Wow… Unless I’ve misunderstood you, I don’t see how you’ve come to that conclusion.

Here’s what I’m saying… I will try to be as clear as possible.
GPW, in his original post, brought up excellent points on how Republican leaders – like Schwarzenegger, and Giuliani – are doing things for gays. Outreach and legislation that ultimately support equality for gays are examples of positive representation while trying to hold true to the rest of their constituency. It’s a delicate balancing act and should rightly be commended. Ehrlich removed someone because of their personal conviction that – near as we can tell – did NOT impact his job performance. Ultimately, it has no positive affect on the gay community beyond some handclapping from the actual PC Left.

Imagine applying this same reasoning that fell on Smith to yourself. What if my boss found my blog? What if he disagreed with the statements I make – irrelevant to my job and in no way claiming to represent my company – and fired me over them? I concede (here, again>, and in a previous post) the difference between public and private sector, but conservative thought should confront dissent, not squelch or deny it. Ehrlich should support his politics thru debate and legislation, not by exercising his authority against those that disagree with him.

As for the off remark I made to syn, I simply abhore stereotype. I took personal offense and responded in a personal way. I’ll try to reign that in.

Bring out the whips. Bring out the stocks. Someone is diminishing our monoply as the collective voice for gays.

I understand syn’s take on all this… and, I too, have looked into a lot of eyes of GayLeft activists and see only fanatical devotion to keeping a monopoly on being “the voice of gays”.

It may be fascism in its earliest stage.

Or it may just too much time spent at Democrat Party HdQrts licking stamps.

Or it may be evidence of their appreciation they no longer matter on the political landscape and are ranting louder, longer, more often to get some attention (raj, Gramps, Ian S and others here come to mind).

In a way, they’re just following after the lessons of leaders like John Conyers… remember all his stunts to bring some attention —Hell, any attention– to the Downing St Memo? It was high comedy at times.

When that collective voice is discredited, we’ll finally gain progress on the gay agenda. Right now, most of America doesn’t care about our issues –and they have good reason.

Mildly representative of my view on why this decision from Ehrlich was wrong, reflected poorly on him and his administration, and will likely reflect poorly on the gay community. Just take out the slippery slope arguments and it represents my opinion to the letter.

And just to drive my point home – this goes to you, Syn sans my snarkiness – we should be clear that this is not a strike for gay rights, but a strike against freedom of thought and expression.

Hi! I’d like to thank you for clumping all “gayism” into one, large group based off of your personal experiences with a few individuals. The next time I lose my sense of reason and clump all religiosity into a broad, unflattering generalization, I’ll think of you and feel better about how such stunning irrationality is so common place and acceptable.

You are a service to whatever view it is you represent.

That aside, GPW brings up some excellent points for Ehrlich. Since Smith was a part of his administration, technically any public speech he makes will reflect on that administration, and that’s simply the cost of being in public life. It is, however, still counterproductive to me. I wince a bit when I find myself in agreement with the AFA (flamey rhetoric and pointless boldface aside), but if the cause for gay equality is strong (and I believe that rationally it is), then it can withstand a dissenting and personal opinion. Given that it is exactly those types of personal feelings that are the highest hurdle we have to overcome, firing someone for simply having them is not going to win gays any favor with the – sadly – numerous people who feel the same way.

My gay friend’s attitude is so common among the collective group think who feel perfectly entitled to mock, ridicule and use others misery as comic relief for his own miserable life.

I am done with being a fag hag and want nothing ever to do again with gays, their agenda, and their irrational emotionalism.

I agree with Camile Paglia as I too have look in the eyes of gay activists and all I see today is vicious fascism.

I am done with gayism and after a decades of supporting his cause that gay guy is no longer my firend

In the Blade article, Smith said that his comments on the television program “had no relevance to his work on the Metro board.” As the medium was a public forum — and he a public official — in my view, that’s making a public statement.

From what I have read elsewhere–I don’t recall exactly where–not only was he making a public statement (it should be clear that the statement was public), but he was also appearing on the television program either as a representative of the Metro board, or he allowed himself to be announced as being on the Metro board. He was not on the program as just some John Q. Citizen that the program dragged off the street to appear. Accordingly, if the MD governor believed that his statement on the TV program might have resulted in disrepute of his state’s representation on the board, he was probably well within his rights to remove him from his state’s representation on board.

That said, had he made the comment at a private dinner party, I might have a different view of the subject.

Agreed.

BTW, this is being discussed at volokh.com, and Gene has an interesting take on the “free exercise” clause. From what I gather, he suggests that that clause may actually require some equal rights for gay people. I believe that he’s grasping at straws, since I have noted the he is relatively anti-equal-rights-for-gay-people, but his discussion makes an interesting read.

So what you are telling us is that you support a religious test for holding public office, right?

Sounds like it, doesn’t it?

So what you are telling us is that you support a religious test for holding public office, right?

http://www.afa.net/marylandgov.asp

Its amazing how one can put spin on just about everything.

It is entirely possible that he could harbor private feelings of animosity toward gay people, yet work well with them in his official capacities.

To be sure, he has a right to his own opinions, but I’m not comfortable with the notion of having anybody with such views in public office. Of course, that would mean firing a lot of Democratic appointees who have expressed narrow views of people of faith. But, you guys are right to rise the issue of an official’s ability to separate his narrow private views from his officials duties.

Oh, and, by and large, this has been a great discussion! Keep up the civil comments!

I stand by my earlier position.

1.”It’s one simple comment that acting Black, in my view, is deviant and his quote on that — that was a correct characterization of the TV show,” Smith said.

2. “It’s one simple comment that Islamic behavior, in my view, is deviant and his quote on that — that was a correct characterization of the TV show,” Smith said.

3. “It’s one simple comment that Hebrew behavior, in my view, is deviant and his quote on that — that was a correct characterization of the TV show,” Smith said.

4. “It’s one simple comment that cripples, in my view, are deviant and his quote on that — that was a correct characterization of the TV show,” Smith said.

Simple free or irresponsible speech in the workplace?

There is also the not inconsequential consideration that the future viability of our governments may in part depend on the willingness of people with the views of Jim Grahams and Robert Smith respectively to work together on the common good despite their differences. If Shiite and Sunnis are trying to set aside their murderous differences and work together for the common good of the nation of Iraq, I certainly think Jim Graham ought to be able to work with Robert Smith without issuing childish ultimatums and threats.

If Smith was calling Graham a deviant during the course of Metro business, then I would support Graham and Ehrlich’s stance because clearly Smith himself was refusing to work with Graham for the common good of the DC region’s transporation network. That, however, does not appear to be the case.

At this point I am not expecting any Democrats acknowleding what Governer Ehrlich did. I”m just glad he did the right thing.

“Graham, who is gay, also serves on the Metro board and informed board members during a June 15 meeting that Smith used the term “sexual deviants” (Washington Blade)

One does not have freedom of speech in the work place, Mr. Smith is welcome to share those views with his friends off the job. But on the job he should be keeping those opinions to himself. I’m glad Governer Erlich is not allowing meanspirited, hate speech to take place during work meetings on the job. Maybe if Graham had overheard the comment between co-workers during lunch hour I would feel differently, but this was definately during a work meeting.