Former Olympian, Canadian Sports Anchor Blacklisted by Gays
By Tim Graham | May 15, 2011 | 08:25
Freedom of speech or political association is not a value the liberal media revere, at least not when it comes to blacklisting people who oppose homosexuality. Peter Vidmar, a 1984 Olympic gold medalist, had to resign as chef de mission for the 2012 U.S. Olympic team because as a Mormon, he donated $2,000 for Proposition 8 in California supporting traditional marriage and appeared at two Prop 8 rallies.
But Vidmar’s not alone. Lifesitenews.com reported one of Canada’s major sports anchors, Damian Goddard of Rogers Sportsnet, was fired after voicing support for Vidmar on his Twitter page.
Gay Olympic skater Johnny Weir explicitly tied Vidmar to racists in his opposition in a Chicago Tribune interview:
"Most people would have an issue if the chef (de mission) publicly was against Asian-Americans or African-Americans, so it should be dealt with if the chef is anti-gay...
"It's wrong,"' Weir said in a telephone interview. "I certainly wouldn't want to be represented by someone who is anti gay marriage. It isn't just about marriage, it is being allowed equal rights as Americans. The fact this man who is very publicly against something that may be represented on the American team is disgraceful.''
Weir is the same scholar who insisted to Joy Behar that he thinks Jesus was a woman. Vidmar resigned by saying he didn’t want his religious beliefs to distract from the U.S. Olympic effort. From USA Today:
In a statement released Friday evening, Vidmar said, "I have dedicated my life to the Olympic movement and the ideals of excellence, friendship and respect. I wish that my personal religious beliefs would not have become a distraction from the amazing things that are happening in the Olympic movement in the United States. I simply cannot have my presence become a detriment to the U.S. Olympic family. I hope that by stepping aside, the athletes and their stories will rightly take center stage."
USA Today's Christine Brennan, no stranger to tub-thumping for feminism, simply recounted the Vidmar purge without criticizing it:
"Olympic gold medalist joins Rancho Prop 8 demonstration," said The Orange County Register on Oct. 30, 2008, in which it quoted Vidmar as saying, "It's good for our society to have a traditional definition of marriage."
Vidmar said his opposition to same-sex marriage comes from his religious beliefs as a Mormon.
"The Church wanted to take a stand on the issue, and they invited their members to take a stand," he told the Tribune. "I chose to be involved."
In U.S. Olympic circles, there was concern that Vidmar wasn't just expressing his personal opinions on a controversial issue, but that he had moved into an activist role on an issue involving civil rights.
Philip Hersh of the Chicago Tribune also let the blacklisters express themselves without opposition:
Box Turtle Bulletin, a web site devoted to "news, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric,'' headlined an April 29 item on Vidmar's selection as chef de mission, "U.S. Olympic Committee goes anti-gay.''
The website outsports.com said, ``This is not the first time the USOC has made a decision antagonizing the gay community.'' The other decision cited by outsports was the USOC's legal fight to prevent the founder of the Gay Games, Tom Waddell, from using the name, ``Gay Olympic Games'' for the event.
The firing of Damian Goddard in Canada is a sign of the trend that's coming to the United States. Advocate against homosexuality, and you won't have a career in the media. (NBC hockey blogger James O'Brien actually blamed Goddard for "inappropriate" timing):
Damian Goddard, the now-former host of “Connected” on Rogers Sportsnet, had tweeted his support of Burlington hockey agent Todd Reynolds, who created a stir this week when he criticized New York Rangers hockey star Sean Avery for shooting a TV ad backing gay “marriage.” [Reynolds said of gay marriage, "Legal or not, it will always be wrong."]
“I completely and wholeheartedly support Todd Reynolds and his support for the traditional and TRUE meaning of marriage,” wrote Goddard on May 10th. He also voiced support for U.S. Olympic gold medalist Peter Vidmar, who resigned as chef de mission for the 2012 U.S. Olympic team after homosexual activists created a controversy over his support for true marriage.
Sportsnet had distanced themselves from the comments on their own Twitter account. They announced Wednesday that Goddard had been fired and did not specify the reasons.
“Mr. Goddard was a freelance contractor and in recent weeks it had become clear that he is not the right fit for our organization,” said Sportsnet spokesman Dave Rashford in a statement.
Nevertheless, Goddard is standing by the comments. “In terms of what I said, I stand by it,” he told the Toronto Star. “I’m a devout Roman Catholic. It’s not about hate at all.”
Actually, this is about hate. Homosexual activists hate anyone questioning them and will get you fired if you dare to profess your religious beliefs. Being a Christian is now more offensive to liberals than being a member of the Communist Party.
- Tim Graham's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Who is practicing the hate here?
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 8:33am.
This is positively chilling.
Particularly in light of the Obama Administration's latest attempt to have all contracts contain information about not only the company's political donations, but its employees' donations as well.
We see what the Administration is trying to do in Boeing in South Carolina, what it's done w/GM, what it's trying to do in regard to executive salaries on Wall Street.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
This is clearly unconstitutional. We need to absolutely support these people who were forced out due to their religious beliefs, and for exercising their free speech.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 138 (and Counting)
I would also say that people
Submitted by motherbelt on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 8:51am.
I would also say that people like Vidmar, who are being harassed for their religious beliefs, need to stop bowing out to avoid creating a "distraction."
Weir is creating the distraction by focusing on Vidmar's religious.; He's the one who should shut up or bow out.
`This is not the first time the USOC has made a decision antagonizing the gay community.''
Oh, heaven forbid we should antagonize the gay community!!
I thought the Olympics were not political????
<Chris Matthews imitation> HA!!
We are not France
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 8:57am.
This is clearly a constitutional issue. Being forced out of one's job for not only voicing one's religious beliefs (marriage is one man/one woman) but also for supporting those beliefs by financially supporting a ballot proposition IS NOT ILLEGAL. Nor, of course, is it immoral.
I hope these two sue the living hell out of their employer AND Johnny Weir personally. These gay activists need to learn that hate speech works both ways, and so do consequences of their special "hate laws".
As I said before, this is positively chilling. We are becoming France under Obama, what with the thought police, official reporting of political donations by corporations and their employees to the federal government, and of course, leading from the rear. Sacre bleu!!!
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 138 (and Counting)
You raise a great point, Blonde
Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 12:11pm.
Employers can fire employees for illegal or inappropriate behavior. They cannot fire someone for their beliefs, especially their religious beliefs.
These individuals ought to sue for discrimination. And it Weir and other homosexual athletes cannot bring themselves to adjust this, they should boycott the Olympics.
By the way, President Obama has publicly stated that he supports civil unions, but not gay marriage. Will he get the same treatment? Would boycotting Obama be an act of racism?
I had the same thought, Galv
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 12:45pm.
About Obama not supporting gay marriage.
We are clearly entering "some pigs are more equal than other pigs" territory, and many people just hide their heads in the sand because it doesn't affect them personally. Dangerous times, indeed.
And just a stray thought.....do you think we'll see the gay extremists try to paint Romney with this brush by association (as a Mormon and a former head of the USOC)?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 138 (and Counting)
It 's a sad day when you are
Submitted by kg on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 8:55am.
It 's a sad day when you are required to abandon your morals and believe what you are told to believe just to keep a job. 2+2=5 comes to mind. And the worse is yet to come.
"DumbAssity of Dope"
Which leads me to wonder how this info was obtained
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 9:51am.
I often fly a gadsden flag outside in the summer, so I'm publicizing that I'm a member of the Tea Party. By making a donation to a cause one is no going public. So how did this information get out? Are there groups making databases of donations just waiting to pounce on people? And we are LETTING them?
Essentially the gays are putting gold stars on any Christian who doesn't believe in homosexuality.
Blonde is right, this is very, very, frightening.
There is a simple name for all of this, Blonde.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 12:37pm.
It's called Fascism. We need to start calling it what it is.
This country is heading down the same road that Germany and Italy took in the 1930's and we need to start calling a spade a spade.
True, Bubba
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 12:50pm.
The Germany thought had occurred to me as well. But when I make the opening post on a thread, I try not to make it too broad (although sometimes I can't help but fire of a huge rant).
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 138 (and Counting)
Equal rights??? Johnny, you
Submitted by motherbelt on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 8:42am.
Equal rights???
Johnny, you have the same right to marry any woman you want, as every other American male.
You also don't have the right to marry your own brother, even in gay "marriage" was allowed.
Marry your brother?
Submitted by NC Boy on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 9:10am.
Well, at least you won't have that "right" at first. There will be nothing to stop expansion from including siblings, parents, and any combination of other people. The Animal Rights folks may have the clout to stop the expansion to bestiality, but Christians certainly wouldn't be able to stop that.
Incestmo will rejoice
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 9:20am.
Ugh. "Nuff said.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 138 (and Counting)
towards a more fascist society
Submitted by MidAmerica on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 9:06am.
The nonreligious bigots are attempting to push all public displays of religion underground. They wish to model our society on other oppressive societies where only the 'approved' religions are allowed to openly state their beliefs.
Some day I hope somebody will take their prejudiced firing or harassment all the way to the Supreme Court and get a ruling on whether this country has Freedom of Religion or not.
....and if they win at the High Court I hope they sue their opponent for gazillions in damages.
Tim, I don't normally do this
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 9:07am.
....comment on the blogs or titles, but in this case, I think the title of your blog doesn't quite capture the gravity of the situation.
This is an important story you've put up here. I can see it going viral...and getting much play.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 138 (and Counting)
I think "blacklisted" says it
Submitted by motherbelt on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 10:41am.
I think "blacklisted" says it perfectly. Anyone who knows what that means knows how serious that is (well, now I can see your point, lol)
Apparently blacklisting was an obscene travesty when dealing with communists, but it's a perfectly acceptable tactic to be used against anyone who doesn't support the gay agenda.
Tyranny of the minority, anyone?????
Hey, how about "Tyranny of the Minority Against Religion" as a headline?
Like I said ...
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 12:42pm.
Let's call it what it is. "Just like '38 Germany, U.S,O.C. bows to Fascism."
history repeating itself
Submitted by MidAmerica on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 9:35am.
Hitler saw Germany as having a 'Jewish' problem and now there are powerful people and organizations who see America as having a 'Christian' problem.
Denying careers and opportunity in America based on a persons religious beliefs should alarm everyone.
"Gay marriage" is an oxymoronic phrase.
Submitted by ekslib on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 10:01am.
The expression makes no sense.
Agreed. and gay marriage activists are anarchists........
Submitted by merly1 on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 10:24am.
and America is quickly succumbing to its social ills, from illegitimacy to truancy to crime to youth suicide/ADD/depression etc, China has to be smirking behind closed doors...............
Mr. Vidmar
Submitted by NVRAT on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 10:40am.
Do your thing, there can`t be much of a loss here. America has a Liberal Politician problem and a Political Correctness problem created by Liberals and Free Loaders.
Fight back against the real bullies
Submitted by nkviking75 on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 11:16am.
The gay rights activists have been using the recent campaigns against bullying as a way to silence criticism against them. In reality, there are a lot of gay activists who are themselves bullies. Intimidation has been a hallmark of their movement for decades. They need to be forcefully opposed. One good example is what Iowa voters did last November. The Iowa Supreme Court imposed gay "marriage" by a 7-0 vote. But justices must face a retention vote every 8 years. Last year 3 of them were up for retention. Up to then no justice had been voted out of office, but in 2010 voters tossed all three of them. That sent shockwaves through the state. Our liberal Democrat controlled Senate is all that stands between a constitutional amendment to repeal the ruling, and in 2012 that may change. We need to fight back, and fight hard.
“Always love your country — but never trust your government!" -- Bob Novak (1931-2009)
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
The hypocrisy is thicker than Jello...
Submitted by NeoKong on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 11:23am.
Weir demands that he be allowed to be who he is free from judgment or bigotry but would want to drive someone else away from their livelihood because of their beliefs it it piques his anger. "It's wrong,"' Weir said in a telephone interview. "I certainly wouldn't want to be represented by someone who is anti gay marriage. It isn't just about marriage, it is being allowed equal rights as Americans. The fact this man who is very publicly against something that may be represented on the American team is disgraceful.'' What about Vidmar's "equal rights" ...? Apparently it is OK for Weir to disapprove of someone and even punish them when nobody has suggested that sort of treatment for him. He a typical victim activist. They always try to fool people that it is about "rights" but in the end it is really about pay back.
Why would this story get any
Submitted by redfish on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 12:33pm.
Why would this story get any traction? Very few people know about the bullying efforts with eightmaps.com. Very few people know about the conflict created between gay marriage and religious liberties for businesses. Very few people know that the percent of pedophiles in public schools is higher than in the priesthood. Very few people know about the Supreme Court ruling that prohibited Christian clubs on campuses setting standards for behavior and basically allowed them to be subverted by people who want to get rid of them. Most people know the official media take on stories; ie they believe that girl was excluded from her prom because she was gay, while she was really excluded for wearing a tuxedo.
Why is this story going to get any more traction than the rest? That social conservatives are allowed to be bullied is a consequence of the fact that the "conservative media" has given up on social issues. You will never hear the other side of the story on the mainstream media (which now includes Fox News and talk radio).
And it might as well be for the better, anyway, because I think Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly and all would sensationalize them, to the point that people don't take the stories seriously. Like people don't take the "War on Christmas" story seriously.
If social conservatives want to actually get their voices heard they have to start being smarter on these things.
Anyone who thinks this same
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 12:36pm.
Anyone who thinks this same sort of thing won't rear it's ugly head in the military has got his head in the sand. Keep your distance from known gays in your unit? Homophobe. Ask to be assigned to another BEQ because your roommate is gay? Hater. Attend an anti-gay marriage rally during liberty? Subject to Article 15. Just watch.
This is exactly why I opposed the repeal of DADT; gays don't want equal rights, they want special provisions. They want to silence anyone that doesn't support them. They want to out anyone who opposes them. They want to punish anyone who speaks out for their personal beliefs regarding traditional marriage.
The 2-3% of gay Americans, as represented by their loudest subset, are positioning themselves as the untouchable antagonists and in the process, inciting opposition toward them with their outrageous and despicable tactics. This is why some people today despise them; it has nothing to do with their choice of sexual partner, it has everything to do with their very public displays of depravity.
It already has come up in the
Submitted by redfish on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 1:03pm.
It already has come up in the military to some extent, I don't know if you've read the stories about sensitivity training regarding gay persons and use of chapels. But the consequences of the repeal of DADT always depended on how the repeal was done. If it was done through the courts, you're right the result would have hamstrung the military and led to a lot of discrimination lawsuits. But it wasn't done through the courts, so at least now there's a chance to work things out properly.
Its important for people to understand though that most gay people never cared about gay marriage, most aren't interested in marrying anyway, and supported civil unions or whatever legislative solution that would have afforded them things like hospital visitation rights. Conservatives have agreed with doing that for a long time; there were many conservative organizations in the 90s pushing some form of civil union laws. The only thing that's prevented resolution on this issue are the radical activists. We could have come to agreements on gay rights issues 20 years ago if it weren't for the all-or-nothing crowd.
And there are a lot of motivations driving those activists besides gay rights. Many of them are atheists and don't like religion.
It's happening again.
Submitted by DumbCanuck on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 5:08pm.
It appears that we have failed to learn the lessons of history... Well, some of us anyway.
We need to pray, and pray real hard. Because my feeling is that things will get worse... MUCH worse, before people finally begin to see reason again.
"There... Are... Four... Lights!"
Joe McCarthy would be proud
Submitted by buddyc on Sun, 05/15/2011 - 5:37pm.
Joe McCarthy would be proud of these people. As you recall it was NOT these people were not communists, it was the lack of tolerance and the means.
Joe McCarthy and the hollywood blacklist are alive and well today and the gay community is their perpetrator and guardian.
Johnny who?
Submitted by peteto1 on Mon, 05/16/2011 - 12:58am.
Why would anyone care what Johnny Queer has to say? Being an exceptional athlete doesn't give one the right to prance around as an "over the top" queen who DENIES others their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to Freedom of Speech. You may not agree with someone else's opinion, but they should ALWAYS have the right to express themselves (barring their speech doesn't directly CAUSE bodily harm). The right to free speech was meant to protect offensive/ politically charged speech, not innocuous speech.....