Unless you live in a cave or just completely ignore sports, you probably know by now that Michael Sam was cut by the St. Louis Rams and did not make their final roster. Bryan Fischer falsely declares that the “entire NFL refuses to do business” with him (not true, he was signed by the Dallas Cowboys) and then babbles stupidly about discrimination.
Michael Sam is now, at this writing, being blatantly discriminated against by all 32 NFL teams (although the Dallas Cowboys are apparently thinking of adding him to their practice squad).*
The out, loud and proud homosexual was drafted by the Rams, and after giving his boyfriend a big, wet, sloppy kiss on national TV, he became an instant nationwide celebrity.
But the Rams have high standards of conduct and behavior, standards of performance, that Michael Sam did not reach.
As a result, they cut him. In other words, they fired him. In still other words, they refused to do business with him. In still other words, they discriminated against him.
Was it because they didn’t like him? Was it because they hated him? Of course not. They loved him. They couldn’t stop talking about what a great guy and teammate he was. He was the belle of the ball. Oprah wanted to follow him around 24/7 with a camera crew.
It wasn’t even about his “orientation.” His athletic “orientation” was to play football in the NFL. But his orientation was irrelevant to the Rams’ decision. Their decision was based purely on conduct.
Jesus, what an idiot. I agree that they did not cut him because he was gay. The Rams are loaded with defensive ends and it was an uphill battle for him to make the team in the first place. But he played very well in the preseason and the Cowboys, who really need defensive ends, quickly signed him. But since they didn’t cut him for being gay, he isn’t being discriminated against at all. And the decision was not based on “conduct” but on ability and the team’s needs. Which is what makes this comparison so idiotic:
Now if Michael Sam and his boyfriend decided to get “married” and came not to the St. Louis Rams but to a Christian wedding vendor, he would and should be treated in exactly the same way. Wedding vendors might like him, even like him a lot, but be unable to do business with him because they have deeply held standards of behavior that they will not compromise for the sake of political correctness.
Would this mean that the wedding vendor would be discriminating against Michael Sam? Of course it would. Just like the St. Louis Rams discriminated against him, and for the same reason: deeply held convictions about behavior. In the Rams’ case, it’s athletic behavior. In the case of the wedding vendor, it’s sexual behavior.
Absolute nonsense. The law, in some states at least, says you cannot discriminate against someone on the basis of their sexual orientation. You can refuse to hire someone if they aren’t qualified for the job or if you don’t need another employee, as the Rams did, but you cannot discriminate on the basis of an irrelevant personal trait that has nothing to do with your ability to do the job. One form of “discrimination” is illegal and the other is not. The comparison is ludicrous, but that’s what we’ve come to expect from a dullard like Fischer.