Brothers Kicked Off HGTV Channel Over Anti-Gay Remarks.

[JoeB131]

I propose that the best thing we should do is continue voicing our opinions while not fearing reprisal. So long as our views do not call for hurting, restraining, or punishing homosexuals, we should do everything in our power to ensure our voices are heard. I don't think any people on either side should be punished through losing their shows simply because of a view, especially if that view wasn't even made on the show.

The possibility is that there's an element of fascism at work here, where you had better think one way or lose out on your dreams, or worse, have your livelihoods destroyed. I believe it is time to fight back, but in a way where one's integrity is kept intact. Perhaps we should start by fighting to pass legislature where people cannot lose TV shows merely for views stated elsewhere.

I agree with you, but I don't know how we get there from here.

These people have the control now, what they're doing is not illegal or unconstitutional, and they'll continue to do it. They've done it through the culture, and can now choose to destroy anyone they wish.

In fact, people are now even falling on the sword before the shit hits the fan. That's power.

They choose to do it. They don't have to do it. But it's working.

Watch what you say. After all, this is America.

.

Oh, Noes, Mac doesn't want to live in a world where being a homophobe is unacceptable.

I also find it hilarious that Mac being the valiant defender of the 1%'s ability to fuck over the little people is suddenly upset that the 1%ers who run HGTV don't want to lose their lunch money over a couple of homophobic sissies.

Yeah, good thing that wasn't a guy who tried to make a claim against his medical insurance. Then you'd be all for firing him.

 

[Pogo]

While it is just a TV show, I do wonder what your reaction would be if the shoe were on the other foot..

Uh.... what? What shoe?

I sense there's an analogy lurking there somewhere. Don't be shy, articulate it.

What would your reaction be if two homosexuals had their same TV show on HGTV cancelled because of their views they voiced?

Would you support that, too, because it's just a TV show run by a private company?

I really wouldn't care. It's probably happened. I'm not moved and again it would be their decision.

I understand that these are entertainment shows, that they sign their talent to morality clauses to protect themselves from controversy, and that controversy is the last thing a TV show like that wants (see Dynasty, Duck; see Deen, Paula). I understand that the goal of these shows is to lull the viewer into a vegetative passive state of receptivity so they can sell time to an advertiser who will then try to sell me stuff I don't need (because things I do need don't need to be advertised). And I understand that controversy distracts from that hypnotic state.

That's why I point out, it's nothing more than a freaking TV show. Getting excited about this is like getting up in arms about the revelation that the water in the swamp is dirty. It is, after all, a swamp.

 

[JoeB131]

I propose that the best thing we should do is continue voicing our opinions while not fearing reprisal. So long as our views do not call for hurting, restraining, or punishing homosexuals, we should do everything in our power to ensure our voices are heard. I don't think any people on either side should be punished through losing their shows simply because of a view, especially if that view wasn't even made on the show.

The possibility is that there's an element of fascism at work here, where you had better think one way or lose out on your dreams, or worse, have your livelihoods destroyed. I believe it is time to fight back, but in a way where one's integrity is kept intact. Perhaps we should start by fighting to pass legislature where people cannot lose TV shows merely for views stated elsewhere.

NO, guy, this isn't an element of fascism, it's an element of capitalism.

I realize that occasionally, they are hard to tell apart.

The guys who run HGTV are in the business of selling commercial time to companies like Home Depot who sell home improvement stuff. And a large portion of their customer base happens to be either gay or gay-friendly.

If these guys were outed as white supremacists or anti-Semites, there would be no argument about throwing them off the air as a business decision, and everyone would applaud it.

the last whimper of Homophobia is, "But My religions says it's a sin".

Sorry, I ain't buying it. A whole lot of things the bible calls a sin no one makes a big deal about anymore. I had a friend who was a Seventh Day Adventist who wouldn't eat Shellfish or Pork. okay, fair enough. She isn't hurting anyone if that's her interpretation of the bible. Most Christians are over that, though.

Give you another example. Back when I was growing up, we called an unmarried couple living together as "living in sin". nowadays, guess what, most couples live together before marriage and everyone thinks that is the norm now and even the churches don't make a big thing about it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Huh?

OK I'm lost.



War euphemisms, like any sensitive topic, are legion. "Collateral damage". "Theater". "Advisers". All designed to soften the blow with bullshit. That's got nothing to do with Liberalism or any other political philosophy. It has to do with marketing. You're simply gonna sell more wars with "collateral damage" than with "slaughtering innocent civilian bystanders".

They play directly into their aversion to war and violence. Frankly, war is war, and terrorism is terrorism. I can tell you of things I read about the very first war photographers and their imagery of the Civil War. You can soften the blow all you like, but in my eyes, that's political correctness. The photography of war doesn't allow for softening the blow on anything, they depict that moment in reality in all their gory detail.

And lets not define political correctness as "softening the blow." It's political correctness.

No, it's marketing. It's using a disingenuous term to soften the blow of reality, so that you can sell the war to the public. And that's independent of political philosophies; we saw it in Iraq and we saw it in Vietnam, and everywhere in between. Because if we the people caught on to what we're doing most of the time there would be rioting in the streets (and at times there was), and that interrupts the war machine. And the war machine (the MIC) runs both parties.

"Political correctness" is social pressure. I think we just did this, wasn't that this thread? It's more properly "social correctness" -- where "correct" of course is in the eye of the beholder.

Terrorism is the infliction of murder and/or destruction as a means of political coercion to some cause. I don't know how "man caused disaster" connects to that.

That is precisely my point. The one does not connect with the other, yet is is used as a buzz term. Though, it wasn't marketing for the people who coined the term. When you call it something such as "man caused disaster" it has a way of exerting pressure on others in the inner circle and eventually the party, to use the term as well, to maintain lockstep with the establishment. At least you aren't dumb enough to fall for it, no offense.

And if people did catch on to what we were doing they would be rioting in the streets, and for good reason. Political correctness is a convenient way to distort and muddy the truth of the matter.

 

[JoeB131]

.

So much for that "diversity" and "inclusion" bullshit.



.

I think the Churches need to ask themselves, do they want to be the last refuge of homophobia?

I'm guessing, probably not, in the long run, when in 50 years, gay marriage is going to be as accepted as straight marriage and people will be scratching their heads wondering what the big deal was.

 

[JoeB131]

That is precisely my point. The one does not connect with the other, yet is is used as a buzz term. Though, it wasn't marketing for the people who coined the term. When you call it something such as "man caused disaster" it has a way of exerting pressure on others in the inner circle and eventually the party, to use the term as well, to maintain lockstep with the establishment. At least you aren't dumb enough to fall for it, no offense.

And if people did catch on to what we were doing they would be rioting in the streets, and for good reason. Political correctness is a convenient way to distort and muddy the truth of the matter.

When Osama Bin Laden was killing Russians trying to teach girls how to read in Afghanistan, Ronald Reagan called him a "Freedom Fighter".

When he killed Yuppies in New York City, he became a "Terrorist".

Both parties play word games.

 

[Wake]

Though I don't subscribe to your points of view, I do appreciate your willingness to share them. [MENTION=31057]JoeB131[/MENTION]

 

[TemplarKormac]

.

So much for that "diversity" and "inclusion" bullshit.



.

I think the Churches need to ask themselves, do they want to be the last refuge of homophobia?

I'm guessing, probably not, in the long run, when in 50 years, gay marriage is going to be as accepted as straight marriage and people will be scratching their heads wondering what the big deal was.

My question to you would be:

Are you willing to do away with the 1st Amendment to ensure that they aren't?

 

[TemplarKormac]

That is precisely my point. The one does not connect with the other, yet is is used as a buzz term. Though, it wasn't marketing for the people who coined the term. When you call it something such as "man caused disaster" it has a way of exerting pressure on others in the inner circle and eventually the party, to use the term as well, to maintain lockstep with the establishment. At least you aren't dumb enough to fall for it, no offense.

And if people did catch on to what we were doing they would be rioting in the streets, and for good reason. Political correctness is a convenient way to distort and muddy the truth of the matter.

When Osama Bin Laden was killing Russians trying to teach girls how to read in Afghanistan, Ronald Reagan called him a "Freedom Fighter".

When he killed Yuppies in New York City, he became a "Terrorist".

Both parties play word games.

Of course they do. And I'm glad you see that. You know what they say about broken clocks. But hey, I fail to see how this connects with why two men were ousted from a TV network, though. We have gotten completely sidetracked here.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Where'd everyone go?

 

[JoeB131]

.

So much for that "diversity" and "inclusion" bullshit.



.

I think the Churches need to ask themselves, do they want to be the last refuge of homophobia?

I'm guessing, probably not, in the long run, when in 50 years, gay marriage is going to be as accepted as straight marriage and people will be scratching their heads wondering what the big deal was.

My question to you would be:

Are you willing to do away with the 1st Amendment to ensure that they aren't?

Not a first Amendment Issue, guy.

The first Amendment merely says CONGRESS can't keep you from saying something.

It does not say that you are entitled to something from someone else, even if they don't like your views.

It's why I can't walk into my boss's office and call him a Giant Douchebag and still expect to have a job the next day. (Incidentally, I really like my current boss, this is just an example.)

here's the thing. The argument is pretty much over. Gays aren't evil, they aren't sinners, they aren't really doing anything wrong.

People are using religion to rationalize their hate and perhaps hide their latent homosexuality, but the Churches have to ask themselves, is this the hill you want to die on?

My guess is, no. You see, Churches are businesses, just like HGTV. It's why preachers don't scream at their congregations that are having premarital sex that loudly.

 

[JoeB131]

That is precisely my point. The one does not connect with the other, yet is is used as a buzz term. Though, it wasn't marketing for the people who coined the term. When you call it something such as "man caused disaster" it has a way of exerting pressure on others in the inner circle and eventually the party, to use the term as well, to maintain lockstep with the establishment. At least you aren't dumb enough to fall for it, no offense.

And if people did catch on to what we were doing they would be rioting in the streets, and for good reason. Political correctness is a convenient way to distort and muddy the truth of the matter.

When Osama Bin Laden was killing Russians trying to teach girls how to read in Afghanistan, Ronald Reagan called him a "Freedom Fighter".

When he killed Yuppies in New York City, he became a "Terrorist".

Both parties play word games.

Of course they do. And I'm glad you see that. You know what they say about broken clocks. But hey, I fail to see how this connects with why two men were ousted from a TV network, though. We have gotten completely sidetracked here.

I've already explained that.

HGTV is a business.

Putting on the "Crazy Homophobe Show" isn't good for business.

This really, really isn't complicated, dude.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

.

So much for that "diversity" and "inclusion" bullshit.



.

I think the Churches need to ask themselves, do they want to be the last refuge of homophobia?

I'm guessing, probably not, in the long run, when in 50 years, gay marriage is going to be as accepted as straight marriage and people will be scratching their heads wondering what the big deal was.

My question to you would be:

Are you willing to do away with the 1st Amendment to ensure that they aren't?

Your question is ignorant demagoguery, having nothing to do with the issue being addressed, as no one is advocating religious institutions be compelled to do anything, where same-sex couples’ right to access marriage law is a 14th Amendment issue, in no way involving the First Amendment – equal protection jurisprudence applies only to the state, not private individuals or organizations.

You and other Christians who wish to belong to a church preaching a doctrine of ignorance and hate will always be at liberty to do so.

 

[Meister]

When Osama Bin Laden was killing Russians trying to teach girls how to read in Afghanistan, Ronald Reagan called him a "Freedom Fighter".

When he killed Yuppies in New York City, he became a "Terrorist".

Both parties play word games.

Of course they do. And I'm glad you see that. You know what they say about broken clocks. But hey, I fail to see how this connects with why two men were ousted from a TV network, though. We have gotten completely sidetracked here.

I've already explained that.

HGTV is a business.

Putting on the "Crazy Homophobe Show" isn't good for business.

This really, really isn't complicated, dude.

Obviously, you're just spewing your leftwing talking points straight out of your echo chamber, "dude", because you sure don't know the actual facts.

 

[Big Black Dog]

This is America. Land of free speech. That is unless you call queers queer in public and not behind closed doors with the window shades all pulled down.

 

[JoeB131]

[
Obviously, you're just spewing your leftwing talking points straight out of your echo chamber, "dude", because you sure don't know the actual facts.

even going by right wing sources, these guys are your typical religious assholes who think that the Bible rationalizes their hate of the ghey.

best way to understand me is that I despise religion and will mock and humiliate it at every oppurtunity. I have no respect, regard or reverence for it.

And if some asshole says, "I hate Gays because God says so", he deserves whatever shit storm is coming his way.

FACT- these guys are religious Homophobes.

FACT- HGTV is about selling commercials for Home Improvement Companies.

FACT- These guys don't want or need to be in the middle of the culture wars.

 

[JoeB131]

This is America. Land of free speech. That is unless you call queers queer in public and not behind closed doors with the window shades all pulled down.

ONe more time, guy.

Free Speech means that government can't stop you from saying something.

It does not mean the rest of the world has to respect what you have to say.

You can call gay folks "Queers", but don't expect to get a job from someone who are trying to sell garden supplies or drywall to gay people.

 

[bodecea]

.

So much for that "diversity" and "inclusion" bullshit.



.

I think the Churches need to ask themselves, do they want to be the last refuge of homophobia?

I'm guessing, probably not, in the long run, when in 50 years, gay marriage is going to be as accepted as straight marriage and people will be scratching their heads wondering what the big deal was.

My question to you would be:

Are you willing to do away with the 1st Amendment to ensure that they aren't?

Nope...they can preach homophobia all they want...just like some churches still preach misogyny...and some still preach segregation.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Christians hate the sin not the sinners. The same can't be said for the other side of the fence.

 

[JoeB131]

It does strike me is that these guys don't just want the freedom to say what they want.

they want to be immune to all the consequences.

This is simply impossible when dealing with other people. You have to accept, some people will be offended by certain things, and some will act on their umbrage.