See how many wrongs you can find in this story. Dominic Kelly, who wrote it up for Opposing Views, finds one. If you are still unsure of his viewpoint after reading his take, the URL, which contains the word homophobic, should help you decide.
Here is Kelly’s piece in its entirety:
A New York mother is causing a stir after her response to her young son’s classmate’s birthday party invitation was sent to a radio station and spread around social media.
The fathers say they initially received a response from Beth after attempting to invite her son Tommy to their daughter’s tie dye birthday party. They received the invitation back, and instead of simply saying Tommy wouldn’t be there, Beth went on an anti-gay tirade.
“Tommy will NOT be attending,” wrote Beth on the invitation. “I do not believe in what you do and will not subject my innocent son to your ‘lifestyle’. I’m sorry Sophia has to grow up this way. If you have an issue or need to speak to me: [phone number].”
After receiving the cruel response, the two dads decided to send the invitation to local radio station K98.3. The station posted the invitation on their Facebook page, and since then, people everywhere have expressed outrage. Beth’s phone number was initially blurred from the picture, but the radio station removed the blur and said, “Beth gave us permission to post her phone number and said anyone who has a problem with what she wrote can call her, too!”
It’s safe to say that Beth should expect quite a few calls.
Back to the initial challenge, that of ferreting out the wrongs in this little morality play. There is no question in my mind — and there certainly appears to be none in Dominic Kelly’s — that Beth crossed a line. By attacking the two dads, regardless how strongly she may feel about homosexuality or about raising children in a homosexual environment, she created an adversarial situation. The prudent thing, as Kelly intimates, would have been to decline the invitation without explanation or qualification.
Where my view diverges from Kelly’s and from the “people everywhere [who] have expressed outrage” is that I believe the dads and, to a lesser extent, the radio station also erred. What possible motivation could the two gay men have had in going public with the amended invitation beyond humiliating Beth — and possibly worse. They were in essence inciting a flash mob against a woman who disapproves of their lifestyle. If any physical retribution were visited on Beth based on publicizing her name and phone number, these men would likely be held liable, as conceivably would the radio station.
This story highlights a common failing among liberals, whose notion of intolerance is unidirectional. It seems not to have occurred to Kelly, who is sympathetic only to the plight of the gay couple, that their actions were vengeful and, therefore, just as, if not more, morally reprehensible than the mother’s.
- Food Network: Gay and proud … and stupid
- No talk of gay rights, please, we’re Olympians
- Gay rights advocates in Israel want TV puppets to admit they’re gay
- Bert and Ernie ‘outed’ by New Yorker
- Jerry Brown signs bill to allow children more than two legal parents
- White House celebrates Bisexual Visibility Day with official closed-door event
- Confession: Teacher goes from being male to female, from fun to blah
- Love story for the 21st century: Boy (formerly girl) meets girl (formerly boy)
- CA law lets transgender students use whichever school bathroom they like
- Man undergoes sex change, believes it was a mistake, switches back
- Kerry: Gay rights are ‘the very heart’ of U.S. diplomatic efforts world-wide