecuting someone for JUST voicing an opinion. Everyone has a right to thier opinion, but sometimes acting on those opinions will get you in trouble if it steps on someone else's rights.

 

[Dirty Dog]

They didn't get fined for holding an opinion. They got fined for being the proprieters of a place open to the public that hosts weddings and refusing to allowed a LEGAL wedding that they didn't approve of. IF they can get the law changed, then they will no longer be obligated to host same sex weddings. But so long as the law stands, then they can either host anybody, or nobody. They violated the law. It's that simple.

Claiming that they were fined for their opinions is bogus.

 

[Sukerkin]

All good takes on the various facets of this fractious aspect of the social-legal pact we all share in :bows:.

 

[Buka]

An example of why we are doomed. The fact that any amount of time what-so-ever is spent on things like this, as opposed to real problems that we face as a nation and a species - this is just beyond me.

I don't give a rat's *** if a donkey marries a doughnut, I have more pressing problems as a citizen of the United States, DAMN IT.

 

[WC_lun]

Personally, I think equal rights for ALL of our citizens is important. Yeah there are other issues that are important, but I don't think equal rights should be relegated to stuff we'll deal with later/never.

 

[Cryozombie]

I don't want to speak for Bill, but I think you missed what he was saying, and if so he and I are in agreement here: The issue was not about the action taken against these people, but rather how the article portrayed them specifically for holding these opinions... The concept that they are inherently flawed people for holding an unpopular viewpoint regarding the subject matter.

I've seen in with other issues as well, Green Energy, Global Warming, Abortion, the Infallibility of the almighty "Science", etc... Certain viewpoints you just aren't allowed to disagree with without being labeled as an Unintelligent, uneducated backwater nutjob with an IQ roughly equal to a Possum.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

They didn't get fined for holding an opinion. They got fined for being the proprieters of a place open to the public that hosts weddings and refusing to allowed a LEGAL wedding that they didn't approve of. IF they can get the law changed, then they will no longer be obligated to host same sex weddings. But so long as the law stands, then they can either host anybody, or nobody. They violated the law. It's that simple.

Claiming that they were fined for their opinions is bogus.

This part I agree with. If it's the law, then they have to abide by it. However, I have a major problem with the second event. Putting someone on leave for signing a petition? That's not right at all! It doesn't matter if it's same-sex marriage, or even supporting whites only hotels (which I honestly think shouldn't be illegal. I don't think it's right at all, but if people want to be *******s let them be *******s. It's their business, they own the place, they should have the right to refuse service to whom they want, even if they're being complete jerks in doing so. Besides, if they do feel that way and are forced to let them in, the other races will undoubtedly receive worse treatment than white people there, so in reality it's saving them a bad vacation. (Also, this opinion does not extend to something such as job offers, because the livelihood of people are involved in that.) Ok, rant over.), if publicly agreeing with something can get you 'placed on leave' and possibly fired, then people would never agree with radical ideas, good or bad, and progress would never be made.

 

[granfire]

hmmm

I am thinking there is more to the story.
Not sure how they got picked for the article...maybe complained to the reporter?

I wonder if the signing the petition was just the tip of the iceberg. These folks don't seem to be shy about the way they think and wish the world would work.


interesting thing tho - and I am a little on the fence about it - if it is your livelyhood, why not host the wedding? Apparently they did not have the excuse of being booked up for the date.

On the other hand of course I do admire people who put conviction ahead of $$$.


But there are way too many people fixated on the 1% that makes a person that happens in the privacy of closed bedroom doors. (and in turn they would be outraged if they would be scrutinized in the same manner)

 

[Tgace]

If swingers wanted to hold an event there would they be "protected"?

If the KKK wanted to host an event?

If the local chapter of the "Bloods" wanted to host a rap concert?

Etc.

Etc.

I'm not insinuating that these people were "right or wrong" in what they did, or that a gay marriage reception is on the same level as the above....just trying to see where the "line" is for business owners in who they are "allowed" to deal with or not.

 

[Tgace]

Anecdote:

Speaking to my wife about this issue, she mentioned her days as a manager at a bridal salon. She said she used to field numerous calls from men requesting to come in and try on dresses. She was directed to tell them "of course" and then give simple requirements such as "since all of our employees are female you will have to come wearing athletic compression shorts or some other form of underwear of that sort". Over the years she worked there however only one man ever actually showed up. She believes that they were "test calls" for lawsuit seekers.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Everyone has a right to thier opinion, but sometimes acting on those opinions will get you in trouble if it steps on someone else's rights.

Yes, but apparently even holding the opinion will get you in trouble, witness the woman suspended from her job for signing a petition in favor of repealing same-sex marriage. That's what I'm talking about, not denying anyone any rights.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Claiming that they were fined for their opinions is bogus.

I made no such claim, read it again.

I said that they were being reported on in the news for holding their opinions, and furthermore, the other person in the story was suspended at her employment for signing a petition against same-sex marriage. Let's not leave that out.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

An example of why we are doomed. The fact that any amount of time what-so-ever is spent on things like this, as opposed to real problems that we face as a nation and a species - this is just beyond me.

I don't give a rat's *** if a donkey marries a doughnut, I have more pressing problems as a citizen of the United States, DAMN IT.

Not the point, but thanks for sharing.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Personally, I think equal rights for ALL of our citizens is important. Yeah there are other issues that are important, but I don't think equal rights should be relegated to stuff we'll deal with later/never.

Not the point, and I said that clearly in my initial post. Would you care to address my point, or not?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I don't want to speak for Bill, but I think you missed what he was saying, and if so he and I are in agreement here: The issue was not about the action taken against these people, but rather how the article portrayed them specifically for holding these opinions... The concept that they are inherently flawed people for holding an unpopular viewpoint regarding the subject matter.

I've seen in with other issues as well, Green Energy, Global Warming, Abortion, the Infallibility of the almighty "Science", etc... Certain viewpoints you just aren't allowed to disagree with without being labeled as an Unintelligent, uneducated backwater nutjob with an IQ roughly equal to a Possum.

THANK YOU!

Yes, that was my point. I realize that the couple who own the inn were not fined for their opinions, but rather for their actions, which violated the law in Maine, and I said that. However, they are being excoriated for their OPINIONS, which apparently, they are not permitted to have - and we see in this thread that besides you and me, no one quite gets that.

The same would be true of the other person I mentioned, a 'Diversity Officer' at a university who was suspended from her job for signing a petition against same-sex marriage. Now there is a clear example of someone potentially losing their job for holding an unpopular opinion.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

These folks don't seem to be shy about the way they think and wish the world would work.

Which folks would that be? I see a lot of people on both sides of the issue making very clear statements about what should and should not be permitted.

interesting thing tho - and I am a little on the fence about it - if it is your livelyhood, why not host the wedding? Apparently they did not have the excuse of being booked up for the date.

On the other hand of course I do admire people who put conviction ahead of $$$.

But there are way too many people fixated on the 1% that makes a person that happens in the privacy of closed bedroom doors. (and in turn they would be outraged if they would be scrutinized in the same manner)

Again, my post was not about what the couple did that broke the law when they refused to host a same-sex wedding at their inn. I said that I fully understood why they were sued, etc. I was speaking of their public excoriation in the press for having a public opinion against same-sex marriage afterwards. The tenor of the article appears to be 'how dare they' or 'you would think they'd have learned their lesson by now'.

Apparently people agree with the article. You are not allowed to have an opinion if it is not in favor of same-sex marriage. If you do, you may be excoriated in the press, or you may lose your job, and too bad for you for being a bad person.

 

[Sukerkin]

Don't have the time to give a 'good' reply to this one as the Net Nannie is about to cut me off

Hpwever, some opinions bring upon themselves the reproach that they deserve and some do not, even if the underlining idea of philosophy deserves scorning - where the line goes is one of those 'social aggregation' calculations that we often go through when we agree to live together in groups. Consigning people to the pillory via the press has a long standing tradition amongst those who would seek to determine where that 'line' goes. Whilst I applaud the freedom of the press to expose and inform where needed, I do fear that sometimes it is this power to sway public opinion is one that serves those that own the paper and determine it's editorial path rather that any legitimate public interest.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Hpwever, some opinions bring upon themselves the reproach that they deserve and some do not, even if the underlining idea of philosophy deserves scorning - where the line goes is one of those 'social aggregation' calculations that we often go through when we agree to live together in groups. Consigning people to the pillory via the press has a long standing tradition amongst those who would seek to determine where that 'line' goes. Whilst I applaud the freedom of the press to expose and inform where needed, I do fear that sometimes it is this power to sway public opinion is one that serves those that own the paper and determine it's editorial path rather that any legitimate public interest.

Well said. But consider the entirety of what I posted.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/angela-mccaskill-gallaude_n_1972044.html

Angela McCaskill, Gallaudet University Chief Diversity Officer, Seeks Reinstatement
By BRIAN WITTE 10/16/12 07:07 PM ET
ANNAPOLIS, Md. -- The chief diversity officer at the nation's leading university for the deaf and hard of hearing is fighting for her job after signing a petition to put same-sex marriage on the ballot next month.

Gallaudet University officials placed Angela McCaskill on leave. President T. Allan Hurwitz said Tuesday that her signing of the petition left many at the university "concerned and confused."

Speaking publicly for the first time Tuesday, McCaskill said she signed the petition to give Maryland residents a chance to vote on same-sex marriage and to spur a campuswide dialogue on the issue.

In his statement, Hurwitz said the Washington, D. C.-based university wants to work with McCaskill and that he believes a resolution can be reached that would enable her to continue in her job.

This has nothing to do with the press. She has effectively lost her job and is fighting to regain it because she signed a petition expressing her political opinion.

Despite the fact that as 'Diversity Officer' of Gallaudet, it has an unseemly affect for her to be apparently against same-sex marriage, in what way is this cause for termination?

So if I say in public that I'm voting for Gary Johnson, my employer can fire me because my employer is against Gary Johnson? Is that how it is now?

 

[CanuckMA]

Well said. But consider the entirety of what I posted.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/angela-mccaskill-gallaude_n_1972044.html



This has nothing to do with the press. She has effectively lost her job and is fighting to regain it because she signed a petition expressing her political opinion.

Despite the fact that as 'Diversity Officer' of Gallaudet, it has an unseemly affect for her to be apparently against same-sex marriage, in what way is this cause for termination?

So if I say in public that I'm voting for Gary Johnson, my employer can fire me because my employer is against Gary Johnson? Is that how it is now?

No, that is clearly wrong. Unless, of course you work for another candidate.

The case at Gallaudet is interesting. As Diversity Officer, you would expect the person to be open to all minorities. And to the full rights for all minorities. Signing that petition shows that she does not believe in full rights for gays. That can be construed as a conflict of interest. While it is conceivable that she would be able to set aside her personal views in the discharge of her duties, the optics are very wrong.

She did not lose her job for having that opinion. She lost her job for making that opinion public, placing her employer in a very akward position.