You gotta read it:
Unbelievable link of the week.
There was this guy, you see, who was doing a fine job in the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, and after it was made clear on a local cable news show that he thought homosexuality was "deviant" he was allowed to keep his job. Afterall, all he was doing (albeit not subtely, and not very charitably) was declaring his opinion on a topic far removed from anything dealing with his position within the WMATA on a public television chat show. I mean, nobody even watches those.
But we all know I'm lying. That intolerant, old-fashioned bastard was fired by the governor for not agreeing that homosexuality in general, and redefining marriage and allowing homosexual parenting was good. Or at the very minimum, not knowing to keep silent about his intolerant, old-fashioned opinions. Is that too much to ask? In the words of one of the other WMATA
Apparently if you don't think homosexuality is good, you aren't fit to supervise city bus schedules of any Washington-area town. You might... you know... discriminate against the homosexuals... by, like, making the 527 route really inconvenient to get to... or assign crappy buses to the gay parts of town... or... go on a public television show and not nod your head in firm affirmation of good 'ol sodomy.
So just a warning, citizens: thought crimes will now get you fired from your city job.
But no jail time, still. Not this decade. Maybe we'll have "progressed" far enough in the next decade that perpetrators of such heinous thought crimes will be prosecuted for jail sentences.
Please be sure to read that little article up there. It forebodes some very bad things.
Unbelievable link of the week.
There was this guy, you see, who was doing a fine job in the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, and after it was made clear on a local cable news show that he thought homosexuality was "deviant" he was allowed to keep his job. Afterall, all he was doing (albeit not subtely, and not very charitably) was declaring his opinion on a topic far removed from anything dealing with his position within the WMATA on a public television chat show. I mean, nobody even watches those.
But we all know I'm lying. That intolerant, old-fashioned bastard was fired by the governor for not agreeing that homosexuality in general, and redefining marriage and allowing homosexual parenting was good. Or at the very minimum, not knowing to keep silent about his intolerant, old-fashioned opinions. Is that too much to ask? In the words of one of the other WMATA
Apparently if you don't think homosexuality is good, you aren't fit to supervise city bus schedules of any Washington-area town. You might... you know... discriminate against the homosexuals... by, like, making the 527 route really inconvenient to get to... or assign crappy buses to the gay parts of town... or... go on a public television show and not nod your head in firm affirmation of good 'ol sodomy.
So just a warning, citizens: thought crimes will now get you fired from your city job.
But no jail time, still. Not this decade. Maybe we'll have "progressed" far enough in the next decade that perpetrators of such heinous thought crimes will be prosecuted for jail sentences.
Please be sure to read that little article up there. It forebodes some very bad things.
Comments
Take this:
"That last phrase arrests the attention. What Governor Ehrlich and Smith’s colleagues on the WMATA board were saying is not just that they disagree with Smith about the moral quality of homosexual conduct, not just that Smith’s views are in error, not just that his views are unreasonable, but that they are immoral."
That's horseshit. Never once do they imply the viewpoint is morally wrong. What they do imply, on the other hand, is that such sentiment protrayed in public media is not how they want their office represented.
I don't see anything here that even clarifies what the Governor's true option on the legislation is. It is obviously assumed by the article writer to be in favor of gays but that's nothing more than speculation on his/her part to try and convince the reader that those against homosexuality are being hated upon by bigots in government.
This man broke one of the more cardinal rules: If your opinion is about something you do not deal with in your job title, then stfu. Everyone holds opinions, but there are appropriate times for it and non-appropriate times for it. It is unfortunately that stating your opinion in media suddenly makes it so much more important than if you did it with your friends and family, but it is something that is the nature of our media and if you don't respect it, it'll come back to haunt you.
Was the punishment too harsh? Sure. But this article's viewpoint is way too extreme to properly cover the issue. Saying why is it poor judgment is fine; attempting to convince me of the degredation of society that much be inherent for such events to exist is just making it blatently clear what the agenda is. It comes of feeling less like a, "This man was punished unfairly," and more like a, "Look at our situation, people need to /cry for us."
(Eh that feels like it comes off harsh, but while the article had a decent premise it just takes it lightyears too far. This is about politics and what you say in the media, nothing more.)
Nice blog btw Chris.