Selective intolerance

[muckefuck]

So for days I've been mulling a rant in response to this open letter chastising those who called for the resignation of Brendan Eich and warning of the dire consequences of this kind of "intolerance". (I don't know about you, but I'm getting pretty sick of being called "intolerant" for not particularly caring that an anti-gay millionaire lost his job for badly handling his first PR crisis as CEO.) Now, thanks to Donald Sterling, I don't have to.

I do wonder if I'm guilty of a false equivalence here, but to the degree the cases aren't comparable, I think they actually favour Sterling. After all, his remarks were private and involved only private affairs (i.e. who his girlfriend should associate with). Eich's donation was public and had the political aim of depriving others of their civil rights (unconstitutionally, as it turns out). David Badash spells it all out pretty clearly I think. Perhaps I'm missing something, though, so I'm hoping one of the signatories comes forward to take and defend a stand on Sterling so I can pick through their justification.

Comments

[lhn.livejournal.com]

I admit, that seems incredibly stupid. Once he's married-- for that matter, once he's out-- the message that's going to be sent by having him as their principal has been sent. Either that's incompatible with their Catholic values or it isn't. "Our principal is an openly gay man who married a man-- but now it's okay, because he divorced him at our request while still-- presumably-- continuing the relationship..." If there's some coherent guiding principle they're operating under for saying that's okay, while remaining married isn't, I'm not smart enough to untangle it.

This seems like a "compromise" proposed someone who doesn't even really know what they're trying to achieve.