Here's an interesting story. Larry Grard, a journalist for the Morning Sentinel in Waterville, Maine, lost his job because, the day after Question 1 (same-sex marriage ban) passed in Maine, he sent this email to HRC:
Who are the hateful, venom-spewing ones? Hint: Not the yes on 1 crowd. You hateful people have been spreading nothing but vitriol since this campaign began. Good riddance!
What he says is demonstrably true; homophobes have been attacked much more than LGBT people over the last few decades. The difference is so great that I can't think of a single instance when the tables were turned and a homophobe acted on hate.
HRC emailed Grard's editor with:
I received the below e-mail this morning after our national media release was sent to your team.
In his own defense, Larry Grard says:
Grard, who said he'd gotten no sleep the night before, used his own e-mail to send a response. "They said the Yes-on-1 people were haters. I'm a Christian. I take offense at that," he said. "I e-mailed them back and said basically, 'We're not the ones doing the hating. You're the ones doing the hating.'
"I sent the same message in his face he sent in mine."
Grard thought his response was anonymous, but it turned out to be anything but. [...]
Grard said he wouldn't be complaining if he'd been subjected to a lesser penalty, such as a reprimand or a suspension without pay, for his first offence. He said reporters frequently send personal e-mails from their own accounts during working hours without incurring management's wrath.
Grard said he thinks his religious beliefs were a factor in his firing, calling it "anti-Christian bias." "A lawyer said to me, 'What if you'd agreed with [the Human Rights Campaign]? Would the company fire you for that? Of course they wouldn't have,'" he said.
Of course everyone hates Christians in America. That's why we require all presidential candidates to kiss Rick Warren's ring in order to be considered viable candidates.
He says he sent the email from a personal account, but it was also sent on a company computer. All in all, it does call into question his ability to remain objective if he sends emails to people he may cover calling them "venom-spewing." It also shows that he knew what he did was wrong when he tried to send the email anonymously and admits that there should have been some recourse for his actions. And I'm sure there's no shortage of people willing to work for the Morning Sentinel.
What do you all think? Too harsh? Appropriate?