Just more "tolerant" liberals. If you disagree with them, they think
you should lose your job.Is that how Jesus would act? I don't
The views expressed by Mr. Bentham aren't Christian views, they're
political views. Jesus mentioned neither homosexuality nor abortion. Please DN,
stop trying to convolute the issue of cranks not being given airtime with an
agenda to stifle religious expression. People are recognizing the attempt and
are responding accordingly. Young people are fleeing churches because the
subscription to Christianity comes with the baggage of right-wing political
views. What every happened to treating one's neighbor as one prefers to be
treated themself? These guys obviously missed that aspect of Jesus'
Liberals preach tolerance, preach "open mindeness", preach talking it
out, preach fairness etc. But when the rubber hits the road and you have an
opinion or idea that doesn't fit their ideology. Watch out! They will go
after your career, your livelihood, your family....the whole time preaching how
tolerant and accepting they are and how we should accept everyone....after all
we are all human beings "kumbaya kumbaya kumbaya...smoke some weed, but,
don't drink soda kumbaya kumbaya respect Native Americans but make a sweat
lodge and mock their beliefs kumbaya kumbaya everyone is equal but if you are
Christian you can't talk about it kumbaya kumbaya"That's tolerance all right. Tolerance by their definition is being
obedient to the liberal agenda, do not dare ask a question or use your brain to
think of anything else. And if you don't like the Kool-Aid then you are no
longer a human being.
slcdent,Ya, what about treating one's neighbor as one prefers
to be treated? If I disagree with your political views what would you think if
picketed your work place and demanded you lose your job because of our
disagreements.This is anther case of liberals "do as I say not
as I do," not very Jesus like
The gay gestapo at work. Freedom of conscience, beliefs, and religion are a
thing of the past for America. You must conform and not express any view
objectionable to the Left. @slcdenizenQuit trying to confuse
readers with half truths. Devout Christians regard Canonized Scripture as the
Word of God, not the word of Bill. If it was taught by Jehovah or by one of the
Apostles, it's regarded as the same. And if you don't know where
condemnation of homosexuality is stated in the Bible, I'm happy to provide
@Chris BDidn’t One Million Moms force Ellen DeGeneres to lose
her job simply because they disagree with her?If One Million Moms
can force JC Penny to fire Ellen DeGeneres, I don’t see why people can not
tell HGTV to pull off Benham brothers’ show. And why these
people succeeded but One Million Moms failed? Because our society has changed.
anti-gay is no longer OK, it is considered as discrimination, even among many
Christians. Of course, the fact that One Million Moms actually only have about
40,000 members also doesn’t help.
@slcdenizen - Maybe Jesus didn't mention abortion and homosexuality - or
maybe he did. The Apostle John wrote that Jesus did and said so many things
that if they were all written, the world would not be able to hold them. But
Jesus' apostles and prophets both ancient and modern have spoken out
against both practices (not the temptations, mind you, just the practices). I
wonder where they got those crazy right wing ideas???
How about a compromise? The Day of 47 Committee changes their decision and
allows a Christian group called "Mormons Building Bridges" to appear in
their parade in exchange for HGTV allowing the Christian anti-Gay brothers to
have their reality TV show. After all, this isn't about politics, its about
not discriminating against Christians because of their beliefs.
They were going to do a show about flipping houses ... not about their faith, or
abortion, or homosexuality. Aren't we allowed to disagree with others
personal views and still get along and appreciate their "good points."
That's what makes like so interesting! People may disagree with these guys
personal views but they can flip my house any time!
In a recent article, a parent in New Hampshire was arrested at a school board
meeting because he went beyond a 2 minute rule while voicing his displeasure
with the reading assignment given to his teen that included rough graphic sex
between teenagers.I think that a strategy to be employed in the
future so that this parent is not the one being arrested, would be to report the
school board to the police so that the police would show up and arrest all those
responsible on the school board for the distribution of child pornography
materials to children
@Ted H.Jesus was executed by crucifixion, I'm sure not having a
tv show isn't "suffering" for beliefs.@MapleDonPlease do provide the references! Include any commandments that are also
frequently ignored. Additionally, if you could cite that last instance where a
woman was stoned to death for not being a virgin on her wedding night that would
be great. How about the movement that promotes death penalty for Sabbath labor?
Where are those pious individuals? Following the commandments from the
scriptures as an abstract ideal is commendable, but in practice, not so much. If
you disagree, why not comdemn homosexuals to death? Are you willing to follow
through with God's commandments?
SLCDenizen,In the case of Latter-day Saints, we believe that God,
through modern Prophets, defines our belief system. People who disagree with us
do not get to decide for us what Christ would have said, or what he would have
us do, or whether a certain doctrine is political or religious in nature. I see
this commentary all the time. People say something to the affect that
"being against X is not Christian, because Y." I'm sorry, but you
can't define our doctrine for us, and you can't tell us what the
correct interpretation of our scriptures is. People who are
sincerely religious don't believe what we do on a whim. We are following
our conscience,and to force us to go against or conscience or to punish us
because of our conscience, is discrimination as surely as forcing a gay man to
pretend to be straight.
@Henry Drummond,The Days of 47 committee doesn't let anti-gay
marriage groups to appear in their parade either, so sorry, you don't get
to call that one discrimination.
I'm no longer a 'tolerant' liberal. If these guys are anti gay
extremist bigots, well that's what they are. I'll call them that. They
weren't prevented from sharing their beliefs, neither am I, and if their
potential employer has thoughts on it, well they're entitled to them, as
Why isn't there civil dialogue any more? Can't we at least sit down
and respectfully express our opinions and differences? Opinions preempt and
decide what is right or wrong, evil or good! Sad days in the world! Please be
kind to one another no matter the opinion!
@ArizonaMormon"I'm sorry, but you can't define our
doctrine for us, and you can't tell us what the correct interpretation of
our scriptures is."The church reversed it stance on limiting
worthy men access to the priesthood based on skin color in the seventies. The
reasons at the time were "mysterious" and required faith. This year the
church, after years of scrutiny and criticism, admitted that the doctrine was
due to the frailty of it's less-than-enlightened leaders. One might
conclude that there is indeed a direct link to heavenly dictates and the wires
were malfunctioning for over a century, or perhaps religion is a more of a
play-it-by-ear scheme and the ones provoking progress through criticism are the
Chalk this up as another situation wherein conservatives are all-too-willing to
play the victim. No one is saying these two men and their father can't
have opinions, no one is saying they cannot express those opinions, the only
thing going on here is the free market is holding these men accountable for
their actions. What do conservatives have against accountability? Indeed,
these men do not seek to merely live by their own precepts, rather they seek to
compel everyone to live as they do. That's called intolerance and, well,
intolerance cannot be tolerated. AirzonaMormon - I'm also an
active LDS but I happen to fully support SSM. The difference is I've never
been forced to go against my conscience because my conscience is comprised of me
living my own life according to my personal dictates whereas it appears that
your "conscience" extends to forcing others to live by your moral code.
Remind me again, who's pre-mortal plan comprised of forcing everyone to
live by his standards?slcdenizen - Keep slaying them. Until these
Bible-thumpers advocate for death to fornicators and cotton-poly
clothes-wearers, their claims are as hollow as their religious convictions.
@slcdenizenNevermind that Joseph Smith ordained black men to the
priesthood, that Brigham Young said that the restriction would one day be
lifted, that prophets during the time pleased to understand why, or that once
upon a time ALL men outside the tribe of Levi were restricted. Instead of
looking down at the Church for not lining up with your own views, look at it
from an actual historical perspective.@HutteriteAs soon
as you label someone who doesn't support what you do "bigot" you
eliminate all discourse. Instead of convincing people that your view is viable
or reasonable, you convince them that you are the very "extremist",
"bigot", or whatever other label you're slinging around. Calling
people who don't support changing marriage "bigots" is telling
people who want children to grow up with the greatest chance of success possible
that they're nothing but hateful and fearful of change, which are false
I am supprised that this hasn't turned into a Freedom of Speech
discussion.What the liberals need to remember is that they
constantly complain of "Blacklists" and conservatives getting people
fired. Now, they are doing the same thing. So, if it is good for liberals to
demand that people are fired because of political or religious views, then it
must be ok for conservatives to do the same.If it is wrong to
blacklist anybody, then why are the liberals not fighting against HGTV and their
decision?To "Henry Drummond" this isn't a hostage
negociation. The Days of 47 has their rules, and I understand their reasoning.
Right now they just want a convertable with a few people in it. Would you
equally defend the KKK from getting a float in the parade?
I take my hat off to these two brothers who put their faith above their jobs.
They are true Christians and they shall be rewarded for their courage over
time!. We will yet see many millions of Americans rise up and demand an end to
this blatant anti-religious discrimination on the part of the gay community and
their supporters. The gays might win over a few to their cause in the interim,
but in the end they will not find the general acceptance they think they will.
Righteousness and faith in God will yet prove to be the best course. I
wouldn't be at all surprised if the Supreme Court Justices are taking
notice of this discriminatory trend spurred on by the gay community - one
wonders if that will hurt their cause when SCOTUS rules on their issues?
Wow! So much ignorance and naievete. If ignorance is bliss, a lot of commentors
should be blissfully happy. What side am I on?
They didn't lose their jobs, they just lost the deal of a television show -
which they were probably hoping would make them zillionaires.Protesting to keep LGBT people from having equal rights is not tolerant.Protesting to prevent people from choosing to have an abortion is not
tolerant.Actions have consequences. These two are just learning
@MeckofahessPeople who tell HGTV to pull off Benham brothers'
show are simply practicing their free speech, just like One Million Moms
practiced their free speech and asked JC Penny to fire Ellen DeGeneres. Why Benham brothers' show is cancelled but Ellen DeGeneres is still
the spokesperson of JC Penny? Because our society has changed. Anti-gay is no
longer OK, it is considered as discrimination, even among many Christians. Of
course, the fact that One Million Moms actually only have 40,000 members also
doesn’t help, the majority of JC Penny customers simply don't agree
with them, that's why their demand did not work.
@JamescmeyerYou nailed it. Good post.I see a lot of
liberals supporting these gestapo tactics by hiding behind, "this is the
free market at work!". The free market is about choosing which product to
buy or sell on a macro-economic level, not about harassing someone and their
families on a personal level until they lose their job and their livelihood.
This is called bullying and it's incredibly mean-spirited.The
Brendon Eich situation, where the guy participated in a political process (which
won in California), is a good example of bullying. So now the way we vote or
donate money politically should result in people losing their jobs? That's
not what our Republic should stand for, where everyone gets to freely
participate in the democratic process. People shouldn't fear for their
personal lives because they vote or think one way or another.Liberals supporting these tactics are cowards and hypocrites.
@RanchHandProtesting to prevent people for stealing is not
tolerance.Protesting to prevent people from prostitution is not
tolerance.Protesting to prevent people from killing other people is not
tolerance.See I can do that to...Or is your version of
tolerance limited only to what you agree with?And if your answer is,
"as long as it's not hurting someone else...", then that's
your opinion and I disagree with it. So be tolerant of me.
Another instance of the leftist liberals pushing their agenda on everyone else.
If you don't agree with all my personal opinions, regardless of whether the
format was about that (it wasn't), I'm going to fire you or force you
to lose your job. And regardless of where you stand on SSM -- I'm not
opposed and I am an active Latter-day Saint -- calling the senseless murder of
millions of innocent unborn children who have beating hearts, can feel pain,
etc., is not about a woman's right to "choose". Her choice was
made when she had unprotected sex. (And I'm not condemning those who find
themselves pregnant as a result of rape or incest and would never tell a woman
in that situation that she MUST carry any child from that situation to term. Not
sure when I would do, but I don't believe it's my place to tell
another what to do under those conditions.) Anyway, this goes back to the lack
of being able to express one's own opinion. If they had followed the
liberal agenda, they would have been openly embraced and welcomed. It's so
Conservatives,This is Karma, what goes around, comes around.One may
think that it will never happen for some folks but, if one waits long enough,
one will see it.The bigoted and unjust who want to continue
discrimination, and who cannot tolerate those who will not follow their
"rules", will have a good dose of Karma and their lives will be
changed. Some force will create havoc for them, whether it is personal,
financial, or simply a good dose of mental anguish.Pay close attention and
Just watch. Happens every day.
It's obvious HGTV has more and more homosexuals on their shows now, either
as guests or hosts. I watch it a lot less because of that. If I am the only one
that does then the trend will continue and tolerance for that lifestyle will
continue to grow. Really, the only thing Christians can do, if they chose, is to
boycott businesses like HGTV. Whining is such a waste.
this is the most press HGTV has gotten since......well, ever. HGTV is a dumpy
channel who are nothing but Hollywood puppets for the lib/dem/freeloaders
anyway, just glad they've come out about it.
@illuminatedBrendan Eich is entitled to his anti-same sex marriage
opinion. But he has to take the consequence for his free speech, which is:Mozilla’s staff also have their 1st Amendment right to protest and
to petition for Brendan Eich's resignation, consumers have their right to
protest and switch to other browsers and to call other users to switch. They
also have their freedom to dissent from the CEO. In the end, it is Brendan Eich
himself who made the decision to resign.People who tell HGTV to pull
off Benham brothers' show are also simply practicing their free speech,
just like evangelical Christians protested World Vision and forced them to
reverse policy on gay employees. Why both protests worked? It IS because
of free market at work!
Discrimination is alive, well, an a-OK as long as it is against anyone who
disagrees with liberal views.Free speech is no longer
allowed/tolerated if it doesn't agree with the latest liberal/media
dictates.People can't speak, support, or even make a quiet
political donations without losing their jobs/careers.I'm
pretty sure if the roles were reversed here and we were openly booting gay
people out of their jobs it would not be tolerated but now even if you disagree
verbally you are eviscerated.I don't think gay people should be
discriminated against for employment in fact I have (and have had) several
working for/with me and they were great to work with. That being said I
don't agree with their personal lifestyle. I am able to separate the two
obviously or I would not have hired them.That being said its like
many gays have turned into these evil militants trying to get "even" for
past wrongs or perceived injustices whether or not they are real.We
will all pay the price for this when people treat people like this and they are
losing jobs over legal free speech positions.
And here we have an example of the new McCarthyism. If you hold the wrong
opinions, you can lose everything.
Sure. the SSM advocates can protest, etc. But it's pretty
clear, isn't it? "How can my Same Sex marriage harm you?" Because
you want to fire me and make me unemployed. That's a pretty good reason to
fight the expansion of homosexual rights.... because by giving them rights, I
lose rights. Consider: 6 years ago, President Obama and I had the
same view: Homosexuals could marry someone of the opposite gender, just like
everyone else. That was the law, practically everywhere. Obama changed his
mind, and now, more and more, I am likely to be unemployed for not changing
mine. As gay "rights" have expanded, everyone else's have
contracted. And it's not bigotry to want to keep my job and
also worship God. You Same Sex Marriage people are flat out campaigning to fire
everyone who disagrees with you. I refuse to tell God He is wrong. And
fighting to keep my job is not bigotry.
“So what’s wrong with having strong Christian beliefs and standing
against the abortion movement in America?”Having strong
Christian beliefs: Nothing wrong. On the contrary, I wish that those who claim
to be Christian, someday start living as Christ wants them to live. love,
Tolerance, not judging, you know... all those pesky details of his teachings.Standing against abortion: You are entitled to believe that Abortion is
wrong and is murder. Therefore, you never will have one. However, is wrong for
you to kill Docotrs, burn Clinics, protest in fron of clinics and harass women
who have decided to terminate their pregnancy. Do you know their lives? Do you
know what took them there? No, you don't. Abortion is not an easy answer,
respect and let people live their lives to the best of their abilities.HGTV made a business decision. Their response is not a reflexion of support or
rejection on the part of network. They are a business and decided that giving a
show to a pair of controversial people is bad for business. That is called free
market without government intervention.
@stalwart sentinel - I'm sorry, and I'm sure you already know this,
but you are either an active, faithful member of the church, OR, you support
SSM, but not both.
Well, it's time to go buy another Chick-fil-A, use some non-Mozilla browser
and watch something other than HGTV.As the PC Nazis continue their
Kristallnacht campaign, the only thing to counter it is to support those in
their cross-hairs. Since I can't buy one of their houses, I'll have
to be satisfied with the "fighting with fire" tactic of denying HGTV my
business.Hopefully enough people will wise up to who the real brown
shirts are in this battle before it gets to the point where people like these
brothers are forced to identify themselves as Christians by wearing yellow cross
patches on their clothing.
I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, what these guys have said
about gay people and people who have made the difficult decision to have an
abortion is abhorent, but on the other, they are entitled to their beliefs. As
long as they don't preach on their show I really don't see a problem.
@plyxply"You are either an active, faithful member of the church, OR,
you support SSM, but not both."That would come to a surprise to
thousands of members of the church are active, faithful and support SSM.During Prop 8, Elder L. Whitney Clayton said members of the church are free to
disagree with the church on the issue without facing any sanction. "We love
them and bear them no ill will."I'm active in the church and
celibate probably forever since I experience SSA myself. It takes a lot of
faith. I love the gospel. I know what being gay feels like and it is not at all
how the supporters of "traditional marriage" characterize it. I refuse
to be a part of the lies and hurt involved in campaign against equality.I
voted for marriage equality in Washington. When my gay co-worker married his
longtime partner, I contributed to the gift. When my gay friends post photos
with their partners and kids on Facebook, I "like" them. I treat them
like everyone else. So, yeah, I support SSM and I'm Mormon.
How long does this go on? The world is being intimidated by the gat staph.
There are more of us than the liberal whiners. We don't need to persecute
anyone. But neither should we let their immoral agenda rule the day. Fight bak,
speak up, show business where the money is. Enough
@USU-Logan"Brendan Eich is entitled to his anti-same sex
marriage opinion. But he has to take the consequence for his free speech"Can't you hear what you're saying? "Free" speech is
no longer free if there are consequences. Doesn't the fact that you could
lose your job or business because you voted for or donated to the wrong guy
terrify you? And don't say it hasn't happened. The photographers,
the cake makers lost their business because of court orders. And
don't sugar coat it, Brendan Eich WAS indeed forced out of his job. His
family and name would have been destroyed if he hadn't done it. There are
more ways to force someone out than by gun point. Court orders, threats of loss
to livelihood, and harassment are all just as dangerous.And
it's ironic that you say this is the free market at work. All of these
cable stations supporting liberal policy (including left-wing cable news) all
have practically 0 audience, while conservative ones like Fox News get all the
business. THAT is the free market at work. The Right is winning it hands-down.
Bullying != free market.
Out of one side of the mouth comes tolerance, on the other side of the mouth
comes the call to limit the freedom of others. These men made a
good choice to let it go. I hope that they indeed do that, and do not create
more contention.Unfortunately, many on both ends of the political
spectrum want diversity as long as everyone thinks as they do. A
large dose of the Golden Rule is in order here.
What's ironic is that if these two brothers had demonstrated in favor of
changing marriage, then the protests would be called hateful and restrictive of
free speech. Since they took the other side, however, they are called hateful
(even if they merely oppose something and are not hateful at all). If these two
brothers were gay and were being fired because of public outcry due to their
being homosexual, then there would be lawsuits. In this case, however, there
won't be. Those who call all who disagree "bigots" are, themselves,
the bigots. By what measure you mete, it shall be meted out to you again...
What happens to my business once the gays are through getting me fired and my
licenses shut down for disagreeing with them? Does the complaining gay get to
take over my property (clearly, if I disagree with them, I'm a bigot and
unworthy to continue in society)? What's the proposed solution to this,
now that we've established that disagreement with the homosexual agenda is
grounds for termination of employment, even if (like this story) the person
disagreeing with the agenda is a relative and not you personally? As for the cries of "Poor, poor gays! They are discriminated against
sooooo much!" Yeah? They are so powerless that they are getting people
fired left and right, losing their jobs and businesses. Powerless. Snort. What power, pray tell, is left to the Christians? Disagree with the
gays? Fired, banned, hounded. Abortion? Same. Disagree with Obama? You, my
dear, are a racist and should be burned at the stake.
"Ye are my disciples if ye have love one to another"...need more be
said?Christ never asked us to judge our fellow men/women, he only
asked us to love one another. It saddens me that NEITHER side seems aware or
cares about this admonition.
@ USU-Logan:You justify this intolerant action by stating that over
a decade ago Helen DeGeneres lost a contract to JC Penny via intolerance. So how long have you and other similar minded felt that 2 wrongs equal a
right? They never have and they never will. If we live with that reasoning, our
civilization will be mired in a tit-for-tat philosophy forever. It saddens me
that liberals haven't advanced in their thinking nearly as much as they
think they have. I can't even recall how many liberals
promoting LGBT and SSM that I've heard saying and sometimes even begging
for others to please, please be tolerant of them just because they're
different. And since then, many have become more tolerant. So it now
creates a great irony that whenever anyone else expresses any opinion contrary
to their (liberal) way of thinking, the idea of tolerance the other direction
goes right out the window. This recent total intolerance by LGBT
advocates is going to backfire on them. The general public is going to start
being less tolerant of them as their obvious hypocrisy becomes more and more
I treasure the right to free speech and feel that respectfully stating
one's beliefs regarding moral issues should carry no personal or
professional punishment -- no matter which side of the issue one favors. I
worked in Los Angeles during the 1992 riots, and I also took classes at a
thoroughly integrated university. It was very difficult to talk peacefully
across racial and social divides, but many of us accomplished that and grew in
our understanding. We could do that today if we could stop hating and name
calling. "Seek to understand before you seek to be understood."
Corporations have a right to hire and fire who they want. If an employee's
conduct negatively impacts the corporate image, they can choose to retain that
employee or not. The courts have ruled that corporations have the right to
speech as well. As Mitt Romney said, corporations are people too. People that complain about HGTV's corporate actions must be insinuating
that they want the government to step in and pass laws restricting the right of
corporations to govern themselves or put up with political viewpoints that do
not represent the corporate image. They can't have it both ways.
@Illuminated,Let's not get carried away. Tiago mentioned that
he experiences same-sex attraction and will likely remain celibate his whole
life. That's a pretty good sign that the gospel of Jesus Christ is pretty
important to him. If he disagrees with the Church's position on gay
marriage, that's fine. It's between him and the Lord. That's the
beauty of the true tolerance I am advocating and asking for from the Left. The
freedom for individuals to have an opinion about something without being
marginalized. I oppose same-sex marriage. I also oppose the villification of
individuals because they hold different opinion. Just like a non-believer
doesn't get to decided what we as Latter-day Saints believe as doctrine, we
don't get to decide that someone isn't a 'faithful member of the
Church' because they disagree on one of many issues. Especially when we
don' know them and have no stewardship over them.
What I have learned conversing with some SSM supporters at DN is there is - no
reason- to be against SSM that is not bigotry. Even if you are polite about your
differing views it is still bigotry. You are free to have your opinions as long
as you keep them at home and do not speak your opinions publicly regarding laws
you feel would be good. If your opinions are based in your religion they have no
place in the public dialog. So in other words there is no room for honest
disagreement. I completely support what Arizona Mormon said
,including supporting Tiago's right to believe what he wants without having
his faithfulness judged. Illuminiated, I was agreeing heartily with
your comments until that last one.
@illuminated"Free speech is no longer free if there are
consequences?"This is a common misunderstanding of free speech.
In fact, it is only free of government prosecution, not free of consequences,
other people can practice their own 1st Amendment right to criticize that
speech.“Brendan Eich WAS indeed forced out of his
job.”Yes, and guess what, if the protest and boycott towards
him eventually harm the profit of Mozilla, the board can even fire him because
his present harms the company's business interest. That is also market at
work. He chose to step down because this was for his and Mozilla's best
interest."All of these cable stations supporting liberal policy
(including left-wing cable news) all have practically 0 audience... THAT is the
free market at work"You really believe that in a free market, a
cable station can survive with 0 audience? Your comment just shows how
much you know about free market
@illuminated@TiagoYou're not a faithful member in
the LDS church. Supporting SSM and Church doctrine are incompatible. You can
choose to believe you are, but you aren't, plain and simple.======================Whoa! Unless you are Jesus (betting you
aren't), Tiago (betting you aren't) or his Judge in Israel (again,
betting you aren't) you as a "faithful" member of the Church have
absolutely no bearing, no position and no authority to make that kind of a
claim! Rather than trying to cast a stone at him to feel superior,
what have you done to help him? Lighten his burden?
We used to grant harmful beliefs a pass simply because they were religious in
nature. No rational justification needed. No analysis of constitutionality.
If it was religious in nature, it was untouchable. To even suggest closer
scrutiny was considered rude. Unpatriotic even.THAT is political
correctness. THAT is privilege. It is these things that some are feeling the
loss of today.To me, the definition of "religious freedom"
has become so skewed that all it really means is "freedom from
responsibility," "freedom from accountability." I think we should
expect more from our fellow adults. I think it is good for our society as a
whole when we do. We need to raise our standards to meet the level of our
knowledge, not let some off the hook for choosing to stay behind.Believe what you will; express it as you see fit. But also be prepared to
justify it, particularly if the belief leads you to take actions that harm
others. If society as a whole doesn't buy it --Well,
there's nothing preventing these guys from flipping houses for others
WITHOUT a TV show to broadcast their altruistic souls.
A. These guys were labeled "anti-gay" and "anti-choice" based on
information others had to dig up - not something they were professing at work
during filming. That would be like me calling a supporter of same sex marriage
and abortion a "Christian hater" and a "baby hater." Would I get
away with that?B. Imagine how well a company would fare in court if
it was publicly known that they chose not to hire two individuals because they
were gay, or had an abortion. Now, "tolerant" liberals, explain to me
why this is okay and that is discrimination?C. Speaking of defining
discrimination, I'm tired of being told that I'm discriminating
against others because I disagree with them, but those who disagree with me are
merely "enlightened." Besides being pro-life and opposing same sex
marriage, I also feel that smoking is a curse to society and that it should not
be legal - does that mean I discriminate against smokers? I also feel that
driving drunk is a curse to society and I am glad it is illegal. Does that mean
I discriminate against alcoholics that like to drive?
If anyone has anything to say on this matter, I suggest they tell it to HGTV. It
seems that public pressure was the part of the reason why the show was cancelled
in the first place. I think they should hear other opinions on the subject.
Google 'Contact HGTV' and that will get you to the place.
Give me one reason why the U.S. should allow the executives at HGTV to stay in
this country?It's one thing to not do business with those you
disagree with. If you don't want to do business with me, fine. It's
your right and I respect that. But when your other hand is demanding that I do
business with you without prejudice, you have betrayed your own logic to serve
your self and deny my agency.Moral relativism, political
self-righteousness, denying real constitutional rights, bullyism, and spreading
fear and hate and dischord over what it means to have a loving family....all in
the name of what? Justifying your own sins.I make mistakes. At least
I admit them when I do. I don't bully everyone else into accepting my
Enjoying the opportunity to vent a little more here...May I also
point out that opposing same sex marriage is NOT discrimination. If I proposed
that we pass laws to imprison all people harboring or expressing homosexual
tendencies that would be discrimination. Making homosexual intimacy a crime
would be discrimination. Withholding jobs, housing, and public services to
homosexuals would be discrimination.However, I believe that a state
deciding what types of contractual relationships it is willing to recognize and
provide particular legal benefits to is not discrimination. If Obamacare
required insurance carriers to cover diabetes, but not HIV treatments (I
don't know all the particulars of what it does and doesn't cover, but
I do know that there are some things that are and some that aren't) is that
discrimination against HIV-positive individuals? Or is it a decision that
lawmakers made based on what they thought would provide the greatest benefit for
the cost?You may disagree with me about same sex marriage - fine.
But that doesn't mean I hate, or discriminate against gays. I've
worked with multiple gay individuals and consider them friends. Does our
disagreement mean I hate them?
Just to worked up tonight to leave it alone...One more question for
those who see logic only on the liberal side of the coin...please explain to me
how individuals, such as a baker or photographer, can be sued at law for
refusing to take payment and bake a cake or take pictures at a gay wedding, but
HGTV and Mozilla can refuse to hire individuals because they oppose abortion and
same sex marriage?Does this mean if I open a bakery I can't
refuse service to gay couples having a wedding, but I can refuse to hire
employees who support same sex marriage? If you ask me, that is not only
backward, but THAT is discrimination. When you flip the story around it sounds
pretty bad doesn't it?
HGTV's intolerance of Christians, namely the Benham brothers, demonstrated
by the cancellation of their show, will ultimately cost the network much more
than they realize. HGTV wants people to be tolerant of Gays and abortion, but
not of anyone whose faith teaches them otherwise. As a fellow Christian, I stand
beside the Benham brothers, because one day these entities may take my job away
because I won't support their perverse agenda. This type of tyranny is as
anti-American as it gets, because they choose to cast aside the freedoms
guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. Freedoms that were hard
fought and hard won, yet now are harder to keep. To be clear, I'm not
anti-Gay, I'm pro-Family. I call on every God-fearing American to stand up
against this despotism before we lose our freedoms altogether, and everyone
should say in their hearts, "I am a Benham brother!"
What do Disney, Starbucks, Pepsi, UPS, Oreos, Muppets, JC Penny, Levi Strauss
and Company, J.P. Morgan, American Airlines, Medtronic, Inc. of Minneapolis, MN,
Well’s Fargo, Portland General Gas and Electric of Portland Oregon,
Hewlett Packard, The Providence Journal, Textron, Fleet Bank, IBM Corporation,
CVS/Pharmacy Stores, Carrier Corp. of Syracuse, NY, Amazon, Nike, Google, Home
Depot, General Mills and Cheerios, and the Girl Scouts all have in common? Right
wing Christian Groups are and have been calling for boycotts of everyone of
these because of their support for Gay rights. Ford Motor Company, under
pressure from right-wing groups, pulled advertising from pro gay publications
because of the economic Impact brought by the Christian Right--the exact same
thing HGTV is now doing. Karma's a bear, isn't it?
plyxply and illuminated - My wife and I attend the Temple on a fairly regular
basis and our Bishop is fully aware that we both actively work to make SSM the
secular law of the land. This was known by my old Bishop when my wife and I were
married in the Salt Lake Temple. There are increasingly more faithful LDS who
recognize that it is unjust to force our religious beliefs of marriage on the
civil sector (D&C 134: 4; 9) just as it was unjust for the people of
Illinois, Missouri, etc... to oppress our ancestors for their private practices.
Your inability to distinguish between our religion and the state and willingness
to use a secular government to promulgate theocratic mores is not only faulty
but reprehensible.Tiago - Pay no mind to the pettiness of deriders
and misanthropes, stay strong to your personal values. Bigotry blinds some to
the point that they turn away their own brother - these people are not worth
your time.a_voice_of_reason - Vent all you want but it doesn't
change the fact that denying a fundamental right to others because you
personally disagree with it is the epitome of discrimination.
Probably the real tragedy is that more and more folks are just fine with SSM.
Contrary to God's plan, who cares, so now sodomy prevails.
These men have the God given, not constitutionally given, right to a religion.
The Benham brothers should not be called "extremists" because of it.
These men are not terrorists. They simply do not support an unnatural desire
(homosexuality), and cold blooded murder (abortion).Many will object
that I compared abortion to murder, but that's what it is. By having an
abortion, you are denying life to one of God's children. He does not want
that. Whether or not a human being is allowed life is not your choice, which is
why abortion should be illegalized. It, like homosexuality, is immoral.
While it is hard on the Benhams, it some ways it is good that this has happened.
Most people are good people with compassion for their fellow man. That is why
there has been a widespread call for tolerance to replace bashing of those who
are homosexual. Now we see the homosexual agenda groups/clubs
pounding on others. Those same people, the vast majority who are good people
with compassion for their fellow man, will see the oppression and hate coming
from these agenda groups/clubs, and the support for them will diminish.Apparently they now have enough rope to hang themselves, and they are working
on it. I hope those who hold the complimentary nature of the
man/woman marriage as sacred will stand up for the Benham Brothers. And before I even read the paper today, I wrote HGTV to let them know that,
while Christians aren't likely to harass them at their front door, many of
us will vote against this decision by simply turning off their channel, for
This is no longer about the agenda of gay rights, but the agenda of the Gay
Right. I see comments in here that are just as strident as the statements of
these brothers.What is an 'anti-choice' extremist? How
are they defined? Some of these so called anti-choice extremists seem pretty
moderate, wanting to improve safety of women in abortion clinics by mandating
that the clinic has admitting privileges to hospitals and allowing surprise
inspections. I don't believe life begins at conception, but I don't
believe it begins when the baby becomes viable so I think that it dehumanizes
society to snuff out lives because those lives are not convenient.If
someone refers to religious belief as bigoted, shouldn't that person get
fired too? What if someone marches in a gay pride parade where the organizers
use epithets as 'homophobes.'
@slcdenizen. I am tired of seeing the charge leveled against the Bible that
"a woman was stoned to death for not being a virgin on her wedding
night." This keeps turning up lately which I assume means all you Bible
haters read each other's blogs. Because you certainly don't read the
Bible. Exodus 22:16-17 says that if a man and woman have sex and
aren't married, the man must marry the girl or, if her parents forbid it,
must pay her the equivalent of a virgin's dowry. No punishment. No
stoning.The law you refer to in Deuteronomy 22:13-21 and is about a
marriage contract entered into under false pretences. If a man was led to
believe a woman was a virgin, paid a dowry and married her believing her false
representation to be true. he was entitled to demand her death. There is no
recorded instance in the Bible of this happening, though there is a record of
one Joseph of Nazareth, who refused to demand this penalty for his espoused
wife, Mary. "Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to
make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily."
The Book of Revelation tells us that in the final days before the Second Coming,
only those with the Mark of the Beast will be allowed to engage in commerce. It
looks like we're well on our way.
Take a look at what happened to the Duck Dynasty program. The
"patriarch" expressed his "displeasure" concerning LGBT and
SSM.Take a look at Cliven Bundy. He's in trouble.Check out what
has happened to Donald Sterling.Where's Paula Deen? Is their 20
minutes of fame gone? How about their fortunes? Dwindling?Karma?
@Hutterite:"I'm no longer a 'tolerant' liberal."
Well, I still am. Anyhow, on behalf of everyone on this discussion board we
applaud you for your honesty and wish you happiness. (Actually, we could tell
all along. It isn't that hard to tell.) If it helps, I am a little
envious of Rush Limbaugh. He is certain. I also like Gayle Ruziska (honestly).
She is comfortable in her conservatism which is more than can be said for the
various closet conservatives on this discussion board.
It really is a shame that those who have been privileged to say and do what they
like for so long without consequences are now feeling the oppression that others
have experienced for generations. I don't really think that turnaround is
fair play, but perhaps what is happening right now will help some people realize
how unjustly they have treated others in the past. Imagine going to
church your entire life only to hear regular comments about the inherent evil
character of your soul. You may not notice the unintentional, yet still
insensitive, words said at meetings that should but spiritually uplifting
because they have nothing to do with your character. Unfortunately, such words
eventually become damaging to the soul. We have groups within the
LDS and other Christian communities who are trying to reach out and understand
their homosexual brothers and sisters. Perhaps it's the time the rest of us
work harder to understand one another instead of comparing the other side to
outrageous hate groups.
Tolerance for me, but not for thee, yet again from the "tolerant"
left.HGTV has a disproportionately large percentage of gays as
"couples" buying houses, or as their decorators, and no one has screamed
for the shows featuring them to be canceled. But, if the very hostile gay
activists (termed the "gay mafia" in an early comment above) decide that
people with a different view might get a show, then they force them to be
punished.The fired brothers have stated they support HGTV's
right to pick what programs and performers they want to broadcast, and I agree
with that. However, I disagree with HGTV's eagerness to cave
into demands from the "tolerant left" while continuing to air shows
strongly tilted in favor of the gay community.I guess I need to go
demand that HGTV get rid of their gay friendly shows, in the name of tolerance
This is more proof of the new fascist left's campaign to silence people who
think differently. It is the thought police in action.
To the commenters who are so upset about this:Have you actually seen
any HGTV programming? Have you ever noticed who some of the hosts are or who
some of the guests are? Have you ever thought about the types of personalities
that might be interested in shows about interior design and home improvement?
Seriously - take a moment and think about who might comprise a significant
portion of their market.Frankly, given how attractive the Denham
brothers are, I'm wondering if some who protested had mixed feelings about
doing so. ("On the one hand, they think we're an abomination, but on
Ummm... For those who didn't bother to follow the link to
rightwingwatch, here is an example of the kind of "Christians" that the
Nothing says "homosexual agenda" better than same-sex marriage,
commitment, love and family.
So now people won't be getting dream homes they couldn't otherwise
afford because these twin brothers didn't have "acceptable"
views?What's next from the Tolerance Police? Will the
Salvation Army be stopped from feeding hungry children because they don't
have acceptable views??
I have enjoyed watching this program, and these two young men are talented,
personable, and, I'm glad to learn, faithful to their beliefs. It is
amazing how the liberal left wants to eliminate free speech and free faith of
anyone they don't agree with, and trying to destroy those with whom they
differ! It's a sad commentary, and needs to be rebutted!
So, it's a smear campagne to report what they actually said?And, whether, in their hearts, they hate gay people or not isn't
important. The important thing is that they try to keep gay people from having
the same rights as everyone else--that's their "agenda".
Are people under the impression that the First Amendment gives people the right
to have a tv show? If that were true a lot more of us would have TV shows. This was a business decision by HGTV. They saw what happened to the
ratings of Duck Dynasty and read the tea leaves.
There are matters of degrees. On the one hand two men didn't get a tv
show, on the other gay people were being denied equal rights. There's
tolerance and tolerance.
@Kindred: "And here we have an example of the new McCarthyism. If you hold
the wrong opinions, you can lose everything."They have their
families, their homes, their business, their church, their freedom, their right
to vote, their right to free speech and free association. A deal to
make a television show was cancelled. Each year thousands of ideas for shows are
pitched, hundreds are developed, dozens make it to the air, a handful are
successful and stay on the air. Charlie Sheen was the star of a
successful - albeit fading - sitcom. He had multiple public problems and was
terminated. I don't see an outcry about that. The producers decided the
liability of bad publicity outweighed his contribution. When Ellen
came out - in real life and on her sitcom - a quirky niche show became a
lightning rod for controversy. The network stuck with it for a while, but the
show became unfunny and was canceled. HGTV decided this project
wasn't viable. Why? Mr. Sheen might be able to explain.
I don't expect the Hallmark channel to show mixed martial arts cage
matches. I don't expect Trinity Broadcasting Network to show
"Will & Grace" reruns, or BYU TV to pick-up "Queer Eye For The
Straight Guy" and make new episodes. And I don't expect
HGTV to produce and air a show staring two men who have public campaigns against
a large portion of the HGTV audience. When country superstars the
Dixie Chicks made anti-Bush remarks they offended their core audience. When
alt-pop superstar Pink and indie-post-punk singer Beth Ditto made similar
comments their audience approved and embraced them. Both singers had heartfelt
songs criticizing Bush that are popular with their audiences. The Dixie Chicks
miscalculated and became a footnote. Honestly - of the people who
are protesting: how many have ever watched a full HGTV program? Watched often
enough to be counted in ratings as a core watcher? Will HGTV even
notice your protest if you were not a viewer and continue to not be a viewer?
@slcdenizen - "Jesus mentioned neither homosexuality nor abortion...Young
people are fleeing churches because the subscription to Christianity comes with
the baggage of right-wing political views."If Jesus was in fact
Jehovah, as Christians believe, then yes, he did denounce it (Lev.18:22,
Lev.20:13). I don't mean to Bible bash, but I don't appreciate when
people misrepresent where the Savior stood. With that, he also said 1) Love God
(by keeping His commandments) and 2) Love your neighbor, which would include
homosexuals.I think the better explanation for young people fleeing
Christianity is as JRH describes: "Sadly enough...it is a characteristic of
our age that if people want any gods at all, they want them to be gods who do
not demand much, comfortable gods, smooth gods who not only don’t rock the
boat but don’t even row it...Talk about man creating God in his own image!
Sometimes—and this seems the greatest irony of all—these folks
invoke the name of Jesus as one who was this kind of “comfortable”
God. Really? He who said not only should we not break commandments, but we
should not even think about breaking them."
@BrioWould you please check facts before writing? First, One Million
Moms demanded JC Penny to fire Ellen DeGeneres only two years ago, not "over
a decade ago"; and second, Ellen DeGeneres did not lost her contract with JC
Penny even with the protest, in the end, it was One Million Moms who dropped the
boycott.Maybe you are old enough to actually experience the time of
Ellen's coming out in the 90s and losing her contract with some company. It
is amazing how much our society has evolved. American people have evolved from
opposing SSM overwhelmingly to supporting marriage equality, not only people are
less and less tolerant to anti-gay comments, racist comments, such comments are
also considered bad for business.That is why HGTV dropped Benham brothers'
show. That is why so many business leaders lobbied AZ Republican governor to
veto the anti-gay bill, because it is bad for business.@SigmaBlueHGTV did not cast aside Benham brothers' freedom of speech right.
They are simply making a business decision, cancelling a show that may harm
their business interest. Also,if you believe free speech means free of
consequences, you couldn't be more wrong.
No Navigator, people want a god that is logical and consistent. No religion
satisfies that, thus atheism.
So strong/adamant Christian brothers are fired by HGTV specifically BECAUSE they
are against homosexual activity but yet this is NOT persecution against
Christians/conservatives?I got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you
along with some beachfront property in Oklahoma....How long, Lord,
Sadly, the pro-homosexual agenda continues its march of
'tolerance'.Anbyody else ready for the Lord to come and
fix things for good?I am....
@AGuyWithABrain 10:14 May 11, 2014@TheCaravanMovesOn 10:21 p.m. May 11,
2014@The many others who have expressed similar commentsfor
the sake of fairness, please let us know when you have condemned the attacks
against, and persecution of (to use Guy's terminology) those people and
companies who support gay rights. As mentioned arlier in this comment thread,
Disney, Starbucks, Pepsi, UPS, Oreos, Muppets, JC Penny, Levi Strauss and
Company, J.P. Morgan, American Airlines, Medtronic, Inc. of Minneapolis, MN,
Well’s Fargo, Portland General Gas and Electric of Portland Oregon,
Hewlett Packard, The Providence Journal, Textron, Fleet Bank, IBM Corporation,
CVS/Pharmacy Stores, Carrier Corp. of Syracuse, NY, Amazon, Nike, Google, Home
Depot, General Mills and Cheerios, and the Girl Scouts are some of the victims
of those attacks. Right wing "Christian" Groups are and have been
calling for boycotts of everyone of these because of their support for Gay
rights. Ford Motor Company, under pressure from right-wing groups, pulled
advertising from pro gay publications because of the economic impact brought by
the "Christian" Right. Where is your condemnation of those actions? Or
is that okay for you because you agree with their side of the issue?
Black civil rights leaders develop a strategy called "name and shame."
When a racist comment or policy was discovered they were very quick, loud, and
public in calling it out. They brought huge public attention, and in many cases
economic forces, to bear to move acceptance of those attitudes and expressions
out of the public square. Whether are still pockets of racism, overall it has
worked."Sincerely held religious beliefs" and "cultural
traditions" were not acceptable reasons to be racist. Those excuses were
confronted and shamed. If a baker wants to make wedding cakes, but
not for gay weddings because of their religion, they need to get out of the
wedding cake business. They need to find a profession where their religion
won't get in the way of their job.
@Demiurge - "No Navigator, people want a god that is logical and consistent.
No religion satisfies that, thus atheism."That does seem to be
the new trend...But when did open-mindedness start equating to a rejection of
the existence of a higher power? Sounds pretty narrow to me. And man's
logic changes every few years. That in mind, what's your tool for measuring
logic and consistency?Just as someone who's never studied or
visited the deep sea would be seen as both foolish and arrogant to tell the
biologist who knows it well, that his knowledge and experiences are flawed or
false--the same goes for the atheist who attempts to disparage those who've
sacrificed to know God and have been rewarded for it. It's better to be
silent than I fool, I think.
@ Furry1993 - Ogden, UTThe heterosexual crowd says "you can have
your beliefs but let me express, and live, mine."The
pro-homosexual crowd says "you can NOT have, nor express your beliefs if
they are different than mine."If you refuse to see that that is
in fact what is occuring all around us, I cannot help you. Indeed, no one
Here's the thing... employers do have the right to make these kinds of
decisions. There isn't free speech rights in the workplace. Should they
have fired these people? Well, I'd say no but it's not my choice
(though of course people like me can always do things like boycott though I
suppose it's hard to boycott something I never watched in the first place
anyway). If you want more worker protection well... that's something that
is more likely to come with unions.
@A Guy With A Brain 10:36 a.m. May 12, 2014In truth, the
"homosexual crowd" says live and let live. Believe anything you want,
just don't deny us our rights and we won't protest against you.In truth, the "heterosexual crowd" says get back in your closet
so we don't have to see you and, by the way, we will try to impose our
lifeway and beliefs on you. You have to live the way we say.I've seen this dynamic before, back in the 1950s and 1960s when the issue
was racial equality. The white supremacy crowd didn't want to have to deal
with the fact that "those uppity [insert perjorative here] were actually
standing up for themselves, and demanding that their rights be respected. The
same thing that happened then when race was the issue is happening again now
when sexual orientation is the issue. And I find that sad.If you
refuse to see that that is in fact what is occuring all around us, I cannot help
you. Indeed, no one can.Choose wisely.
@ Guy"The pro-homosexual crowd says 'you can NOT have, nor
express your beliefs if they are different than mine.'"I'm getting a little tired of seeing this complaint. Even if
some are actually saying, "You can't believe that," it has about as
much authority behind it as someone telling you that "God will make you
pay." In other words, you have to believe it for it to have any power over
you.However, is the anti-SSM crowd feeling a lot of social
disapproval these days? Does it feel like an anti-SSM opinion is met with a
chorus of boos? Is the marketplace responding in kind? You are not mistaken
about this.And still, this is not an infringement of your right to
believe and say whatever you like. It's just that now, on this issue, and
when expressed in the public square, you are likely to be met with social
disapproval. And as LGBTs know very well, society's disapproval of you
DOES carry real power.
@Navigator13Neither logic nor consistency change every few years.
I'm not sure why you think that's the case. As far as believers go,
most atheists were brought up in some church, and walked away. Thus your comment
doesn't really apply to most atheists.
So for those who are agreeing with this will agree that a lay minister who
addresses his congregation about the sins of homosexuality and the music of
today is ok to be dismissed by his employer. Why because he is not being
politically correct. This is where freedom of religion and all that it is a
right to have is being infringed upon. If you disagree then you are really
being hypocritical of the truth that lies before us.Yes, religion is
definitely under attack. If I as a lay minister speaks against the LGBT crowd
and declares the words of the prophets to be true and that the acts of
homosexuality are sins, that same-sex marriage is wrong, that abortion on demand
is immoral and my employer finds out becomes someone comes into my segregation
and records my sermon, I'm acceptable to being dismissed as uncaring, a
bigot, a hater, anti-gay because someone disagrees with what my religion teaches
its congregation. That is wrong and that is exactly what is going on here.It really shows who is really tolerant and who is not.
For a long time, in the south, it was considered acceptable to teach segregation
– that God intended the races to be separate, that interracial marriage
was unbiblical, that Jim Crow was acceptable. Some of the people who taught on
"those sincerely held religious beliefs" Sunday morning from the pulpit
were involved in much uglier activities wearing hoods on Saturday evenings.Black civil rights leaders and white allies saw what was happening and
decided it was time to stop it. They publicized such things, named it for what
it was, and brought shame and condemnation down on it. The fact that it was a
"sincerely held religious belief" did not excuse mistreatment of other
citizens. This goes beyond disagreement on politics or culture. If
you are saying things from the pulpit that you would not want your employer to
hear, if you are saying things from the pulpit that you would not want recorded
and played on TV, or shared with your neighbors – maybe you shouldn't
say it in the first place.
Intolerance in America............from the left.
@Vanceone;You haven't lost anything because some LGBT couple
gets married. Nothing. LGBt people get fired every day simply for being gay -
even here in good old Utah. Until you can be fired simply for being, then you
have nothing to complain about.@(un)illuminated;Believe
whatever you want; just stop trying to force everyone else to believe your
beliefs.@plyxply;Who appointed you judge, jury and
excommunicator? I thought that was God's job.@Midwest Mom;Out of one side of the mouth comes the call to limit the freedom of
others; What do you call voting on our rights?@Janet;Do
you think that violating the civil rights of others to have an abortion or marry
the person of their choice should also not have any penalty?@jeanie
;"Politeness" doesn't change the fact that it's
bigotry. Smiling at me when you say "you don't deserve what I
have" is still pretty offensive.@AGuy;When you stop
violating the civil rights of others you won't face the criticism.
Navigator13, if what you say is true you also shouldn't be eating shrimp or
wearing poly-cotton blends.
I think it is pretty appalling that they would cancel such a show for such a
reason. To my mind, they are acting precisely NOT out of principle, but out of a
concern about public perception, which is in turn about $$$. In other words,
this is about capitalism doing business as usual. Just like the Mozilla debacle.
We are degenerating into a witch-hunt mentality. Being pro-mom-and-dad is
becoming equal to being pro-communist back in the day. This is all ludicrous.
Mono-cultural mono-mania. "Tolerant" and "pluralist" my foot!
@slow down:"I think it is pretty appalling that they would cancel such
a show for such a reason."Why? TV shows are designed get
ratings. Channels have carefully crafted branding designed to attract a
particular audience. They spend money developing shows that will reach that
audience. A wrong decision costs money, and then has more cost through lost
advertising and loss of ratings for that time-slot and surrounding time slots.
Determining this show would be a loser and damage their brand with a
key demographic is a critical business decision. TV channels are not
charities or public services. They turn a profit or go out of business. Trying
to sell these two would be hard.