I'm not sure if that's an unpopular opinion. He's a redneck from a time when there were educational videos telling you to avoid homosexuals because they love to prey on children. I would be surprised if he said anything else.
He was prompted, too. It's not like he said it out of nowhere. It was part of an interview.
So it's entrapment, then, in spirit if not in letter. I'm sure the studio told him to give a full and candid interview. That is what we have before us.
Certainly I think his opinions on gay people are outdated at the very, very best, and as the Atlantic has reported, his opinions on race relations and grasp of history are unsettling. But that's not any reason to fire him.
Look, you want acceptance. That's the point of the whole bloody movement. Now what message does it send to the 45% of Americans who still oppose gay marriage that if they don't change a personal and highly sacred (because political- I myself do not actually believe that opinions must always be treated equally just because they are politically prominent, but I am not a democrat, and any believer in democracy certainly
should believe so) opinion, they may themselves be "disaccepted" by being fired?
And if they should be so disaccepted, what next? Should we fire everyone with a Confederate flag decal? Sure, the Confederate flag represents a pretty atrocious ideal, but so what? Today's progressive is tomorrow's reactionary. Should we use the "march of progress" as a yardstick? Rick Santorum would say it's progress to get the homosexual agenda out of our schools and our politics. That's progress towards a better society, isn't it, one that protects its children from the evil machinations of vice and degeneracy?