Bushitler Fascism Raises Its Ugly Dying Head…’Artists’ Call For Punishing Theater Director Who Supported Proposition 8 (UPDATED: He "Resigned")

Dissent is the highest form of patriotism unless you refuse to toe the accepted liberal line. In that case, you’re going to have to pay a price for having the audacity of independent thought.

Gay and lesbian artists called Monday for an artistic and audience boycott of California Musical Theatre after learning that its artistic director donated $1,000 to a campaign that backed banning gay marriage in California.

Scott Eckern was not available for comment Monday as the revelation has gained stunning momentum on the blogosphere….

Richard Lewis, the organization's executive producer, said the board of directors will conduct an emergency meeting on the matter this afternoon. He said it was too early to tell how this would affect Eckern's 25-year employment with California Musical Theatre.

Personally, I don’t have a problem with the theater doing this. If they think keeping Eckern on will hurt their business, well, when an employee becomes a liability and not an asset there are often consequences.

What bothers me is the rank hypocrisy of the left.

Let’s play a game of “Imagine if an evvvvvilllll entertainment corporation were holding an emergency meeting to decide whether someone who donated to a lefty cause might be fired for it”.

Can you imagine the outrage that ‘the artistic community’ would unleash if one of their own were faced with losing their job for taking a political stand they agreed with? The cries of ‘artistic freedom’ and ‘fascism’ would be deafening.

BTW- I was a bit reluctant to post this after last night’s Prop 8 video thread, lest people think this is ‘bash the gays’ season. I think this story is far more about liberal group think than it is gays or Prop 8.

UPDATE: Eckern has either been properly reeducated or really likes his job.

Eckern issued an apology Tuesday, which was printed in industry periodical Playbill. Eckern said he donated $1,000 to fight for equal rights for all. He said it was not his intent to offend anyone and he was acting on his own religious convictions.

“I have now had many conversations with friends and colleagues and I now have a better idea of what the discrimination issues are, how deeply felt these issues are and I am deeply saddened that my acting upon my religious convictions has been devastating to those I love and admire… I am deeply sorry for any harm or injury I have caused,” according to the apology in Playbill.

I'm sure he won't make the mistake again anytime soon of thinking when artists talk about freedom of expression they actually mean it. Silly man.

Update x2: He quit. Thanks to theBman for the tip.

Posted by: DrewM. at 10:59 AM



Comments

1 We're going to be treated with ever increasing amounts of this shit over the next few years. I'm glad I just installed new batteries in my gallows humor, it will be working overtime.

Posted by: Toad at November 12, 2008 11:03 AM (v/rC8)

2 gayist

Posted by: Bart at November 12, 2008 11:04 AM (ICFJ+)

3 Having his face in a cage of rats has changed his whole outlook.

Posted by: toby928 at November 12, 2008 11:04 AM (evdj2)

4 toby928: Jeez, that scared the hell out of me when I read that book. Poor guy....

Posted by: Elena at November 12, 2008 11:05 AM (30eg4)

5 I just have to admire the stupefyingly self-absorption of the left when they race down these fascist pathways. Absolutely no capability for reflection whatsoever with these folks.


Posted by: iconoclast at November 12, 2008 11:06 AM (ex0JG)

6 I guess whether blacklists are okay or evil depends on who's making the list and checking it twice.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at November 12, 2008 11:09 AM (jO77p)

7 A boycott of a theater company by gays? Yikes, talk about wiping out audience and labor supply simultaneously.

Posted by: Michael Fisk at November 12, 2008 11:10 AM (8YgdQ)

8 This seems to be pretty typical of the Left. It's okay for them to loudly voice their opinions every chance they get. But if a conservative/republican voices their opinion they're ruthlessly torn down and told to shut up. It's disappointing that simply voicing an opinion and donating to a cause would endanger this man's employment. It seems that if he was very good at his job it would be detrimental for them to fire him because of his political views - like cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 12, 2008 11:11 AM (sj3Jj)

9 Wimp.

Posted by: Shannon at November 12, 2008 11:12 AM (q0Z3p)

10 What an asshole. Like that apology will matter to the liberal fascists. They want his head on a pike and they will get it.
In my last job I was prohibited from making any political contributions. The company did not want to see its name in an article saying it was trying to buy influence. Employers have every right to do this, and to expect employees to understand that political contributions are public information. This guy was a moron to thnk his contribution would be anonymous or that he would not suffer repercussions within the artistic community for making it. I really have no problem at all with him being fired.
I hope to see a lot of small business owners firing all of their Obama-worshipping employees.

Posted by: rockmom at November 12, 2008 11:14 AM (iZqUY)

11 Democracy is such a queer thingy.

Posted by: Michelle's American White Racist at November 12, 2008 11:14 AM (NLtVk)

12 People seem very eager to roll over for the gay mafia and the Obamabots. If you are always going to buy into their you area a racist/homophobe, then this is what you get.

Posted by: 48 Percenter at November 12, 2008 11:14 AM (VbppZ)

13 And thus my future contributions to Prop 8-like campaigns continue to grow.

My wife and I will go up to the personal limit next time.

Posted by: Guy in Utah at November 12, 2008 11:17 AM (S2kaf)

14 Re-education camp is awesome!

You too, can learn to think and act the correct way!

Posted by: rinseandspit at November 12, 2008 11:17 AM (ao5cQ)

15 We're going to be treated with ever increasing amounts of this shit over the next few years.

Yep. There's a lot more coming. Just wait until The One gets his direct action shock troop "PR" program up and running. Everything will be met with a hoard of protesters, intimidation, and boycotts.

On the bright side there's bound to be a backlash. I just hope we don't lose too many old ladies in the process before it happens.

Posted by: runninrebel at November 12, 2008 11:18 AM (ocqQA)

16 It seems that if he was very good at his job it would be detrimental
for them to fire him because of his political views - like cutting off
their nose to spite their face.

Even if he's a genius at this job (25 years with the same theater group, 6 years in the leadership position is pretty compelling), how difficult can it be to find another Theater Director candidate who will be adequate for the job, really?

There are very few people in this world that are indispensable. This is why blacklisting can be devastatingly effective.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at November 12, 2008 11:21 AM (Ds4I5)

17 Double edged swords cut both ways. I'm just saying...

Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 12, 2008 11:21 AM (OqXyp)

18 Well, we all know that Hollywood celebrities think they are better and smarter than the rest of us and have a right to dictate how the rest of us should live and think. I'm not surprised. In fact, I'd be surprised if nothing like this would have happened.
I consider Hollywood celebrities to be among the lowest of the human species. Many of them are nothing more than rich trailer trash. (Not to stereotype people who live in trailers- I'm one of them.)

Posted by: katya at November 12, 2008 11:21 AM (G3frc)

19 Well, Mr. Eckern certainly learned to suck cock pretty quickly.

Posted by: andycanuck at November 12, 2008 11:22 AM (6rN+7)

20 What an asshole. Like that apology will matter to the liberal fascists. They want his head on a pike and they will get it.
In my last job I was prohibited from making any political contributions. The company did not want to see its name in an article saying it was trying to buy influence. Employers have every right to do this, and to expect employees to understand that political contributions are public information. This guy was a moron to thnk his contribution would be anonymous or that he would not suffer repercussions within the artistic community for making it. I really have no problem at all with him being fired.
Whoa, I think we should not pile onthis guy from the right. The Demunist Gay Mafia is bad enough.
Perhaps a "Christianist" film production company (and yes there are one or two) could hire him?

Posted by: Curmudgeon at November 12, 2008 11:23 AM (ujg0T)

21 rebel - don't worry, most of those old ladies are carrying.

Posted by: roy at November 12, 2008 11:23 AM (cB77O)

22 to number 10:

You have no problem at all with him being fired? I really hate to flame but that comment deserves it. Are you an idiot or simply a leftist sympathizer in rightist drag? His political contributions have nothing to do with his job performance. If his public records indicate he has contributed to the republican party should he be fired because the left rants and raves over it and threatens ticket sales? Get a clue. That is the same sort of convoluted thinking that the left uses every one of their waking moments. By the way the guy should have had the gust to stand up and say "go ahead fire me." and I'll sue for religious discrimination.

Posted by: pacific_waters at November 12, 2008 11:23 AM (q6Tl0)

23 Maybe someone should show the Mormons how to turn off the AVS...

Posted by: richard mcenroe at November 12, 2008 11:24 AM (yIy7z)

24 I am a little torn about this as well. I remember when the Dixie Chicks went on their verbal assault tour of President Bush and people started boycotting their albums. The left got all up and arms as if the right was trying to stifle free speech. My feeling at the time was that they are allowed to say whatever they want, but we are free, also, to vehemently diasgree and not support them with our money. If you don't like the recriminations, then don't put yourself out there like that. It just comes with the terrirtory. So I equally feel like this guy had every right to donate to whichever group he chose to, but he also has to accept the blowback that comes with it. Right or wrong, both sides get to exercise their free speech. I can't say it's "unfortunate that it has to come with this" because I am not going to stop boycotting Sean Penn movies (yeah, I know this really hurts him) and nobody can tell me that I am wrong because he had every right to want to be Iraq's Human Shield. It just makes the "injured" party mad when it happens to them.

Posted by: XWing5 at November 12, 2008 11:25 AM (4kXLK)

25 Artists! Meh...Wally Cleaver's a fucking artist.

Posted by: Mr. Pissed at November 12, 2008 11:25 AM (X7Ey1)

26 Eh, us gun guys are doing this to Cooper Firearmssince the owner Dan Cooper donated to Obama and appeared in USA Today. Even AFTER they issued a statement about their owner, and AFTER they said he was being removed from his post (although that's because the secretary slipped up and said he "wasn't going anywhere").

So yeah, if you own a business don't do things that could piss of your customer base.

Posted by: Spade at November 12, 2008 11:27 AM (7WUru)

27 I fear this just the beginning... They have learned from their Radical brothers that intimidation works....

Posted by: BiasedGirl at November 12, 2008 11:27 AM (zo/+l)

28 He should have made the donation, with a money order, paid for with cash, using the name Mike Rogers.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 12, 2008 11:28 AM (OqXyp)

29 and to drew.

"Personally, I don’t have a problem with the theater doing this. If they think keeping Eckern on will hurt their business, well, when an employee becomes a liability and not an asset there are often consequences."

same comment.

Posted by: pacific_waters at November 12, 2008 11:28 AM (q6Tl0)

30 This is old news. Eugene Valdez, the playwright of Zoot Suit, had La Raza try to pull the funding for his company Teatro Campesino when he wouldn't let them dictate play content to him...

Posted by: richard mcenroe at November 12, 2008 11:29 AM (yIy7z)

31 The 1st amendment has no guarantees against financial blowback.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 12, 2008 11:30 AM (OqXyp)

32 Up yours, i'm in favor of the banning. However, after seeing the econmic impact my position has done on the Musical theatre, I now have a better idea that I should have made the donation on the sly. I do apoligize for my position and the lose of money it has caused me and not being more sneaky about it.
Insincerly yours,
Richard Lewis

Posted by: little dick at November 12, 2008 11:30 AM (B/Y39)

33 Actors = pathological liars

Posted by: katya at November 12, 2008 11:31 AM (G3frc)

34 His political contributions have nothing to do with his job performance.
Posted by: pacific_waters at November 12, 2008 11:23 AM (q6Tl0)

As a business owner who has employed people allow me to sum up the only part of an employees 'job performance' that matters....make me money. When you stop doing that you aren't doing your job and your done.

Now, I or any employer may decide to stand on principal but the job slot is mine, not yours. You as an employee are perfectly free do exercise your political rights but I am not obligated to subsidize that at the cost of my business.

You want to speak freely with no worries about it affecting your job? Work for yourself.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 12, 2008 11:32 AM (hlYel)

35 Pacific_waters, so by your logic, the theater is required to go out of business to avoid firing the guy?

Posted by: right at November 12, 2008 11:33 AM (pMGkg)

36 Drew you need to update your facts.

It is no longer Bushitler. It is now Ohitler. Please update your thoughts accordingly. that is all.

Posted by: unseen at November 12, 2008 11:33 AM (aVGmX)

37
The problem is that "civil rights" now has a very broad definition. The phrase means anything from gay marriage to eco-terrorism (to fight global warming) to voter fraud to rights for illegals, and so on.


Posted by: Bart at November 12, 2008 11:34 AM (ICFJ+)

38 I would bet that he will be fired, unless that “apology” was offered as part of a deal to maintain his employment. Although California is NOT a “right to work” State they certainly do have a right to fire him, as long as he is a white male below the age of 50. It is not “fair” but then again in our age NOTHIING is fair.

Posted by: Vic at November 12, 2008 11:35 AM (Qd7GC)

39 Gay and lesbian artists called Monday for an artistic and audience
boycott of California Musical Theatre after learning that its artistic
director donated $1,000 to a campaign that backed banning gay marriage
in California.

Well, as others have pointed out, this is pretty much what our side of the fence did when the Dixie Twits decided to jump ugly, isn't it?

It's one thing if they get their panties in a wad and start doing shit like the church invasion, but this suggestion sounds relatively legal, if not entirely benign.

Posted by: apotheosis at November 12, 2008 11:35 AM (TdBA+)

40 Yes, you should be willing to accept the blowback of your actions. However, does an employer have the right to tell an employee what they should personally support, etc? This isn't the same as the Dixie Chicks. No one told them what they could could not say. Their fans, clients, whatever, boycotted them but it was on a personal level. Yes, they withheld money from them but that was from refusing to buy their merchandise, not firing them from their jobs. Plus, the DC's didn't show their support (or lack thereof) on their own personal time. They did it on their clients' time. Publicly. Loudly. Offensively. I feel that this is what the fans mostly objected to.

Posted by: katya at November 12, 2008 11:36 AM (G3frc)

41 Eckern went from a sockcocker to a ... well you know in just two snaps

Posted by: A Bouts at November 12, 2008 11:36 AM (RH/7q)

42 For a group that stands in the streets in to the early hours, attacks old ladies, stomps on crosses, and threatens people with job loss all while chanting that they want "tolerance", they sure are an intolerable bunch are they not?

Of course, the will of the people (who voted in support of Prop will obviously be overturned by the courts and undermine the amendment that was put in to place last week. Then the Prop 8 opposition groups will no doubt claim that "fairness" has been found when, in reality, all they did was bully the system and force unwanted acceptance upon people.

Posted by: Aurvant at November 12, 2008 11:37 AM (VvcWe)

43 Think Jesse Jackson/PUSH - AL Sharpton/Nat'l Action Network on steroids - as administration-sanctioned instruments of repression.

Oh goody gumdrops...

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at November 12, 2008 11:40 AM (zpaDL)

44 How is it "Free Speech" if it costs you your job because you gave finical support to the political cause you believe in?
He didn't "shout fire in a theater"; he quietly gave his money to a cause he supported.
Fuck all facists.

Posted by: Larsen E. Whipsnade at November 12, 2008 11:40 AM (6BgmB)

45 Does California Musical Theatre receive any taxpayer funding? NEA grants, art grants from the state of CA, tax exemptions from the city or state, etc?

If they're a wholly self-supporting business, they can hire or fire whoever and however they please; it's shitty of them to fire this guy for his politics, but it's a private freedom of association matter.

But if public dollars are paying this man's salary, that's different.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at November 12, 2008 11:43 AM (yG+tb)

46 It's not a first amendment issue, because the government is not the entity penalizing him.

Posted by: right at November 12, 2008 11:43 AM (pMGkg)

47 I blame it on the cocksucking Joos.
Onewould think we could work cocksucker into this thread a little more often, we don't want Ace to lose his vaulted No. 1 listing, do we cocksuckers?
Get to work!
Kemp

Posted by: Kempermanx at November 12, 2008 11:43 AM (qvT/A)

48 Agreed. There is some difference between the Dixie Chicks and this. That may have beena poor example, but that is what thisreminds me of. I agree that being fired is probably going to far. Maybe Imus getting fired over his remarks is closer. Maybe. He wasn't going to be fired until the threat of boycotts led many sponsors to pull or threaten to pull advertising. It all comes down to the bucks. I don't think this is all that fair, but it ends up working both ways. If some yahoo worker for the Dixieshad made the Bush statement, it wouldn't have gotten much play and if, for some reason, it had, there may have been some calls for herto step down or be fired. And yes, the boycotts were at a personal level and no one was vocally calling for the label to drop them, and though I admit that I would have been happy if they did, it would not have been right. But if the label chose to drop them because they would have been boycotted themselvs, then they would have had to look out for their own interests. it's just business. Who knows?

Posted by: XWing5 at November 12, 2008 11:45 AM (4kXLK)

49 But isn't it illegal to fire someone because of their personal beliefs. Isn't it illegal, for example to fire someone because they are gay?

Posted by: katya at November 12, 2008 11:45 AM (G3frc)

50
Another Bartism: When people asked me if I supported the Patriot Act and FISA I said, "Yes, with President Bush I do. But I'm afraid of what a Democrat president would do with all that expanded executive authority."


Posted by: Bart at November 12, 2008 11:45 AM (ICFJ+)

51 The Dixie Chicks flapped on "company time".
Imus flapped on "complay time".
This guy made a personal contribution on personal time.

Posted by: katya at November 12, 2008 11:47 AM (G3frc)

52 Sorry, I think the guy was a clueless moron.Many peoplehave to make choices sometimes between their freedom of political speech and their livelihoods. I have. It chafed like hell, but I needed the job and my employer made it very clear that political activity and contributions were prohibited. Even after I quit the job in August I did not make any political contributions or do any volunteer work, as badly as I wanted to. I'm in the policy/lobbying field and I could not afford to be blacklisted. I'm real glad of it now, because I am looking for a job and I know nobody is going to be able to look up and see thatI gave a bunch of money or time to the losing side in this election.
This guy works in a field that is 90% homo and includes some of the most militant homos. He waved a red cape at them and then expected them not to charge. Dumb.

Posted by: rockmom at November 12, 2008 11:49 AM (iZqUY)

53 complay = company

Posted by: katya at November 12, 2008 11:49 AM (G3frc)

54 But isn't it illegal to fire someone because of their personal beliefs. Isn't it illegal, for example to fire someone because they are gay?

No and no. The gay activists were unsuccessful in their efforts to get them made into a “protected specie” like blacks and women. Even with blacks and women you can still fire them, it’s just that you have to be able to PROVE that it was not due to race or gender and that makes it costly to fire them, So in the end, most large companies will not fire them.

Note that in a “right to work” State you don’t have to give a reason for firing someone. You hire and fire at will.

Posted by: Vic at November 12, 2008 11:50 AM (Qd7GC)

55 The new "Compassionate Liberalism"

Posted by: dfbaskwill at November 12, 2008 11:50 AM (4L5Tl)

56 California Musical Theater shoud have supported Scott Eckern's rights and not worry about being boycotted. After all, how many homosexuals are involved in theater?

Posted by: Aaron at November 12, 2008 11:51 AM (dTiq3)

57 What the hell is "Cooper Firearms"? I'm fairly gun-knowlegable and I've never heard of them?



Also, the Theater can do what it wants, but it's cute to see the "DIXIE
CHICKS silenced by the CHILL WIND " crowd get all riled up when they
get called on it.

Posted by: Techie at November 12, 2008 11:55 AM (EVMm7)

58 Oh, it gets worse. It turns out the guy is actually Trig Palin's FATHER!! Suck on THAT, Xtianists!

Posted by: Andrew Sullivan at November 12, 2008 11:55 AM (kKgTD)

59 "...I am deeply saddened that my acting upon my religious convictions has been devastating to those I love and admire..."
For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels. - Luke 9:26
/just sayin'
I'm no religious fanatic, but backing down from one's most deeply held convictions is sad to behold

Posted by: Marta at November 12, 2008 11:56 AM (8g9qq)

60 I'm not saying it's right. I understand what all of you are saying. I am just saying that businesses are going to bow to pressure that could hurt them financially.

Posted by: XWing5 at November 12, 2008 11:56 AM (4kXLK)

61 What the hell is "Cooper Firearms"? I'm fairly gun-knowlegable and I've never heard of them?
Me either, but Gorgle shows them to be a custom bolt-action hunting rifle company. The guy was probably just pissed that his rifles weren't flying off the shelves like AR-15s, FAL's, AK's, etc. in anticipation of Hopey-Changey. I almost hate to call Mega Sports in Joliet to see what the wait time on the FAL I've been lusting after is; I'm afraid all I'll get is prolonged laughter.

Posted by: Sort-of-Mad Max at November 12, 2008 12:00 PM (kKgTD)

62 This seems to be case for making private donations to any cause, well, private.

Posted by: Dr. Remulak at November 12, 2008 12:03 PM (YmPwQ)

63 Liberals = hypocrites

Posted by: katya at November 12, 2008 12:04 PM (G3frc)

64 Suddenly I have discovered a fondness for Gay Pride parades with barely there leather outfits with whips and chains. They have an order to their appeals.

Posted by: Gabriel Sutherland at November 12, 2008 12:06 PM (AHrTm)

65 Ah the tolerant left. Who will they hate one Bushitler is gone? The rage of the left hasn't gone away with an Obama win, its gotten worse. Who will they blame when Obama is unable to make a world of chocolate rivers and gumdrop smiles for them to enjoy? Not converative christians surely. I think we are about 2 steps away from re-education camps, and I am 100% serious.

Posted by: kefka at November 12, 2008 12:08 PM (fKivs)

66 Techie, then evidently you missed the huge amount of postings on every gun board on the internet about it. And the USA Today followup.
Anyway, about a week before the election,Dan Cooper, Pres of Cooper Firearms (they make bolt guns) decided to donate to Obama. And then lend his name and company name to a glowing USA Today article about how much CEO's loved Obama.
Gun boards flipped out. Called the company and called their distributors saying this was BS, Obama was anti-gun, and fuck him, them, and their guns. Distributors said they wouldn't carry their guns anymore. Their export company dropped them. Etc.
Cooper Firearms comes out and says Dan only donated to Obama during the primary, and only to defeat Hillary. Of course, the USA Today article and online donation records say they are lying. Then Cooper Firearms says they asked Dan to step down.
And that's about where we are now.

Posted by: Spade at November 12, 2008 12:08 PM (7WUru)

67 'converative'? lol should be conservative

Posted by: kefka at November 12, 2008 12:10 PM (fKivs)

68 Cooper firearms makes mostly single shot custom bolt action rifles. High priced and not nearly as good H-S Precision or Hill Country Rifles. No loss there; Dan Cooper must behopingthe crocodile eats him last.

Posted by: Larsen E. Whipsnade at November 12, 2008 12:10 PM (6BgmB)

69 His apology won't be enough. It's not about him; it's about anyone else who thinks this way in private. It's not enough to force a recantation at the show trial; the reactionary must be destroyed

Posted by: David Ross at November 12, 2008 12:11 PM (GwV+j)

70 Stifling dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
— Stuff Jefferson Said, 2008 revision, W. Ayers, ed.

Posted by: Original Roy at November 12, 2008 12:11 PM (vtR2g)

71 Richard Lewis:
Tell him why you're here, Eckern.



Eckern:
[Mumbles] I've come here for the mark...


[Lewis swipes at him to make him speak up, and he does]



Eckern:
I... I... I've come here for the mark to see me. I... I've been punished for trying to support Prop 8.


[Lewis glares]



Eckern:
The council were merciful...


[Lewis threatens him again, and Eckern cowers]



Eckern:
The council were merciful!



Posted by: Ed at November 12, 2008 12:11 PM (+vlTE)

72 Wasnt there a threatening email going round earlier this year to bloggers who supported prop 8 (or similar laws)? My memory fails me.

Posted by: h0mi at November 12, 2008 12:14 PM (48jPo)

73 Richard Lewis: Tell him why you're here, Eckern. Eckern: [Mumbles] I've come here for the mark... [Lewis swipes at him to make him speak up, and he does] Eckern: I... I... I've come here for the mark to see me. I... I've been punished for trying to support Prop 8. [Lewis glares] Eckern: The council were merciful... [Lewis threatens him again, and Eckern cowers] Eckern: The council were merciful!
You crack-brained slave driver--I'd like to see you try....

Posted by: Bigwig (Thlayli) at November 12, 2008 12:16 PM (ujg0T)

74 His apology won't be enough. It's not about him; it's about anyone else who thinks this way in private. It's not enough to force a recantation at the show trial; the reactionary must be destroyed
Exactly

Posted by: katya at November 12, 2008 12:20 PM (G3frc)

75 this is scary stuff....so now a political opinion can effect whether you can work or not? the divisive nature imbedded in the leftist mind is only beginning to tear this country apart........

Posted by: nygal at November 12, 2008 12:20 PM (+/c0N)

76 #26 - Spade has this exactly right. Like Dan Cooper of Cooper Firearms fame, Eckern made political contributions that were likely to piss off his customer base. His customers are pissed, and they're threatening to take their theater admissions elsewhere. There is nothing wrong with this, it's markets in action. The bottom line is that political contributions are (unless they're made by credit card to Obama) a matter of public record, so it's not wise to make contributions that are likely to anger your customers.

Posted by: Achmed at November 12, 2008 12:20 PM (x7T2O)

77 Artistic Director for California Musical Theatre?

Umm... are they sure this guy isn't one of the queer activists who's against gay marriage because he doesn't want to be normal like those breeders?

Posted by: Brendan at November 12, 2008 12:34 PM (2jQGY)

78 His apology won't be enough. It's not about him; it's about anyone else who thinks this way in private. It's not enough to force a recantation at the show trial; the reactionary must be destroyed
Got it in one. It's not about what one person did, it's about making an example out of him so everyone else knows not to oppose the left/radical/lib/gay/black/whatever agenda, whatever that may be.
Does anyone seriously think that this guy would be punished if he had done the opposite, that is made a personal contribution for the gay cause rather than against it?

Posted by: BattleofthePyramids at November 12, 2008 12:38 PM (yoPbP)

79 Personally, I don’t have a problem with the theater doing this. If they think keeping Eckern on will hurt their business, well, when an employee becomes a liability and not an asset there are often consequences.
Personally, I do have a problem with it. Would it be ok for me to go through Fundrace and fire or discipline any employee who privately donated to a candidate or cause I did not personally agree with? Furthermore, this man said he supported the initiative based on his religious beliefs. Would firing or disciplining him be a violation of Title VII?

Posted by: DM! at November 12, 2008 12:39 PM (EXMH0)

80 Agreed. He has the right to contribute to whomever he wants; people have the right to not patronize his business because of it.

HOWEVER....the hypocrisy here is that these are the same leftists who were screaming over people doing that to the Dixie Chicks and saying that it was suppression of free speech.

Thus....the leftists who are doing this are engaging in exactly the same behavior that they criticized as thuggish neo-Nazism when other people were doing it. THAT is the point.

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at November 12, 2008 12:41 PM (uUR4m)

81 Applying for a job someplace in the government? And your political contributions are accessible?

What is the best way to find out if the main actors, director, or producers of the upcoming movies are gay? Just asking.

Posted by: snookered at November 12, 2008 12:42 PM (bgJJk)

82 It might be an interesting argument to say that the theater should lose its non-profit status because it is now involved in political issues. It probably wouldn't fly, but it was interesting to me.

Posted by: Original Roy at November 12, 2008 12:43 PM (vtR2g)

83 Why bother organizing a national civilian force when you have lefties doing the work for free?

Posted by: Amanda at November 12, 2008 12:43 PM (WHzLu)

84 this is scary stuff....so now a political opinion can effect whether you can work or not?

Yeah, but this isn't new. Talk to any conservative actor in Hollywood.

Posted by: OregonMuse at November 12, 2008 12:44 PM (FO+YO)

85 I, for one, welcome our new homo overlords in their assless chaps and ballerina tutus.

Posted by: OregonMuse at November 12, 2008 12:45 PM (FO+YO)

86 Of course, maybe it's not a non-profit. But most of the theaters around here are.

Posted by: Original Roy at November 12, 2008 12:46 PM (vtR2g)

87
Personally, I do have a problem with it. Would it be ok for me to
go through Fundrace and fire or discipline any employee who privately
donated to a candidate or cause I did not personally agree with?
That would technically be illegal in California; the Labor Codes (section 1101 and 1102) explicitly forbid you as an employer from firing or coercing anyone based on their involvement with a political campaign or activity, or in having a policy that coerces people to act in a specific direction.
In most states, this isn't spelled out as a statutory prohibition, but there are several cases that establish that this is part of the public-policy exception to employment at will; since involvement in the political process is nominally a public good, coercion of employees based on this is usually considered to be a tort violation for which you would be liable in civil court.
In other words, if you were the manager I was advising, I'd say not to do it.

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at November 12, 2008 12:47 PM (uUR4m)

88 Posted by: DM! at November 12, 2008 12:39 PM (EXMH0)

So now I as a business owner have to suffer a loss of income because of your desire to make a political statement?

Bullshit.

This is what I can't stand about how people look at a salaried job. It's not the property of the worker, it's the property of the employer. You are paid to bring value to the enterprise, once you stop doing that and become a liability to the enterprise, why should I keep you around?

I love the idea that it's 'free speech'. It's not 'free' to an employer who is subsidizing it through lost revenue.

Work for yourself and you can say and do anything you want. Work for me (or anyone else) and there are going to be restrictions.


Posted by: DrewM. at November 12, 2008 12:48 PM (hlYel)

89 If it comes down to it, should a company go out of business or fire the person in question?

Posted by: right at November 12, 2008 12:49 PM (pMGkg)

90 It might be an interesting argument to say that the theater should lose its non-profit status because it is now involved in political issues. It probably wouldn't fly, but it was interesting to me.
It works for churches. Back in '04, churches were issued guidelines on what we could and could not say concerning the political candidates, etc. Any infringement on these guidelines could endanger our non-profit status.

Posted by: katya at November 12, 2008 12:54 PM (G3frc)

91 So now I as a business owner have to suffer a loss of income because of your desire to make a political statement?

There's going to be a case coming up through the court system about this shortly, I'm sure. California law forbids you from disciplining or firing an employee based on political activity; however, with the latest tactic of political groups being to attack employers based on the donations of their employees, that makes a very strong argument that the individual's political decisions can result in business damage. The law has usually held that an employee's rights of private conduct are superseded if exercise of said rights causes severe financial impact to the business involved.

In short, either employee rights will be curtailed or it will be made much easier to sue political pressure groups for damages for politically-motivated boycotts. I hope it's the latter.

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at November 12, 2008 12:55 PM (uUR4m)

92 Posted by: OregonMuse at November 12, 2008 12:45 PM (FO+YO)

I hate to play hall monitor and I probably shouldn't single you out but let's try and keep the focus on the issues.

As we all know there are a number of gay readers of this site and stuff like that just isn't helpful. And neither is the cock sucking jokes and calling people homos.

Yes, I know, everyone will now tell me to lighten up and blah, blah, blah but I think we all know Ace's stand on this and it's stuff that doesn't really add to the substantive discourse, does it? And it's usually not that funny.

As someone who is privileged enough to post here whenever I want I have to say I sometimes have doubts about what stuff to post because things might get out of hand (often starting with no ill intent). 99.9% of the time, you guys are great and it doesn't but I try and think of Ace's brand and also the folks who read this site. Do I want to post something that might lead to gratuitous 'jokes' that will offend people I like here? Again, 99.9% of the time it's not a problem but that doesn't make the .1% of the time ok.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 12, 2008 12:58 PM (hlYel)

93 WOW, California has some awesome laws don’t they. Now why would all those businesses that are closing shop and moving out of State want to do that?

Posted by: Vic at November 12, 2008 12:59 PM (Qd7GC)

94 <i>Sorry, I think the guy was a clueless moron.Many peoplehave to make choices sometimes between their freedom of political speech and their livelihoods. I have. It chafed like hell, but I needed the job and my employer made it very clear that political activity and contributions were prohibited. Even after I quit the job in August I did not make any political contributions or do any volunteer work, as badly as I wanted to. I'm in the policy/lobbying field and I could not afford to be blacklisted. I'm real glad of it now, because I am looking for a job and I know nobody is going to be able to look up and see thatI gave a bunch of money or time to the losing side in this election.</i>
Rockmom, don’t be so sure. The fact that you did not give money to the "wrong" candidate may not be good enought. They can see that you didn’t give money to Obama. So they can still blacklist you for not being a supporter.

Posted by: Richard at November 12, 2008 01:01 PM (tVWQB)

95 Somewhere between Sucking the Barbed Cock of Satan™ and assless chaps, there must be a line.

Posted by: right at November 12, 2008 01:05 PM (pMGkg)

96 This is nothing but thought police.

Good grief. It's so wrong.

Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at November 12, 2008 01:08 PM (JhfZB)

97 I understand the theater firing him. A large part of the clientel are probably gay or supporters of them and a boycott would damage their business. But I'm angered by the hypocrisy of the liberals. In this case as well as the obvious media bias in their fawning over Obama co. I respect people I disagree with unless they are hypocritical about it.

Posted by: katya at November 12, 2008 01:08 PM (G3frc)

98 His apology is "I'll think differently, I promise!"

Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at November 12, 2008 01:08 PM (JhfZB)

99
As we all know there are a number of gay readers of this site and
stuff like that just isn't helpful. And neither is the cock sucking
jokes and calling people homos.

As one of those gay readers, it seems that 99.5% of us who would read this blog in the first place don't really care.

But, as you rightly point out, Drew, from a brand management standpoint, the last thing the Ace universe needs is an invasion of the PC aliens.

Even though Alexthechick would totally kick their whiny asses.

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at November 12, 2008 01:10 PM (uUR4m)

100 Even if he doesn't get fired, I'd find another job (far, far away) if I were him. This won't go away for him. These people have proven that they are vile, vicious and vindictive.

Posted by: katya at November 12, 2008 01:11 PM (G3frc)

101 Posted by: right at November 12, 2008 01:05 PM (pMGkg)



Exactly.



Seriously though, just consider the readers and posters here who are
gay and think if it's something you'd say to their face. If not,
there's probably not a reason to say it here.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 12, 2008 01:11 PM (hlYel)

102 He wasn't fired... He resigned.
I don't doubt that he was asked to resign, but the whole "he was fired" thing is moot now.
That being said, boycottinga businessis everyones right. The hypocracy comes from people demanding that he be fired for exersizing and supporting his beliefs simply because his beliefs don't coinside with their's.

Posted by: theBman at November 12, 2008 01:12 PM (/vN7m)

103 Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at November 12, 2008 01:10 PM (uUR4m)

True and I don't mean to suggest that gays don't have a sense of humor and AoS gays (and straights) are definitely a little different than the norm.

Naturally though individual commenters don't think there comment is bad (and they likely aren't) but I can see the cumulative nature of it getting to people.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 12, 2008 01:14 PM (hlYel)

104 I don't doubt that he was asked to resign, but the whole "he was fired" thing is moot now.

Not really. Now he can call "constructive discharge", which is where you've been forced to resign because conditions have been made intolerable for you because of a protected right you exercised.

Personally, I would have made them fire him and then lawsuit them out of existence, but so be it.

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at November 12, 2008 01:16 PM (uUR4m)

105 On the other hand (did that one makelast night'sTop Ten list?), conservatives need to remember what's fair and unfair about a boycott the next time we call for one.

Posted by: katya at November 12, 2008 01:21 PM (G3frc)

106 He should have made the donation, with a money order, paid for with cash, using the name Mike Rogers Hunt. FTFY. And recommended by generations of male high-school library users, too. Don't mention it.
But serially,I line up with the folks that say if you are going to support a position that could potentially make you a liability to you employer, you have to accept the risk that the shit is going to hit the fan.
As for the tendency of groups to react aggressively to things that they perceive as threats, I think it is perfectly normal. But I would like to see a glimmer of understanding in their minds that their actions are quite a bit like the ones they fantacize are being constantly organized by the right. Ah, it must be so stimulating to live the irony-free life.

Posted by: sherlock at November 12, 2008 01:26 PM (cq3pU)

107 Of course, maybe it's not a non-profit. But most of the theaters around here are.

With the possible exception of Broadway, aren't most theaters non-profit in the first place?

Well, maybe not by choice....

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at November 12, 2008 01:30 PM (Ds4I5)

108 Artists = egocentric lunatic divas

Posted by: katya at November 12, 2008 01:36 PM (G3frc)

109 Reading his apology, one thing came to mind:

"He loved Big Brother."


Posted by: tsj017 at November 12, 2008 01:40 PM (TBwnU)

110
Seriously though, just consider the readers and posters here who are
gay and think if it's something you'd say to their face. If not,
there's probably not a reason to say it here.

This is not a good rule of thumb. In person, you don't know who you might meet, or who is listening, and standard rules of taste and decorum apply. However, AoSHQ is a rowdy, profane, no-holds-barred festival of hot moron-on-moron love. If I say anything that is truly offensive, I will be reamed by the other morons in a manner remiscent of jenjis khan.

And as long as homos walk around in public in assless chaps with their dicks hanging out, I reserve the right to make fun of them. At least on AoSHQ.

Posted by: OregonMuse at November 12, 2008 01:43 PM (FO+YO)

111 #111 - "He loved Big Brother."
Okay, hold the calls folks, we have a winner!

Posted by: sherlock at November 12, 2008 01:44 PM (cq3pU)

112 Hey in a largely (but not entirely) gay and lesbian theater world, you swing their way--or you don't swing at all. I suppose if you were a Freedom Rider in the early 1960's--and it was learned you'd made a donation to the Ku Klux Klan, you might have been asked to get off the bus--or more likely, would have been thrown under the bus and had it backed up and forth across your face half a dozen times.
And, like it or not (and I don't), there's a significant portion of the gay community that viewed Prop. 8 as a "Hate crime" etc.
I can think of many law firms in California where an openly Republican lawyer would just "not fit in" or would be "just not our type"--and would be asked to leave. There may be a few (damned few) law firms in California where an openly Democratic lawyer would not "fit in".
It's unfortunate that we are segregating ourselves among people who are of like minds--but that self segregation (in housing, in business, in clubs etc) has been going on for a long time. I have some Democrat friends who have never talked to a Republican in their life; I have some Republican friends who "don't know any Democrats".
Writing a check "in the privacy of your own office" to a cause you support is something different than getting up on a stage or platform and offering/imposing your political views to a crowd of people. I mean what do I care about high school dropout and certified moron Sean Penn's views on international relations? Heckfire at least Sarah Palin graduated from the University of Idaho and 52% or so of the voting populace believed she was not qualified to speak on international relations.
But we now have our "thought police" combing political donation records to see who their "enemies" are. It's not a long step from there to creating a U.S. version of the East German Stasi where folks informed on each other.


Posted by: Michael J. Myers at November 12, 2008 01:46 PM (LZ3cP)

113 I have some Democrat friends who have never talked to a Republican in their life; I have some Republican friends who "don't know any Democrats".
I'll bet they have and do and just don't know it. Nowadays, especially, some people don't make their true politics known.

Posted by: katya at November 12, 2008 01:52 PM (G3frc)

114 I guess we'll see Mr. Ekern at the next Folsom Street Fair jizzing out a second story window while gay protesters give each other blowjobs while fisting friends of the anointed one in plain view of the public.

Gotta love what it does for the gay agenda.

Posted by: Big Peter from Pit at November 12, 2008 01:54 PM (pzW08)

115 What bothers me is the rank hypocrisy of the left.
Free speech for me but not for thee.

This will not be a problem in Alextopia.

Posted by: alexthechick at November 12, 2008 01:59 PM (SHHaV)

116 In the world of THE HIVE, only the QUEENS get a say

Posted by: tobwing plover at November 12, 2008 02:02 PM (evdj2)

117 So he was allowed to “resign” eh. I guess that gets the company off the hook for that pesky CA law that said they can’t fire him.

Our company also had a policy of encouraging people they wanted to fire to “resign” instead. They told them it would look better on their resume. Hahahahaha

Posted by: Uncompressed at November 12, 2008 02:09 PM (Qd7GC)

118 Yap, the fact that he resigned will probably be used against him in that he can't technically (I think) claim discrimination. Unless he has documentation of things like harassment. But I'm not a lawyer, so that's just as educated a guess as I could get.

And I agree this is more about liberal hypocrisy than being gay or supporting gays.

However, I have a couple of thoughts on comments made:

Personally, I don’t have a problem with the theater doing this. If they
think keeping Eckern on will hurt their business, well, when an
employee becomes a liability and not an asset there are often
consequences.

Sorry, Drew, I call bullshit on that. People should be able to make contributions to whoever they want as long as it is in their name and not the business's, company owner's, etc. And those in the public who find out about those contributions shouldn't be able to call for his firing based on differences of political opinion. This is exactly the type of bullying I referenced in the other thread that only grows because it is not checked.

In my last job I was prohibited from making any political
contributions. The company did not want to see its name in an article
saying it was trying to buy influence. Employers have every right to
do this, and to expect employees to understand that political
contributions are public information. This guy was a moron to thnk his
contribution would be anonymous or that he would not suffer
repercussions within the artistic community for making it. I really
have no problem at all with him being fired.

How is the company trying to buy influence if the guy puts the contribution in his own name? Did this guy use the company's name? If not, then companies do not "have every right to do this." By this logic I can ban a gay employee of mine from contributing to pro-gay groups because I don't want parents whose children we care for during the day to be upset; moreover I can fire him for doing it for fear of having kids pulled from my school. And you and I both know that's unethical even if it is not illegal.

That is absolutely ridiculous. This is nothing more than McCarthyism and the gathering speed of blackballing (or whatever it's called) of people from jobs and livelihoods that will be allowed to happen as Newspeak takes over our country.

And that bullshit apology of his just rankles me, although I get he wants to keep his job. Drew's comment--

I'm sure he won't make the mistake again anytime soon of thinking when
artists talk about freedom of expression they actually mean it. Silly
man.

--while I agree with it, it's also pretty clear that not too far off this kind of thing will no longer be acceptable. Don't you people remember reading about the Cultural Revolution when people like this were forced to stand in front of audiences and describe their sins? Not just a brief face-rubbing like what this guy (pretty forcibly, I admit) did, but a complete count of their "crimes," prolonged begging for forgiveness while the audience jeered and booed them, and then waiting weeks for an official verdict of whether their kowtowing and wallowing had been accepted and they were declared to be "rehabilitated."

What's worse, and why I bring up Drew's "silly man" comment is that what led some of these people is not that they actually were caught doing something, but rather were not enthusiastic enough in their performance. What if the next thing to come up is some member of the public who asserts Scott Eckern doesn't seem as if he is sorry enough or that his dedication to "fighting discrimination" is too halfhearted to warrant his continued employment? You know what? People are going to buy that bullshit! And the left is so crafty with their rhetoric that I'm sure they will find some way to blame it all on "concealed hatred" or some crap like that. There may well be the day that Eckern is going to have to get up on that stage and plead with a general public to see him as worthy, and their decision will be based not only on whether he supports their cause (and gives money to it, as he did), but also whether they think he really means it or not. In short: saying the words or cleaning out your bank account to support them won't be enough. They will decide they can read your mind and heart and usher in the real age of judging thought crimes.

Saying all this in blogs is one thing but people need to start getting more vocal--whether they are gay or not--in their "real" lives. And no, before anybody starts whinging at me, it's not an indictment against anybody for any supposed judgment I'm making. I'm saying it because there is so little activity in support of people--whoever they are--being able to think for themselves, make their own decisions and live their own lives. Yes I get that the MSM doesn't listen to us, and so that tells me we need to stop standing around like wimps saying, "Please hear me out" and start getting more fucking assertive. Go to town meetings, call for town meetings, describe the things that are going on and the foreseeable consequences (and how much EVERYBODY stands to lose, not just non gay supporters.)

This is OT, but related: the Catholic hospital my son was born in and where he goes to a clinic each week for occupational therapy will lose, by Obama's slated legislation, all federal funding because it will refuse to perform abortions as his new laws will demand. This effictively means that a hospital that services not only people in the city it's in but also numerous bush villages. There is a shortage of occupational therapists in the nation, for starters, and I live in Alaska; it's a bit hard to convince some people to come up here even when they are pretty certain they'll get paid. But we (and other clients of the clinics at PAMC) are not the only ones who will lose--there's an entire children's hospital there, imaging clinics, cancer treatment (which many doctors donate time to and a movement has begun to help support people who have no insurance or have reached their max), etc. It's enormous.

I'm partly bringing this up because it is another example of the disastruous consequences of what all this prohibiting choice can lead to. (Obama will be hurting his own supposed desire to get people medical care, but of course he has favors to pay back to Planned Parenthood.) Simply allowing abortion is a far cry from forcing people to pay for it and even farther when you say, "If you don't support it then you and your children won't get medical care." So for those people who bashed me (broadly or specifically) in the last thread for picking on gays, fuck off. It has nothing to do with anybody being gay; it has everything to do with the progression from being forced to support values that are not mine to actually being denied services and my family punished because we have values different from what they do.

Sorry it got so long, but I think it's important.

Posted by: fireweed at November 12, 2008 02:10 PM (rSr2s)

119 Wait-wait-wait.

Why would a theater group be so upset about gay marriage being made illegal?

I don't get it.


Posted by: Bender Bending Rodriguez at November 12, 2008 02:11 PM (HJDqP)

120 And those in the public who find out about those contributions
shouldn't be able to call for his firing based on differences of
political opinion.

fireweed,

Sorry but you understanding of the First Amendment and the concept of personal freedom is lacking if you really believe that.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 12, 2008 02:14 PM (hlYel)

121 So tell me what I'm missing then, Drew.

Posted by: fireweed at November 12, 2008 02:17 PM (rSr2s)

122 There was another incident here in LA with another theatre owner that's similar to this. The owner wanted to do a cinema festival celebrating old silent movies. One of those movies was "Birth of a Nation." So how did the lefties react? With class and good manners right? The
theatre owner got death threats and bomb threats for his theatre. The man wanted to show it as a testament to cinema and he was accused of being everything from racist to wanting to bring back Jim Crow and slavery, etc. They said it would bring back lynching. Yes, a movie from 1929 will lead to the return of blacks hanging in the streets of Los Angeles. (Never mind that the Mexican cartels are quietly eliminating blacks. It's whitey they have to be afraid of.)

He ultimately buckled and scrapped the movie. A quick Google search led to this article: http://tiny.cc/744z1

It's easy to say we need to fight back against them. But lefties are willing to engage in destruction of property and lives. How do you fight that when you have a family and a livelihood to protect?

Posted by: wherestherum at November 12, 2008 02:18 PM (wET2y)

123 GAY AND LESBIAN EXTREMISTS THE PRACTICERS OF INTOLERENCE WILL THEY RETALATE AGAINST ALL THOSE WHO VOTED FOR PROPISITION 8 LIKE I DID. GO AHEAD MAKE MY DAY IM A VERY DEFIANT AND FEROCOUS SHOREBIRD WITH A BIG ATTATUDE SCREW YOU GAY AND LESBIAN SCIBBELRS OF INFERNAL ART TRASH

Posted by: Spurwing Plover at November 12, 2008 02:19 PM (0UWc7)

124 It's easy to say we need to fight back against them. But lefties are
willing to engage in destruction of property and lives. How do you
fight that when you have a family and a livelihood to protect?

It is easier said than done, especially when they are willing to engage in the destruction you describe. I totally agree. I hate to say it because I never thought it would come to this, but maybe that's when we ought to start asserting our Second Amendment rights. I don't mean to go out and shoot them up casually, or even non-casually. But let it be known that we will defend ourselves with force if need be, and somehow show them we are serious. I agree with your hesitance, but really, how far are we going to allow them to push us?

I don't know all the answers (I don't even know half of them) and that's why we need to work together and come up with more possibilities. They have united in ways that conservatives have not, and that can be ruinous for us.

Posted by: fireweed at November 12, 2008 02:25 PM (rSr2s)

125 OMG!!! The winged one is amongst us.

Posted by: Tushar at November 12, 2008 02:25 PM (PTWes)

126 So tell me what I'm missing then, Drew.

Posted by: fireweed at November 12, 2008 02:17 PM (rSr2s)


Well for starters you say:

And those in the public who find out about those contributions
shouldn't be able to call for his firing based on differences of
political opinion.

Who is going to stop someone from talking about an individuals public political contributions? The government? If I learn about a persons donations and post about it here, would you have the government arrest me? Should I be libel for civil damages? Could the website be shut down?

How do you square a prohibition on calling for someone to be fired with the 1st Amendment?

Do you really think it's illegal, immoral or unhealthy to publicly challenge people over their political ideas? Really?

Posted by: DrewM. at November 12, 2008 02:31 PM (hlYel)

127 @126 fireweed

If I needed to, I wouldn't have any qualms exercising my 2nd amendment rights. Unfortunately, LAPD looks down on people shooting other people, altho in this case I think it's justifiable considering that these protesters are destroying property. And I would love to fight back with the same force the lefties use, but since I'm surrounded by them, it's hard to find someone who would fight with me. It's a fight that at times seems hopeless because the media and the educational institutions are against conservatism. Added to that, most people, especially in urban cities, are moronic imbeciles who listen to their identity politics overlord. The sheer hypocrisy and projection of the left is what pisses me off more than anything else. The fact that only very people see the fascist aspect of it worries me.

I don't know if the culture wars is a losing one. And I really don't know how to unite the conservatives except that all the different flavors are going to have to compromise and agree on limited government, lower taxes and perhaps national security. But the conservatives need to be able to effectively fight against the fascism of the left and maybe that means coming out of the closet, so to speak, and not backing down, no matter what. It's not going to be easy and it's certainly not going to be pretty. But the only way to defeat a bully is to fight back and win.

Posted by: wherestherum at November 12, 2008 02:38 PM (wET2y)

128 Has everyone forgotten thatYes on 8was using such threats of boycott DURING the campaign? The Exec Dir of the Catholic Conference of Bishops even signed this letter: http://tiny.cc/4no6C
I couldn't care less about theater but this man's rights weren't violated. If you object so strongly, start boycotting businesses that donated to No on 8. All of us have the right to spend our dollars as we see fit. Well, for now at least...

Posted by: John at November 12, 2008 02:49 PM (nAxsL)

129 More volunteers for Obama's Army.

Posted by: andycanuck at November 12, 2008 02:50 PM (6rN+7)

130 This Site has a good low level explanation of “first amendment rights”. Note that in EVERY case of the discussion they mention the “government”, not someone’s boss. This case was never about Constitutional Issues. In general, most Americans are totally ignorant of what the first amendment really means. So I will list what it does NOT do:

- It does not mean that you can say or print ANYTHING you want without fear of some type of retaliation. What it does mean is that the government can not censor what you are planning to do or say ahead of time unless they can demonstrate in court a clear and present danger to the country from your act.

- It does not prevent the government from “punishing” you AFTER the fact, except in a select few instances arising from specific case law.

- It has NOTHING to do with what private people can do to you for saying and printing stuff.

In this particular case, if the poster above is correct, there is particular CA law that prohibits what was done to this guy and it appears that he has a “cause of action”; in CA.

Posted by: Vic at November 12, 2008 03:04 PM (Qd7GC)

131 Do you really think it's illegal, immoral or unhealthy to publicly challenge people over their political ideas? Really?

OK, I phrased it poorly. I should have said something more like: they can call for anything they want but people shouldn't be subject to firing or fired because they have different opinions or political beliefs (if they keep it separate from work). Anybody can hold a sign and shout, "He should be fired for that!" but
legally speaking there shouldn't be any reasonable expectation that
this can actually happen--not on the basis we are discussing, anyway. So no I don't think it is illegal, immoral or unhealthy to challenge political ideas--when we are talking about a discourse involving methods that satisfy basic concepts of decency. And, yes, I realise people have different ideas of what is basic decency, and in that case part of what needs to be discussed is how much of what they have done (storming churches, e.g.) would be tolerated by them when done to places they have value for.

Happy?

Typically I admire critical readers and those who ask intelligent questions with a goal towards mutual clarity and understanding (or at least appreciation), but I think the rest of what I wrote was reasonable enough for you to simply ask instead of jumping on my case, Mr. Prosecutor.


Posted by: fireweed at November 12, 2008 03:12 PM (rSr2s)

132 But the conservatives need to be able to effectively fight against the
fascism of the left and maybe that means coming out of the closet, so
to speak, and not backing down, no matter what. It's not going to be
easy and it's certainly not going to be pretty. But the only way to
defeat a bully is to fight back and win.

I agree. And I'm sure part of the problem, or contributing to the difficulty is that I am fairly clueless (in reality, not theory, I guess it could be said) about how bad it really is or is not in California. In here the lefties are outnumbered and most ordinary citizens would grab their guns and be ready to defend themselves. It's a very pro-2nd state.

But the part I quoted above, especially the last sentence--yeah. As far as we can operate defensively and not offensively. Meaning I'm not going to go burning anybody's house down but if they try to do it to mine they're going meet my Second Amendment right. We have to stop being afraid to defend ourselves in the same way the lefties try to criminalise our soldiers' defensive only methods. When it becomes illegal to protect ourselves, then it's a new phase of the game, so to speak.

Posted by: fireweed at November 12, 2008 03:19 PM (rSr2s)

133 fireweed,

I honestly didn't think writing "Sorry but your understanding of the First Amendment and the concept of personal freedom is lacking if you really believe that" was "jumping on your case".

I agree that business shouldn't fire an employee over their beliefs but as I've said several times, if those beliefs become detrimental to the organization, I see nothing wrong with making a business decision that favors the organization.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 12, 2008 03:20 PM (hlYel)

134 I couldn't care less about theater but this man's rights weren't violated.

I would agree with that to the extent that nobody fired him (he quit) and people are free to disagree with political beliefs. That's the technical side of it. The reality side of it is that it sure appears he was intimidated into an apology (and donation?) so he could keep his job. Obviously I don't know what's in the guy's head and heart--maybe he really did convert his position on that issue.

The problem for the lefties is that they have used intimidation tactics too often and for too long to really be taken seriously in so many instances now. And they sure don't seem to care what people who don't give in have to say. They just keep plowing through until they get their way.

The very fact that they are demonstrating in such an ugly way against something that was voted on (which doesn't mean I'm saying they can't dissent even against majority opinion) reminds me of something someone else said in another thread re: the Obama election. If we had started demonstrating (especially if we used their tactics) our unhappiness with the US election results because our interest didn't win, it would be the same as what they are doing now but they would act as if we didn't have a case.

Posted by: fireweed at November 12, 2008 03:28 PM (rSr2s)

135 So, I guess this is the new world order:

If I work in an organization, like a theater, that is very gay friendly, what if they find out I attend a Catholic Church, and indeed, give my parish money? Will the gays picket to get me fired -or force me to resign- because, as a Catholic, I don't whole heartedly endorse the gay agenda? Do a small group of individuals have the right to hold everyone else hostage because we don't agree with their views? In the day, gays and lesbians were considered deviants (look up the definition.) Now that they've managed to mainstream their lifestyle, why should they be allowed to ruin someones professional life because an individual doesn't agree with them in his or her private life?

/all heterosexuals should boycott this theater.

Posted by: shibumi at November 12, 2008 03:28 PM (tZB/c)

136 CA is pretty bad off. LA and SF are a lost cause. The Republican party here is pretty much useless. If they're not outright RINOs, they don't have the support of most of the populace. Schwarzenegger has become an outright Democrat, supporting the Prop 8 protests and hoping the courts will overturn it. I'm glad I didn't vote for him last time around, but I wish he'd stop giving Republicans a bad name. The party also does nothing to support its candidates. Repubs who run against the likes of Boxer and Feinstein get NOTHING from the party. No money and no recognition.

Maybe I should qualify when I say CA is bad off. There are conservative bastions here and there. OC is the biggest urban one and I believe parts of San Diego are as well. It's ironic really, because blacks and Hispanics are such social cons. The more rural areas are of course the most conservative. But the population, while not negligible, aren't very vocal most of the time. To find any conservatives here is to step carefully and ask the right questions. It's like getting into a speak easy.

Actually, I'm surprised Prop 8 passed. All indications were that it was slightly down before the election. Granted, the previous anti-gay marriage bans passed easily with large margins, but for whatever reason, I didn't think people were motivated enough to vote for 8. And the gay lobby didn't campaign very hard against it until the last couple of days.

Posted by: wherestherum at November 12, 2008 03:31 PM (wET2y)

137 I honestly didn't think writing "Sorry but your understanding of the
First Amendment and the concept of personal freedom is lacking if you
really believe that" was "jumping on your case".

First of all it was not only that but the whole tone of your post. But it looks as if we'll have to agree to disagree.

I agree that
business shouldn't fire an employee over their beliefs but as I've said
several times, if those beliefs become detrimental to the organization,
I see nothing wrong with making a business decision that favors the
organization.

I wonder how much support I will get from you and others who agree with you if I fire a gay person in my employ because parents (of students I teach) complained about that person's lifestyle and political contributions and demanded they get sacked. After all, I don't want them to yank their kids from my school. That would not favor my organisation.

Posted by: fireweed at November 12, 2008 03:36 PM (rSr2s)

138 First of all it was not only that but the whole tone of your post.

What do you mean 'not only that'? That sentence was my whole post.

After all, I don't want them to yank their kids from my school. That would not favor my organisation.

Knock yourself out. I'd say you have every right to do it.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 12, 2008 03:47 PM (hlYel)

139 I am a little torn about this as well. I remember when the Dixie Chicks went on their verbal assault tour of President Bush and people started boycotting their albums.

Assuming that he did not make a point of broadcasting his views on Prop 8 at work (ie: by displaying Yes on 8 signs at his desk, injecting his views into work conversations, or handing out Yes on 8 literature), then the analogy to the Dixie Chicks incident is not valid.

It sounds like what happened is that someone used Fundrace or some other political contributions website to check up on their co-workers, then pressured him into resigning (which I gather he did). Do you really think that people should be forced out or fired based on their legitimate political views? We're not talking about membership in the KKK, remember. We're talking about a guy who exercised his right to political expression by supporting a Proposition (that PASSED, incidentally) because he was motivated by his religious beliefs to do so.

I think he should hire a good lawyer and sue the ba$tards.

Posted by: Y-not at November 12, 2008 03:49 PM (dC8te)

140 This is nothing new. Back in the McCarthy days, when everyone was so upset about actors and directors being blacklisted, Elia Kazan, one of the greatest directors in film history, was blacklisted for taking a stand against communism.

Posted by: Harrison Bergeron at November 12, 2008 03:50 PM (RErMF)

141 Seriously guys, how is this complicated?

If the theater thinks they won't be able to perform certain shows because authors won't license them and performers won't work with this guy, what are they supposed to do? Shut down in a brave stand against their suppliers, labor and potentially their customers? You also have to consider the management, board and donors probably disagree with the guy as well.

What if I had a guy who worked for me and I found out he donated money to a truther group. Should I be able to fire him? I would on principle but I sure as hell would if word got out.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 12, 2008 03:57 PM (hlYel)

142 90 So now I as a business owner have to suffer a loss of income because of your desire to make a political statement?Bullshit.This
is what I can't stand about how people look at a salaried job. It's not
the property of the worker, it's the property of the employer. You are
paid to bring value to the enterprise, once you stop doing that and
become a liability to the enterprise, why should I keep you around?I love the idea that it's 'free speech'. It's not 'free' to an employer who is subsidizing it through lost revenue. Work
for yourself and you can say and do anything you want. Work for me (or
anyone else) and there are going to be restrictions.

Maybe this was an all-purpose response, but I never said anything about the first amendment or free speech rights. Basically I think that someone should not face repercussions at work for engaging privately in legitimate political activity (and especially something that was an extension of their religious beliefs).

Of course, the bottom line is the bottom line, but is there any evidence that this was any more than a hissy-fit? It wouldn't be too hard for an employer to say something like "The political views of our employees are not necessarily those of ___ Corp. We are proud to have a atompshere which welcomes people from all walks of life and political pursuasions." Something like that, only more PR schmaltzy, which a) stands up for the employee, b) calls for respect and dialogue between people who disagree, and c) reminds their gay friends and collegues how ugly persecution is.

Maybe it was not solveable, but if I had a business and somebody wanted to target an employee of mine for something like this (even if I disagreed with the employee's position), I'd hope I had the cajones stand up for the right of my employees to participate in the political process, and to work on smoothing it over with some PR. Maybe this gay rage thing is more serious than I believe and this theater would have been out of business tomorrow, but I think a little patience and dialogue goes a long way.

Plus, North Dallas Thirty shows that there are guys who would take this case and cost you more money.


Posted by: DM! at November 12, 2008 04:02 PM (EXMH0)

143 Fine you want to keep that side of this disagreement up, then go for it. Your post wasn't limited to the one sentence.

Well for starters you say:And those in the public who find out about those contributions
shouldn't be able to call for his firing based on differences of
political opinion.
Who
is going to stop someone from talking about an individuals public
political contributions? The government? If I learn about a persons
donations and post about it here, would you have the government arrest
me? Should I be libel for civil damages? Could the website be shut down?How do you square a prohibition on calling for someone to be fired with the 1st Amendment?

Do you really think it's illegal, immoral or unhealthy to publicly challenge people over their political ideas? Really?

Personally I think we have better things to argue about. Like your support for discrimination.
Knock yourself out. I'd say you have every right to do it.

It should feel good to have your support on my idea to fire that person, but it doesn't, because it's wrong. And your logic applied anywhere else means that people can be fired left and right for the "crime" of difference of political opinion.

Posted by: fireweed at November 12, 2008 04:41 PM (rSr2s)

144 Fuck 'em!

The gays keep this shit up and there's going to be a backlash they won't forget anytime soon.

Posted by: GarandFan at November 12, 2008 04:44 PM (eJ32B)

145 And your logic applied anywhere else means that people can be fired
left and right for the "crime" of difference of political opinion.

No, I think people should be able to be fired for cause or under the terms of the contract they work under. I'm not saying that's the law everywhere but I don't think people have a 'right' to a job provided by someone else.

Did you think dickhead Ward Churchill should have been fired for his 'little Eichmanns' remark? I did. It was purely based on his political jackassery. I was okay with that. Did you defend Churchill at the time or now?

Posted by: DrewM. at November 12, 2008 04:51 PM (hlYel)

146 Ummmm...
So this is not like the Dixie Chicks.
But maybe CMT does have the right to do this.
If so, we have the right to retaliate, too.
CMT is a "non-profit" theatre with a $16.5 million annual budget. Does some of that money come from government? Write the reps of whichever branch it comes from.
Does some of it come from private businesses? Boycott them.
Look at their board of directors and see who sits on it: a rep from Wells Fargo, River City Bank, California Cable Telecommunications Association, etc. Boycott them. Get a copy of their playbill, see who advertises and/or donates, and boycott them.
Most of all, if you live in the Scaramento area, DON'T BUY TICKETS. Believe it or not, these theatres rely on conservative audience members, too.

Posted by: Bubba at November 12, 2008 05:15 PM (Oi0e7)

147 Yesterday, I was disgusted by Glenn Reynolds' introduction to this story:
"A MAN CHOOSES DIVISIVENESS AND EXCLUSION, and is ostracized."

I don't think anything illegal happened here, but I think it is the exact wrong thing to do, considering gay people are trying to prove they don't want to affect other people's lives or religions by getting married. The optics of having a religious man lose his job over his non-support of their cause are just terrible.

It is surprising to me how they set out to destroy this guy after finding his donation on a web search. For heaven's sake, his information was circulated to Perez Hilton and he posted it. There were other, more inclusive ways to handle it. It looks witch-hunty, and just because it's legal doesn't mean it shouldn't be criticized.

Posted by: MayBee at November 12, 2008 05:31 PM (DL6+F)

148 <i>I'm not saying that's the law everywhere but I don't think people have a 'right' to a job provided by someone else.</i>
Except who is the "someone else" in this particular instance? California Musical Theatre, or the groups (perhaps even the taxayers) that support it?
Don't buy tickets, and write letters to any institution that supports it -especially the ones you do business with.
Moreover, if you happen to do business with any company the Prop 8 opponents are targetting, liek Marriott, make sure you write a letter to that business, with a copy of your receipt, telling them you support their choice.

Posted by: Bubba at November 12, 2008 05:41 PM (Oi0e7)

149 what a pussy....i'd rather eat dead cats and live in a dumpster before i came out with some balless "and I now have a better idea..." apology.
in my world it would go like this.
yea i donated a $1000 and i would have donated more if i had it....you have a problem with that? go fuck yourself.

Posted by: e.koenig at November 12, 2008 05:51 PM (2J+Vs)

150 "Labor supply"in theatre? Please. There are tens ofthousands of actors who need a break, and who aren't politicised wankers.
The worry isn't that your theatre won't be able to hire people or to fill a room.The worry is thatanti-8terrorists - er, "activists" will buy tickets, overpower the ushersand disrupt the performance.

Posted by: David Ross at November 12, 2008 06:10 PM (GwV+j)

151 shibumi, overhalf the country's "Catholics" just voted for the "I don't give a shit about Christian doctrine" choice on the ballot. So you're probably safe.

Posted by: David Ross at November 12, 2008 06:43 PM (GwV+j)

152
@ Drew:
And your logic applied anywhere else means that people can be fired
left and right for the "crime" of difference of political opinion.

No,
I think people should be able to be fired for cause or under the terms
of the contract they work under. I'm not saying that's the law
everywhere but I don't think people have a 'right' to a job provided by
someone else.
As far as "for cause" I wasn't sure I knew what it meant, so I looked it up:
[W]hen someone got fired because of poor performance or if he committed a damage or crime towards the company[.]

http://tinyurl.com/5c6xl7

A gay person in my employ who donates money to, say, "No on prop 8" (putting aside, for the moment, whether or not out-of-state contributions are allowed)--what has that person done to harm my business? I wouldn't have agreed with her but last time I checked disagreeing with other people's political views is not a crime. (And that would apply whether the person is gay or not.)

The problem arises when some eejit in the community sees that person's name on the list and chooses to be gratuitously offended by it, and at that point there still is no offense committed. Only that the moron who is offended can't handle the idea that someone supports a political group different than theirs. As for what I'd do, #144 says it really well.

As for the contract, I'm pretty sure it's not allowed to be written in that they can be hired on the condition they don't donate to legitimate political causes with which their potential employer does not agree.

I don't think people have a "right" to a job provided by someone else, either. (Damn, we agree on something.) They have to perform. As an employer that's what I would care about.

Did you think dickhead Ward Churchill should have
been fired for his 'little Eichmanns' remark? I did. It was purely
based on his political jackassery. I was okay with that. Did you
defend Churchill at the time or now?


As far as I know he was a professor of ethnic studies at UCB. Since professors write articles and publish books as part of their tenure track, then any article he wrote was connected to his job. So no, I don't support him, yes he should have been fired.




Posted by: fireweed at November 12, 2008 07:18 PM (rSr2s)

153 "BTW- I was a bit reluctant to post this after last night’s Prop 8 video
thread, lest people think this is ‘bash the gays’ season."

So... a group that engages in fascist intimidating tactics will be criticized for it, but then we'll stop no matter how much they keep it up because we're worried about what they'll think of us?!?!

Has it not been established that we all agree that these thugs do not represent or resemble the gay community as a whole???

Or has political correctness proven effective after all?

"Evil prospers when men of good conscience do nothing...especially if they're worried what others might think of them!" (slightly paraphrased)

Posted by: G at November 12, 2008 07:20 PM (FAYNo)

154 Maybe I should qualify when I say CA is bad off. There are conservative
bastions here and there. OC is the biggest urban one and I believe
parts of San Diego are as well. It's ironic really, because blacks and
Hispanics are such social cons. The more rural areas are of course the
most conservative. But the population, while not negligible, aren't
very vocal most of the time. To find any conservatives here is to step
carefully and ask the right questions. It's like getting into a speak
easy.

OC = Oakland?

Would it be accurate for me to say that what has happened in California is pretty much what has just happened in the US? (I mean the loss of checks and balances and a radical left agenda?)

I think what needs to be done is to convince the non vocal people you mention to get a bit more vocal--at least as a start. I don't mean you individually, and even though I'm not in Cali I'd still be more than willing to contribute, like writing letters and making leaflets, etc.

Posted by: fireweed at November 12, 2008 07:32 PM (rSr2s)

155 Weren't the dirty commies hypocrites crying when Dan Cooper was fired from Cooper Firearms because he donated to the Obamessiah?

Posted by: Johnnie at November 12, 2008 07:44 PM (arbSw)

156 As far as "for cause" I wasn't sure I knew what it meant, so I looked it up:
[W]hen someone got fired because of poor performance or if he committed a damage or crime towards the company[.]http://tinyurl.com/5c6xl7

fireweed,

No, that's not the definition. I followed your link 'poor performance' and 'damage or crime' are two examples the person asking what 'for cause' meant. It's not the definition. Look at the answers that person got, it's far more extensive and broad than those two items.

Try this: At Will Employment

any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free
to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at
all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise
cease work.[1]

They have to perform.

If they cost me business and opportunities and bad PR, they aren't 'performing'

As for Churchill, the essay that was in had nothing to do with his professional area of studies (such as it was). He was already tenured and it was an essay, not a published paper. It had nothing to do with his job.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 12, 2008 07:50 PM (hlYel)

157 The gay radicals are publicising other names from the No supporters' list, too:
"Thebullieshave published the names of other contributors, too. Welcome to 1984 -- 24 years late."

Posted by: andycanuck at November 12, 2008 08:32 PM (6rN+7)

158 Sorry, that should be the Yes supporters' list. [I copied my first, unedited post that didn't make it through due to the "too long link" crap and not the second version using tinyurl where I corrected the No to Yes.]

Posted by: andycanuck at November 12, 2008 08:34 PM (6rN+7)

159 You would think homosexuals would be more understanding of revealing people's private activities, and then being fired because of those.

You would be wrong.

Posted by: Harun at November 12, 2008 08:58 PM (4ITGt)

160 The only effective response to this is for those who supported the amendment or dislike the thuggery to boycott the California Musical Theatre permanently. They may survive on a diet of gay activists. For awhile.

Posted by: snookered at November 12, 2008 10:07 PM (h3PdB)

161 157 Weren't the dirty commies hypocrites crying when Dan Cooper was fired from Cooper Firearms because he donated to the Obamessiah?
Posted by: Johnnie
i'm still confused on that whole situation....as churchill said an appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

Posted by: e.koenig at November 12, 2008 10:40 PM (2J+Vs)

162 @ Drew #158: In the link you provided also reads:

Only eleven U.S. states have recognized a breach of an implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing as an exception to at-will employment. [Alaska is one and so, I was surprised to see, is California. But I have a love-hate relationship with wiki, ever since they reported James Joyce to have been born and raised in Italy.]

and

Rather than narrowly prohibiting terminations based on public policy
or an implied contract, this exception — at its broadest – reads a
covenant of good faith and fair dealing into every employment
relationship. It has been interpreted, by some courts, to mean either
that employer personnel decisions are subject to a “just cause” standard or that terminations made in bad faith or motivated by malice are prohibited.

You're the attorney (I think), not me, but it seems to me this means it's not quite so easy to just sack someone for the hell of it. I know this is true in Alaska, despite the nonsense some people said about how Sarah Palin could have fired Monagan for "the color of the shirt he wore and she didn't like." She did have to have a good reason.

I don't know where you are (if you say Alaska I'm going to freaking faint), but I'm wondering if our difference of opinion--which it basically comes down to even following the law--is traceable to something like this, what I found when following the link "just cause":

What is accepted in an urban and liberal community may not be accepted in a rural and religiously conservative community. The courts or arbitrator who will rule on a challenge to the discipline may be a product of those communities.

No I'm not implying you are a lib, just that what it comes down to, it seems, are opinions or perspectives within this just cause; you see the worker in my hypothetical as not performing where I see what she did as unrelated and the bad business is the fault of the hyperventilating asshole who wants to cut off people's freedom to support whatever legitimate political agencies she chooses. Not honoring that, in my opinion, leads to the bullying that's going on in California now.

I forgot to look and see (and I'm getting tired) which of the subcategories Colorado belongs to, so I'm not sure how they would classify WC's offense, but it seems like they have a bit more leeway than Alaska. I say that given your info that the article was unpublished. Although I'm not sure how an unpublished article came to be public and I also thought tenured were hard as all get out to sack. And I'm wondering exactly what it did have to do with if not his job. But I guess that's another discussion.



Posted by: fireweed at November 13, 2008 04:06 AM (rSr2s)

163 As a person who knows a number of gay men who have served as church organists, I'm curious if this means that you can't be fired from a Catholic or Baptist church for sucking cock (while in possession of same, so to speak) but you can be fired from a theater company for donating to a political cause.

Posted by: Peter Buxton at November 13, 2008 11:00 AM (1Jzj8)

164 You're the attorney (I think),

fireweed,

Here I thought we were having a nice friendly discussion and you insult me like that?

If dueling were still in vogue, I would demand you answer for your slur.

Short answer to your post, I said earlier that this was my opinion of how the law should be and was not necessarily how the law was. I never said I supported firing the guy, I simply said I understand why a business would want to fire an employee who hurts their business, even if through private conduct.

You seem to think they should suffer damage to their business to uphold their employees personal beliefs. I don't.

I think the idea that people should be able to hire and fire whomever they want in support of the interest of their business is a fairly mainstream conservative position. Do you disagree with that?

Posted by: DrewM. at November 13, 2008 12:18 PM (hlYel)

165 A little longer response to this part of your post:

you see the worker in my hypothetical as not performing where I see what
she did as unrelated and the bad business is the fault of the
hyperventilating asshole who wants to cut off people's freedom to
support whatever legitimate political agencies she chooses.

If they are hurting my business they aren't performing. You may not like to link to the two but I think they are indistinguishable.

Let me ask you this hypothetical....

I run a shoe store. It doesn't sell kids shoes only business footwear (whatever that maybe). One of my salesmen, my best one as a matter of fact (he sells double anyone else!) shows up one night on TV as the local spokesman for NAMBLA..

The next day I show up to my store and find the media and outraged citizens protesting this guy. Now, he didn't mention where he worked as part of his activities for NAMBLA but a customer recognized him and organized a protest at my store. No one will come in because they are pissed and they don't want to be sold shoes by a guy who belongs to NAMBLA. I also get calls from hospitals and other institutions I have contracts with cancelling their business with me.

I'm ruined.

Should I be allowed to fire the NAMBLA spokesman? He's just as good of a salesman as he was the day before, yet my business is in the tank.

What can I do? What would you allow me to do?

Posted by: DrewM. at November 13, 2008 12:25 PM (hlYel)

166 Drew, I beg your forgiveness for referring to you as an attorney! Maybe I was mixing you up with---better not say it, don't want him mad at me as well. Not for that anyway.

As far as what I would "allow," it's moot really, because it depends on what state you're in, apparently, and I'm not in the business of allowing or not allowing that kind of thing. Was just stating my opinion, as you did.




Posted by: fireweed at November 13, 2008 02:03 PM (rSr2s)

167 Posted by: fireweed at November 13, 2008 02:03 PM (rSr2s)

Fair enough. So let me ask you, would you disagree with the NAMBLA guy getting fired for his off hour political activities as you do with the Pro-Prop 8 guy getting fired for his?

Is there a difference between the two cases?

(and if you say there's a difference between being a spokesman and donating, please explain what it is and then substitute 'donates to NAMBLA for 'spokesman for').

I'm not trying to be an ass (I don't need to try and do that), I'm just curious where you draw the line.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 13, 2008 02:13 PM (hlYel)

168 m2ts converter is a powerful software that can convert M2TS files to other formats, such as WMV, AVI, ASF, MPEG, , MP4, MOV, 3GP, VOB, FLV, WMA, MP3, etc, which are seperately supported by iPod, iPhone, Apple TV, Zune, PSP, PS3, Pocket PC, Creative Zen, Archos, and other Video players and audio players. Besides, the converting process is superfast and high-quality.

Posted by: m2ts covnerter at March 17, 2009 04:39 AM (F/qzo)

169
coach outletcoach outlet coach outlet storecoach outlet store coach outlet onlinecoach outlet online coach handbags outletcoach handbags outlet coach outlet handbagscoach outlet handbags coach outlet factorycoach outlet factory coach factory outletcoach factory outlet Coach NecklacesCoach Necklaces Coach Jewelry Set Coach Necklaces coach sunglassescoach sunglasses coach braceletscoach bracelets Coach HeelsCoach Heels Coach High HeelsCoach High Heels Coach WedgesCoach Wedges Coach SneakersCoach Sneakers coach earringscoach earringsclx

Posted by: coach outlet at December 19, 2010 08:05 PM (O6/wQ)






Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.0481 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0253 seconds, 178 records returned.
Page size 138 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat