Still think I'm overboard with.....

[Oldschool739]

.....this commie style censorship ?...It's like rust on a car, just keeps on spreading..

 

 

Donnie McClurkin's Gay Remarks Get Him CUT From Martin Luther King Show

 

Was the Mayor right to axe Donnie McClurkin from the Washington show?

 

"I've been through this and have experienced God's power to change my lifestyle," he wrote. "I am delivered and I know God can deliver others, too."

 

Donnie McClurkin

 

Picture: Donnie McClurkin performs during the BET Sunday Best 'The King's Men' concert at AmericanAirlines Arena on Miami, Florida - 30.09.12

 

 

Gospel singer Donnie McClurkin's gay stance meant he was uninvited to a concert in Washington D.C. celebrating Martin Luther King Jr and the 50th Anniversary of the March on Washington.

 

http://www.contactmusic.com/article/donnie-mcclurkin-gay_3812775

 

Donnie McClurkin

[dc.]

Yes, I think you have no clue what you are talking about.

 

Mr. McClurkin has every right to say whatever he wants. No one is telling him he cannot say it. No one is fining him or imprisoning him for saying it.

 

But organizations, including municipal governments, have equal right to decide what they want their "image" to be.

 

To not allow a person/company to say "You're not welcome here because of your actions/words" would be an equal violation of free speech. How do you not see that?

 

You have every right to say whatever you want. You also have every right to receive the consequences of what other people think of you because of those words.

 

And I still return to my previous statement because you have yet to actually clarify this... what should the response of a company/person be? Maybe you don't find his words offensive - that's you, invite him to play at your concert - but each person can establish their own moral code. If he were to wear a "Free Charles Manson" shirt... there's nothing illegal there, there's no formal sanction from the government. But I have every right to say, "you are not going to associate yourself with me and my company anymore - be gone." Maybe that's censorship to you, but it happens all the time.

 

So really, what I want to know, is when do you think "censorship" is appropriate? You can't say never - unless you're going to say to me, "I would gladly invite a neo-Nazi to be the DJ at my wedding! It's his right, not mine!"

 

[Please also note - this theoretical discussion is separate from the discussion of whether the people are correct to say McClurkin's statements are in bad taste. Maybe they aren't. But they get to decide. If the city doesn't want those words associated with their concert, then that's their choice! Maybe they're overstepping. If you want to argue that, fine. It's separate from whether they CAN however.]

[Robjr83]

The media employs a double standard when choosing who to attack. Anyone notice Alec Baldwin says some of the most homophobic/vile stuff on twitter and were all stuck watching his Capital One commercials. We know why Alec didn't get the Paula Dean treatment.

[Oldschool739]

Yes, I think you have no clue what you are talking about.

 

Mr. McClurkin has every right to say whatever he wants. No one is telling him he cannot say it. No one is fining him or imprisoning him for saying it.

 

But organizations, including municipal governments, have equal right to decide what they want their "image" to be.

 

To not allow a person/company to say "You're not welcome here because of your actions/words" would be an equal violation of free speech. How do you not see that?

 

You have every right to say whatever you want. You also have every right to receive the consequences of what other people think of you because of those words.

 

And I still return to my previous statement because you have yet to actually clarify this... what should the response of a company/person be? Maybe you don't find his words offensive - that's you, invite him to play at your concert - but each person can establish their own moral code. If he were to wear a "Free Charles Manson" shirt... there's nothing illegal there, there's no formal sanction from the government. But I have every right to say, "you are not going to associate yourself with me and my company anymore - be gone." Maybe that's censorship to you, but it happens all the time.

 

So really, what I want to know, is when do you think "censorship" is appropriate? You can't say never - unless you're going to say to me, "I would gladly invite a neo-Nazi to be the DJ at my wedding! It's his right, not mine!"

 

[Please also note - this theoretical discussion is separate from the discussion of whether the people are correct to say McClurkin's statements are in bad taste. Maybe they aren't. But they get to decide. If the city doesn't want those words associated with their concert, then that's their choice! Maybe they're overstepping. If you want to argue that, fine. It's separate from whether they CAN however.]

You know what, you are the typical over educated kind that thinks life is all x's and o's...It's you that doesn't know what you are talking about.... you should read the whole article before you make those kind of stupid accusations...

You're not dealing with a drunken man that wants to beat someone up in a rage here, and you can't use the racist crutch either....My point is that they censored this very accomplished minister / singer from representing his people at a religious event that all believe the same way he does about the subject.

Do you really think MLK would have uninvited a man that had been delivered from something, in accordance with their faith ????....

If you do, you are totally clueless....Obviously, the mayor is looking out for votes, not people's rights....ala "censorship"....

Get out of the house a little, dude....And learn something about the real world....

[Spen]

Overboard? No, I just think you misconstrue the concept and idea of free speech to be that you can say anything you want whenever you want with no repurcussions at all.

 

 

My point is that they censored this very accomplished minister / singer from representing his people at a religious event that all believe the same way he does about the subject.

 

You are quite an amazing fellow, being able to speak for what is offensive or not offensive at times and now what others believe.

[Robjr83]

I believe free speech means you wont be persecuted by the govt for speaking your beliefs... that's it. Private enterprise can do whatever it wants if it doesn't want to be associated with you.... Gilbert Godfrey got fired from Aflac after making a Tsunami joke. Aflac had business in Asia and didn't want their spokesperson making those kinds of jokes so they fired him.

[Oldschool739]

I believe free speech means you wont be persecuted by the govt for speaking your beliefs... that's it. Private enterprise can do whatever it wants if it doesn't want to be associated with you.... Gilbert Godfrey got fired from Aflac after making a Tsunami joke. Aflac had business in Asia and didn't want their spokesperson making those kinds of jokes so they fired him.

I have no argument with that rob, unless it violates our legal and civil rights....It's the blatant overbearing scrutiny of simple words that irritate me....And in this case with Donnie M., it has exposed clear hypocrisy to go along with it...

How are you gonna tell a preacher, he's not welcome at a religious gathering because his testimony is what the Bible teaches us ????

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to get this one, it's real clear...

 

Goooo Ravens !!!!

[Spen]

Whose rights, civil or legal, are being violated in this case?

[vmax]

"Yawn."

[deeshopper]

Meanwhile, ESPN just fired Hugh Douglas for calling Michael Smith an uncle Tom. They are both black.

 

Meanwhile again, I may just merge all of these threads so OldSchool and Geronimo can go back and forth on the state of race relations in the United States. I'm confident that together they can solve the problem, if they can agree that one exists.

[Oldschool739]

Meanwhile, ESPN just fired Hugh Douglas for calling Michael Smith an uncle Tom. They are both black.

 

Meanwhile again, I may just merge all of these threads so OldSchool and Geronimo can go back and forth on the state of race relations in the United States. I'm confident that together they can solve the problem, if they can agree that one exists.

This one here is not about race , dee....Get the chip off your shoulder...I'm saying the guy was treated unjustly...Can't you understand that , or do you need help also ?

You do know he's black too, don't you, or did you just spout off without reading the article ????

[cravnravn]

Meanwhile, ESPN just fired Hugh Douglas for calling Michael Smith an uncle Tom. They are both black.

 

Meanwhile again, I may just merge all of these threads so OldSchool and Geronimo can go back and forth on the state of race relations in the United States. I'm confident that together they can solve the problem, if they can agree that one exists.

 

 

Oh trust me Geranarasta will let you know one exists

[oldcrow]

Yes, I think you have no clue what you are talking about.

 

Mr. McClurkin has every right to say whatever he wants. No one is telling him he cannot say it. No one is fining him or imprisoning him for saying it.

 

But organizations, including municipal governments, have equal right to decide what they want their "image" to be.

 

To not allow a person/company to say "You're not welcome here because of your actions/words" would be an equal violation of free speech. How do you not see that?

 

You have every right to say whatever you want. You also have every right to receive the consequences of what other people think of you because of those words.

 

And I still return to my previous statement because you have yet to actually clarify this... what should the response of a company/person be? Maybe you don't find his words offensive - that's you, invite him to play at your concert - but each person can establish their own moral code. If he were to wear a "Free Charles Manson" shirt... there's nothing illegal there, there's no formal sanction from the government. But I have every right to say, "you are not going to associate yourself with me and my company anymore - be gone." Maybe that's censorship to you, but it happens all the time.

 

So really, what I want to know, is when do you think "censorship" is appropriate? You can't say never - unless you're going to say to me, "I would gladly invite a neo-Nazi to be the DJ at my wedding! It's his right, not mine!"

 

[Please also note - this theoretical discussion is separate from the discussion of whether the people are correct to say McClurkin's statements are in bad taste. Maybe they aren't. But they get to decide. If the city doesn't want those words associated with their concert, then that's their choice! Maybe they're overstepping. If you want to argue that, fine. It's separate from whether they CAN however.]

CORRECT DC

it's as simple as a business putting a sign in the front door

NO SHIRT

NO SHOES

NO SERVICE

 

and your right that they are not getting fined or jailed or sent to stalag 13

it IS a simple fact of other parties asking them or telling them they cannot attend their function for the reason that their display is not what they want .

I understand it completely, but i'm most grateful that the "miscomprehension" is a DYING BREED

 

 

 

now, watch cravn post his country song "no shirt no shoes no problem"

[vmax]

"wait! Wait guys! I didn't mean it!!!!"

 

[deeshopper]

This one here is not about race , dee....Get the chip off your shoulder...I'm saying the guy was treated unjustly...Can't you understand that , or do you need help also ?

You do know he's black too, don't you, or did you just spout off without reading the article ????

 

Perhaps you are the one that needs to remove something from your body, read more than one thread, and lighten the hell up. Perhaps then, you would have understood the reference. I'm sorry you can't keep up. You'll really be out of options when I start to get tired of you.

 

Please, help me understand, I's be too po' and dum to understand what da man is try'n say. He done down vote ma lil post. Lordamercy! Imma go back to the cotton field now. OK wit you? I's sing a hymn too.

 

[Spen]

No answer about whose (or is it who's - I never can remember. Its like when I was little one of my grandparents had 'ketchup' and the other had 'catsup'. Well I can tell you I lay awake many a night after that wondering which it was. See little Sarah Hawkins* was in my Condiments 101 school class and she loved that red condiment and I did not want to say or spell it wrong for fear of embarrasment because I had huge crush on her. It turns out she liked me too but she had a boyfriend in Canada. Darn my luck!) rights were being violated? Seems to me to be a simple case of an employer dismising someone for something they said, and while some here may not like that; its leagal. (or is it legal? I can never remember. Its like the time I was traveling abroad (abroad, reminds me of a waitress I once knew ) and I met some people at a youth hostel and.......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Name changed to protect the innocent**

 

** maybe

[Oldschool739]

 

Perhaps you are the one that needs to remove something from your body, read more than one thread, and lighten the hell up. Perhaps then, you would have understood the reference. I'm sorry you can't keep up. You'll really be out of options when I start to get tired of you.

 

Please, help me understand, I's be too po' and dum to understand what da man is try'n say. He done down vote ma lil post. Lordamercy! Imma go back to the cotton field now. OK wit you? I's sing a hymn too.

 

There's only one way to take it, sarcasm !!! And now you threaten me with your self appointed position on here ????

This is a talk about anything else Chat forum, did you forget you made it ???

I didn't know tony Lombardi was over here ....How about sticking to the subject....."Unwarranted Censorship"...Hello !!

[deeshopper]

There's only one way to take it, sarcasm !!! And now you threaten me with your self appointed position on here ????

This is a talk about anything else Chat forum, did you forget you made it ???

I didn't know tony Lombardi was over here ....How about sticking to the subject....."Unwarranted Censorship"...Hello !!

 

You're an extremely paranoid and vile person. You can't assume sarcasm, and then feign offense to so-called threats. That's the paranoid bit. Please point me in the direction of my threat. Furthermore, if you should ever dare compare me to that person again, you and I will have some serious words. That's the vile bit. I suppose that's a threat. The subject? I believe that is you whining. Now, free Tracy Turnblad.

[dc.]

First, Dee's "self-appointed" position on here is that she is the owner/founder/host. Self-appointed, I guess so. Pay more attention.

 

But in any case, you're about to learn the lesson everyone here has been trying to teach you, Old School. Dee is the owner of this "business." You have no right to free speech here. You have the right to speak in a manner that Dee (and her appointed representatives) deem acceptable. If you don't like that, you are welcome to take your "business" elsewhere - and Dee is welcome to ask you to do so. That's called Dee's "free speech" as owner of this operation.

 

 

Meanwhile, although you accuse me of needing to read the article - I'll advise you of the same. The show McClurkin was asked to perform at was a concert in honor of MLK hosted by the city of DC. It was not a religious mass or ceremony. It is not officially associated with MLK. And he was not "invited to attend" (or disinvited to attend). In all of these ways, it is very separate from his right to "free speech."

 

And if you listen deep enough - you can here me saying that I don't agree with it entirely. In fact, I agree with what is at the heart of your argument: the "PC" police frequently go too far. If we hold everyone to the stance of "perfect language and action," no one will be able to attend any of these events. I think PC has ruined too many people for little reason and the media hype machine doesn't help.

 

But as Spen said, it's up the host/owner/promoter of the event to decide what is acceptable and what isn't. There are 1000s of shades. It's not black and white. And it's certainly not as "black/white" as you say which is simply - "we shouldn't get offended." I want Dee to have the right to kick someone off of this site for lewd actions and behavior. I also want my boss to have the right to fire someone who promotes views that hurt the organization - even if it only hurts the organization's "internal culture."

 

The Mayor of DC decided that, in his view, McClurkin's views on homosexuality were not "in the spirit" of the concert (not the mass). End of conversation. If you disagree with the Mayor, that is fine. Many do. But McClurkin's rights have not been infringed. He was an invited (and likely paid) performer. If he doesn't meet the "image" of the concert, that's for the concert promoters to decide.

 

 

And lastly, just because this is one I really hate, you can call this "commie" style if you want... but it has long been perpetrated by everyone, on all sides. McCarthy, Hitler, the US during WWI and WWII, etc etc etc... when you throw around language so frivolously, you cost all of us its meaning.

[Oldschool739]

First, Dee's "self-appointed" position on here is that she is the owner/founder/host. Self-appointed, I guess so. Pay more attention.

 

But in any case, you're about to learn the lesson everyone here has been trying to teach you, Old School. Dee is the owner of this "business." You have no right to free speech here. You have the right to speak in a manner that Dee (and her appointed representatives) deem acceptable. If you don't like that, you are welcome to take your "business" elsewhere - and Dee is welcome to ask you to do so. That's called Dee's "free speech" as owner of this operation.

 

 

Meanwhile, although you accuse me of needing to read the article - I'll advise you of the same. The show McClurkin was asked to perform at was a concert in honor of MLK hosted by the city of DC. It was not a religious mass or ceremony. It is not officially associated with MLK. And he was not "invited to attend" (or disinvited to attend). In all of these ways, it is very separate from his right to "free speech."

 

And if you listen deep enough - you can here me saying that I don't agree with it entirely. In fact, I agree with what is at the heart of your argument: the "PC" police frequently go too far. If we hold everyone to the stance of "perfect language and action," no one will be able to attend any of these events. I think PC has ruined too many people for little reason and the media hype machine doesn't help.

 

But as Spen said, it's up the host/owner/promoter of the event to decide what is acceptable and what isn't. There are 1000s of shades. It's not black and white. And it's certainly not as "black/white" as you say which is simply - "we shouldn't get offended." I want Dee to have the right to kick someone off of this site for lewd actions and behavior. I also want my boss to have the right to fire someone who promotes views that hurt the organization - even if it only hurts the organization's "internal culture."

 

The Mayor of DC decided that, in his view, McClurkin's views on homosexuality were not "in the spirit" of the concert (not the mass). End of conversation. If you disagree with the Mayor, that is fine. Many do. But McClurkin's rights have not been infringed. He was an invited (and likely paid) performer. If he doesn't meet the "image" of the concert, that's for the concert promoters to decide.

 

 

And lastly, just because this is one I really hate, you can call this "commie" style if you want... but it has long been perpetrated by everyone, on all sides. McCarthy, Hitler, the US during WWI and WWII, etc etc etc... when you throw around language so frivolously, you cost all of us its meaning.

I knew her before you were thought of , dude and remember well when she left espn to start this....And I'm sure she don't need your help to make her argument for her....

[dc.]

Dude... you're a moron. First I was black. Now I haven't known Dee as long as you, which I am sure you base entirely in fact. Or perhaps I was invited here from ESPN when Dee started the site...

 

But way to ignore the remainder of the argument. Dee can argue her own points. I can argue mine. The question is, can you add anything to the conversation or just yell "censorship" a lot?

[Oldschool739]

You'll really be out of options when I start to get tired of you.

 

You're an extremely paranoid and vile person. You can't assume sarcasm, and then feign offense to so-called threats. That's the paranoid bit. Please point me in the direction of my threat. Furthermore, if you should ever dare compare me to that person again, you and I will have some serious words. That's the vile bit. I suppose that's a threat. The subject? I believe that is you whining. Now, free Tracy Turnblad.

Now if that's not pre judgment what is? A vile paranoid person, because I don't have the same opinion as you on a touchy subject ? please !!

"You'll really be out of options when I start to get tired of you." yea I think that's a threat.....

I don't see why you are coming at me like this, when I simply pointed out that a black minister was being censored at a religious gathering for MLK !!!

Help me see where that offends you at .. It won't change my mind either way, but it's odd....

[dc.]

Except, as pointed out, it's not a religious gathering - it's a concert. And he wasn't invited as a minister - but as a performer. And it's not MLK's event or a congregation event - it's a city-sponsored celebration. And he's not being censored - he's being asked not to perform.

 

How can you ignore those MAJOR distinctions?

 

(Yes, technically you may call this "censorship" but not in any meaningful way - as everyone here as tried to express to you!)

 

I'll let Dee tell you why she's "coming at you" as she is. But maybe you should re-read the thread.

[Oldschool739]

Dude... you're a moron. First I was black. Now I haven't known Dee as long as you, which I am sure you base entirely in fact. Or perhaps I was invited here from ESPN when Dee started the site...

 

But way to ignore the remainder of the argument. Dee can argue her own points. I can argue mine. The question is, can you add anything to the conversation or just yell "censorship" a lot?

I've already explained it several times, and you haven't been in this conversation since the beginning....If you had something to add, where have you been....Then you jump in here like the lone ranger to take dee's side.... you're a pretty sad moderator to have to resort to calling names when you can't win an argument...way to go big shot !!

[Oldschool739]

Except, as pointed out, it's not a religious gathering - it's a concert. And he wasn't invited as a minister - but as a performer. And it's not MLK's event or a congregation event - it's a city-sponsored celebration. And he's not being censored - he's being asked not to perform.

 

How can you ignore those MAJOR distinctions?

 

(Yes, technically you may call this "censorship" but not in any meaningful way - as everyone here as tried to express to you!)

 

I'll let Dee tell you why she's "coming at you" as she is. But maybe you should re-read the thread.

Man you're too much....Do you know who MLK was and what he did ?....Donnie was scheduled to sing and minister as they always do at a gospel concert....But the mayor pulled the plug on him because his testimony on his website....Hey believe what you want to dude...You give me a headache just trying to converse with you, and it's gonna lead to a warning or ban for me....so we're done talking for now..