I share some of Eugene's concerns, expressed in his post below, that certain aspects of the gay rights movement (which I too generally support) may pose a threat to civil liberties.
But I don't think that the firing of Robert Smith, the Maryland appointee to the Washington Metro Board, for calling gays "sexual devian[ts]" is a good illustration of the point. Certainly, very few would argue that Smith should have kept his job had he referred to people in interracial relaionships as "racial deviants" or used derogatory language about blacks or Jews. And this would be true despite the fact that Smith's views on blacks, Jews, and interracial marriage have no more connection to his job than his views on gays. The political and social views of high-ranking officials often influence their policy decisions, and government could not function with even modest effectiveness if these officials could not chosen at least in part based on their ideological orientation.
Furthermore, it is not clear to me that Smith's views "have absolutely nothing to do with running trains and buses," as he claims. The DC area has a large gay population and many of them presumably take Metro "trains and buses." There is good reason to assume that a Metro Board member with Smith's views would be less likely to enforce policies against antigay discrimination in public transport than one who is not a homophobe. At any rate, since there is unlikely to be a shortage of nonbigoted people willing to take this cushy patronage appointment, Governor Ehrlich was right not to take a risk on Smith.
I will consider Eugene's broader point about the gay rights movement in my next post.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Is there Enough Libertarian and Conservative Support for Gay Rights for it to Matter?
- Why Ever Fire Public Officials for their Views?:
- The Racism Analogy:
- Conservatives, Libertarians, and Slippery Slope Concerns about the Gay Rights Movement:
- Firing a Washington Metro Board Member for Anti-Gay Speech:
- Washington Metro Board Member Dismissed for Anti-Gay Remarks in Same-Sex Marriage Debate:
I think there's a typo and the "of" in the sentence should be "if". It seems fine if you make the change.
Catholics, or at least those who refuse to renounce their faith's teachings and tenants on homosexuality, are thereby prohibited from holding office as being "homophobes" because they may be "less likely to enforce policies against antigay discrimination".
You know, because Catholics cannot separate their political actions from their religious beliefs. No, they get their orders from the Pope.
Gee, now I think I remember reading something....
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States
Oh wait, I forgot the recent change
but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United Statesthat must have been struck when I was not looking.
sarcasm OFF
Seriously, I have not seen such flagrant, open and outright clear anti-Catholic bigotry in a long, long time.
So this man (Robert Smith) cannot hold his office according to Ilya NOT ONLY because of what he (Smith) said but because of his "views"? Oh, what would those views be? Why, the views of the CATHOLIC CHURCH. And that makes anyone who holds them unacceptable to hold office (even if he never said a word, note how Ilya formulated that second paragraph to focus on Smith's VIEWS, not his WORDS).
Lovely. Just lovely.
Gee, now I think I remember reading something....
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States
-The Religious Test Clause does not (and has never been interpreted to) prevent the religious views of office-holders from being considered if secular views of the same type are treated the same way. Certainly, an adherent of Bob Jones' church could be fired from a job on a government civil rights commission, and he would not be able to defend himself by claiming that that his antiblack racism was required by his religion. In my view, homophobes can be fired from certain types of government positions regardless of whether their hostility to gays is the result of religious or secular views. Just as a Bob Jones-type religious racist in a similar position can be treated the same way as a purely secular racist.
I am very concerned now because "There is good reason to assume that a Law School faculty member with your views would be less likely to enforce policies against anti-religious discrimination in your teaching, grading and education than one who is not an anti-Catholic bigot."
See how easy it works when someone's religious (or anti-religious) "views" (again sir, your word not mine) are used to get them?
And since we've established that for you Catholic "views" = homophobes, Catholics need not apply.
Terrific! Catholics either publically renounce the Church's teachings on homosexuality or be fired.
Thanks for that update.
It seems to me that to fire someone for his bias, you would have to demonstrate that the bias directly interfered with his duties. Just knowing that a bias might interfere with his duties is not enough.
You, sir, have OD'ed on O'Reilly, sir.
That is my point here with Ilya. Apparently even having the view or a Catholic view is grounds to be fired.
I, for one, am sick and tired of the perversion of language by activists on all sides.
The proponent here actually said....so help me,
" The political and social views of high-ranking officials often influence their policy decisions, and government could not function with even modest effectiveness if these officials could not chosen at least in part based on their ideological orientation."
I long since discarded by copy of Mein Kampf, but I'm sure that quote came directly from Hitler's text.
Just how does this Fuhrer decide who is and who is not a "homophobe" and accordingto what precise standards? Are all those heterosexuals who, while respecting and fighting for the equality of individual homosexuals, presumptively guilty of being homophobes?
This is scary.
The discussion on Godwin's Law was a few months ago. See also "Reverse Mussolini Fallacy."
The word "deviant", except perhaps in some narrow academic jargon context, always carries a negative connotation, and you can't wish the connotation away with "shouldn't." Nobody uses the term "deviant" to apply to "people more than 6'5" tall," and if you tried to claim that your use of "deviant" with respect to homosexuality was used in a value-neutral context similar to that hypothetical, people would quite properly conclude you were lying.
Why should Catholics get a 'pass' for homophobic remarks solely for the reason they are Catholic? Catholics are not above the law or above censure for their comments.
No one is stopping or preventing Robert Smith from holding those views. They are making him accountable for his views, regardless of the source of those views.
“The word "deviant", except perhaps in some narrow academic jargon context, always carries a negative connotation, ...”
I don’t think you can prove that assertion. It’s true many people will make that inference that the speaker means something negative, but before taking the drastic step of firing someone, you should investigate further. Remember the guy in who got fired for using the word “niggardly?” Both from the dictionary and the context we know he was not trying to offend anyone. But in the less than fully literate world of Washington DC, it was taken as an insult.
Mr. Somin, as the new self-appointed chief of the thought-speech police, should a govt. official be fired for expressing those sentiments?
As others have noted you are basically stating that a true practicing Catholic, Muslim, Evangelical can NOT be a part of any govt in the US.
Well, I think that GMU should either fire you or refuse any govt money for employing someone who holds Catholic-phobe, Muslim-phobe, Evangelical-phobe beliefs.
Up until Mr. Smith had been found guilty of actual discrimination (an action not a thought or speech), he should not have been fired.
Ok, then if I were a high level public servant and went on television and said I thought that the practice of ritual cannibalism, even if done symbolically, was a perverted and deviant practice and anyone that did it shouldn't be allowed to marry or adopt you'd say you'd protect my right to say it with impunity?
It is an honest opinion consistent with my personal creed, and that if it insults and effectively advocates treating some law-abiding citizens differently than other law-abiding citizens that's just their problem?
Political appointees have no job security, no statutory protections, and no property or liberty interests in their jobs. They know that going in. Political appointees function to carry out the programs of the elected officials who appoint them, and if the elected officials decide that their appointees are not carrying them out in the manner the elected officials want them carried out, then the elected officials can fire the appointees. That decision is in the sole discretion of the elected official, and can be made for any reason, rational or irrational. If the governor decided that keeping Mr. Smith would be a political liability, then Mr. Smith had to go - and he did. End of discussion.
Those Marylanders who disagree with the governor get to vote against him in the next election and may exercise their free speech rights to talk about it endlessly, but Mr. Smith won't get his job back.
Correct. IF he had been using it as a synonym for 'atypical' when challenged he would have used a non pejorative term - he was given multiple opportunities to do so and refused. There is no reasonable doubt he meant it to be insulting.
2) Civil servants vs political appointees by Porkchop. I don't think any of the people on this post who were against the firing mentioned that it wasn't within the power of the Gov. Of course he has that power over political appointees. My opinion is that he shouldn't have fired Mr. Smith over this.
But your post made me think of asking a question to all of you who thought the firing was a good thing.
Since you find this speech unacceptable for a political appointee to keep his/her job, should a govt CIVIL servant lose their job if they said the same thing? Assuming that no actual discrimination in hiring/firing/promotion had been proven.
Civil servants do have power over govt resources, so I would think you all would have to answer yes to be consistent, that no civil servant should keep their job if they ever said the same thing.
Further, I am a government official and was identified by my job title during the program. So what I have done is used my public office to state a controversial opinion on a subject that has nothing to do with my job- I've turned it into a bully pulpit for my own opinions.
Sorry, being a government figure is a 24/7 job much like being in the military - if you are in a any venue that you are identified by your job, and/or you can reasonably be construed to have been invited because of your job you are representing the government, its Just one of the costs of public service.
I don’t know if that’s correct. Can the Maryland governor legally fire a Metro Board Member for being gay? For being black?
The governor doesn't need a reason to fire someone -- political appointments are at the pleasure of the appointing official.
That’s true, but can he fire someone for any stated reason? There is a difference, and that’s way evictions of tenants or “at-will” employees can sometimes be voided in some jurisdictions. No reason is ok, but some stated reasons could be voided. So the governor could fire a Metro Director for without reason, but if he says something like: “He converted to Islam, so I’m firing him,” that might be another matter.
I think you are confusing communion with transubstantiation, which a belief of the Roman Catholic Church. Other Christians such as Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox and of course the Protestants reject transubstantiation, and do not believe that Jesus is literally present. In other words, the bread and wine are taken in a symbolic and not a literal sense. On the other hand, some Anglicans do accept the doctrine of transubstantiation, but don’t call it that. But most Anglicans reject it according to the terms of the Elizabethan Religious Settlement.
So not confused at all. And it was just an illustrative example of something that people like Smith do that some other public official might find objectionable and use to suggest that some completely law-abiding citizens should be treated in any way different than other law-abiding citizens.
He is a public official 24/7 - if sharing his opinions on non-job related controversial topics is that important to him, it is probably in his and the state's best interest for him to be cut loose so he can do so without any appearance of personally abusing the reputation and notoriety that public office affords.
Catholics, or at least those who refuse to renounce their faith's teachings and tenants on homosexuality, are thereby prohibited from holding office as being "homophobes" because they may be "less likely to enforce policies against antigay discrimination".
Nope they're not prohibiting from holding office, they're just less likely to be appointed by an office holder who disagrees with them. Don't like that? Vote in a new office holder. Nothing entitles you to be appointed by the governor regardless of your position on any given issue, just because you choose to label that position as being religiously motivated.
So this man (Robert Smith) cannot hold his office according to Ilya NOT ONLY because of what he (Smith) said but because of his "views"? Oh, what would those views be? Why, the views of the CATHOLIC CHURCH. And that makes anyone who holds them unacceptable to hold office (even if he never said a word, note how Ilya formulated that second paragraph to focus on Smith's VIEWS, not his WORDS).
Hmm, I guess on this logic, it would be anti-Catholic bigotry to refuse to appoint Cardinal Mahoney to be in charge of border security. Admittedly he said he'd direct priests to hide illegal aliens from US authorities, but heck his position is religiously motivated, so apparently you have appoint him anyway, lest you be called an anti-Catholic bigot.
Newsflash, you don't get a free pass for your views just because you call them religiously motivated.
Well, I think he should have been allowed to keep his job if he had said that Scientologists or Moslems were believers in a false, pernicious religion. The idea that religious freedom means you have the right not to have any public official express his private opinion about the truth or falsehood of your beliefs--or that expressing such an opinion shows a prediliction to practice invidious discrimination in the provision of public services--in nonsense. (And yes, when you get down to it, I believe the same thing about criticism of mainstream religions. If Ian Paisley were on the Metro Board, I don't think he should be fired for saying that the thinks Catholics are idol worshippers who are headed for Hell. I think he should be fired if he said that Catholics ought to be required to ride in the back of Metro buses.)
I would think the same principle should apply to people who express their opinion about the morality (or "deviancy," if you will) of the way other people use their genitals.
That analogy only works if Smith had said something such as that he believed homosexuals ought to be segregated in separate Metro cars, or in the back of Metro buses.
If Smith had expressed his view that, as a Catholic, people who divorce and remarry are violating God's law, underming the family, and contributing the the decline in the fabric of our society, would that show that he was guilty of "hate" against remarried divorcees that called into question his ability to serve such members of the public imparially. What if he had called the practice of artificial contraception a form of "sexual deviance"? Same result?