And another victory for “tolerance”;
Campaign records show Scott Eckern contributed $1,000 to a campaign supporting Proposition 8, which wrote a ban on same-sex marriages into the California state Constitution.
Eckern, a 25-year veteran of the company, issued an online apology through the theater publication, Playbill. He is the company’s chief operating officer and has been its artistic director since 2002.
Eckern resigned his position today.
More on “the new blacklist” – “The bullies have published the names of other contributors, too. Welcome to 1984 — 24 years late.”
h/t Dwayne
The electorate spoke. You lost. Get over it.
er, Edward, you did read the article and saw that he had to resign his job because of his political views, right? Would this be your response if a company tried to fire someone who supported progressive causes?
Actually the electorate spoke, and the position he supported won, Edward. So, who should “get over it” again?
Kate. I think Edwards refering to The G&L’s
I do not get this attitude. The only way you could possibly go along with something like this, is if you believe that people you agree with will always be in charge. Hounding people out of their jobs, nuisance suits, all well and good up until people you don’t like grasp the levers of power. Then, you’re boned.
The left’s value of tolerance and inclusion only tolerates and includes one set of views.
Ultimately, it sounds like it was his choice to leave.
Even if it wasn’t his choice, the company should have every right to fire him.
The injustice here is that he was not allowed to do what he wished with his $1000 without his name and employer becoming part of the public record.
“The company’s executive producer, Richard Lewis, said Tuesday that the company doesn’t share Eckern’s views.
However, Lewis said Wednesday that in no way was he forced to resign.”
“Even if it wasn’t his choice, the company should have every right to fire him.”
On what basis?
I’ve upset many people where I work with my support for GWB, is that grounds to be fired? On what grounds do you feel this man can be fired?
So Stricker. Expressing one’s free,in a “free” country,is reason for firing? Hell. Are you the reincarn of Stalin,or Mao. If that was so,there wouldn’t be a company with any employess,except socialist/facist ones! Oh wait…
Damn…preview,preview,preview…expressing one’s “view”. Guess Kate can ban me now for not following the rules of the blog,i.e. preview. Is that right Stricker? HEH
A private company should not and in most cases does not need grounds to fire someone. If your company does happen to need a justification for terminating staff for any reason, I’d say there’s a 90% chance you work at a union shop.
If he were in Canada, and didn’t qualify for EI because the termination was considered ‘his own fault’ then I would have an objection.
You’re comparing me to Stalin or Mao for having a libertarian view here… Pardon?
Justthinkin,
Yep, Kate can ban you from her blog for not following the rules. It belongs to her.
Again, who are you accusing of being socialist/fascist here?
What happened to this man was worse than getting “fired”. It is clear that he was humilated, hounded and ostracized into resigning. His co-workers, and employers are recoiling away from their previously amicable associations with him, as if he has bubonic plague.
In Canada, there are provisions for firing “without cause” but human rights legislation rightly takes precedence over employment law. Creating a poisonous work environment such that a person is hounded from his job and publically pilloried, is a gross violation of a person’s human rights. That it was done because the person followed his religious beliefs makes this only more egregious.
I have a moral belief that lying is wrong. Should I be blacklisted by The Liar’s Association of Canada? Made to resign my job because I hurt someone’s feelings? This is how fascism starts. A minority motivated by hate setting a nation’s agenda. I am talking about those who can’t take losing. Ever heard of compromise?
What happened to this man was worse than getting “fired”. It is clear that he was humilated, hounded and ostracized into resigning. His co-workers, and employers are recoiling away from their previously amicable associations with him, as if he has bubonic plague.
In Canada, there are provisions for firing “without cause” but human rights legislation rightly takes precedence over employment law. Creating a poisonous work environment such that a person is hounded from his job and publically pilloried, is a gross violation of a person’s human rights. That it was done because the person followed his religious beliefs makes this only more egregious.
McCarthyism is back, but now in reverse.
The right is always the side getting tagged with the bigot label.
Now I know I have but to ask gays and lesbians in California when I want to know what being a bigot feels like.
Mr.Stricker. Firing someone from ANY company,private or otherwise,for voicing their opinion,right or wrong,is repression of free speech. If you agree with that,you sure ain’t no libertarian/conservative/indepentant.See gerry atric’s post.HRC’s getting to you?
“I have a moral belief that lying is wrong. Should I be blacklisted by The Liar’s Association of Canada? Made to resign my job because I hurt someone’s feelings? This is how fascism starts.”
No, fascism starts by making a law which tells an employer what reasons they can and cannot fire an employee for. Whoever owns the business has to make a judgement call to decide whether a boycott is a worse situation than a firing. That’s all there is to it. That is how the free market can and should work. The only way the free market can deal with ethical issues is for people to put pressure on businesses one way or another, and for that to influence their operations.
Justthinkin,
Free speech can only be repressed by governments.
I got a BlackList too, it started with the Dixie Chicks.
,
If G&L’s can keep practicing members of their cult as teachers in Christian schools why can’t tradition loving straights be tolerated working in a business that’s often used to sell the “alternative” lifestyle? Anyone think either case is a little subversive?
There’s got to be a Proposition 8 ambulance chaser somewhere that’s interested in this two sided American civil liberties coin?
And so it begins.
My wife and I have some serious discussions in our near future — North America’s starting to look like a scary, scary place…
“hat happened to this man was worse than getting “fired”. It is clear that he was humilated, hounded and ostracized into resigning. His co-workers, and employers are recoiling away from their previously amicable associations with him, as if he has bubonic plague.”
I might add that all that was caused by the reporting requirements for donations I objected to earlier, not the employer.
Ratt, I never was into the Dixie Chicks but I used to LOVE James Taylor. No more … but my not buying his stuff anymore (which was getting boring anyway; he seems to be re-writing all of his old songs under different titles) isn’t going to be any skin off his nose, nor is it going to damage his livelihood.
Mr. Eckern’s just learned the price of exercising one’s freedom of expression concerning gay issues in North America. It seems that gay activists, rather than standing up for equal rights–meaning their right to live and think and express themselves as they wish ALONGSIDE others’ rights to live and think and express themselves as they wish–like to avenge society’s treatment of them until recently.
Though one can understand their hurt feelings it’s reprehensible that under their own “banner” of love, tolerance, openness, and “diversity,” they jackboot individuals who don’t go along with their agenda.
The thing is: What goes around usually has a habit of coming around. They need to tread carefully.
k. stricker – I don’t understand your definition of fascism, which has nothing to do with the state making a law about the legal criteria for hiring and firing. After all, such laws can be found in all states, from the totalitarian to the democratic.
The market should not be the judge of ethical issues; that leaves morality up to emotional whims and to economic strategies and pressures.
A private company should provide grounds for both hiring and firing someone. To do either without justification is not merely bad business; it’s irresponsible. Socially irresponsible – and this has nothing to do with the state. It has to do with your responsibilities as a human being to another human being.
If I, as employer, fired you, for no reason, that would be an act of arrogance on my part. It would be unjust behaviour to another human being. If I fire you because I conclude, and tell you, that your work is below standard, is unproductive and so on, then, I have explained my actions to you. Otherwise, my behaviour is akin to that of a tyrant.
As for the left and their intolerance of others, well, there’s nothing new in that; we all know that the left is deeply biased, arrogant and tyrannical.
Libertarian? K Stricker’s view is totalitarian and extremely dangerous. It’s the reason that many Canadians no longer have freedom of expression. Although the traditionalist political views of many Canadians are immaterial to the work they do—very well—where these days, K. Stricker, such persecuted citizens make sure to keep their conscientiously held beliefs strictly to themselves, traditionalists know that the jackboot of political correctness will fall on them most heavily if they should presume to actually appropriate their Charter rights to freedom of religion and expression. (Think pro-life doctors in Ontario and others who are paid by governments, which, with no due consideration of the facts of the matter—they’re not allowed to be discussed—appear to have fallen, hook, line, and sinker for the homosexual agenda.)
It used to be that the pro-GLBT view was considered verboten: but, in the past few decades, I don’t know of any members of that community who were fired for actively lobbying for their cause, which is now the darling of the elites. On the other hand, those who have opposed the GLBT agenda—which is pretty radical: read their publications—have been under serious threat re the security of their livelihoods for the past decade or so, if they should dare to expose the problems that the full realization of the GLBT agenda will mean for society. Google Chris Kempling, Scott Brockie, Bishop Henry, Stephen Boissoin . . .
For people who profess to support personal freedom, the Brownshirts in our courts, the Human Rights (sic) Commissions, government agencies, etc., and their camp followers, like K Stricker, adhere to an interesting motto: “You’re free to believe exactly what we tell you . . . or else.”
Some freedom.
ET,
“A private company should provide grounds for both hiring and firing someone. To do either without justification is not merely bad business; it’s irresponsible. Socially irresponsible – and this has nothing to do with the state. It has to do with your responsibilities as a human being to another human being.”
I agree. The point I’m trying to make is that enshrining that value into law only encourages the government to concoct such things as HRCs. This blog has gone into enormous detail on the cons of having those. Without the law, people are still going to feel negatively toward a person or company who does this.
“If I, as employer, fired you, for no reason, that would be an act of arrogance on my part. It would be unjust behaviour to another human being.”
I agree. And I believe most people feel that way. And you would likely have trouble finding talented staff in the future.
Here’s the kicker. The man also donated $1,000 to the Human Rights Campaign, a gay-rights organization. He works with gay people, respects gay people, but happens to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. And for violating this shibboleth, he cannot be tolerated.
I could understand if he supported assaulting homosexuals, but the line for being an enemy of gays has been defined down.
“K Stricker’s view is totalitarian and extremely dangerous.”
Here’s a definition of totalitarianism:
“Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a concept used to describe political systems where a state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private life. ”
What I’m advocating is the state staying the F$%# out of how an employer runs his business. You’re either confusing capitalism with corporatism or this board is suddenly full of illiterate loonies!
Let’s take the definition of totalitarianism kindly donated by K Stricker: my question, sir or madame, is: how have you failed to notice that, over the last three decades and accelerating, thanks to the Charter, activist judges, and, now, the run-amok Human Rights (sic) Commissions, our governments “regulate [with an iron fist] nearly every aspect of public and private life”?
That you believe the Canadian state is not reaching its tentacles into all areas of our lives—think how traditionalists are being punished (but you can’t because you don’t know about it, apparently)—tells me that you’re not a libertarian at all. You’re a leftist.
Lookout,
If you want to know about me, click my link.
“That you believe the Canadian state is not reaching its tentacles into all areas of our lives—think how traditionalists are being punished (but you can’t because you don’t know about it, apparently)—tells me that you’re not a libertarian at all. You’re a leftist.”
I didn’t say that at all. All I said was that this particular firing had nothing to do with the state, therefore it didn’t *need* to be justified.
I’m on the ethics committee of the Libertarian party. If it happens by some obscene turn that I am some sort of closet leftist, I’ll gladly have myself kicked out of the party.
Possibly, k stricker, you were unclear when you wrote:
“A private company should not and in most cases does not need grounds to fire someone. If your company does happen to need a justification for terminating staff for any reason, I’d say there’s a 90% chance you work at a union shop.”
That is what I was reacting to when I said that any company, private or public, must provide the reasons for hiring and firing of someone. This has nothing to do with the state but with human responsibility. You statement above says nothing about providing reasons, and therefore, such behaviour becomes in itself, totalitarian.
Totalitarianism, as a noun, doesn’t refer only to a political entity, the state, acting as a total authority over all individuals.. It can also be a synonym for autocratic individual behaviour. Therhefore, we aren’t as illiterate as you suggest.
Furthermore, the state, much as we would like it to be minimal, cannot completely stay out of the business life of its citizens. Such would only be viable if we humans were pure and perfect.
For example, if Mr. Joe Mafia wishes to employ illegals, at below wage, kept effectively as slaves and so on..should the state do as you suggest and ignore this?
If Mr. J. M. wishes to increase his profit by using below standard supplies in his construction of the local school, should the state do as you suggest and stay out of this?
If this same busy Mr. J.M. fires people if they don’t return 1/3 of their wages to him..
Well, you get the picture. Again, much as we want a minimal state, we cannot afford a non-existent state Overseer.
If I can help it my kids will never mingle with biker gangs just as they will never accept the notion of gay marriage. I’ll make sure of both.
Having seen the debate in Canada, and having put heart and soul into trying to help preserve the traditional definition of marriage in that debate, I decided in the end it’s better to simply circle the wagons.
Screw those who want to destroy everything that is important to traditional families. They can’t tell us how to think.
TJ seriously, what if one of your children is gay?
What would you do then?
ET,
“For example, if Mr. Joe Mafia wishes to employ illegals, at below wage, kept effectively as slaves and so on..should the state do as you suggest and ignore this?”
Kept “effectively” as slaves? Either there is an employment contract which they freely can leave, or they are being kept as slaves. Strictly speaking, a libertarian society wouldn’t have a minimum wage, or restrict you from hiring whomever you choosed whether foreign or not.
“If Mr. J. M. wishes to increase his profit by using below standard supplies in his construction of the local school, should the state do as you suggest and stay out of this?”
If someone contracted with J. M. to have a building built to a certain standard, and failed to do so, he would certainly be in breach of contract. He might also be guilty of negligence if his knowing use of cheap materials caused harm to anyone.
“If this same busy Mr. J.M. fires people if they don’t return 1/3 of their wages to him..”
Is that part of their employment contract? If so, why not just be honest and pay everyone 1/3 less. That example is absurd.
Is there a place on the net where we can send him some money? As for the theatre, I suspect a portion of people will respond by not attending it.
How about the people who opposed Prop 8. Can other businesses force them to resign?
“The electorate spoke. You lost. Get over it.”
“Kate. I think Edwards refering to The G&L’s”
Indeed I was. Sorry if I didn’t make that clear.
I was using a taunt that they often like to employ…turnabout is fair play after all.
Idd if one of my kids turns out to be gay and they started talking about “marriage” I’d quote Elton John for them:
12 Nov 2008 “I don’t want to be married. I’m very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership,” said John. “The word marriage, I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships.”
k. stricker – I’m not sure if you are supporting what you call a ‘libertarian’ society, though it seems to me not to be a society at all, but rather a chaotic ‘whoever is stronger and can manipulate or bully..is the winner’.
You mention an employment contract; that implies and indeed requires, a set of standards that makes such a contract valid ..i.e. just because it’s a contract that says that You Are My Slave, does that make such a relation valid? And a contract then requires a hierarchical authority that can enforce the contract.
What if I, the employer, Mr. J.M., do indeed give you a contract and then ignore it? In your ‘libertarian’ society, is there any legal system, any means by which the terms of this contract can be upheld? If ‘yes’, then this legal system is the office of the State.
You mention ‘negligence’. Who sets the standards for what is defined as a functional building? There again, we have the State – a system which you seem to reject.
You seem to be conflicted in your assertions. On the one hand, you insist that the State be almost non-existent and that all choices be left up to the individual. On the other hand, you bring in relations, such as contracts and building standards, that require State Overseers. So, which is it?
And on that TJ you and I agree, I was just concerned about the ‘hard-lined’ message that a young one might have to deal with feeling that they have no support from the most important element in life, their family.
Just that I saw this transpire… the parents hard line against anything ‘gay’. Their middle child was gay and the rift in the family has never healed, I’d rather not see that, that’s all.
K Stricker, as a libertarian, what do you think of the fact that, unlike a decade and more ago, government paid, public employees in this country must now keep any political advocacy, on their own time and dime, that doesn’t support the homosexual agenda, under wraps, on the certainty that their integrity and jobs would be at stake? (Check out Chris Kempling.)
As a libertarian, you purport to support individual freedoms. But, these days, the FACT is that publicly paid professionals are only free to believe the PC agenda, fully enforced by government diktats, unless they want to be re-educated or worse. What do you think of that? I’d really like to know.
When I was training to be a medic, they taught us to look for symptoms and signs that would be indicators of a larger (primary) problem. If we saw blood, it meant that the patient was leaking. The blood was secondary. The leak was primary. The leak needed to be plugged if the patient were to survive.
This man, and what happened to him is a sign in the similar vein. He’s an indicator. A droplet of blood on the floor.
Are you folks going to look in horror at the droplet or are you going to start to address the source of the bloodletting?
K Stricker
If you fire someone without just cause and they kno their rites they will sue your ass off( I wouldn’t even need a lair…lawyer to do that)
if you costructively dismiss someone, demote with or without reduction in pay, they have very strong grounds to sue your ass off
if you reduce their pay with out cause they can quit and sue your ass off
I’v seen all three of these examples in real life, and the employee won every time
also every employee/employer relationship can be viewed as a (verbal) contract, and verbal contracts carry the same “strength” as written contracts, that one I tested in court myself (without a lawyer) and won
and as to being a libertarian, maybe you ment liberaltarian????
Great analogy Richard Evans, but on your question:
… address the source of the bloodletting?
Well the bloodletting program has already been decided and voted upon, kind of a mute point to belabour it now, no?
(With due respect, ldd, it’s “moot point”.)
Here’s the real question:
Are they going to add Obama to the ban-list?
Last time I checked he voted against SSM.
Come and see the bias inherent in the system.
(btw, I personally don’t mind if gay people get married and call it a marriage. Doesn’t effect me any, and seems selfish of me to tell them what to do.)
Ldd, I understand your point perfectly.
If one of my kids were gay I’d love ’em just as much.
BUT, I’d teach him/her the same things I believe in: government can’t solve all your problems, just because you are gay doesn’t mean you deserve special treatment, etc.
And to be honest I’d be lukewarm to the idea of them adopting kids, and I’d tell them that.
This whole gay marriage business is simply an effort by gay rights groups to meddle in the affairs of the traditional family. They seem to derive some sort of thrill out of it. Perhaps it is because they know they will never have traditional families and therefore they want to destroy what they can’t have. It’s obscene.
lookout, what I think is that the public service needs to be a lot smaller so that it becomes a non issue.
ET,
“I’m not sure if you are supporting what you call a ‘libertarian’ society, though it seems to me not to be a society at all, but rather a chaotic ‘whoever is stronger and can manipulate or bully..is the winner’.”
That’s a common mistake people make when confronted with libertarian ideas. Libertarianism is based on the outlawing of coercive force, and the idea that each individual is free to pursue his/her own ends so long as that pursuit does not infringe on any other person’s right to do the same. It does allow for a ‘state overseer’ to arbitrate. In this case, there is no human right to work for a particular person. The employee is always free to find another job, but the employer has no other recourse than firing if they have been convinced that continuing to employ this person is going to result in a major loss of revenue (eg. an effective boycott).
“You mention ‘negligence’. Who sets the standards for what is defined as a functional building? There again, we have the State – a system which you seem to reject.”
A functional building is one which doesn’t harm anyone due to bits of it falling on people/being constructed of thermite, etc.
Non answer, K Striker: we’re talking, among other public servants, fine public school teachers, who, despite the Charter rights they’re supposed to possess, are punished for their political views, which have no bearing whatsoever on their teaching performance, which, in the case of Chris Kempling, happened to be exemplary. He was persecuted anyway.
I’m not sure that I really care what you think because you’ve provided only empty words so far. I’ve been as clear as I can be and you’ve wormed your way out of any substantial response.