Quantcast
Faith

HGTV cancels reality show after Christian co-stars' are labeled 'anti-gay, anti-Choice extremists'

Comments

Return To Article
  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    May 9, 2014 9:45 a.m.

    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 think so.

  • slcdenizen Murray, UT
    May 9, 2014 9:47 a.m.

    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' teachings.

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    May 9, 2014 9:56 a.m.

    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.

  • Ted H. Midvale, UT
    May 9, 2014 10:05 a.m.

    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

  • MapleDon Springville, UT
    May 9, 2014 10:13 a.m.

    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.

    @slcdenizen
    Quit 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 references.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    May 9, 2014 10:27 a.m.

    @Chris B

    Didn’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.

  • Jon W. Murray, UT
    May 9, 2014 10:28 a.m.

    @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???

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    May 9, 2014 10:27 a.m.

    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.

  • bleeding purple Santa Ana, CA
    May 9, 2014 10:31 a.m.

    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!

  • iron&clay RIVERTON, UT
    May 9, 2014 10:34 a.m.

    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

  • slcdenizen Murray, UT
    May 9, 2014 10:47 a.m.

    @Ted H.

    Jesus was executed by crucifixion, I'm sure not having a tv show isn't "suffering" for beliefs.

    @MapleDon

    Please 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?

  • ArizonaMormon Mesa, AZ
    May 9, 2014 10:55 a.m.

    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.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    May 9, 2014 11:02 a.m.

    @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.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    May 9, 2014 11:09 a.m.

    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 well.

  • jamsenior SANTAQUIN, UT
    May 9, 2014 11:20 a.m.

    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!

  • slcdenizen Murray, UT
    May 9, 2014 11:22 a.m.

    @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 prophetic ones.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    May 9, 2014 11:59 a.m.

    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.

  • Jamescmeyer Midwest City, USA, OK
    May 9, 2014 12:00 p.m.

    @slcdenizen

    Nevermind 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.

    @Hutterite

    As 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 premises.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    May 9, 2014 12:02 p.m.

    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?

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    May 9, 2014 12:04 p.m.

    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?

  • Tajemnica West Valley, Utah
    May 9, 2014 12:13 p.m.

    Wow! So much ignorance and naievete. If ignorance is bliss, a lot of commentors should be blissfully happy. What side am I on?

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 9, 2014 12:21 p.m.

    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 that.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    May 9, 2014 12:28 p.m.

    @Meckofahess

    People 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.

  • illuminated St George, UT
    May 9, 2014 12:33 p.m.

    @Jamescmeyer

    You 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.

  • illuminated St George, UT
    May 9, 2014 12:39 p.m.

    @RanchHand

    Protesting 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.

  • Relocated Southerner Logan, UT
    May 9, 2014 12:40 p.m.

    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 one-sided.

  • riverofsun St.George, Utah
    May 9, 2014 12:51 p.m.

    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.

  • maclouie Falconer, NY
    May 9, 2014 12:59 p.m.

    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.

  • plyxply SLC, UT
    May 9, 2014 12:59 p.m.

    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.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    May 9, 2014 1:32 p.m.

    @illuminated

    Brendan 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!

  • Anti Government Alpine, UT
    May 9, 2014 1:49 p.m.

    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.

  • Kindred Mesa, AZ
    May 9, 2014 1:52 p.m.

    And here we have an example of the new McCarthyism. If you hold the wrong opinions, you can lose everything.

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    May 9, 2014 1:55 p.m.

    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.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    May 9, 2014 1:56 p.m.

    “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.

  • plyxply SLC, UT
    May 9, 2014 2:13 p.m.

    @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.

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    May 9, 2014 2:35 p.m.

    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.

  • netsrik Draper, UT
    May 9, 2014 2:49 p.m.

    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.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    May 9, 2014 2:50 p.m.

    @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.

  • bigv56 Cottonwood, CA
    May 9, 2014 3:12 p.m.

    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

  • illuminated St George, UT
    May 9, 2014 4:01 p.m.

    @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.

  • Midwest Mom Soldiers Grove, WI
    May 9, 2014 4:27 p.m.

    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.

  • Quagthistle Hays, KS
    May 9, 2014 4:37 p.m.

    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...

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    May 9, 2014 4:45 p.m.

    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.

  • Cougsndawgs West Point , UT
    May 9, 2014 4:59 p.m.

    "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.

  • Brio Alpine, UT
    May 9, 2014 5:20 p.m.

    @ 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 self-evident.

  • Janet Ontario, OR
    May 9, 2014 5:29 p.m.

    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."

  • Kings Court Alpine, UT
    May 9, 2014 6:00 p.m.

    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.

  • ArizonaMormon Mesa, AZ
    May 9, 2014 6:04 p.m.

    @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.

  • jeanie orem, UT
    May 9, 2014 6:30 p.m.

    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.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    May 9, 2014 7:29 p.m.

    @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

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    May 9, 2014 8:07 p.m.

    @illuminated

    @Tiago

    You'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?

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    May 9, 2014 8:21 p.m.

    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_voice_of_reason Woods Cross, UT
    May 9, 2014 8:21 p.m.

    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?

  • Annabel Manson Washington, WA
    May 9, 2014 8:33 p.m.

    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.

  • I know it. I Live it. I Love it. Provo, UT
    May 9, 2014 8:33 p.m.

    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 problems.

  • a_voice_of_reason Woods Cross, UT
    May 9, 2014 8:37 p.m.

    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?

  • a_voice_of_reason Woods Cross, UT
    May 9, 2014 8:47 p.m.

    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?

  • SigmaBlue Centerville, UT
    May 9, 2014 9:14 p.m.

    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!"

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    May 9, 2014 9:55 p.m.

    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?

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    May 9, 2014 10:12 p.m.

    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.

  • Rikitikitavi Cardston, Alberta
    May 9, 2014 10:21 p.m.

    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.

  • Avenue Vernal, UT
    May 9, 2014 10:31 p.m.

    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.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    May 9, 2014 11:24 p.m.

    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 good.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    May 10, 2014 4:38 a.m.

    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.'

  • wilsclanmom Alexandria, VA
    May 10, 2014 7:36 a.m.

    @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."

  • Pops NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    May 10, 2014 8:48 a.m.

    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.

  • ThornBirds St.George, Utah
    May 10, 2014 9:21 a.m.

    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?

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    May 10, 2014 10:01 a.m.

    @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.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    May 10, 2014 10:08 a.m.

    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.

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 10, 2014 10:10 a.m.

    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 and equality.

  • JLFuller Boise, ID
    May 10, 2014 10:58 a.m.

    This is more proof of the new fascist left's campaign to silence people who think differently. It is the thought police in action.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    May 10, 2014 11:41 a.m.

    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 the other...")

  • NobodySpecial Alpharetta, GA
    May 10, 2014 12:44 p.m.

    Ummm...

    For those who didn't bother to follow the link to rightwingwatch, here is an example of the kind of "Christians" that the Benhams are:

  • Shelama SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    May 10, 2014 12:58 p.m.

    Nothing says "homosexual agenda" better than same-sex marriage, commitment, love and family.

  • SoCalChris Riverside, CA
    May 10, 2014 1:21 p.m.

    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??

  • LynH OREM, UT
    May 10, 2014 2:18 p.m.

    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!

  • dmcvey Los Angeles, CA
    May 10, 2014 6:38 p.m.

    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".

  • dmcvey Los Angeles, CA
    May 10, 2014 10:40 p.m.

    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.

  • dmcvey Los Angeles, CA
    May 10, 2014 10:47 p.m.

    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.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    May 10, 2014 10:48 p.m.

    @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.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    May 10, 2014 11:23 p.m.

    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?

  • Navigator13 Pleasant Grove, UT
    May 11, 2014 6:19 a.m.

    @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."

  • USU_Logan Logan, UT
    May 11, 2014 10:44 a.m.

    @Brio

    Would 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.

    @SigmaBlue

    HGTV 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.

  • Demiurge San Diego, CA
    May 11, 2014 6:13 p.m.

    No Navigator, people want a god that is logical and consistent. No religion satisfies that, thus atheism.

  • A Guy With A Brain Enid, OK
    May 11, 2014 10:14 p.m.

    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, how long?

  • The Caravan Moves On Enid, OK
    May 11, 2014 10:21 p.m.

    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....

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    May 12, 2014 7:10 a.m.

    @AGuyWithABrain 10:14 May 11, 2014
    @TheCaravanMovesOn 10:21 p.m. May 11, 2014
    @The many others who have expressed similar comments

    for 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?

  • GingerAle North East, OH
    May 12, 2014 8:34 a.m.

    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.

  • Navigator13 Pleasant Grove, UT
    May 12, 2014 10:05 a.m.

    @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.

  • A Guy With A Brain Enid, OK
    May 12, 2014 10:36 a.m.

    @ Furry1993 - Ogden, UT

    The 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 can.

    Choose wisely.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    May 12, 2014 12:17 p.m.

    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.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    May 12, 2014 1:28 p.m.

    @A Guy With A Brain 10:36 a.m. May 12, 2014

    In 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.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    May 12, 2014 4:17 p.m.

    @ 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.

  • Demiurge San Diego, CA
    May 12, 2014 8:17 p.m.

    @Navigator13

    Neither 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.

  • bj-hp Maryville, MO
    May 12, 2014 8:51 p.m.

    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.

  • GingerAle North East, OH
    May 13, 2014 2:08 p.m.

    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.

  • SCfan clearfield, UT
    May 14, 2014 7:13 a.m.

    Intolerance in America............from the left.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 14, 2014 8:02 a.m.

    @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.

  • dmcvey Los Angeles, CA
    May 14, 2014 8:40 a.m.

    Navigator13, if what you say is true you also shouldn't be eating shrimp or wearing poly-cotton blends.

  • slow down Provo, UT
    May 14, 2014 9:16 a.m.

    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!

  • GingerAle North East, OH
    May 14, 2014 9:59 p.m.

    @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.