It’d be hard for me to avoid respect and dignity in this situation, since that is the whole point of the exercise, at least for me.

Respect has everything to do with the ability to do one’s job. Homophobia (and sexism, for that matter) get institutionalized precisely due to a lack of respect for LGBT folks and women. I fail to see how you could claim to treat them fairly and yet not respect them at the same time….?

On a related note, who says that heterosexual folks can marry and have a whole bunch of rights while LGBT folks cannot marry and have the same rights?

“And please do not base any such explanation on respecting dignity or identity.”

Why not? This is the basis for the entire freaking post.

Whether I respect the identity of being a homosexual (whatever exactly that entails), does not keep them from exercising their option to live their life any way they choose.”

Yes, but in Radar’s situation, he works with LGBT students. How would you like to interact with someone who does not want you to have certain rights or who disapproves of your existence? Personally, I would be very uncomfortable in that situation.

I have worked with homosexual colleagues. I do not approve of that lifestyle. However, I respect that they have the same rights as an American citizen that I do and that they have the freedom in America to make the decision to live their life by their decision.

Do you live in the same United States that I do? Since when do LGBT folks have the same rights as non-LGBT people?

So are you saying that you chose to be heterosexual?

Evidence of what?? What exactly did Eric provide “evidence” for? A couple of posts expressing an opinion? And what does that prove? How is making a post on a website infringing upon anyone’s rights in any way? How are any homosexual students that may seek the assistance of Radar harmed because he made a post?

As for creating a strawman, perhaps I did. So maybe Eric will be so kind as to give a concrete rationale why I can not agree with someone’s lifestyle but still treat them fairly and ensure that I respect their rights and provide them with the service that my job or position expects of me? And please do not base any such explanation on respecting dignity or identity. Whether I respect the identity of being a homosexual (whatever exactly that entails), does not keep them from exercising their option to live their life any way they choose.

You raise a oft-repeated point, but one that’s probably irrelevant to this discussion. I was really interested in this part of your comment:

The apparent crux of the issue is that the left cannot seem to understand that you can disagree with one’s lifestyle (wrt homosexuality) but still be respectful of their rights. You claim to do this in valuing everyone’s identity but yet you have decided, with no evidence of wrongdoing, that Radar is not capable of being fair to people with whom he disagrees with their lifestyle.

This might be true, if Eric had offered no evidence of wrongdoing. However, Eric was pretty clear that what he considered evidence in this case was the presence of some of the posts authored by Radar on their website. Whether or not this evidence is indeed evidence of Radar’s beliefs towards the LGBT community is something we can certainly discuss. However, to pretend that Eric offered NO evidence is a bit dishonest.

Then there was this little gem:

However, you have nothing more than your suppositions founded on your apparent liberal philosophy that anyone that does not embrace any and every type of behavior and lifestyle cannot possibly be fair.

Speaking of putting words in people’s mouths, or maybe beliefs into their heads…before you comment again, please look up the terms ‘misrepresentation’ and ’strawman’, as in, “FinanceBuzz did a great job demolishing that strawman, but Eric was left pretty much untouched.”

Thanks.

While I strongly disagree with a vast majority of your opinions on your blog, I have generally given you credit for being willing to at least listen to differing viewpoints. However, this situation is absolutely despicable and serves as a demonstration of the hypocrisy that can so often be seen in liberalism.

Reading your comments and Michelle’s comments here and on Radar’s blog and the above quote by Dennis, it seems that you have placed yourself in the position of judge and jury here. I completely understand the concerns of Radar about maintaining his anonymity considering that he works in academia, an environment often associated with liberalism that has been shown to have little if any tolerance for viewpoints that differ with its own. This is not unreasonable on his part.

The apparent crux of the issue is that the left cannot seem to understand that you can disagree with one’s lifestyle (wrt homosexuality) but still be respectful of their rights. You claim to do this in valuing everyone’s identity but yet you have decided, with no evidence of wrongdoing, that Radar is not capable of being fair to people with whom he disagrees with their lifestyle. This is blatant hypocrisy! If there was some suggestion that he had actually acted in a way detrimental to his minority students, then you might have some justification for your pursuit of his identity. However, you have nothing more than your suppositions founded on your apparent liberal philosophy that anyone that does not embrace any and every type of behavior and lifestyle cannot possibly be fair.

I have worked with homosexual colleagues. I do not approve of that lifestyle. However, I respect that they have the same rights as an American citizen that I do and that they have the freedom in America to make the decision to live their life by their decision. I also firmly believe that it is not my place to judge them. While I consider homosexuality to be a sin based on my reading of the Bible, I also recognize that I am a sinner as well. We all are. So while I may oppose that lifestyle and oppose actions by society to promote that lifestyle, I do not support any behaviors or actions to infringe upon anyone’s rights as an American citizen.

What is ironic about this situation is that Luke posted in his comments that he did not understand the idea of liberal academia. Well, he needs to look no further than this example of the consequences to someone who works in that industry to dare to differ from the liberal party line.