Politics Imbalance
This morning’s PI has an editorial about our Sims/Hutcherson debate. The editorial points out out the problem with Hutcherson’s sharia-like line of argument:
“Hutcherson’s mistake is to assume that religion is the only foundation of morality, for Sims or anyone else’s, let alone the law.”
It’s a good editorial, and, for kicks, it uses the phrase: “coveting thy neighbor’s ass.”
The thing I found frustrating about Hutcherson’s argument on Thursday night—by the way, thanks for agreeing to debate, you guys—was his insistence that Evangelical Christians are “oppressed” by a secular state that passes gay rights legislation. Basically, his point is that a Christian landlord, for example, shouldn’t have to rent to people who offend his or her religious beliefs. (Oh, you delicate flower!)
Ken, you should think about the selfishness of that view: Who’s really being screwed in that situation? The Christian landlord or the gay tenant?
The U.S. is about balancing rights. In this instance you’ve got the right not to have your feelings hurt vs. the right to have housing. You’re a pretty selfish guy if you can’t see how that one should be decided.
What if KeyArena had decided not to rent out to you guys the other night because they were offended by you? (I bet your beliefs piss off a few members of the Storm.) Good thing it’s illegal to discriminate against Christians in this secular state of ours, eh? You also get to rent that public high school on Sundays. As you know, that offends a lot of people. But it’s a free country, right?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but The Slog got it wrong and owes us a correction.
I'm talking about the whole Sonics-supporting-homophobes postings on Friday -- the ones that got everyone's undies in a bunch.
You guys claimed that the Sonics (and by extension, team owner and Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz) "sanctioned" an anti-gay event by Ken Hutcherson and his Antioch Bible thumpers following the Sonics game Friday night.
The impression left in the mind of us sloggers from said posts was that this event was going to specifically be a gay-bashing forum in response to the recent Hutcherson-Sims debate, and that the Sonics and Starbucks were standing all-too-readily-by to support the whole thing by offering up use of the Key to this insipid group of homophobes.
Understandably, your "news" of the event on The Slog drew appopriate and massive response, including calls for protests and boycotts of the Sonics and Starbucks.
But I've come to learn that The Stranger didn't quite get all the details right.
From my understanding, the event wasn't earmarked for anti-homo rhetoric in response to the Sims' debate, but rather, it was a long-ago scheduled annual "men's party" for Antioch Bible church-goers, replete with fingerfoods, punch and the scripture. In fact, no anti-gay rhetoric was even up for discussion (other than the inherent homophobia of what you'd expect from a a bunch of neo-con lemmings who gather together to drool over pro-sports and the gospel). Apparently, these Neanderthals have such a "guy's night out" every year -- and Friday's occasion at the Key was this year's party.
Likewise, the party wasn't any sort of "specially" sanctioned event by the Sonics, either.
What the Slog postings failed to mention is that the Sonics and Key Arena have a policy for ANY LARGE GROUP that buys a BLOCK OF 500 ADMISSIONS OR MORE to ANY HOME SONICS GAME. Buying such a large block of tickets entitles this group, or any other for that matter -- whether they be BIBLE THUMPIN' HICKS, HELL's ANGELS, BLACK PANTHERS or the GREATER SEATTLE FEDERATION OF TRANSGENDER GERBILERS -- to rent out the ball court for a function after the game.
Hell, if The STRANGER snapped up enough tickets, they, too, could hold their own STRANGER prom night after a Sonics shellacking, should you chose.
So, what I've learned is that the SONICS/KEY ARENA/STARBUCKS didn't show ANY PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT toward these JESUS FREAKS. Rather, they treated them as they would have any group that plopped down enough scratch for 500 tickets to the excruciatingly crappy Sonics (how utterly capitalistic of those bastards!).
In light of this new information, my question to you folks, is:
I get that sensationalism is a Stranger trademark, but what the hell's the point of lying about and omitting information about these dumb rednecks and their idiotic post-basketball ass-grab parties? Seems like you should be able to prevail in any public debate over their obviously thin arguments of bigotry without stooping to erroneous sensationalism to do so, wouldn't you think?