I should begin by noting that I hate beauty pageants. Judging women, in whole or in large part, by appearances is a sexist and anachronistic affront to an entire gender.
I must admit, however, that the latest wrinkle in the Carrie Prejean, former Miss California USA, controversy has grabbed my attention. Prejean, who was a finalist in the Miss USA Pageant in April, made a statement in opposition to same-sex marriage during the question and answer segment of the contest. Religious Right groups immediately began complaining that she came in second because of the content of her answer and that she deserved to win the competition.
After the event, Ms. Prejean suffered some embarrassment in regard to a series of "modeling" photographs that appeared on the Internet, but Pageant officials supported her continued activity as Miss California USA. Then, several weeks later, her employment was terminated, with officials claiming that she had failed to participate in several public events that she was contractually obliged to do and that, on the other hand, she had made some unauthorized media appearances.
Ms. Prejean has now sued Miss California USA officials Keith Lewis and Shanna Moakler, as well as publicist Roger Neal for what she claims was an illegal firing. I have no opinion about this contract dispute. However, she is also claiming that the company dismissed her because of an anti-religious bias. She is asserting that the company told her not to discuss God and her religious values even before the night she gave the infamous anti-same sex marriage answer.
I find this claim utterly preposterous. Since when can a private
employer not tell an employee that within the scope of his or her
employment, certain activities are forbidden? She wasn't told that she
couldn't go to the church of her choice on her own time, nor was she
forbidden to read the Bible on her lunch hour. She was told that
theological discourse was not a part of her duties.
Can't a life insurance company tell its employees that they can't evangelize on company time, or does every insurance agent have a "right" to not only try to sell you life insurance but also chat you up about "eternal life"? Could an actor hired specifically to play Hamlet just replace Shakespeare's lines with Bible verses and claim some "free exercise of religion" right to do so?
Don't get me wrong. If Ms. Prejean showed that contestants were
never chosen if they were adherents of a particular faith or that no
efforts were made to accommodate religious observances in setting
up her public appearance schedule, she might have a legal leg to stand
on. But from what I've seen, she decided that preaching on the
pageant's dime is a constitutional "right."
From that postion, I must dissent.
To subscribe to "Lynn v. Sekulow" click here.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
"She was let go because she stated an unfavorable opinion about homosexuality."
No, she wasn't, churchmouse. Lyin' fer Jeezus doesn't help your case. Or your cause.
"they blamed her for things she did not do"
Wrong again, cm. She DID fail to show up for assignments. She DID lie about the pictures. (And you know that since you, yourself, typed, "Where I find fault with Carrie is how she lied about the semi- nude photos she took.".) She DID insert political/religious beleifs into her public appearances. Again, lying does not help your case.
"I ... do not believe we are a Christian nation any longer".
It never was, cm. Your 'laundry list' does not impress. But I must say, your spelling has improved considerably.
"She wasn't told that she couldn't go to the church of her choice on her own time, nor was she forbidden to read the Bible on her lunch hour. She was told that theological discourse was not a part of her duties."
Nice revisionist spin. Or did you forget about Lewis' attacks on Prejean for being part of a church that Lewis deemed extremist for daring to hold to live the gay lifestyle to be sin (actually, it is very much mainstream conservative Christianity to hold to that, regardless of the denomination), and Lewis questioning whether Prejean should be part of MISS USA organization over that? Forgot about when Lewis and Moakler held their own press conference where they trashed her and any Christian conservative she associates with? Or Moakler's appearance claiming to be her friend while trashing her for being associated with any Christian evangelical that Moakler disagreed with over the gay issue?
Their own words screamed religious discrimination. Sorry, but I choose to take them at their word when they made all these statements. They cannot make these statements and turn around and deny religious discrimination has nothing to do with it. That's laughable.
Or did you forget about right after the pageant itself, several of the judges including Moakler and Hilton stated they marked her down for her answer, and Lewis and Hilton specifically stated that she had no right to bring her religion and politics in despite the fact that she was asked a question that pertained to both in regards to her beliefs? Yeah, Moakler wanted both ways saying she did not lose because of her answer, but for failure to show compassion in her answer, meaning her answer must agree with Moakler.
And as to their claims she was fired only for breach of contract, let's not revise that either. What part of the contract allow those who are given charge over her, be it Lewis, Moakler, or whoever, to week in and week out trash her over and over again? And then they say she cannot talk in public as part of the contract while they trashed her?
There is a term for that- unconsciousable contract. Yes, you can argue in itself that is not the case. But it becomes the case when they repeatedly trashed her and then tell her she cannot speak to defend herself because of the contract.
They did alot to breach the contract themselves.
The bottom line is this divide between the two parties come down to they simply don't like her answer and her standing up for herself after all the attacks they threw at her afterwards.
Boris, can you prove the bible is 100% false? If so provide the evidence.
Boris says: “The reason I said Christians should shut up is for their own good. Christian arguments like your one about people losing their rights are hypocritical and can always be turned on their heads and used to debunk the Christian’s position like I just did yours.”
So you think you know what is best for us? LMAO And you have all the answers? Oh pleeze.
Boy aren’t you tolerant. So let me get this straight….You tell us to be tolerant of other views and then you don’t do it yourself.
I gave you examples of stuff happening all over the country, you just won't admit that it's happening.
As for Ms. Prejean not showing up for scheduled dates, I do not think this has been proven. They hated her and wanted her out.
She probably would have been the next Miss California had she not spoken against homosexual marriage, come on. Hilton started crucifying her after she gave her answer. How can you explain all that happened?
Punisher you are right……it came down to her answer.
In fact poor pathetic Shannon resigned after Trump let her Carrie keep her crown. That's how much she hated her and she did not mince words about it.
Boris, can you prove the bible is 100% false? If so provide the evidence.
Boris says: Sure with two words: evolutionary biology. God supposedly was active in the past directly responsible for many things such as flooding the earth and drowning almost he entire human race, killing every first born Egyptian child and animal on one night, feeding a nation of people in the desert for forty years, intervening in wars involving hundreds of thousands of troops and many other events for which there exists not one shred of evidence that could even hint that any of these things even might be true. Certainly a catastrophic event such as the Passover event had it really occurred could not have gone completely unnoticed and unmentioned in the mountain of historical inscriptions we do have from Egypt not to mention all the archaeological evidence there would be. This event simply never happened and because it didn’t the God of the Bible could not possibly exist. There could be a God but it isn’t the God of the Bible. We can test the claims of the Bible scientifically and they all fail due to the lack of evidence necessary to support those claims. Nothing is ever going to change that.
So you think you know what is best for us? LMAO And you have all the answers? Oh pleeze.
Boris says: What’s best for you and everyone else on this planet is atheism.
Boy aren’t you tolerant. So let me get this straight….You tell us to be tolerant of other views and then you don’t do it yourself.
Boris says: What you are really saying is that I should tolerate your intolerance. “Let a wave of intolerance wash over you… a wave of hatred… Yes hate is good… Our goal is a Christian nation…. We have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country. We don’t want equal time. We don’t want pluralism. We want theocracy.” - Randall Terry, right wing Christian ex-used car salesman and founder of the violent antiabortion group Operation Rescue.
I gave you examples of stuff happening all over the country, you just won't admit that it's happening.
Boris says: I know those things are happening and I support each and every one of them. You people say Christianity isn’t a religion so you have no right to demand religious freedom.
As for Ms. Prejean not showing up for scheduled dates, I do not think this has been proven. They hated her and wanted her out.
Boris says: You don’t think evolution has been proved either but it has been.
"I find this claim utterly preposterous. Since when can a private employer not tell an employee that within the scope of his or her employment, certain activities are forbidden? She wasn't told that she couldn't go to the church of her choice on her own time, nor was she forbidden to read the Bible on her lunch hour. She was told that theological discourse was not a part of her duties."
This is a joke, right?
The employer says one can not discourse on theology, and then asks a question whose truthful answer is rooted in an abiding theological purview-forcing the employee to either lie to save their job, or violate the company rule. The employer abrogates the right to hold the employee to company policy when he forces the employee to violate the company policy.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.