Ostracized expression

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    May 16, 2014 3:00 p.m.

    You know what, if your going to dish it out, don't you think you should learn how to take it? I bet it doesn't matter much when some good Mormon fires an employee for being gay! Yes, that happened to me and I always had respect for those around me! Do you know what it is like for someone to start telling you that they have a problem with people like you? So, it is alright for people to degrade me, judge me, and decide what I deserve in life based on their beliefs that I am bad? When we stand up and defend ourselves, we are picking on somebody? What I find so incredible are these wonderful Christian people who have taken it upon themselves to do whatever they want to gay people, and then they cry when someone fights back! Like I said, don't dish it out to someone, unless you are willing to take it!

  • push-n-day-zees Salt Lake, UT
    May 8, 2014 1:21 p.m.

    I you can't say something nice...

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    May 8, 2014 12:33 p.m.

    I took your advice, but read past the headlines, it wasn't local liberals...

    The most prominent examples were those created by the "United States Secret Service" for President George W. Bush and other members of his administration. Though free speech zones existed in limited forms prior to the Presidency of George W. Bush; it was during Bush's presidency that their scope was greatly expanded.

    Lots of things were "greatly expanded" during that bush regime, guess lots of republicans slept thru that though.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    May 8, 2014 10:32 a.m.

    To "Happy Valley Heretic" I don't know what your complaint is about. You realize that putting free speech zones far away from the event they are protesting is also common among liberals. Just look at the news articles from 2004 and the Republican National Convention in New York. The city of New York separated them by 3 miles. That was not a conservative decision, but a liberal one.

    We know you hate conservatives, but you could at least find something that your ilk doesn't also do before you complain.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    May 8, 2014 9:57 a.m.

    ..and then you have Utah's "Free Speech Zones" placed so far from an event as to literally quash any actual free speech.
    but that's OK, it protected visiting Conservatives.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    May 7, 2014 8:11 a.m.

    To "Candied Ginger" I don't think you realized what you did for your boss that hated lots of people. You made that boss look good, and appear to be good leader that inspires people to work hard and get things done. You actually gave that person more power.

    Had you and the other people that were hated quit and spoken with HR on the way out, you actually could have done more against that person.

  • Candied Ginger Brooklyn, OH
    May 6, 2014 4:25 p.m.


    "Why can't a person fire employees based on whatever bias they may have? Would you want to work for a person who hates you?"

    I actually have worked for people who hated me. The first time was uncomfortable and stressful and I left after a few months. The second time I needed the job and liked what I was doing so I changed my paradigm. Instead of resisting I was like water - this was early in my Taoist studies. She was intent on winning. My goal was to not lose. She came off like a raging psycho, hated by her employees and disdained by her boss. I was producer of the quarter twice, she was written up, demoted and then finally fired.

    It was fun.

    In retrospect I wish I had documented what she was doing and gone to the EEOC. I wasn't the only employee she hated, and she hurt a lot of people. An EEOC case would have shut her down and protected people who weren't able to stand up to her.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    May 6, 2014 11:17 a.m.

    To "airnaut" you sound like you now agree that Federal Law does in fact implement a thought police that prevents you from exercising your freedom of speech or association by firing employees that you do not for whatever biased reason you may have.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    May 6, 2014 10:28 a.m.

    Andoria, UT

    Why can't a person fire employees based on whatever bias they may have? Would you want to work for a person who hates you?

    8:31 a.m. May 6, 2014


    This is Utah.
    Utah is a "right to work" state.

    meaning: In Utah, you can be fired for any rhymne and for any reason -- YOU the perosn have Zero rights, and rights belong to the employer.

    The only way around this is to use Federal Laws.

  • RedShirtUofU Andoria, UT
    May 6, 2014 8:31 a.m.

    To "Open Minded Mormon" yes, I do realize that government has put limits on the Constitutional rights that we have.

    Just like yelling fire in a crowded theater is against the law.

    You are right, the US is not a place where you can do what you want to do. It never has been. That is what laws are for. The problem is that the government is becoming more and more of a nanny and micromanaging our lives.

    Why can't a person fire employees based on whatever bias they may have? Would you want to work for a person who hates you?

  • UTCProgress American Fork, UT
    May 6, 2014 8:26 a.m.

    Mr. Bender (like many Americans) is confused by the 1st amendment protections offered in the Constitution. There is no guarantee that you can say or do what you want without consequence, only that the government cannot legally stop you from saying whatever you want (unless it puts others in danger). To paraphrase the famous Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, "Mr. Eich may have a constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be a CEO."

    We are all subject to the consequences of our speech, both societally and economically. Speak up if you must, but be prepared to pay the price for it.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    May 6, 2014 7:10 a.m.

    Andoria, UT
    To "LDS Liberal" you realize that the restrictions on being able to fire somebody because of race, gender, age, religion, or orientation could be argued as going against the First Ammendment. By making it illegal to fire people because of those reasons, you are restricting me from being able to hire/fire people based on my thoughts. You are in effect restricting my freedom of speech to declare those that are not like me unworthy to work for/with me.

    2:53 p.m. May 5, 2014


    To "RedShirtUofU" you realize that the 2nd amendment doesn't allow you to have nuclear weapons, biological weapons, or chemical weapons.

    You realize that the 1st Amendment doesn't allow you wto worship using Human Sacrifices.

    You realize that free press doesn't allow you to produce child pornography.

    No RedShirtUofU, America is not the home of the Free to do whatever the you want to.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    May 6, 2014 6:40 a.m.


    Tolerance and "live and let live" would have been to never have had a prop-8 or amendment-3 to begin with for these people to have donated to/voted on.

    Instead, the intolerant 'religious' put the rights of other Americans on the ballot. These intolerant 'religious' people attempted to strip marriage from their fellow Americans, and in the case of Mozilla's CEO he felt a backlash for his efforts. His "political contribution" wasn't actually a "political contribution", it was a contribution to violate someone elses rights.

    Tolerance works both ways and as your Jesus said: "You reap what you sow".


    Have you stood up to defend those LGBT individuals who've been fired simply for being LGBT? I didn't think so.


    Until you have proof that the "vandalism" of your churches was done by LGBT, then you should stop saying we did it; as far as I'm concerned it was done by Mormons wanting to get some sympathy after their prop-h8 fiasco.

  • utah chick cedar city, UT
    May 5, 2014 7:00 p.m.


    "1. When someone is harrased ... for something they said -- call me.

    Mobbed out of a job doesn't count?"

    I have dealt with major fallout for stuff I said in a public forum. Stuff I never attached my employers name to. The dogpile I dealt with was really crappy. I'm still at my job site and I'm still employed.

    My point....I dealt with some massive crap after I said what I said. Was I fired, no. Was I a pariah, oh yes.

    Words have consequences. Don't ever doubt that.

  • Unreconstructed Reb Chantilly, VA
    May 5, 2014 5:59 p.m.

    "[Y]ou realize that the restrictions on being able to fire somebody because of race, gender, age, religion, or orientation could be argued as going against the First Ammendment. You are in effect restricting my freedom of speech to declare those that are not like me unworthy to work for/with me."

    Absolutely wrong, and anyone with a high school understanding of civics should see why. Your right to free speech ends when it causes harm to others. Firing someone on the basis of race, gender, religion, etc., creates a presumption of harm, and therefore does not have the right to be called free speech. You also run into a 14th Amendment issue which also trumps claims to free speech.

    The Constitution confers the right to free speech. But inherent in that right are parameters on its use which are necessary for the common good.

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    May 5, 2014 4:53 p.m.

    Why do people lie? The CEO was not forced to leave his office, he resigned. Perhaps it was caused by the very same freedom of speech and religion that you refer to! There are those that have the freedom to speak back! Freedom of speech is two sided, you know! So, yes, you love that freedom of speech, when it works for you! You love it when your freedom of religion allows you to dictate what happens in the lives of others. So, why are you so upset? You are upset because you do not want it to be two sided! You use your freedom of religion to believe that same sex marriage is bad! Guess what, I use my freedom of religion to know that God gives me the very same right to believe that being gay is not a sin! You use your freedom of speech to deny gay people the right to marry. We use are freedom of speech to fight back and to defend ourselves! Sure you love it when it works for you! It is different when it works for us, isn't it! Is it that hard to understand?

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    May 5, 2014 4:15 p.m.

    People's rights are always being trumped by other rights that are perceived to contribute to the greater good of society. Remember the old saying:

    "Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins"

    Most people feel the right to live freely, without discrimination, supersedes the "right" to discriminate based on race, creed, or color. (and more arguably, sexual preference}

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    May 5, 2014 4:01 p.m.

    Sounds to me like some people can dish it out but can't take it.

    What happened when the overbearing conservative British wouldn't give us our rights? We dropped tea into Boston Harbor. Real patriots, not the am radio armchair ones. These folks protested what is known as the Boston Tea Party. We still study it in history classes despite it happening over 200 years ago.

    What happened when women weren't given their rights? They protested. Real patriots protested against the conservatives until the rest of the nation woke up.

    What happened when blacks weren't given their rights? They protested. Real patriots marched on Washington DC. A certain Martin. Luther King Jr gave a speech called "I Have A Dream." Many conservatives fought it. Many labeled King as a traitor! They asked to see his birth certificate too! But the country continued to progress. Conservatives have tried to stop progress for over 200 years. They have failed time after time.

    Protest is as American as apple pie. If you folks don't like gays protesting for their rights then go to a country that doesn't protest. This nation will continue to progress, with or without ya!

  • Res Novae Ashburn, VA
    May 5, 2014 3:52 p.m.

    If you don't understand that the 1st Amendment applies only to government proscription of speech and not to private sanctions, you've taken yourself out of the argument from the get-go.

  • Interloper Portland, OR
    May 5, 2014 3:04 p.m.

    I want to clarify that I was offering a professional, not a personal, opinion when I said First Amendment protections of expression only apply to governments. That has been the legal understanding of the First Amendment since its inception. The line of cases that make it clear that actions by non-governmental parties don't violate the U.S. Constitution is New York Times v. Sullivan (1964). In that case, white businessmen and public officials in the South tried to muzzle civil rights organizations such as NAACP, claiming the groups' protests of segregation defamed them. They also sued news organizations to prevent them from reporting news about civil rights. The New York Times won the case, with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling newspapers could report any news, including involving public officials or public figures, as long as there was no evidence of actual malice, i.e., recklessness or knowing the report to be false.

    It is telling people are offering the same defense of bigots like Sterling and Bundy - neither the public nor the press should be allowed to criticize them. That wasn't true in 1964. It isn't true now.

  • RedShirtUofU Andoria, UT
    May 5, 2014 2:53 p.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" you realize that the restrictions on being able to fire somebody because of race, gender, age, religion, or orientation could be argued as going against the First Ammendment. By making it illegal to fire people because of those reasons, you are restricting me from being able to hire/fire people based on my thoughts. You are in effect restricting my freedom of speech to declare those that are not like me unworthy to work for/with me.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 5, 2014 2:51 p.m.

    @LDS Liberal

    1. "When someone is harrased ... for something they said -- call me".

    OK... I'm calling you. The guy from mozzila was harassed, and not even for something he SAID... just for making a small POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION!!!

    He's not the first to be harassed by the Gay Maffia....

    Google "Protests against Proposition 8 supporters" (wikipedia)... go to the "Boycots" and "Death threats and vandalism" sections...

    Scott Eckern, Artistic Director, California Musical Theatre. Resigned November 15, 2008.
    Richard Raddon, Director, Los Angeles Film Festival. Resigned November 25, 2008
    Marjorie Christoffersen, Manager, El Coyote Restaurant, Los Angeles, a lifelong Mormon. The restaurant was picketed after it was learned that Christofferson donated $100 to the Yes on 8 campaign...

    Google "Bill Maher: ‘Gay mafia’ will take your career down ‘if you cross them’" Washington Times...

    Google "Gay rights Protests Utah".... we had harassment right here in Utah! Churches were vandalized (in Utah and California) even Arson. Innocent people were harassed (on temple square, Main Street, Utah State Capitol, etc).

    Google "Churches Vandalized Over Prop 8"...

    Google "Prop. 8 passage spawns protests, violence and vandalism"...

    Vandalism, arson, intimidation... That is harassment...

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 5, 2014 2:43 p.m.

    Murray, UT
    1. When someone is harrased ... for something they said -- call me.

    Mobbed out of a job doesn't count?

    I am calling you out now. Being mobbed out of a job is indeed harassment.

    You are pure partisan.

    2:02 p.m. May 5, 2014


    If the CEO of a Corporation causes trouble to that Corporation,
    and the Share-Holders and Boards of Directors have every right to "fire" him.

    Their loyalty is with the Stock and Shares, NOT some guy and his rights.

    Like I said -- no one was sent to jail for speaking.

    Why don't you trying telling Racial or Chauvanistic slurs or jokes at work,
    and let me know how long it took for YOU to get set to Human Resporces and get fired.

    BTW -- You should be "Thanking" the us Liberals for passing laws that make it illegal to fire someone due to Race, Gender, Age, Religion, or Sexual Orientation.

    Conservatives have been fighting against that since day one.

    May 5, 2014 2:04 p.m.

    You mention "liberal" boycotts of Chic-Filla but not the "conservative" boycotts of Disney and a myriad other corporations. Why is that?

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    May 5, 2014 2:02 p.m.

    1. When someone is harrased ... for something they said -- call me.

    Mobbed out of a job doesn't count?

    I am calling you out now. Being mobbed out of a job is indeed harassment.

    You are pure partisan.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 5, 2014 1:54 p.m.

    Maverick, larry, etc,

    Sounds like you're perfectly fine with a boycott on a company because they're not Mormon, not white, etc, too. I mean it's our right... and whatever we have the right to do... we SHOULD do... right?

    That's what I'm saying... just because we have the RIGHT to do it... doesn't make it the right thing to do. Tolerance of others who aren't like us or we don't agree with... has to come in there somewhere.


    I'm not saying it's against the law to retaliate (because somebody donated to the wrong campaign, or because they said something you don't like).... I'm just saying it's not the right thing to do (even if we have the right to do it). It's not the "TOLERANT" thing to do. It's not the "Live and let live"... thing to do.

    Does that make sense?


  • RedShirtUofU Andoria, UT
    May 5, 2014 1:47 p.m.

    To "Russell Bender" and most of the others posting on this article. I hate to tell you this, but the examples given here are not examples of First Ammendment issues.

    The First Ammendment applies to Government regulations, not businesses hiring or firing people, and businesses supporing movements. The Citizens United case is an example of the First Ammendment being upheld.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 5, 2014 1:23 p.m.

    Try saying something liberal in a conservative newspaper,
    then get back to me about being Ostracized.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    May 5, 2014 1:10 p.m.

    About 5,000 years ago The Lord gave Adam and Eve a lil thing called Free Agency. Free agency gave man the choice to choose what he could say, do, think, etc. it did not, however, make man immune to consequences. So although we are free to make our own choices we are not free to choose our own consequences.

    The godless right seems to want to have their instant gratification while avoiding any negative consequences. They are acting as children, thinking that they can do and say whatever they want but never face any consequences. Just like a 3 year old does.

    Unfortunately, life isn't that way. The mozilla guy and sterling, all had freedom to choose. They could have acted to spread love and peace. Instead, they acted to spread hate and conflict. Hate and conflict does not come from The Lord.

    Bad choices bring negative consequences. It's that simple.

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    May 5, 2014 12:46 p.m.

    You can't have it both ways.

    Private corporations mute their employees all the time. Some companies even enact anti gossip rules, or rules punishing you if you discuss your wage with fellow employes.

    When company owners or executives spout off about race, gender issues, gay rights, or what ever, they are opening them selves up criticism or economic retaliation. It is only fair that we we have the right to vote with our free speech and our pocketbooks.

    Its just the flip side of good old American FREE ENTERPRISE!

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 5, 2014 12:28 p.m.

    1. When someone is harrased or thrown in jail for something they said -- call me.
    No government agency is taking away anyone's free speech -- [well, excluding Bush Co. and their Patriot Act]

    2. Free Speech does not protect one from STUPID Speech, or immune from the consequences of blabbing your mouth off -- and that's the issue.

    3. If Free Speech or Free Press was really in trouble -- Limbaugh would have been locked up 20 years ago, and FoxNews would still be 4th ranked cable network were they belong.

    BTW -- Mr. Bender never fails to entertain me.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 5, 2014 12:20 p.m.


    So... it sounds like you would be perfectly OK with getting fired because you wanted contraceptives, or you got an abortion, or you said something I don't agree with (even in private), or you made a private donation to the wrong political campaign...?

    I mean a company is a private organization (just like the NBA, or Mozzila). Right?


    You over-reach when you pretend one side thinks the Constitution means there is no consequence for what we say.

    I haven't seen anybody say that the NBA has a constitutional requirement to let him say whatever he wants. Like I said earlier... it's a matter of "Tolerance" not the Constitution.

    It's "live and let live"... even if my views are not the same as the other individual.


    But bottom line... this is an issue of tolerance, not the law.

    IF the things Sterling and the Mozzila executive did (in private)... are intolerable and they must be banished from our companies and our society... what is to become of them? Can Sterling not work ANYWHERE in America now?

    Should it go both ways? Blacks comments about whites... receive same punishment? Liberal campaign contributions same punishment???

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    May 5, 2014 12:16 p.m.

    If you live your life as you profess you should, soon you'll find you won't need to worry about what or how you say it. Your attitude toward those you hate will soon turn and you can finally treat others by the Golden Rule.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    May 5, 2014 11:51 a.m.

    Amen Russell, Amen!

    I dare not say more. My free speech will be screen out. In fact I don't know you got this letter accepted, but great job. You are absolutely right.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    May 5, 2014 11:27 a.m.

    What about all the boycotts by conservatives against Disney and other companies that support gay rights?

    Where is your outrage about those boycotts?

    Sorry, I smell a rat.

  • Interloper Portland, OR
    May 5, 2014 11:19 a.m.

    The letter writer does not understand the concept of freedom of speech. The First Amendment's protections apply to government action. Any government in the United States is limited in how much control it has over people expressing their opinions. However, private parties are not subject to such constitutionally protected limitations.

    Donald Sterling has been disciplined by a private organization, the NBA. He agreed to its bylaws when he became a member of the team owner's association. He broke some of those bylaws. The commissioner of basketball responded by expelling Sterling from the NBA. None of this has anything to do with government action. So, the First Amendment does not apply to it.

    There is a trend on the Right to try to use 'freedom of speech' as a pretext to defend racism and other disgusting behavior. Most recently, we saw this defense used to protect Cliven Bundy and Donald Sterling. Both of these men were punished by public opinion after engaging in shameful behavior. There is nothing unfair about that. Nor is either of them being deprived of his freedom of speech.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    May 5, 2014 11:17 a.m.

    "First Amendment rights have been destroyed by "political correctness."

    American Capitalism is predicated on the principle that consumers will vote with their wallets and business will cater to those dollars.

    In all cases that you cite, free speech is alive and well. Business (NBA perhaps?) is making decisions based on not alienating those dollars and in the case of Chic fil a, it gained some business and lost some business.

    But in neither case is free speech being "destroyed".

    People are still free to state their opinions and consumers can act on them.

    Just like it was designed to work.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    May 5, 2014 10:37 a.m.

    It's interesting to see the posts that attack the person instead of the message. When the "message" contains hate speech, the person who originated that message should feel the consequences of what he said. Congress does not legislate what MIGHT be said, just like the police do not confiscate our keys because we MIGHT drive carelessly. Punishment comes AFTER the act, not before.

    We may be ostracized if we are careless with our speech, but is not an excuse for others to use hate speech. There are many forms of hate speech. The most common form is found right here on this thread when people attack one person and then smear whatever "group" that person is thought to associate with. That is hate speech. That is something that polite people in a polite society would never do.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    May 5, 2014 9:58 a.m.


    The incessant whining and convoluted thinking of “Conservatives” is just mind boggling.
    Let’s look at what you are doing.

    You are condemning people for expressing their distaste for “Conservative” views.

    In other words, you are condemning people for exercising their first amendment rights, and at the same time, you are pretending to be protecting the first amendment.

    Sorry man, but you are living a lie.

    People have a RIGHT to dislike the Mozilla CEO and his actions, and they have the right to express their dissatisfaction.

    So take your own advice and “choose not to be offended.”

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 5, 2014 9:47 a.m.

    This is an issue of "Tolerance"... not the law.

    There is no law that people be ostracized if they violate this taboo... but there is also no law against it.

    It's up to us (not the law) to decide if we can be tolerant of others who may not share our views.

    I don't think destroying someone's life because they don't share my views... is appropriate. So I won't do it. But that's my personal philosophy... not a law.


    The Left USED TO claim to observe the "live and let live" philosophy... but absolutely not any more. Those times are gone. And they resemble the "religious right" of the 1980s to me... not the "Liberal" live and let live people of the 60's and 70s.

    The Left seems to practice even more intolerance of others than the Right today.

    Neither being intolerant is OK IMO BTW... I'm just amazed at how they have switched places today... The Right is almost more "live and let live" than the LEFT today!

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    May 5, 2014 9:43 a.m.

    The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble..."

    The government took no action against Mr Eich. He made a contribution he had a right to make. People had a right to stop buying the product his company sells when they found out about his donation. The board, fearing loss of sales, had a right to ask him to resign.

    The CEO of Chik-Fil-A publicly donated to certain organizations. Some people elected to stop buying their product. Others stood in line for hours to buy the product. The government took no action. People buying chicken and people holding signs and not buying chicken were assembling peaceably, the government did not interfere with either side.

    While I am concerned about the privacy issues in the Sterling case, the government took no action. His employees protested, the customers - those who watch the games - protested, and his fellow owners made a marketing decision to fine him and exclude him from games. Sheer capitalism, no First Amendment violations.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    May 5, 2014 9:35 a.m.


    Everyone has free speech, everyone also has the freedom to the reprocussions of what they said. Without holding people responsible for their language, society would do harm to those to whom bad or inaccurate things were said.

    You are responsible for what comes out of your mouth. You must pay the price if it is something that is abhorred by society. If you believe in what you say, stand up for yourself. If it is something that proclaims your ignorance, learn what you need to. If it is something that shows your comtempt for a segment of society, that is no longer acceptable - as it should be unacceptable, and you will pay the price for saying it.

  • Onion Daze Payson, UT
    May 5, 2014 9:31 a.m.

    Mr. Bender's closing statement:

    “To try to put into our society any kind of law against anything that may prove to be offensive or hurtful to someone is patently ridiculous and wrong.”

    Child molestation and anti-slavery laws address activity that “may prove to be offensive or hurtful to someone...”.

    The closing statement in Mr. Bender's letter is nonsense.

    He does address some genuine problems in 21st century America.