Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Sportscaster **FIRED** For Tweeting His Support For Of Traditional Marriage.

Rogers Sportsnet parted ways with TV host Damian Goddard after he used to Twitter to voice his support for Uptown Sports Management opposition to New York Rangers Sean Avery support for same-sex marriage.

Uptown Hockey sent out a tweet saying 'Very sad to read Sean Avery%E2%80%99s misguided support of same-%E2%80%8Bgender %E2%80%9Cmarriage%E2%80%9D. Legal or not, it will always be wrong'

To which TV host Damian Goddard tweeted 'I completely and whole-%E2%80%8Bheartedly support Todd Reynolds and his support for the traditional and TRUE meaning of marriage'

Now he has been FIRED. The TV network then issued its own tweet, saying: %E2%80%9CToday%E2%80%99s tweet from Damian Goddard does not reflect the views of Rogers Sportsnet.%E2%80%9D On Wednesday, it severed ties with Goddard.

In a statement, Sportsnet spokesman Dave Rashford said: %E2%80%9CMr. Goddard was a freelance contractor and in recent weeks it had become clear that he is not the right fit for our organization.%E2%80%9D

Damian Goddard has not taken the tweet down, nor has he apologized.

Conservatives are crying foul, saying this is free speech being muzzled. Plus if he tweeted his support for same-sex marriage, would he have been fired?

Your thoughts?

by Anonymousreply 5705/14/2011

Twitter account at link

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 105/12/2011

"Conservatives are crying foul, saying this is free speech being muzzled."%0D %0D %0D %0D Free speech means the government can't punish you for what you say. It doesn't mean you can't get fired for embarrassing your employer by being a braindead bigot.

by Anonymousreply 205/12/2011

Good! It's about time we see this type of thing happening. For too many years, gays have been fired just for being gay. People who campaign to deny us equal rights need a wake up call. %0D %0D The Gay Agenda -- %0D %0D 1. Equal rights for all%0D %0D 2. Bash back at anyone who stomps on our rights.

by Anonymousreply 305/12/2011

Man! He sure is sexy!

by Anonymousreply 405/12/2011

It seems that the tweet was just the last straw, not the reason he was fired.

by Anonymousreply 505/12/2011

[quote]Plus if he tweeted his support for same-sex marriage, would he have been fired?

Poor attempt, freep. The better question is: if he'd tweeted his support for separate water fountains for blacks, would he have been fired? If he'd tweeted his support for a ban on interracial marriage, would he have been fired?

OP, unless you're quoting from some uncited source, your repeated use of the phrase "support for traditional marriage" makes you sound like a freeper frau. If so, I kindly invite you to fuck off.

by Anonymousreply 605/12/2011

"Support for traditional marriage" is typical of right-wing Orwellian language. They know their actual opinions are toxic so they never say what they are really for. "Let's keep suppressing the sick/sinful fags" just doesn't sound as sweet.

by Anonymousreply 705/12/2011

I support traditional marriage, but NOT the marriage lie put forth by religions.%0D %0D Traditional marriage, blessed by the church, included same-sex marriage, trial marriage for a year and a day, and married clergy. REAL traditional marriage is not limited to one man and one woman.

by Anonymousreply 805/12/2011

[quote] unless you're quoting from some uncited source, your repeated use of the phrase "support for traditional marriage" makes you sound like a freeper frau

The sportscasters own tweet R6

by Anonymousreply 905/12/2011

Conservatives really don't understand this whole Free Speech thing. They are so frigging dumb.

by Anonymousreply 1005/12/2011

Welcome to Stephen Harper's Canada where the biggots are starting to become louder.

by Anonymousreply 1105/12/2011

Understand, r9, but the same phrase is also used without quotes in the subject heading and the poll.

by Anonymousreply 1205/12/2011

That is what happens when you copy and paste in a hurry.

by Anonymousreply 1305/12/2011

I know that censhorship is only something governments perform, not private companies and I think the guy is a dick, but whatever happened to "I don't agree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for the right to say it."

If the community supported this guy's right to his opinions, we'd gain a lot of ground and support a freedom to speak the mind that we wouldn't be here without.

As for embarrassing his company, we need to move on from a world where we're not allowed to be ourselves in public because of employers. People on both sides of this debate are always casualties to cowardly employers who freak out over any controversy.

The only fair argument against the guy is that his views could affect his reporting of gay athletes, but even then, I'd like to see an example of bad reporting because of his bias.

by Anonymousreply 1405/12/2011

[quote]The only fair argument against the guy is that his views could affect his reporting of gay athletes, but even then, I'd like to see an example of bad reporting because of his bias.%0D %0D Gay athletes don't come out because of creeps like him, r14. Thus you don't have the slightest worry of "bad reporting because of his bias."

by Anonymousreply 1505/12/2011

He absolutely had a right to say it. He should not have been fired but I understand why they did. His "free speech" isn't being muzzled. But there are repercussions for outing yourself as a bigot.

by Anonymousreply 1605/12/2011

[quote]Conservatives are crying foul, saying this is free speech being muzzled. Plus if he tweeted his support for same-sex marriage, would he have been fired?

So long as it isn't hate speech or inciting others to violence, he can say what he wants publicly about same-sex marriage or traditional marriage. As for his employer firing him, it's legal so far as I know.

[quote]"Judges are tolerant of free speech", said Hamilton employment lawyer Ed Canning. "It's tolerated -- to the point it becomes incompatible with your obligations."

[quote]That means you can't be insubordinate, can't damage your employer's reputation with public criticism, and must not poison the work atmosphere with your comments.

[quote]"An employee can offer constructive criticism as long as, at the end of the day, they accept direction", Canning said.

[quote]"Employees have brains -- that's what they're employed for."

[quote]Fellow lawyer David Ivey wrote in The Spectator recently that there is a fine line between what is acceptable and what will get you legally fired.

[quote]"Employees who conduct themselves in a businesslike manner cannot be terminated for cause", he wrote.

[quote]"Where, however, the employee has his own personal agenda or offers criticism in a personal or spiteful way, those actions will not be condoned by the court."

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 1705/12/2011

Let me start off by saying I support gay marriage wholeheartedly.

Everyone should be afforded the same rights.

That being said, I also believe people should have the right to oppose same-sex marriage based on their religious beliefs, without being mocked and vilified for it.

Or worse, losing their job over it.

Frankly, I found the backlash directed at former Rogers Sportsnet anchor Damian Goddard and hockey agent Todd Reynolds for their opposition to same-sex marriage this week disturbing. Frightening even.

Neither said they hate gay people. What they said was that they oppose same-sex marriage based on their religious beliefs.

Yet both have been unmercifully attacked and ridiculed, on Twitter particularly. Sportsnet fired Goddard, even though the network insisted he wasn%E2%80%99t fired specifically because of his opposition towards same-sex marriage. Of course, no one really believes that.

There seems to be a double standard here with the message being: If you don%E2%80%99t believe what we believe, we%E2%80%99ll brand you a hater and a bigot and run you out of town.

Is that right? Is it okay to automatically brand someone, and ridicule someone, because they oppose same-sex marriage?

Does opposing same-sex marriage based on a religious belief make you a hater, even when you insist that you don%E2%80%99t hate gay people?

Many of our neighbours don%E2%80%99t believe in same sex marriage because of their religious beliefs. I have friends who believe the same.

And I would venture to say that most Muslims, and certainly many Catholics, and people of other faiths, don%E2%80%99t believe in same-sex marriage because of their religious beliefs.

Does that automatically make them haters and bigots?

I can%E2%80%99t believe that.

Again, I support same-sex marriage and I%E2%80%99m not a religious person. In fact, I believe religion is the cause of far too much misery in the world and some people spew hate and bigotry in the name of their religion. Which, of course, is wrong. But if my neighbour, someone I believe to be a good person, holds certain beliefs and tells me that he doesn%E2%80%99t hate anyone, then I%E2%80%99m not going to automatically turn against him.

Is hate not a two-way street?

Why is it okay for people on Twitter to mock and ridicule Goddard and celebrate the fact he got fired? Is ridicule not hate? Is mocking not hate? Is calling someone a %E2%80%9Cignorant f%$#%E2%80%9D because he opposes same sex marriage based on his religious beliefs not hate? Is piling on not hate? Twitter nation went on a feeding frenzy, vilifying and mocking Reynolds and Goddard for their stance.

I felt sorry for them.

And when I went on Twitter the other night to make that point, people automatically started to brand me. It%E2%80%99s bullying, and the really disturbing part is that you know people are going to keep their mouths shut from now on for fear of facing a similar backlash.

Nobody should blindly hate. And nobody has the right to brand someone or hate someone because they hold certain religious beliefs %E2%80%94 even if we don%E2%80%99t agree with them.

Do we want to live in a society where, if you don%E2%80%99t believe in something like same-sex marriage because of your faith, you have to be silent for fear of being ridiculed en masse, or for fear of losing your job?

Is that what we want in our society?

Because, I%E2%80%99ll tell you what, if I was against same-sex marriage based on faith (and, again, I%E2%80%99m all for same-sex marriage), I would never speak my mind, not after what Reynolds and Goddard went through.

There are too many places in the world where free speech is not allowed. But you have to wonder what%E2%80%99s worse %E2%80%94 not being allowed to speak up, or being afraid to speak up?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 1805/12/2011

[quote]That being said, I also believe people should have the right to oppose same-sex marriage based on their religious beliefs, without being mocked and vilified for it.

[quote]Or worse, losing their job over it.

If what was said by the employee reflects badly and negatively on the employee's employer, then the employer has the right to terminate the employee.

And people have the right to mock and vilify others for whatever reason, so long as it isn't hate speech/inciting others to violence.

by Anonymousreply 1905/12/2011

Employees don't have free speech. What they say reflects on their business. Any attempt to spin this any other way is bigotry.

by Anonymousreply 2005/12/2011

[quote]I also believe people should have the right to oppose same-sex marriage based on their religious beliefs, without being mocked and vilified for it.%0D %0D In the mid-20th century, many people based opposition to racial integration on religious beliefs -- quoting from the Bible. They sure would love the garbage you posted from the Toronto Sun, r18. %0D %0D When someone's religion interferes with RIGHTS afforded me by the Constitution of the United States, they deserve to be mocked and vilified for their stupidity and hate. They should be loudly mocked and chastised for stomping on my rights. It doesn't matter if they tweet it, e-mail it, or publish it, I will not refrain from loudly proclaiming their ignorance.

by Anonymousreply 2105/12/2011

This guy is no different than former CNN anchor Ricardo Sanchez. He made remarks on a radio show that was offensive to a minority of the population and CNN booted his ass.

Rogers has the same right as CNN to boot Damian's ample buttocks from the cablewaves. Let him tweet about anything now to his heart's content. Rogers doesn't own his ass anymore.

by Anonymousreply 2205/12/2011

The guy should not have lost his job. He's misguided, but it's a personal account.

by Anonymousreply 2305/12/2011

I get what r18 is saying, hate is a two way street. I feel that his employer had a right to fire him on the basis that he is a public figure and what he says can make his employer look bad, at the same time I feel he has a right to his religious beliefs and opinions even if I don't agree with them. He was bullied on twitter and that's wrong. I believe in free speech, even if I don't agree with what's said by others, it's an important right we have as Americans.

by Anonymousreply 2405/12/2011

I used to think that we people should not lose jobs over personal statements and that, as gay epople, we shouldn't stoop to demanding it. But now, after the Bush years...fuck him ! Fire his ass and anyone else who utters sgit like this.Give the irrational right back to them, since that's all they understand.

by Anonymousreply 2505/12/2011

[quote]He was bullied on twitter and that's wrong. I believe in free speech, even if I don't agree with what's said by others, it's an important right we have as Americans.

Except that this happened in Canada and we have different laws about freedom of speech here.

by Anonymousreply 2605/12/2011

Maybe they really had other reasons for firing him and used this as an excuse.

Also I wonder how many times he's been married, traditionally.

by Anonymousreply 2705/12/2011

I'm SICK of conservatives. P.S. SICK, SICK SICK!

by Anonymousreply 2805/12/2011

Of course he has a right to his religious beliefs. When his religious beliefs support discriminatory laws that prevent others from equal rights, we have every right to verbally bash the bigot. The Mormon cult believed it was right for men to have many wives. Just because it was their religious belief should we pretend it's okay? %0D %0D When religious beliefs uphold unjust laws that prevent people from the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, it's time to let those KKKristian fuckwads know that we're not going to take it anymore.

by Anonymousreply 2905/12/2011

[quote]That being said, I also believe people should have the right to oppose same-sex marriage based on their religious beliefs, without being mocked and vilified for it.

Would you have said the same thing back in the 60's when interracial marriage was illegal? In essence, you're saying that bigots should not be "mocked and vilified."

by Anonymousreply 3005/12/2011

Religion is not a free pass for bigotry.

by Anonymousreply 3105/12/2011

-More discussion

by Anonymousreply 3205/12/2011

I think many of you need to look at the meaning of "bigot". I'll save you the google search.

"a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own"

Goddard is not saying Avery can't have his opinion. Stating a contrary opinion is not intolerance. Now, saying the Rangers should suspend him for his opinion I would consider intolerant.

However, most of the people here are extremely intolerant of Goddard's opinion and I think it would be disingenuous to suggest Sportsnet was anything but intolerant of the opinion.

So I think if the term bigot is to be applied it would be far more accurate to apply it those of you slamming Goddard and most of all to Sportsnet.

by Anonymousreply 3305/13/2011

Sportsnet was justified in what they did from their point of view. PLUS, they indicated it was the last in a list of reasons why they let him go. I don't care what anyone says - yes, he should lose his job if the station is concerned about negative press. It's part of the business. If he didn't know that, then I guess it sucks to be him. Sportsnet might want to appear unbiased, but a guy like this brings a level of bias that maybe they feel they can't afford. And the whole, "but it was on his own time" line doesn't cut it, either. When you're a TV personality, you're 'on' all the time, whether it's physically on-air, or posting from your Twitter. Maybe stuff like this will make people wake up to the mindlessness that is Twitter and other social media - you don't always have to have an opinion.

by Anonymousreply 3405/13/2011

[quote]"a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own"

Oh please. Being intolerant of intolerance doesn't make us bigots. By your logic, Martin Luther King, Gandhi and Rosa Parks were all bigots.

by Anonymousreply 3505/13/2011

[quote]I know that censhorship is only something governments perform, not private companies and I think the guy is a dick, but whatever happened to "I don't agree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for the right to say it."%0D %0D Free speech and individual liberty, my ass. Most anyone working in the least capacity for any firm remotely concerned with its public image now has standards for use of social media by its employees. But this wasn't that. It wasn't someone fired for a naked personal ad, or a private donation to partisan organization, or for offering an anonymous opinion in an online forum. %0D %0D The guy was fired because he used the Twitter account that was bound up in the promotion of his employer's TV station and his professional reputation to venture a personal opinion that he knew would be controversial and might reflect poorly upon his employer. %0D %0D That he was "only" lending his personal take to the expressed view of a professional athlete is no more excuse than if, in 1988, he had offered up his support for Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder who said that black athletes were naturally better than white athletes thanks to the selective breeding of slave owners.%0D %0D Any fucking idiot involved in media knows when to back away from offering personal opinion and to take cover under factual reporting. It might be his job to argue his own opinion against some referee's decision, but it's not his job to use sports as a platform to offend classes of people on non-sports issues.

by Anonymousreply 3605/13/2011

[quote]I also believe people should have the right to oppose same-sex marriage based on their religious beliefs, without being mocked and vilified for it.%0D %0D %0D %0D In some instances, there are not two sides to an issue. In some instances, there is a right side and a wrong side. In this case, the wrong side is the opposition to same-sex marriage. So, yes, if you are on the clearly wrong side of an issue, you need to be mocked and vilified.

by Anonymousreply 3705/13/2011

This is actually what anti-unionists want. Really. 'Right to work' means employers can fire your ass for any reason.

by Anonymousreply 3805/13/2011

The dumb-dumb has a a right to exercise his right to free-speech, but his boss to fire his ass for hurting their business.

by Anonymousreply 3905/13/2011

Would you be fired if you said that interracial couples should not be allowed to marry?

by Anonymousreply 4005/13/2011

[quote]This is actually what anti-unionists want. Really. 'Right to work' means employers can fire your ass for any reason.%0D %0D Bullshit. The sportscaster used a company provided medium (his Twitter account) intended expressly to promote its own professional image and he chose instead to court controvery. %0D %0D The TV station didn't object to some personal opinion he expressed in a church newsletter; it objected (rightly) to his misuse of a Twitter account that had been intended solely to boost the image and ratings of the station's sports news department. %0D %0D What he did was as wrong as it would be for a network national news anchor to commandeer a network blog opinion piece about Middle East tensions into a sounding board for a personal distaste for "filthy Jews" or "filthy Arabs." %0D %0D

by Anonymousreply 4105/13/2011

Fundie preachers are going to Africa and preaching death for gays. Does he also support death for gays as part of his religious beliefs?

by Anonymousreply 4205/13/2011

Stop hiding behind religion BIGOTS!

by Anonymousreply 4305/13/2011

R36 was the last post this thread needed. The guy is a douchebag so his employer fired his ass. The sad part is that he's going to be made a victim of the 'homosexual agenda', when that is hardly the case at all here.

by Anonymousreply 4405/13/2011

People should not be fired for their religious beliefs (such as that lesbians and gays are okay!). But that's not what happened here.%0D Indeed, it is highly probable that he sent out that tweet in order to try to create a religious discrimination claim when he knew he was going to be fired.%0D

by Anonymousreply 4505/13/2011

Anyway he was not an employee but a TEMP so the same standard of scrutiny does not apply.%0D

by Anonymousreply 4605/13/2011

What I really want to know is:%0D %0D Has Sean Avery finally come out??

by Anonymousreply 4705/13/2011

r36 / r41 and r29 - You are right on point. Thank you for your posts.

by Anonymousreply 4805/13/2011

[quote] Anyway he was not an employee but a TEMP so the same standard of scrutiny does not apply.

He was there for ten years. He was a contract employee, not a temp.

by Anonymousreply 4905/13/2011

Those in the media and public eye have all the free speech in the world, although to pretend they are not in a situation to experience consequences of unpopular opinion is just backwards!

by Anonymousreply 5005/13/2011

Hockey agent Todd Reynolds has just issued a statement saying there%E2%80%99s a double standard at work in this issue.

%E2%80%9CWhether you agree with me or Damian Goddard %E2%80%93 or not %E2%80%93 I%E2%80%99ve had many people on both sides of the issue who have been shocked"

%E2%80%9CYou should not be fired for coming out and supporting Sean Avery. But Damian Goddard was fired for supporting me.%E2%80%9D

Still Reynolds equivocates when asked if there%E2%80%99s room for openly gay people in professional sports.

%E2%80%9CI know people who are gay,%E2%80%9D he says. %E2%80%9CI interact with people who are gay. I tolerate it. I%E2%80%99m a Christian. God loves us. I%E2%80%99m far from perfect. I%E2%80%99m not here to point fingers. But there is a truth. There is a right and wrong and we need to stand for that. The reason why I responded to Avery%E2%80%99s video is it%E2%80%99s a hot-button topic and a divisive issue and it entered the hockey arena%E2%80%A6 Marriage is for one man and one woman. Some of the responses have been hateful. It%E2%80%99s a sad commentary on our culture. I voiced my support for traditional marriage and that%E2%80%99s not going to change.%E2%80%9D

by Anonymousreply 5105/14/2011

[quote] There is a right and wrong and we need to stand for that.%0D %0D That's correct. But who's right and who's wrong?%0D %0D Sean Avery came out in support of equal rights for gays in regard to marriage contracts. That's right. %0D %0D Todd Reynolds wants to impose his bigoted religious beliefs on a group of people in order to prevent them from enjoying the equal rights guaranteed by the Constitution. In speaking out for the lie that is termed "traditional marriage" he supports the unjust laws that limit the rights of people to form a binding marriage contract with those they love. That's wrong.

by Anonymousreply 5205/14/2011

R21 is right. The problem with Goddard was that he used his (network) pulpit to preach against basic rights that are protected in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. From that standpoint alone it is no different than protesting and/or saying that interracial marriage is wrong, that everyone but Catholics are going to hell, that women shouldn't be permitted to own property, etc.

by Anonymousreply 5305/14/2011

Anyone who is repped by that asshole Todd Reynolds should be tarred with the same brush. Christians and their 'toleration' my ass.

by Anonymousreply 5405/14/2011

The reaction speaks volumes to the fact that gay people are the only minority group for whom many think discrimination is acceptable. If he had tweeted about his support against interracial marriage or the right to prevent Jews from owning businesses, would we have this firestorm of 'free speech' bullshit?

by Anonymousreply 5505/14/2011

[quote]Stating a contrary opinion is not intolerance.

Bull. That's a nice little sleight of hand, but it really doesn't hold up under any sort of scrutiny. You have to look at the substance of what the "contrary" opinion is. Here, Reynolds opposes an extension -- to gays and lesbians -- of rights accorded to the majority. That sounds pretty intolerant.

The fact that this opinion somehow stands in opposition to someone else's opinion is, in and of itself, totally irrelevant. So what? That doesn't magically absolve him from the hateful, bigoted nature of what he has said. What matters is the fact that at its core, his belief is intolerant of equal rights.

by Anonymousreply 5605/14/2011

Thank you, R56.%0D %0D I'm glad this ignorant bigot got fired for it. He serves as an example to others... you're wrong, you're unacceptable, and you need to shut the hell up and educate yourself.%0D

by Anonymousreply 5705/14/2011
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!