Fox Sports has fired a former ESPN and CBS sports broadcaster, Craig James, after his first day on the job at Fox because it was discovered that he opposes same-sex marriage. But remember, same-sex marriage will never affect you.
September 25, 2013
Fired for his views on same-sex marriage
Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Same-sex Marriage[20] Comments
Thinking to Believe 
September 25, 2013 at 9:09 am
If I ran for public office and yammered about how people arbitrarily choose to be homosexual, I would expect that to threaten the resilience of a future broadcasting career, just as if I ranted (for example) about black people having dark skin because of an ancient curse.
LikeLike
September 25, 2013 at 9:14 am
Stan, there was not enough context to know whether he was talking about choosing same-sex desires, or choosing to engage in same-sex behavior. Clearly the latter is a choice.
LikeLike
September 25, 2013 at 9:24 am
This isn’t about whether his views are palatable when correctly understood in a certain technical context. It’s about whether he expressed an on-its-surface offensive view with no attempt to clarify. That “gay” exclusively means “actively homosexual” is not commonplace. When a teenager tells his parents “I’m gay,” it does not mean that he’s sexually active.
The man railed against “gay parades,” and then when asked whether being “gay” is genetic, he did not say, “Oh, you misunderstand; What I mean is, gay ACTION is a choice.” Instead, he doubled down and said, “No, it’s a choice.” It’s obvious that he was not using the more unusual, “exclusive” view of the term.
In any case, if I ran for public office and yammered about how people arbitrarily choose to be “gay,” whatever “gay” meant personally to me and without bothering to clarify, I would expect that to threaten the resilience of a future broadcasting career, just as if I ranted (for example) about black people having dark skin because of an ancient curse.
LikeLike
September 25, 2013 at 11:15 am
Anyone who states that homosexuality is a life style choice lacks understanding and common sense.
LikeLike
September 25, 2013 at 11:42 am
A private organization fired an employee. Free market at work!
LikeLike
September 25, 2013 at 12:02 pm
Jason:
You said: “…whether he was talking about choosing same-sex desires, or choosing to engage in same-sex behavior. Clearly the latter is a choice.”
If I said “…whether he was talking about choosing opposite-sex desires, or choosing to engage in opposite-sex behavior. Clearly the latter is a choice.”
What is the difference here in the syntax? Any difference?
LikeLike
September 25, 2013 at 12:13 pm
Stan, terminology and intent matters. Different people define terms differently. Many distinguish between “same-sex attraction” and “gay,” with the former being used to describe one’s sexual desires and the latter describing their sexual behavior. So it’s important to be clear on how one is defining their terms.
The comparison to being black is unfounded. For one, it assumes that same-sex attraction is just as innate as skin color. This has not been proven. Also, opposition to homosexuality is based on moral concerns, unlike opposition to blacks which is not based on moral concerns. And those who oppose homosexuality are opposing a behavior, whereas those who oppose blacks are opposing people as people.
Jason
LikeLike
September 25, 2013 at 12:13 pm
There is no difference Leo. The same applies. Heterosexuals do not choose their sexual orientation, but they do choose whether or not to act out on those sexual desires.
Jason
LikeLike
September 25, 2013 at 12:24 pm
Jason:
Just suppose then that a man body was born with a female brain and wanted to change his identity to the real her and thus undertook hormonal treatment, had sex change operation and for all intents and purposes was now a true female, brain wise and body wise.
Do you think, then, that if this “changed” woman engaged in sexual behavior with a man, she is still behaving immorally?
LikeLike
September 25, 2013 at 12:30 pm
Jason:
“There is no difference…..The same applies. Heterosexuals do not choose their sexual orientation….”
Do I infer correctly from your statement then, that you agree that homosexuals do not choose their sexual orientation just as heterosexuals do not choose their sexual orientation?
LikeLike
September 25, 2013 at 12:47 pm
Jason,
First, “‘Many distinguish between ‘same-sex attraction’ and ‘gay,'” is true in the same way that “Many sing soprano in their church choirs every Sunday.” Hardly anybody distinguishes in that way. But “hardly anybody” can still measure in the millions worldwide. The issue is whether “many” is significant. It is not, here.
Second, the context shows that he was talking about homosexuality in general, not merely “active behaviors.” When the conversation goes to genetics, it’s about “gay the preference” not “gay the action.”
Third, “it assumes that same-sex attraction is just as innate as skin color” was something you inferred, not something I implied. The “skin color” analogy was meant only to show another example of a religion-based opinion that is offensive to a significant number of people. Other examples:
“The Jews and Christians are idiots, failing to recognize the obvious: Mohammed is God’s prophet.”
“Catholics are not Christians; Romanism is a dead religion that God hates, and the Papists are whores to evil.”
“There are four races — black, white, yellow, and red — that must be kept distinct in order to preserve TimeCube integrity.”
“Deep in their hearts, all Muslims want to commit violent Jihad against others.”
“By using contraception, Protestants show themselves to be perverts. They are showing again and again their deep-seated rebellion against God and nature.”
“People in poverty are there because they refuse to obey God, and thus God does not bless them.”
There you go. 6 religious opinions that are nonetheless offensive to a significant cohort, such that publicly proclaiming them would endanger a future broadcasting career.
LikeLike
September 25, 2013 at 12:55 pm
Stan:
Brilliant.
LikeLike
September 25, 2013 at 11:22 pm
None of these things are the issue. His privately held religious and moral beliefs, even if expressed publicly, are not illegal and are not a valid, legal reason for termination, especially at the whim of some mysterious “higher up” who happened to take personal umbrage with the comments. What if an even higher up fires the mysterious “higher up” who fired the sports caster for his views?
Anyone who is celebrating his firing is triumphing two wrongs to make a right.
You may hate, even despise his views, which is your right, but why aren’t any of you hating, even despising the legal injustice of the man’s loss of employment?
Do you not hate discrimination in all its forms or just those forms that you don’t agree with?
If an atheist was fired from say, Chick-Fil-A, a Christian based company run by a Christian CEO, for publicly sharing his unbelief, you’d all be up in arms defending his right to speak freely and publicly about his atheism while ranting against Chick-Fil-A for its unjust, uncivilized, unbalanced, unfair, unrighteous, discriminatory behavior.
And guess what? That makes anyone who would do such things, at best: biased in their view(s) of discrimination, and at worst: a plain old hypocrite.
LikeLike
September 26, 2013 at 11:20 am
Someone’s public image is not generally considered germane to Chick-Fil-A service. This is similar to when, say, a teacher is fired after she’s published nude in Playboy. A broadcasting company wants an impeccable image to maximize ratings and mitigate drama and distraction and controversy. A person who says that gay people choose their orientation, or that Jews are evil, or Catholics should be locked up, works against those interests. If you think it is “illegal” for someone to be fired for such things, you must live in a country with which I am not familiar.
LikeLike
September 26, 2013 at 7:16 pm
The innocent man who was fired did not say “Jews are evil” or Black people are cursed,etc.etc etc!!! You have arbitrarily & deliberately conjured this up totally out of thin air in order to smear him thus justifying (you think)) him being wrongfully fired. Merely believing that same sex (supposed) marriage is wrong is an illegal reason to fire. I hope he sues.
LikeLike
September 26, 2013 at 9:50 pm
Read the article, Stan (if you haven’t)
He has been a sportscaster for 20 years with an impeccable standing in the field.
His publicly made comments were over a year old, and mostly forgotten, ignored, or not known at the time, i.e. they were IRRELEVANT when he was hired by Fox Sports.
For all this “higher up” knew, his position on the matter could have changed or evolved, as a certain president might say, to be completely compatible with the image Fox Sports wants to project to the world, but they didn’t even bother to check.
And speaking of such an image, now that they have terminated a highly respected, tenured capable sportscaster, illegally discriminating against him in the process, no less, what kind of image do you suppose Fox Sports is now going to project to the public?
And as far as the illegality of the termination in the USA (where the crime took place), see the following:
http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html
Here are the highlights:
Discriminatory Practices
II. What Discriminatory Practices Are Prohibited by These Laws?
Under Title VII, the ADA, GINA, and the ADEA, it is illegal to discriminate in any aspect of employment, including:
– hiring and firing…
III. What Other Practices Are Discriminatory Under These Laws?
Title VII
Title VII prohibits not only intentional discrimination, but also practices that have the effect of discriminating against individuals because of their race, color, national origin, religion, or sex.
Religious Accommodation
An employer is required to reasonably accommodate the religious belief of an employee or prospective employee, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship.
Employers And Other Entities Covered By EEO Laws
IV. Which Employers and Other Entities Are Covered by These Laws?
Title VII, the ADA, and GINA cover all private employers, state and local governments, and education institutions that employ 15 or more individuals. These laws also cover private and public employment agencies, labor organizations, and joint labor management committees controlling apprenticeship and training.
As you can see, straight from the US government’s own mouth, what Craig James was fired for is illegal discrimination. He may not file against them at his own prerogative, but a crime was committed/it was an illegal termination.
LikeLike
September 27, 2013 at 10:01 am
Actually it seems nobody knows why he was fired; it is conjecture based on an assumption that what he said trying to garner votes when he ran in an election, was the reason he was fired. FoxSports denies this was the reason.
LikeLike
September 28, 2013 at 4:20 am
“Fox Sports denies this was the reason.” So? Is that denial some kind of a surprise ?
LikeLike
September 28, 2013 at 9:37 pm
The surprise is how everyone speculates about the reason with belief instead of knowledge, typical of certain types of people.
LikeLike
October 1, 2013 at 6:46 pm
As I said the official Fox denial is no surprise since it was given AFTER the incriminating statements were made.—————————————————– the Sept 9 Dallas Morning News-Reva Friedel—A Fox spokes person said: “We just asked ourselves how Craig’s statement would play in our Human Resources Dept. HE COULDN’T SAY THOSE THINGS HERE”. ——————-Typical indeed !
LikeLike