NBA Great, Tim Hardaway

He hates gay people:

Well, you know, I hate gay people,” Hardaway said in response to Le Batard. “I let it be known I don’t like gay people. I don’t like to be around gay people. I’m homophobic. It shouldn’t be in the world, in the United States, I don’t like it.

He can't say that, can he?


Welcome to the First Amendment.

Awaiting profuse apologies...


Anonymous said...

I never understood why people have to hide behind the constitution when it comes to topics like this and more than half the people in the country don't even know what's in it.

Anonymous said...

I do not see it as hiding myself. After all if people have to put up with gay pride parades then gays can sure as well put up with Free Speech opposing them.

Bill said...

What, exactly is your point with this post, geeguy? If it's that Americans have the right to say dumb things, I have to respectfully respond, "Duh!" Who would argue that he doesn't have the right to say this stuff or have these views?
Or is there more to the point of this post?

GeeGuy said...

The point is this. We have come so far in our politically correct society, it seems as though some might think we can't say such things. And, while Hardaway felt unconstrained, the PC forces will get to him soon enough.

I'll bet you dollars to donuts that there are people who have read this post already who believe that it either is or should be illegal to "hate" in the way Hardaway professes.

Which is the problem with "hate crimes." Hate is, frankly, legal. It should be legal. It is bad, it is ignorant, and it is fundamentally a thought. It is fine to pass laws to ensure that it cannot be acted upon. But we should never try to legally outlaw hate.

Bill said...

Thanks for clearing that up. I think it's obvious (although perhaps not to everyone) that there is a difference between speech that has a legal consequence and speech that has a social consequence. Obviously, Hardaway will not go to jail for saying what he said, but don't you agree that it is right that there be a social consequence to uttering such homophobic drivel? Just as Mel Gibson has paid a price for his anti-semitic tirade and Michael Richards paid a social price for his?
Personally, I was far more shocked at Hardaway's comments as there is no excuse in context or meaning - he has unabashedly and unapologetically declared his bigotry. It was his pride in the statement that got me. Gibson apologized; Richards apologized; Isaiah Washington apologized. They at least ackowledged that what they said was wrong. Something tells me that Hardaway won't.
Wouldn't you count yourself amongst the "PC police" who would come out and condemn such a clear statement of bigotry? Saying his statement is shockingly bigoted (which I note you haven't done) doesn't make anyone unreasonable, does it?

GeeGuy said...

The "social consequence" you discuss is merely everyone else exercising their right to freedom of expression. So yes, I am fine with it.

I guess I don't know if commenting on his statements as "bad" and "ignorant" counts as condemnation of what he said. I guess I think it does.

As far as bigotry, you will have to explain a bit further. Do you mean that everyone who opposes the homosexual lifestyle is a bigot? Everyone who opposes the homosexual agenda is a bigot? Do you mean that everyone who finds homosexual sex repugnant is a bigot? You need to define your terms.

rebcon said...

The random day I am home sick and check back here, what do I find? Homosexuality! here are my thoughts:

A bigot is more than a person with narrow-minded views, a bigot is one who attempts to impose those views on others.

A person, opposed to homosexuality on personal religious or moral grounds: not a bigot.

The same person, voting to forbid marriage rights to gay people: a bigot.

Why? He/she is attempting to impose his/her moral/religious views on others through the medium of legislation.

For the record, I will both defend Hardaway's right to say what he did and condemn his homophobia as ignorant and hateful. Condemning what he said doesn't make me PC, it makes me part of the societal consequences of his attitude. He's free to have his attitude and express it, I am free to express my disapproval.

I see his agent has apologized on his behalf. To me this doesn't suggest that Hardaway was muzzled, simply that he is not willing to pay the price of his speech in loss of fans, etc. His apology is a decision made in the free market of fame.

Interestingly, Canada's hate laws forbid hate speech, and his statements could be subject to criminal prosecution there. I would never support such legislation for the United States.

GeeGuy said...

I'm having a tough time reconciling these two:

A person, opposed to homosexuality on personal religious or moral grounds: not a bigot.

The same person, voting to forbid marriage rights to gay people: a bigot.

So, what you're saying is that someone with sincere moral objections to homosexual marriage must subordinate his or her moral beliefs (at the risk of being labeled a bigot) to the proponents of homosexual marriage.

Are then not the advocates of homosexual marriage "bigots" for attempting to impose "his/her moral/religious views on others through the medium of legislation?" Your argument has a fundamental premise that the right to be in favor of homosexual marriage takes precedence over the right to be against it.

Anonymous said...

Because one opposes gay marriage on moral, religious grounds does not make them a bigot.

If it did then gays are bigots in the same fashion for trying to impose their beliefs onto the heterosexual community about what the view of marriage should be.

rebcon said...

All right, your questions are worth a reply. For the record, here's a common dictionary definition: Bigot: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Please note that it is my personal interpretation that the sort of intolerance necessary to establish bigotry is intolerance in action, i.e. not merely dislike or disapproval but actions to exclude or limit the rights of the disfavored group, either through an attempt to mold law or policy, or in one's private life, such as denial of a rental property or not hiring simply based on the disfavored group status.

Now, to get to the heart of your objections, no, there is not a countervailing bigotry on the part of gay people who advocate for marriage rights for themselves because they are not seeking to either require straight people to form same-sex marriages nor are they trying to forbid straight people from marrying each other.

Surely that lack of symmetry is apparent. If my view prevails, at the legislature or at the courts, I will tell you: "If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't marry someone gay." If the status quo remains, then you are telling me "I don't believe in gay marriage, so you can't marry someone gay." Big difference.

To the extent that there is a fundamental premise in my argument, it is that the equal protection clause trumps your "right" to exert control over my life through the instrument of the state based on your belief that my sexual orientation is immoral or even second class.

WolfPack said...

Isn’t marriage’s origin based in religion? I so, gays are the bigots in trying to change others religious views to match their life style choices. Why pretend the emperor is wearing clothes? Stable Man-Man and Woman-Woman relationships do not have the same importance to propagation of the species as stable Man-Woman relationships. It is arguable whether any harm is done when same sex couples pretend to be husband and wife. It’s right up their with short people wearing platform shoes and bald men sporting a comb over, doesn’t really hurt anything but if it didn’t happen nobody would really be hurt either.

Anonymous said...

Actually since gays as a group are trying to impose their view and change the traditional, religious and historical application of marriage in this country, it then does make them bigots.

Marriage is defined between a man and a women. As such gays can get married, they just have to abide by what everyone else must abide by and must have a marriage that falls into that definition.

If gays do not believe in marriage as it is defined by the Constitution, then don't get married.

We all know what is going on with this agenda.

Gays merely want to use marriage as a way to get back at the Church.

After all the claims that they want to protect each other are indeed false because this can easily be done through the legal system and the drawing up of documents. The fact that large amounts of the gay community are said not to be taking this route speaks volumes about the true agenda on the issue.

This is merely a ploy to strike at the Church for their view on homosexuality. What better way to stick it to the church than by trying to get government to subvert the Churches traditionally regonized view of marriage.

Also it is the States Right to determine what a marriage is and what a marriage is not as established by the 10th Amendment.