Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« DJ Paul Is A Dog... | Articles on Impeachment »

Monday, March 6, 2006


Posted by on March 6 at 8:51 AM

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 nightóby the way, thanks for agreeing to debate, you guysówas 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?

CommentsRSS icon

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?

Dog Day,

Please go back and read the 3 posts on it.
Yes Dan posted a note from a reader, that, in fact, did have it wrong.

However, I then posted two items about it. The first item described it exactly as the Church described it to me and also quoted the Sonics and explained the whole Sonics policy.

So, you've got it wrong: The slog posts didn't fail to mention the deal that the Sonics provide to any group. I described it explicitly in plain english.

So, next time, before you accuse us of sensationalism and getting stuff wrong, you might want to read what we write first.

That said: Hutcherson has made his agenda clear, and gay rights activists have every right to make noise wherever he shows up.


You are right. I am wrong.

I stand corrected, humiliated and teetering on the brink of suicide.

You did, in fact, correct your infactual transgressions on the Sonics 'R Homophobes matter with a terse posting the third time around on the subject on Friday -- an addition to this forum (that strangely drew absolutely no attention or comments among readers?!) which I shamefully did not catch.

Perhaps I was blinded by the seething rage spurred in me by the original, journalistically balanced posting by Dan Savage, entitled: "Sonics and Starbucks: Gay Haters?"

And you're right, perhaps I should've understood that the original posting was merely a meaningless, unsubstantiated submission from a reader, which, despite the fact that it was posted FOR ALL TO SEE on the SLOG, had yet to be confirmed, denied, or in any other way truth-squadded by you, but still was titilating enough for THE STRANGER to present to its readers for their OUTRAGE and to offer editorial comments about, as any responsible media organization would do.

And I guess my vision was still impaired to SEEING THE TRUTH even after reading the SLOG's second posting on the matter, by you, which confirmed Hutcherson's "service" would, indeed, be held Friday night; and to which was added new information that included such tidbits as the Hutcherson bible thumpers getting "a deal" from the city/key in holding their gay-bashing event and that civil rights activists were preparing protests outside the arena.

And gee, I admit it, perhaps it was somewhere in the readers' comments forum of the original Savage posting -- inside of which a debate among Sloggers ensued for another 9 hours, with postings added late into Friday night, including several by Dan, himself, who made no mention of the real facts uncovered later about the event -- that I became lost to the corrected third and final posting on the matter that sought to set the record straight and un-ring the bell altogether.

And for that, Josh, I am sorry. Yes, deeply, utterly sorry and remorsefeul. I, as a sloppy Slog reader, REGRET THE ERROR for not seeing THE TRUTH offered in your brief posting to fix the more substantial original distortions offered to me and thousands of others earlier.

Please forgive me.

THAT SAID, I can't say I agree with you more -- even sans the bells, whistles and sensationalism of your fervor-whipping truth-fudging -- when you sayeth that "Hutcherson has made his agenda clear, and gay rights activists have every right to make noise wherever he shows up."

That, sir, sounds true enough to me. I just wish everything could be simply put.

Geez DogDay, You think calling the Sonics and Starbucks a bunch of homophobes in print is sensational or something? Man you're one dumb mutha. The Stranger and Josh Fiet are obviously paragons of truth. How dare you doubt them?

Don't worry. I will smite Josh, Dan or anyone else who tells lies about my man, Hutch.



To Dogday: What? The Stranger is sensational? Duh. If you're stoopid enough to rely on them for news content, you're stoopider than i thought.

To Josh: Though Dogday has some serious attitudinal problems, you do come off as defensive considering how there was misleading information posted on this blog to begin with.

To Jesus: I didn't know you blogged.

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).