posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 08:06 AM
Having read the posts, the article and then doing a bit of research the following can be stated:
The problem with this is not the boycott itself, but the reasons why the boycott is being given. To boycott a person, a group, a business cause of
their beliefs and stating it, is both correct and wrong for them stating such. In the US, people are entitled to the freedom of speech, they are
entitled to state such, no matter who they are.
But in this case, the reasons for boycotting the writer cause he is very religious, and states the line that his belief states should not be the only
reason to do such, that is wrong and ultimately we should not tolerate. The freedom of speech is not a one way street, we can not be expected to
allow for one side to have an opinion, vocalize it and not the other to have the same courtsey or right to do such.
The man has the right to the freedom of speech, that is protected and correct, however, if they must boycott the man for anything, it should not be
for what he wrote in the past, but rather for what he does currently, in his life and any thing that he says right now. Personally, it is his
affiliations that should be called more into question, and how they translate into his job, rather than what he wrote in the past. Now if he goes off
and into the point where those old topics he states he believes in now, then yes hold him accountable for those, but only those, not any and
Most people have skeletons in their closet, how you deal with them is personal, but should not we take the higher road and be forgiving, of the past,
where a person can grow as an individual?