Friday, May 30, 2014

"Progressive" love of people who oppose same-sex sexual behavior continues

I'm sure anyone who reads this site will tend to be a Drudgereport reader. So the news about a restaurant that asked a same-sex couple not to return won't really be news. At the very least, you'll have seen the headline.

A few choice quotes from it:

“She told them the rules are on the door and it says ‘Welcome to Big Earl’s where men act like men, women act like ladies, no saggy pants and we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.’”
“And so I laughed and I asked what do you mean?” says Dewberry. “And that’s when she said to us… ‘to put it plainly, we don’t serve fags here.’”
The waitress happens to be Cheney’s daughter, and the owner says her choice of words were her own.
“I don’t think I should have to discipline her. I think the parents of those children — or kids or being whatever they are — should discipline them or teach ‘em how to act in public. I don’t think it’s my place to discipline her.”
Now, if you scroll down a little more, you get to the following claims:

Cheney says the reason Dewberry and his partner were asked not to return was because of their actions.
“What I saw was one of them half way under the table with his legs stretched out into the other guy’s lap. And he kind of looked really possum eyed at me as they say it in East Texas, he kind of looked at me like ‘uh-oh’.”
But Dewberry says nothing inappropriate was happening.
“We’re sitting on separate sides of the booth and really not even doing much talking. Because it was early in the morning and we were just sitting around waiting for our breakfast.” 
[...]
“Homosexuality, Blacks, Hispanics — they all come in here — everybody comes in here to eat,” said Cheney. “I’ve served my country for over 20 years; I know what my freedoms are.”
He continued, “I’m not gonna have people coming in here with their butt showing; I’m not gonna have people coming in here naked; I’m not gonna have people coming in here having sex on the tables.” 
Now, what's key here is the following: Cheney, the owner, says that everyone is welcome to that restaurant. He includes homosexuals. What's not welcome are people behaving certain ways: in this case, apparently, no gay couples showing up cuddling, putting their feet up on guy's laps, etc. The couple insists they weren't doing anything wrong and were targeted for... I don't know, lisping?

Either way, the owner did explicitly say - the problem wasn't the men's sexuality. It was their actions. Homosexuals are welcome. So what's the "progressive response"?

Naturally, targeting this place in every possible way:
Using Yelp and Google reviews, online activists are trying to make Big Earl’s Bait House and Country Store in Pittsburg seem like one of the highest rated and most recommended gay bars in Texas.
One Yelp review reads, “this place is great… you can really let your freak flag fly here.”
[...]
“Well, the food isn’t all that good, but this is still the best gay cruiser joint in Texas! I’ve picked up several dates there. All are very handsome, very gay men. I hear the owner offers discounts to men in chaps.” 
Naturally, this all comes with a heavy helping of a complete lack of self-awareness, or flat out dishonesty. One or the other:
“It’s pretty ingenious in what its doing. It’s both raising awareness and taking the message of acceptance and love and intolerance and inserting that instead of being negative against Big Earls.” says Dieviesti 
Yep. Nothing mean-spirited here. Acceptance and love and intolerance - Freudian slip, perhaps.

But, there you go. Don't approve of same-sex PDAs in your restaurant? Then you must be crushed by any means necessary. Truly the actions of a LGBT culture that is mentally healthy and absolutely, positively not at all motivated by mental problems, no sir.

46 comments:

Acatus Bensley said...

I'll never understand why people think the policies of a business can be determined by other people rather than the people who run the businesses themselves. If it was legitimate discrimination the restaurant was simply exercising their rights.

Crude said...

Well, you could say it's within their rights to likewise complain. But this is going beyond complaint - this is 'ruin their business, write fake reviews, try to get them harassed' because... uh, they didn't like two gay guys cuddling in their restaurant. And, I suppose, they were called a bad name.

Water into Whine said...

Cheney's probably a sinner, otherwise they wouldn't have to mention this issue. Sin is an issue on the third level of history. Use wisdom wisely.

Crude said...

Cheney's probably a sinner, otherwise they wouldn't have to mention this issue.

Well, everyone's probably a sinner. Actually, move probably to definitely, by most measures.

Acatus Bensley said...

Of course they were well within their rights to complain, but the majority of Americans aren't concerned with these scenarios. It's a pathetic attempt to socially engineer people into supporting this bullish*t. It's an attempt to thought police, and make people believe that they can only function in a manner that certain people(liberals) allow them to.

Crude said...

Oh, that I agree with. Which is one reason why I find the LGBT issue so fascinating.

It's not just the morality of the actions I find worth talking about. There's something really psychologically interesting about it all, the motivations people have to have to be thinking the ways they clearly are.

And note, this isn't even about gay people or bi people or whatever. It's this weird goddamn... movement. It's the activists. Something bizarre is at work.

Tarun Menon said...

What I find psychologically interesting is the absurd victimhood complex evident in this post.

"Targeting this place in every possible way... must be crushed by any means necessary..." Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds when all you're talking about is a bunch of people leaving mocking reviews on Yelp?

They're not firebombing the place, they're not vandalizing it, they're not trying to get it shut down, they're not picketing it. Heck, they're not even talking about boycotting it. They're insinuating on Yelp that it's a gay bar. The horror! I mean, get some perspective, man...

Crude said...

Tarun,

absurd victimhood complex

This is a case of the pot calling the crystal black.

Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds when all you're talking about is a bunch of people leaving mocking reviews on Yelp?

They're trying to ruin its business and cause the place trouble. All because - again, let's get some perspective here - despite the owner at least saying they are entirely comfortable serving gay men, they didn't want people cuddling in public.

But gosh, you're right. At least they don't try to get people fired for disagreeing with them... er, hold on.

Let's try that again.

Sure, they harass people and businesses, they try to get them fired, but at LEAST they don't try to force people by law to serve their ceremonies... oops, would you look at that.

I'm just saying what's obvious, Tarun. When hearing that someone states away doesn't approve of same-sex PDAs in their restaurant leads to 'We have to write reviews trashing them on yelp and otherwise to hurt their business as much as we can!', yeah... that really indicates people with fragile psyches who can't cope with any dissent relating to their sexuality.

And again, that's not all LGBT people. Hell, I suspect it's not even most. But the activists? The activists are pretty crazy people.

Acatus Bensley said...

I agree Crude. It's the activists. I am honestly convinced that the majority of the LGBT community is blissfully unaware what's going on here themselves. Hell I'm almost convinced that events like these are meant to make the LGBT community react to situations they normally wouldn't react to. It's like the activist get offended for them to get some pat on the back. Imagine Todd and Toddy cuddling in their homes and then a bunch of activists barge in chanting look look someone doesn't approve of your sexuality. Lord knows Democrats and liberals do this to black people. It's like complaining about a problem that we don't have until it becomes one.

Tarun Menon said...

I don't dispute that there have been other cases where the LGBT lobby has gone overboard (although I still think "crush by any means necessary" is a huge exaggeration). I just don't think this is one of those cases, and using it as an example of the depravity of the movement is risible.

Also, the response on Yelp isn't just based on "hearing that someone states away doesn't approve of same-sex PDAs in their restaurant". I'm guessing most of the commenters on Yelp believe the patrons of the restaurant, who claim that Cheney's daughter told them that the restaurant doesn't serve "fags". Cheney doesn't deny that she used the slur, by the way. He just claims she said "We don't like fags", not "We don't serve fags".

From where I'm sitting, the owners of this establishment seem like huge assholes, and trashing a service business run by huge assholes on Yelp doesn't seem like a particularly over-the-top response.

Look, I agree with you about Eich's firing. The campaign against him was stupid and his removal was a bad thing. But with this case, it just looks like you're reaching for any example that even remotely confirms your opinion about LGBT activists, and then blowing it out of proportion.

Crude said...

Tarun,

Cheney doesn't deny that she used the slur, by the way. He just claims she said "We don't like fags", not "We don't serve fags".

Oh Lord, someone called them a bad word. That totally justifies an orchestrated campaign to trash the restaurant in any online reviews they can manage (it's not just limited to Yelp, and Yelp is a major service besides)? Even after the owner (whose employee also happens to be his freaking daughter) said outright that this isn't a case of not wanting to serve homosexuals or anyone else, but explicitly it was a matter of how to behave in public?

Yeah. That's pretty deplorable, and the people engaged in it really are showing a bit of their psychological side.

No, saying 'but they're assholes!' doesn't excuse it. And the owner isn't even an asshole. He specifically said, hey, we serve everyone here - we have standards of behavior, these guys didn't meet it. Pretty reasonable standards at that, in his vague wording. But oops, it was a gay couple's behavior that was called out, therefore this is hate and, yes, the guy must be crushed.

Asshole behavior is writing dishonest reviews about a restaurant, trying to damage it, purely because someone you never met before claims they were called a bad name. I suppose now it's justified to track down the place of employment or the businesses of everyone who wrote those reviews and try to get them fired or hurt their business? Or wait, is it okay for them to do this, but God forbid they be held to the same standard?

Look, I agree with you about Eich's firing. The campaign against him was stupid and his removal was a bad thing.

I take it you think it's entirely acceptable to purposefully hunt down bakers or photographers who, while willing to serve LGBT people, just don't want to take part in a same-sex wedding - and forcing them to, on pain of suing them and getting their businesses fined thousands of dollars, trying to run them out of business?

It was a successful thing, and next to no one stood up - aside from those 'conservatives', who frankly have their own problems - was willing to say so. You think it was bad? Good. You are, among the activists, in the minority. Or, if you're in a majority, it's a silent majority that keeps its mouth shut when the activists go overboard - which, pragmatically, is about as good as having no opinion at all.

No, this isn't blowing anything out of proportion. If you want to talk about a problem of appropriate response, go after the activists. You don't get a free 'tell whatever lies you want and cause whatever damage you wish' card just because you think someone is a jerk.

Tarun Menon said...

Cheney's claim that this had nothing to do with the sexuality of the customers, only with their behavior, is quite clearly a post-facto cover-your-ass tactic. Even he admits that the justification given to the customers at the time was "We don't like fags", not "We don't like excessive PDA."

Beyond that, I think our disagreement about how to evaluate the response on Yelp can be traced to a disagreement about how to evaluate the behavior that motivated that response, and that is probably a disagreement too fundamental to be hashed out in a blog combox.

Suppose Cheney was a militant atheist, and he refused to serve two Christians, with his daughter saying "We don't like Jesus freaks" or something. Later, he explains he has nothing against serving Christians per se, but these two guys started saying grace at the table, and he can't allow that kind of behavior in his establishment. In response, a bunch of Christians take to Yelp and post funny reviews about what a godly place Cheney's joint is, and how it's a perfect place for after-church lunch, and so on.

I suspect your reaction to this case would have been different. First, you would have thought Cheney is much more of an asshole than you think he is in the actual case. Second, you would not have been nearly as outraged by the response.

Crude said...

Cheney's claim that this had nothing to do with the sexuality of the customers, only with their behavior, is quite clearly a post-facto cover-your-ass tactic.

No, it's quite clearly not. The best you can pull here is that this is a he-said, she-said move - and considering the owner flat out said gays were welcome, but behavior is key, the statements favor Cheney on this front.

What, exactly, do you think should have been done here? Should he have fired his daughter? Said 'well, calling them fags was wrong, but the behavior is over the line'? You think that would have solved it?

Even he admits that the justification given to the customers at the time was "We don't like fags", not "We don't like excessive PDA."

No, that's not 'the justification' given, and we're not talking about just 'at the time' here. Earl said that his daughter's statements are her own, but the only problem was with behavior. And as far as talk of CYA moves go, keep in mind that liberal activists also have a nasty habit of bullshitting to maximize their victim appearance.

Suppose Cheney was a militant atheist, and he refused to serve two Christians, with his daughter saying "We don't like Jesus freaks" or something. Later, he explains he has nothing against serving Christians per se, but these two guys started saying grace at the table, and he can't allow that kind of behavior in his establishment.

This is going to come as a shock to you, perhaps, but my response is this:

I will not use Mozilla products, if I can help it, relating to their handling of Eich. I've encouraged my friends to stop using their products. But you know what? I don't tell everyone, 'Look, Mozilla products are absolutely terrible and will probably destroy your computer.' Because that's, as far as I know, horseshit. Firefox is an okay enough browser. It doesn't suddenly become a horrible thing just because I dislike their handling of issues, and it would be wrong of me to lie about it. In fact, it would indicate some baggage on my part.

Oh, and if a bunch of Christians start running around saying Firefox will destroy your computer and you better uninstall it? I'm calling them out as dishonest assholes. Provide me the instances of this happening and I'll do it right here.

So yeah, there's apparently a difference between you and me on this front. You think dishonest asshole behavior is justified. I don't. Maybe I need to lower my standards?

That aside, it's not like I'd leap to the defense of Christians by default. It's easy to imagine their engaging in public behavior that's annoying and may be discouraged, like handing out Chick tracts at a McDonalds. I wouldn't automatically be in their corner. Oops, again, maybe I should. Culture war and all. Apparently I need to check my reason and sense of decency at the door.

Second, you would not have been nearly as outraged by the response.

My "outrage" is owing to this just being the latest incident of systematic insanity on the part of LGBT activists. Keep telling yourself I'd endorse the same exact thing if roles were reversed, but that's going to be either owing to your being wrong, or your having to convince yourself as much for who knows what reasons.

And don't think I've missed, by the way, the repeated passing over of the bakery/photo comments. Here's another thing to consider: if the criticism of Eich's firing is largely rooted not in 'Wow, that was a shitty thing to do, and firing people/forcing resignations for political disagreement is nasty business' but 'Wow, we sure looked like assholes to most people over that one - tactical error!', adjust your estimation of your perceived moral high ground accordingly.

Tarun Menon said...

It's easy to imagine their engaging in public behavior that's annoying and may be discouraged, like handing out Chick tracts at a McDonalds.

There was literally nothing annoying or (legitimately) objectionable about the behavior alleged here, which is why I chose a similarly innocuous example (saying grace) rather than something in-your-face like handing out Chick tracts. You conveniently changed the example to suit your purpose. Are you seriously telling me you wouldn't think Cheney was an asshole if he ejected patrons for saying grace?

If you believe Cheney, one guy put his legs in the other guy's lap, under the table. There is nothing disruptive or annoying or immoral about that act (at least, to a non-asshole).

Also, note that the ban on PDA is apparently restricted to gay couples, so its not about the PDA per se. The "rule" that the owner and his daughter are quoting to justify their actions says that men should behave like men and women should behave like women. I think that a business owner who treats gay and straight PDA asymmetrically is an asshole just for that, leaving aside the slurs. You probably disagree, but you are, alas, wrong.

What, exactly, do you think should have been done here? Should he have fired his daughter? Said 'well, calling them fags was wrong, but the behavior is over the line'? You think that would have solved it?

No, what he should have done is changed his bullshit policy that apparently prevents gay couples from expressing affection in an unobtrusive manner, then apologized to the couple and invited them back.

And don't think I've missed, by the way, the repeated passing over of the bakery/photo comments.

Jesus... do you want me to address every single thing you say? Fine, I think bakeries and photographers should not be legally coerced into servicing gay weddings.

Here's another thing to consider: if the criticism of Eich's firing is largely rooted not in 'Wow, that was a shitty thing to do, and firing people/forcing resignations for political disagreement is nasty business' but 'Wow, we sure looked like assholes to most people over that one - tactical error!', adjust your estimation of your perceived moral high ground accordingly.

It's neither of these. I wouldn't have had a problem with Mozilla having a pre-written explicit clause in their contract saying that their CEO should be supportive of gay marriage. I think it's fine for a corporation to expect its employees, especially those at the upper echelons, to adhere to a particular moral code (provided it's a decent moral code). What was shitty about the way Eich was treated was that he was given no prior indication that his views on gay marriage had anything to do with his job. To subsequently get rid of him on those grounds is no good. Jerking a guy around like that is a shitty thing to do.

Acatus Bensley said...

Crude you get some kind of strange pleasure out of proving people wrong don't you? Lol

Crude said...

Tarun,

There was literally nothing annoying or (legitimately) objectionable about

YOU may not find it annoying, but others may. Is that honestly foreign to you?

Your response on this front just proves the divide. I don't, personally, particularly care if someone hands me a Chick tract. Even an anti-Catholic one. It's typically a dorky comic with pretty decent art. But I can see how someone may be bothered. If your stance is 'no one should ever be annoyed by PDAs, particularly gay PDAs', I suggest the problem may well be on your end, not everyone else's.

Are you seriously telling me you wouldn't think Cheney was an asshole if he ejected patrons for saying grace?

Once again - what the hell does that have to do with it? You seem to think that the brass ring here is 'Oh if you're an asshole then it's totally okay to attack you and spread lies about you.' If so, yeah, you're taking a pretty deplorable position.

If you believe Cheney, one guy put his legs in the other guy's lap, under the table. There is nothing disruptive or annoying or immoral about that act (at least, to a non-asshole).

And there we go. 'PDAs are just fine, if you don't agree, you're an asshole and it's okay to target you to try and ruin you!' Because, once again, the very existence of people who disapprove of same-sex sexual behavior just drives people up the wall and cannot be allowed to stand. The very thing I said was indicative of mental issues.

Also, note that the ban on PDA is apparently restricted to gay couples,

Maybe it is - we don't have enough information to say. You keep going back to 'well then I think he's an asshole' as if that justifies everything, which is precisely what I'm calling out as wrong and, to be honest, a little crazy too. Are the collective egos of the LGBT activists that fragile? Are they plagued with fear that somewhere, out there, exist people who disapprove of their sexual behavior? Apparently so.

No, what he should have done is changed his bullshit policy

How about a gay couple who wants to dine in that restaurant refrain from PDAs? Once again - is the fragility now that pronounced?

Jesus... do you want me to address every single thing you say? Fine, I think bakeries and photographers should not be legally coerced into servicing gay weddings.

Alright, that's progress. You just think it's totally acceptable for complete strangers to write negative reviews about them and hound them out of existence or until they change their policies, even if they otherwise happily and knowingly serve gay customers.

I think it's fine for a corporation to expect its employees, especially those at the upper echelons, to adhere to a particular moral code (provided it's a decent moral code).

Ahahahahaha.

Of course. A decent moral code. We can tell what the decent moral code is because you approve of it, right?

This is beautiful. A guy can't bar gay PDAs from his business because anyone who disapproves of such is reprehensible, and if he does then he's an asshole who it's okay to attack and lie about and bully and pester until he capitulates or is out of business. But it's totally fucking okay to demand your employees support gay marriage on pain of them being fired if they're ever discovered to NOT support it. Because it's fine to demand adherence to a moral code, not just in action, but in word and deed, even off the job. Just it has to be your moral code. Please, add on that you're open minded too.

Tarun, I gotta ask you. Does your position seem sane, even to yourself? Are you honestly happy and content with the sort of person you're showing yourself to be here? Because I think you may want to take a look in the mirror and ask if, you know - maybe something has gone off the rails with how you think about all this.

Tarun Menon said...

You seem to think that the brass ring here is 'Oh if you're an asshole then it's totally okay to attack you and spread lies about you.'

Attack: To an extent, yes, and I'm presuming you agree with that too, since you often attack people you consider to be assholes on this very blog.

Spread lies: I don't think that's what's going on here. The intent of those Yelp reviews is not to deceive, it's to mock. I doubt people are actually going to read those reviews and come to the conclusion that "Big Earl's Bait House and Country Store" is a gay bar. There's a difference between satire and deception.

Incidentally, your initial post both attacks and spreads lies ("crushed by any means necessary") about the LGBT movement. But I only consider hypocrisy a venial sin, so I'll give you a pass on that.

YOU may not find it annoying, but others may. Is that honestly foreign to you?

No, it's not. I recognize that others do find such things annoying. I just don't think their annoyance in this case is legitimate, by which I mean it shouldn't be catered to. There is legitimate annoyance (like being annoyed at someone playing a boombox in a library) and illegitimate annoyance (like being annoyed at someone for wearing a yarmulke). If you're annoyed by yarmulkes and keep it to yourself, fine, but if you expect others to cater to that annoyance by placing restrictions on yarmulke-wearing (or if you yourself cater to that annoyance) then you're an asshole. I'm perfectly comfortable making this categorization, and placing mild same-sex PDA in the latter category.

We can tell what the decent moral code is because you approve of it, right?

No, we can tell what the decent moral code is by engaging in careful moral philosophy, learning about the consequences of various actions, and approaching moral problems with impartiality and empathy. It's just an accidental, not essential, feature of the decent moral code that I approve of it.

More seriously, I'm surprised you disagree so vehemently with my position on the Eich situation. Let me ask you this: The boy scouts recently fired a troop leader in Seattle for being openly gay. Are you mad about that? If not, why not? After all, you apparently don't think its kosher for an organization to have explicit moral standards for its employees. Or does it become okay when the moral standards agree with yours?

I took your advice, and too a long look at myself in the mirror right now. Surprisingly, this didn't significantly change my opinion about the sanity or morality of my worldview. It did, however, convince me that I need a haircut, so thanks for that.

Crude said...

Tarun,

Attack: To an extent, yes, and I'm presuming you agree with that too, since you often attack people you consider to be assholes on this very blog.

Uh.

You may want to read my blog, man. I don't lie about people. In fact I go out of my way to qualify my statements reasonably so I don't accidentally target the wrong people, even wrong people who I disagree with deeply.

Spread lies: I don't think that's what's going on here. The intent of those Yelp reviews is not to deceive, it's to mock.

Oh sure, saying the food sucks but giving an otherwise totally sincere sounding 'GREAT gay hangout' brings with it no indication of an intent to deceive or do harm.

Incidentally, your initial post both attacks and spreads lies ("crushed by any means necessary") about the LGBT movement.

Not a single lie to be found here, Tarun. Crushed by any means necessary pretty much sums up the LGBT activist attitude. Hence your attempting to defend lies and defamation purely on 'but they're an asshole!' grounds.

No, it's not. I recognize that others do find such things annoying. I just don't think their annoyance in this case is legitimate

No, their annoyance is entirely legitimate insofar as annoyance can be so. What you mean here is that you're upset that someone is annoyed by this because gay PDAs are really important to you and you get worked up at the very thought that someone may disapprove. You should work on that.

No, we can tell what the decent moral code is by engaging in careful moral philosophy

Let me know when you start.

Let me ask you this: The boy scouts recently fired a troop leader in Seattle for being openly gay. Are you mad about that? If not, why not?

The Boy Scouts aren't a business. They're a private organization promoting a certain way of life and a moral, not a mere ethical, code. Have the LGBT Scouts require openly gay scout leaders and I won't care at all. I also think churches should be allowed to only ordain sincere believers, feminist groups should be able to get rid of leaders who think feminism is a joke, and otherwise.

Confusing businesses with private organizations, and standards of behavior with requirements of belief, ain't exactly careful. But that's fine, since you're not doing moral philosophy either, and odds are you'd never touch it. Why, then you may be faced with legitimate objections, and objections aren't allowed in your very fragile universe.

I took your advice, and too a long look at myself in the mirror right now. Surprisingly, this didn't significantly change my opinion about the sanity or morality of my worldview.

Well, I'd say you should consult a psychiatrist, but let's face it - any psychiatrist who'd think you had some issues here would be a terrible homophobe and an asshole, and then you'd have to spread lies about him and try to ruin his business for daring to suggest you were out of your mind about this.

Perhaps you can unwind at a gay bar. But better be sure to meet the owner first - if he's an asshole, you can go to yelp writing about how it's an absolutely fantastic hang-out for bug catchers, and is a great place to pick up dates when you positively not just want, but need to catch AIDS.

Because that is sane, and not at all fucked up and wrong. Careful moral philosophy says so.

Crude said...

Acatus,

Well, it's my blog, I better be ready to defend myself. But proving wrong? Really, at this point it's not just a matter of proving someone wrong, but calling out the rank lunacy of people like Tarun. Ideally, I'd like Tarun to just go 'Okay, you know, I may disapprove of this guy's policy, but lying about his business and hounding him is wrong. I should say I dislike his policy - not lie about the quality of his food (especially if I never ate it), spread lies about his business, and otherwise.' Then we can disagree amicably and, most likely, end the conversation there.

But if I can't get reasonableness, at the very least I can point out the insanity. That much is paying off in spades here. Contractual obligations to be supportive of gay marriage as a condition of being hired in a job, even if it has nothing to do with said job? Defense of spreading lies (and then defending the lies as 'mockery') and hounding people out of business just for, even while explicitly welcoming gays to your establishment, simply not wanting gay PDAs to take place, or (likely) not wanting to take part in a gay wedding? That's not just crazy shit - that is crazy shit that is recognized as crazy, for the moment, outside of the tiny coven of LGBT activists Tarun finds companionship with.

The worst part is, even if guys like Tarun got their way - a complete and society-wide state of enforced silence and persecution for anyone who disapproved of their sexuality - it still likely wouldn't be enough to soothe them mentally, since the sort of person for whom dissent is utterly unacceptable is typically obsessed enough to locate dissent even where it doesn't exist. And, of course, it would still exist. Doubly so since there's no surer way to encourage private blasphemy than to force something to be treated as sacred to begin with.

Tarun Menon said...

Shorter Crude: "I hate when progressives attack and lie about people. Oh, also I believe LGBT activists will do absolutely anything to punish those who disapprove of the homosexual lifestyle. And that Tarun wants to enforce silence and persecution of his ideological opponents. And that he's insane."

Never change, man. You're the best.

Crude said...

Tarun,

Oh, also I believe LGBT activists will do absolutely anything to punish those who disapprove of the homosexual lifestyle.

Anything within their power? Yep.

What exactly is your evidence to the contrary? They push to have people fired from their jobs. If they can't be fired, they try to harass them out of business. They literally support passing laws making it illegal to not service gay weddings, even if you'd still provide service to open homosexuals.

Hell, look at you. You rolled in here with 'I thought the firing of Eich was despicable!' and on inspection it wasn't because you think it's despicable to fire someone for opposing gay marriage. You just think he should have been given more warning that that's the way that business is run, and it should be contractually mandated. But oh no, let's not call this enforcing silence and persecution because... what, it's distasteful to be honest?

Yeah, I think that's indicative of some mental problems. That goes way the hell beyond 'I disagree' and even 'I feel strongly' and into 'Dissent will not be tolerated!' territory. Over freaking same-sex PDAs.

Hold on, do you hear that? Why, it's the sound of an unedited version of Dire Strait's Money for Nothing playing on the youtube! Rally the forces! Attack, attack!

malcolmthecynic said...

Late to the party but Crude, coming from a millenial who knows quite a few people who support gay marriage, this comment:

And again, that's not all LGBT people. Hell, I suspect it's not even most. But the activists? The activists are pretty crazy people.

...Needs to be qualified. Pretty much none of my friends are "activists", but if you posted this story on Facebook and they heard about the yelp reviews, there would be lots of "lols", "that's brilliants" and virtual high-fiving going on.

After the Arizona court ruling one person I know said that "finally they came to their senses there". Nobody disagreed, many liked her comment. She was not an activist.

When the Catholic teacher was fired after they learned she was in a homosexual relationship, one person who is not my friend but who is a "friend of a friend" posted and article about how utterly despicable it was. The 20+ long comment thread full of people in complete agreement universally agreed that laws should be put in place preventing that from happening.

The people have fallen for the activists, or at least young people, hook, line, and sinker.

malcolmthecynic said...

Are you seriously telling me you wouldn't think Cheney was an asshole if he ejected patrons for saying grace?

In the show "Firefly" during the pilot episode the Captain, Mal, takes on a preacher as a passenger. At the meal, the preacher asks if he can say grace. Mal says "Not out loud" - no, basically. Should people start hounding Mal and spreading lies about him because of this?

Crude said...

Malcolm,

Oh, I'm not surprised at that. Frankly, Cheney is reported in a way that makes them look bad. The hook there was 'We don't serve fags.' I think if the report was simply 'Restaurant asks couple to stop the PDAs, asks them not to return when they refuse' then more people would have been on the fence or supportive of Earl. The moment you go 'No fags allowed!' you're done in a PR sense. And to be clear, I think that was a stupid move, and wrong to say.

But 'stupid move, wrong to say' doesn't cash out to 'therefore it's open season on ruining their business!' or 'And therefore that policy is terrible!' Not intellectually. And the intellectual aspect is my focus here.

Culture, popular reaction, etc is a different issue because, frankly - I don't believe most people think about these topics, 20+ long comment threads full of approval or not. Your experience may differ, but my experience is when you actually have a conversation with the average 'lol thats brilliant' sort of person about this, they can't even explain why they think what they do. They try to put it into words, maybe the feistier ones will spout a platitude or two, but they're honestly kind of lost. Especially - and I mean especially - if you catch them one on one, rather than in a group where each of them can echo each other's platitude. That's when you find a lot of people's thoughts about this, even commitment to it, are paper thin.

That's not exclusive to one group, by the way. I think most people, when it comes to political and social and deeper intellectual issues, don't give much of a shit or have a concept of the topic beyond stick-figure abstractions, if that. And a whole lot of their response depends dramatically on the framing of the issue.

To give one example - the Eich firing? I think for a lot of people, that just plain looked bad. Same for the Robertson situation, and even the Chik-fil-a one to a degree. Those are cases where I think the activists went for blood, and it just didn't pan out even among the diehards. With Eich, it probably helps that a lot of people either opposed gay marriage in the past, or know people who do, so the whole concept of firing people for disagreeing on that topic is a bit more personal.

I guess one thing I'd say here is - I don't put much stock in people's superficially claimed attitudes and beliefs. There's a reason 'push polls' work: because if you just change some wording and framing and phrasing, you can turn the gun-rights person into a supporter of gun control, either for a moment or an extended period of time, if they're not well rooted on the issue. And solid rooting is not common.

Tarun Menon said...

What exactly is your evidence to the contrary? They push to have people fired from their jobs. If they can't be fired, they try to harass them out of business. They literally support passing laws making it illegal to not service gay weddings, even if you'd still provide service to open homosexuals.

My evidence to the contrary is that there are many things within their power that they have not done. Al Qaeda will do absolutely anything to crush its enemies; the LGBT lobby will not.

Your evidence, on the other hand, seems to be based a particularly poor form of induction: "They were willing to do this one thing that I disapprove of, and this other thing that I disapprove of, therefore they must be willing to do ALL THE THINGS."

You just think he should have been given more warning that that's the way that business is run, and it should be contractually mandated.

Another lie. Nowhere did I say it should be contractually mandated, and I don't believe that either. I said I would not have a problem with a clause like that in the contract. I don't have a problem with a clause like that not being in the contract either. I do have a problem with someone being fired without an explicit clause like that.

How this translates into enforcing silence and persecution is beyond me.

Also, could you please articulate the morally relevant distinction between a non-advocacy private organization like the BSA and a private corporation like Mozilla Corp.? What makes it okay for the former to have moral restrictions on its employees but not for the latter?

That goes way the hell beyond 'I disagree' and even 'I feel strongly' and into 'Dissent will not be tolerated!' territory.

Yes, thinking that posting joke reviews on Yelp is not a terrible thing means I don't think dissent should be tolerated. Excellent inference there, Sherlock.

Crude said...

Tarun,

My evidence to the contrary is that there are many things within their power that they have not done. Al Qaeda will do absolutely anything to crush its enemies; the LGBT lobby will not.

Okay - what is within their power that they haven't done? Seriously. And keep in mind that when their goal is tangled up with public persuasion and priorities, that ties them up with a natural limitation. Just as Al Qaeda is naturally limited by their Islamic ideals and priorities.

By all means, let's see how the LGBT activists have displayed their mercy and openness to people disagreeing with them, that wasn't borne out of a lack of awareness, an inability to enforce their will (or inability to do so without losing ground), or some other limitation.

Your evidence, on the other hand, seems to be based a particularly poor form of induction

No, you're just displaying your inexperience with critical thinking again. Here's a hint: If you rule out every conclusion you dislike in advance, don't be surprised if the thinking exercise doesn't help you. By your inane logic, the US was never really trying to defeat Germany in World War II because atomic weapons weren't used there even though the US had them.

Another lie. Nowhere did I say it should be contractually mandated, and I don't believe that either. I said I would not have a problem with a clause like that in the contract. I don't have a problem with a clause like that not being in the contract either.

'I wouldn't have had a problem with Mozilla having a pre-written explicit clause in their contract saying that their CEO should be supportive of gay marriage. I also said that it was a fine thing for executives to have to adhere to a moral code, especially on the upper echelons, which included support for gay marriage.'

What did you say before? "Quite clearly a post-facto cover-your-ass tactic."? Yeah, I think that applies here. By all means, lie and walk back your words. But don't think it's not noticed when you're walking them back.

How this translates into enforcing silence and persecution is beyond me.

I know! It's a mystery. How in the world is firing people for opposing gay marriage, harassing their businesses with the intent of harming them for barring gay PDAs, legally forcing bakers and photographers to take part in same-sex weddings on pain of fine and threats by the government enforcing silence and persecution?

Don't these silly people realize that they can speak their minds about this, so long as no one is listening or recording them or will tell anyone else?

Also, could you please articulate the morally relevant distinction between a non-advocacy private organization like the BSA and a private corporation like Mozilla Corp.? What makes it okay for the former to have moral restrictions on its employees but not for the latter?

The BSA does advocate various moral and even philosophical views officially, from belief in God to sexual behavior to other codes. Building a certain moral character is core to their ideals - they may not lobby, but they don't have to to advocate.

Yes, thinking that posting joke reviews on Yelp is not a terrible thing means I don't think dissent should be tolerated.

Keep derping it up, Watson, since anyone can read my reasoning went beyond the Earl inciident. But really, I'm more than happy to watch you backpedal. If this was just a case of a few scattered nobodies writing some joke reviews, there likely wouldn't have even been news coverage. Concerted efforts by activists to try and harm the business by lying about it on review sites is what's going on.

But hey, you can always fall back on the 'Well I think he's an asshole therefore it's quite okay to lie about him and try to ruin his business until he acts the way I want' defense again. Behold, the master of moral reasoning at work. How sane these LGBT advocates are! How bereft of mental baggage!

Crude said...

Oh, by the way? A little more information.

It stems from reports that an employee called two male customers what's considered a homophobic slur and told them not to return. Earl Cheney says that name-calling never happened but he adds the men were acting inappropriately in his restaurant.

There's a note about 200 death threats, but just who received them wasn't stated.

Oh, by the by? The bit about 'Earl wouldn't kick out a heterosexual couple'?

Cheney says he has no problem with gays, lesbians, or anyone who wants to eat in his restaurant.
"I have gays who routinely come in here, that's not the issue. I ran out a married couple once, who were all over each other."
He's just hoping the controversy ends soon.


But gosh, Tarun, why should it end? He denies - contra what you said earlier - that the slur took place. He states openly he has no problem with gay customers. He claims to have kicked out a married couple in the past for excessive PDAs - and apparently the feet on the lap was, at least alleged by Earl, to be more than some footrubbing.

However, to even pull back on this one would be to cast doubt on the veracity of the gay couple's claims here. Clearly it's better for The Cause if this is swept under the rug and Earl is harassed more.

Hey, maybe you should write a few reviews yourself? Gotta serve The Cause however you can.

Tarun Menon said...

So far, I've felt no need to reflect your charge at insanity back at you, but if you genuinely believe that mainstream LBGT activists would be willing to, say, indulge in surreptitious terroristic activity if it could somehow help their cause, then there is something a little lunatic about your worldview. I read a post by you earlier where you rightly excoriated some progressive Christian writer for saying something like "Conservative evangelicals would like to literally beat the shit out of homosexuals if they could", calling it out as hate speech. Maybe you should reflect on how perilously close to that attitude you are getting.

By all means, lie and walk back your words. But don't think it's not noticed when you're walking them back.

If you would stop frothing at the mouth for an instant and actually re-read my original words, quoted below for convenience, you would see there was absolutely no "walking back".

Here's what I said:
"I wouldn't have had a problem with Mozilla having a pre-written explicit clause in their contract saying that their CEO should be supportive of gay marriage. I think it's fine for a corporation to expect its employees, especially those at the upper echelons, to adhere to a particular moral code (provided it's a decent moral code)."

How you can interpret that to mean that I think all corporations should have such a clause in their contract is beyond me. There's a difference between saying "I have no problem with X" or "I think X is fine" and saying "I think X should be done" or "I think X should be mandated". I trust this is clear to any reasonably impartial observer.

Tarun Menon said...

The BSA does advocate various moral and even philosophical views officially, from belief in God to sexual behavior to other codes. Building a certain moral character is core to their ideals - they may not lobby, but they don't have to to advocate.

OK, but why do you think its out of bounds for a corporation to advocate certain views in the same sense? If Mozilla Corp. put the clause, it would be explicitly stating that it adheres to a certain philosophical code. Is this a problem?
Do you think a corporation's only explicit moral commitment should be to making a profit?

I have a problem when a corporation that doesn't initially reveal that it has an internal moral code then conveniently appeals to such a code to allay a backlash from activists. I don't have a problem if a corporation explicitly articulates such a code from the get-go and adheres to it, although of course I would have a problem (not necessarily legally, but morally) if I found the code itself repugnant.

Incidentally, since you're so eager to take at face value Big Earl's comments on what happened at his restaurant, why don't you also extend the same courtesy to Mozilla? In this FAQ they say that they neither fired Eich nor asked for his resignation, and that there is no litmus test to be in a leadership role at the corporation. Now, I actually think this is at least partially a post-facto cover-your-ass tactic, just like I said about Cheney, but I'm curious to know if you feel the same, and if you do, why you are more skeptical of Mozilla than Cheney (especially considering Cheney has definitely lied at least once, as I say below).

He denies - contra what you said earlier - that the slur took place

Yes, but in his initial comments, he acknowledged that the slur took place. He said:

"She's a young lady, didn't know what else to say, and they just kept on and she finally said we just don't like fags."

So either he was lying then or he's lying now. I can see no possible motivation for him to have been lying then, so I'm guessing he's trying to cover his ass now. Either way, it doesn't do much for his credibility.

Oh, and I should add that if people are sending the Cheneys death threats I think thatt's despicable and do not approve of it at all. You probably don't believe me, since you consider me one of those ruthless activists, but I felt I should say it anyway.

Crude said...

Tarun,

So far, I've felt no need to reflect your charge at insanity back at you, but if you genuinely believe that mainstream LBGT activists would be willing to, say, indulge in surreptitious terroristic activity if it could somehow help their cause

Where in the world did I say that?

Don't get me wrong, some of the LGBT activists have done some bonkers things. If you go back and read Andrew Sullivan, you'll find a guy who felt betrayed by Bush because, despite his excessive cheerleading for the Iraq war, Bush apparently didn't feel the need to 'pay back' Sullivan and company by pushing for LGBT issues. That's largely Sullivan, of course, but it's a good example of just how bonkers they can be.

Does that mean I expect LGBT suicide bombers? Nope. But if you're trying to push back against my declaration that LGBT activists are obsessed with this issue to the point where they will try to crush people by whatever means necessary by suggesting this requires, say... Dan Savage being prepared to set off a dirty bomb in Manhattan or something, all I can do is admire the contortions you're willing to engage in.

They're willing to fire people for opposing gay marriage. They're willing to lie about businesses. They're willing to force people to service gay weddings. In other countries, they're willing to get anti-sodomy criticism branded as hate speech. Yep, I think what I said is fair.

Oh, and as for Shore: Shore wasn't exactly turned around and condemned for his writing. He was defended and endorsed. So if you agree Shore's writing was hate speech, what the hell should I take away from that lack of condemnation regarding it?

There's a difference between saying "I have no problem with X" or "I think X is fine" and saying "I think X should be done"

Look, I can understand the panic you're experiencing here, what with seeing low-traffic blog comment conversations as the stuff of dire importance - but your ass-covering is doing you no favors here. Yes, when you say you have no problem with Eich being fired for opposing gay marriage so long as this standard was made clear enough in advance, that's endorsement. Trying to play the card of 'I wouldn't oppose it, but that doesn't mean I'd support it. I'd just be neutral and not say a word and find nothing wrong with it and I think it's okay to have that policy' just cashes out to exactly what I said it did.

And for the record? Yes, I'd oppose it. Again, I have this crazy standard of believing that people's beliefs should be separated from their jobs, especially when their beliefs don't have anything to do with said jobs - but apparently I was wrong about that, and the real and proper standard is 'fire all people who aren't on-board with my political and social views'. And when pressed, to say that it's not that I -endorse- that, I just have no problem with it, so long as it's a good moral policy, with good moral policy largely cashing out to what I agree with.

OK, but why do you think its out of bounds for a corporation to advocate certain views in the same sense?

Change of topic, and I'm not interested in pursuing it. The question is whether it's acceptable for someone to be fired from a job for opposing gay marriage. You think that's just peachy. I oppose. I likewise oppose firing people for supporting gay marriage. But apparently I'm out of date on this one, and ideological purity should be enforced wherever possible.

So either he was lying then or he's lying now.

Or a reporter lied.

Oh, and I should add that if people are sending the Cheneys death threats I think thatt's despicable and do not approve of it at all.

I'm pleased to know that, while you endorse spreading lies about a business in attempts to destroy them as totally A-OK so long as you think a guy is an asshole, you currently draw the line at death threats.

Tarun Menon said...

Probably not much point in continuing this discussion further, but I did want to clear up one small factual matter.

Or a reporter lied.

On the site I linked, there is video of Earl saying what I quoted, so no, a reporter didn't lie. Earl did.

Crude said...

On the site I linked, there is video of Earl saying what I quoted, so no, a reporter didn't lie. Earl did.

Not quite:

My goodness, does anyone read or study? Big Earl has spent his life in the military to defend this country and will be happy to explain the constitution to you. Earl is well versed in the Bible and Christianity, has travelled the world and is well educated. It would have been nice for the full interview to have played in order to explain the background to what caused the incidence. The quote “we don’t serve fags here” was never said, instead, after being badgered, the young lady said “We do not like fags”. The behavior portrayed by the young couple was simply inappropriate and would have been considered so no matter what sexual orientation.

Tarun Menon said...

Huh? How does that show the reporter lied? The KLTV reporter didn't claim that Earl said "We don't serve fags." She merely reported that the gay couple said that Earl said that. Then she reported that Earl says his daughter actually said "We do not like fags." All of this is documented on video. I don't see how her honesty is in question here.

If Earl is now claiming that the word "fag" was never used, then he is contradicting his earlier statements, both on the KLTV video and, as you just pointed out, on Facebook.

Crude said...

Who said it showed the reporter lied? And why do you think the only reporter who could have lied - or at least not reported accurately - is that one? He's certainly not claiming that the word "fag" was never used in what I just pasted.

As I said from the start - say that he used the word 'fag'. Offensive, no doubt. I don't like that language and wish he wouldn't use it. But 'therefore we can justify lying and...' is nuts.

Tarun Menon said...

Maybe we're talking past each other here. I was initially responding to the CBS link you posted, which says that Cheney denies that a slur was ever uttered. It's possible that that reporter was lying, I guess. Is that what you meant?

I took you to be suggesting that perhaps Cheney had never actually admitted to using the slur, and was merely attempting to correct that assumption.

Anyway, my point is that Cheney seems to be changing his story now. Assuming the CBS reporter isn't lying (which is a reasonable assumption, I think), he now claims that a slur was never used. He also now claims that he saw the two patrons practically rubbing each others genitals with their feet or something, whereas in the earlier news story he says he didn't go over there to see exactly what they were doing.

All of this double-talk makes me more inclined to believe the couples' side of the story, which is that they were actually told "We don't serve fags."

Tarun Menon said...

Another interesting data point: Apparently, Big Earl deleted that Facebook post you quoted soon after making it. Maybe because it doesn't cohere with his new story about how the word "fag" was never said?

He now seems to have deleted his Facebook page entirely.

Crude said...

Assuming the CBS reporter isn't lying (which is a reasonable assumption, I think), he now claims that a slur was never used.

What Cheney was saying in his Facebook update was that he wasn't quoted right, but the slur was used.

And I don't see where Cheney's been double-talking about the lap scenario. That's hardly being talked about.

Regardless, for my purposes that's not the main point. Say Cheney called them fags - a point against him, I'd grant right away, all else being equal. Say he booted them for PDAs. In fact, say he's an asshole. 'That guy is an asshole' is not license to react with spreading lies and trying to fuck up his business.

You brought up John Shore. I thought John Shore's rant was nasty stuff. But I made up zero about him. I relied on his words, and the reactions (and non-reactions) people had to his words. If Shore was a carpenter, it would have been wrong of me to go around talking about how (with zero knowledge on my part, and zero honesty) he's a terrible carpenter and if you hire him to make something he'll do a lousy job.

If this was a case where random internet twerps were going after Cheney, I wouldn't even notice. But instead it was 'activists', and it was concerted, complete with justifications of what they were doing. You may call that petty shit, but that means recognizing the pettiness of activists.

BenYachov said...

Social engineering gay fascists!

The baker in Colorado has stated he will no longer bake any wedding cakes at all rather then be forced to bake a cake for two gay fascists.

The fascist Colorado "Human Rights" Commission which seems patterned after the shit they have in Canada also ordered the baker to submit quarterly reports on who he refuses service too.

That isn't totalitarian at all.....................NOT!!!!!!!

Acatus Bensley said...

Give up Taurun. You jackass. Don't defend what these idiots did. And judging from what the LGBT community has done in the past, I wouldn't be surprised if they went in there just to get a response. Trying to shut down businesses with religious affiliations is in the LGBT activists handbook. Are you gay too? That's the only reason anyone would defend this. Crude took you down numerous times.

Tarun Menon said...

I know you said you didn't want to pursue this further, but I don't see why, and it seems important to at least part of our disagreement and I don't actually understand your position at all.

You sort of flipped out at me when I said thought it was OK for corporations to place certain moral requirements on their employees (especially upper-echelon employees). You suggested this makes my worldview insane and that it means I want to enforce silence on my opponents. At the same time, you apparently think it's OK for the BSA to have moral requirements for its employees.

The only justification you've offered for this is that the BSA is an organization, not a corporation, unlike Mozilla Corp. But this justification is completely opaque to me. I don't see why it should make a difference. Apparently it makes a huge difference to you, because your response to my views on Mozilla was surprisingly vehement. Yet you don't seem to want to tell me the morally relevant basis for this distinction.

I've tried thinking about what could make the difference, and honestly I can't come up with anything that makes sense to me. So I'd really like to know, what is it that makes the difference?

Crude said...

Tarun,

You sort of flipped out at me when I said thought it was OK for corporations to place certain moral requirements on their employees (especially upper-echelon employees).

No, I scoffed at your two-step move of at once saying you opposed Eich's firing, and then pretty much said the only problem with it is you don't think Eich had sufficient warning that the company expects him to adhere to their political beliefs, even when not at work.

I'd likewise scoff at the idea that forced adherence to a wholly political viewpoint is a 'moral requirement'.

You suggested this makes my worldview insane and that it means I want to enforce silence on my opponents.

Actually, I think the general trajectory of your justifications illustrates that. You're trying to have it both ways here where you get to say that you think it's entirely okay for a business to treat political opposition to gay marriage as a fireable offense so long as they're clear about it (then you stress you think it's only okay for 'good' morals, of which that is presumably an example), but then think you're off the hook for enforcing silence on your opponents because... what, you're attempting to carve out some strategic silence on this front where it's okay to have this requirement, but only for the political views you agree with, but your neutrality means you're not endorsing it?

That's a little like saying I think it's morally and ethically okay to fire people for their sexual behavior. But only homosexual behavior. I don't -endorse- this sort of thing, but if someone does it, I have nothing to say about it. It's pretty easy to connect the dots there.

The only justification you've offered for this is that the BSA is an organization, not a corporation, unlike Mozilla Corp. But this justification is completely opaque to me.

I know, gosh. It's almost as if there's a common sense difference between a religious organization or an organization dedicated to this or that political cause, and intellectual and moral endorsement of political litmus tests for employees even outside of their business time - and then, only for the 'right kind' of politics.

I've tried thinking about what could make the difference, and honestly I can't come up with anything that makes sense to me.

I humbly suggest if you can't see even the beginning of a distinction between accepting why a given organization expressly devoted to cultivating a certain moral and religious worldview may reasonably expect adherence to said worldview among its members, and the moral and intellectual endorsement of political litmus tests (skewed towards very particular political views at that) for employment - in other words, establishing a kind of version of 'If you want to get anywhere in life, you better join the Communist Party' we've seen in countries in the past - you've got an intellectual problem that's likely beyond an easy solution.

The fact that this comes on the heels of an attitude of, basically, 'It's totally okay to spread lies about a business if a guy is an asshole, why are you getting worked up about this' says a lot.

Tarun Menon said...

I humbly suggest if you can't see even the beginning of a distinction between accepting why a given organization expressly devoted to cultivating a certain moral and religious worldview may reasonably expect adherence to said worldview among its members,

This is just begging the question. Why can't a corporation also be expressly devoted to cultivating (or at least, upholding) a certain moral worldview?

There are corporations that are explicitly committed to environmentalism, for instance. Is their embrace of this commitment any less kosher than that of a non-profit advocacy organization? Why should making a profit make a moral difference here?

Chick-fil-A, a private corporation, has the following mission statement:

"To glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us. To have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A."

The company itself (not its owner) has donated millions of dollars to organizations like the Family Research Council. So there's an example of a private corporation that treats the promotion of a certain moral worldview as part of their corporate mission. Does this example reduce you to similar paroxysms of rage?

Why can't Mozilla decide -- and explicitly declare -- that supporting same sex marriage is part of their corporate identity, just like Chick-fil-A maintains that glorifying God is part of theirs? And if they do make that decision, why wouldn't it be OK for them to require that their CEO, the face of the corporation, adhere to this commitment?

And despite your tiresome repetition of this dishonest imputation, it still remains the case that I do not think any corporations should have a moral clause in its CEO's contract. Still less do I believe that corporations should be mandated to have such a clause. So yeah, "enforcing silence" is either ridiculous hyperbole, grade-school level misreading, or rank dishonesty. Of course, I expect you to keep repeating this lie like a broken record, now that you've committed yourself to it, so go ahead.

Water into Whine said...

Acatus had to check before posting that last comment. Fortunately, a simple phone-a-friend choice allows for seeing what it's like to dream in black and white. "Don't defend what these idiots did." = 'I don't mind.' (L.) Geddit?

Nobody understands me, because they're all too bland.

I won't apologise for supporting Crystal Palace. What's done once can be done twice, see Genesis and the creation of legs.

Crude said...

Tarun,

This is just begging the question. Why can't a corporation also be expressly devoted to cultivating (or at least, upholding) a certain moral worldview?

No question is being begged here, and a comment like that indicates you don't even understand what question begging is. I do not doubt that a corporation can be orchestrated in a way such that they fire people for having political views they disagree with. I'm pointing out the obvious difference between organizations that promote such views, and business views. I'm pointing out the insanity of demanding political obedience from one's employees, even obedience completely outside of their job.

But thanks, really, for proving my point about the LGBT activist mindset.

Does this example reduce you to similar paroxysms of rage?

"Paroxysms of rage"? Tell me, Tarun - is the fact that I regard sodomy as immoral what reduces you to such frothing, spittle-flecking yelpings that have no contact with reality? For you, calm disagreement in a conversation is scary rage. I suppose, because that's necessary to make you feel better about it all.

Putting your psychological weaknesses aside - I haven't objected to corporate donations anywhere here, even ones I disagree with. I object to demanding intellectual obedience to political wishes that have nothing to do with one's job or business, on pain of firing. This isn't about a corporation donating money to a humanitarian project, or even to a pro-choice organization. It's about saying "Either support gay marriage or you're fired".

You bring me an instance of someone being fired from Chik-fil-a because they're an atheist, full stop, and I'll criticize them too. Unless we've reached the point where people like you have truly made even employment a perpetual battleground, in which case I suppose I'll have to sit on my hands until you're homeless - or, given a shift of cultural winds, denouncing homosexuality and praising Allah in exchange for the ability to support yourself.

Please, Tarun - don't try to bullshit me like this. You're very easy to see through, and while I love exposing such shit, it's just a waste of time around here. We don't have much of an audience here.

And despite your tiresome repetition of this dishonest imputation, it still remains the case that I do not think any corporations should have a moral clause in its CEO's contract.

Keep walking it back, Tarun, and kicking up dust while you do. Pity you can be quoted:

I wouldn't have had a problem with Mozilla having a pre-written explicit clause in their contract saying that their CEO should be supportive of gay marriage. I think it's fine for a corporation to expect its employees, especially those at the upper echelons, to adhere to a particular moral code (provided it's a decent moral code). What was shitty about the way Eich was treated was that he was given no prior indication that his views on gay marriage had anything to do with his job.

You don't think they should have. You just wouldn't have had any problem with it at all. In fact, you think it's fine for corporations to expect adherence to a moral code - 'provided it's a decent moral code' - and that includes support for gay marriage. If you had any problem with Eich's forced resignation, it's that the corporation apparently didn't give him enough warning for your liking. Actually barring him and forcing him out because of his view on gay marriage isn't a concern for you. In fact, you think it's fine and at the same time don't approve.

Like I said - don't try to bullshit me like this. I'm sure your game works on others - with me, it's a bit tougher. The next time you try to lie, do so with more grace. At least then it may be challenging to sort you out.

Crude said...

Tarun,

Really, at this point the conversation is over.

You came in here to protest the idea that LGBT activists attempt to crush any and all dissent they encounter through pretty well whatever means necessary. In the course of the conversation you've tried to justify lying about a business with the intent to harm it on the basis of 'Well the guy is an asshole', which then shifted too 'Oh it's just funny/mocking reviews, big deal'. You objected to the Eich firing, but then it turns out your only objection was to the fact that Eich wasn't warned that his job was on the line if he didn't support gay marriage - which means the fact that Eich was fired for opposing gay marriage doesn't particularly concern you at all. On top of all of this, you attempted to play the game of 'Sure I said I have no problem with this and in fact I think it's a good thing but that doesn't mean I SUPPORT this' with reference to conditioning employment on having the right politics, even off the job - complete with an eye on same-sex relationships.

Which pretty well added evidence to my OP claims: LGBT activists brook no dissent. They are wrapped up with trying to stamp out any question that, you know, perhaps some consensual sexual behaviors or choices are wrong or bad ones - and yes, that does indicate some collective problems on the psychological front.

I don't really care to watch you struggle to untangle yourself from statements amounting to 'I think it's fine for a corporation to expect its employees to walk in political lockstep even off the job and even about topics disconnected from their job, provided it's a "decent moral code" where "decent moral code" is one I approve of' to argue your statement wasn't an endorsement of such, but some kind of quasi-neutrality where you think that's actually quite bad even if you approve. Wonderful, you hope for a world where opposing gay marriage or LGBT activist views in general means you either can't get a job (hey, why not deny public support too - surely the state can expect adherence to a "decent moral code" if one is to be the recipient of financial assistance) or are forever limited to the low-level work. Or rather, you don't hope for that, you just think it's fine and dandy, or whatever excuse makes you not come across as quite the textbook example of a zealot.

A word of advice, however. That doesn't eliminate dissent - it just puts it in the shadows. When you require everyone to be a member of the communist party (for example) to advance or even exist in your society, you simply ensure that quite a lot of members of the party don't think much of the party's ideals, or even oppose them when they can. The next Brandon Eich is still going to have the opinions of Eich - he's just going to hide it. He'll become CEO. And you'd better hope he doesn't resent being forced to keep quiet about his views when that happens.

Crude said...

Whoops. Brendan Eich.