KaiserJeep wrote:Well, the whole point was that the Gaines did not actually DO anything or SAY anything.
HGTV and the other home improvement channels in fact bend over backwards to prove they are not prejudiced and don't criticize anybody's lifestyle. Gays and Lesbians are over-represented on these types of programs, which feature same-sex couples who are house-hunting or renovating all the time. This is not particularly difficult since most such programs are filmed in California in the LA basin or nearby. The oldest renovation program which is PBS's This Old House which is produced mostly in Massachusetts has also had it's share of LGBT "clients".
The Gaines (to my knowledge) have never featured an LGBT couple. They have never said anything in public on the topic of alternative lifestyles. They are in fact a mixed race couple, as he is kinda Nordic and she is Native American. Both Chip and Joanna are graduates of Baylor University in Waco (a private Baptist university), and live and do business in the Waco area, which is staunchly conservative and overwhelmingly Christian.
I do not believe that they are being exclusionary, I simply think that in the greater Waco area, there are very very few openly LGBT couples, and pretty much none of the few would want the glaring publicity of being on a popular HGTV program such as Fixer Upper.
I could be wrong, like I said I have only seen approximately eight of the Fixer Upper programs, and IMDB says they have been broadcasting on HGTV since 2013. It is possible they had LGBT "clients", and also possible that they did not have such clients, and likely that even if not, they were not excluding anyone.
I think the question is, if in fact the Gaines have never had an LGBT client because of religious convictions, is that something which amounts to a crime? Do they deserve to be attacked by an aggressive online "media warrior"? Is it OK for them to say nothing, and neither endorse or condemn alternative lifestyles?
I say that they can believe what they wish and "no comment" is a perfectly acceptable answer. But we are still living under the lash of Ol' Massa Obama, who first cracked the whip in 2009 as I recall, over a bakery which declined to prepare a wedding cake with two grooms on top.
Is it or is it not acceptable to be quietly non-PC, such as the Gaines MAY be, or even aggressively non-PC, as are some other public figures?
Wait a minute, the way you frame that makes me wonder. You're saying that gay people in their area may be repressed out of fear and that may be why the numbers run small enough that they may not have had any gay couples on their show. I think that's interesting because gay people tend to run at the same small percentage of the general population wherever you go. They ought to show up anyway, repressed or not, because the show is about a big step that any couple takes. You wouldn't expect them to sport a gratuitous number of gay couples, like others have said happens when repression isn't an issue, but you'd expect one couple in so many years. To be fair, a randomness generator may not give you any for a while yet.
I don't suppose you have any information on how the people who appear on the show are chosen? They must have producers. I wouldn't imagine that the Gaines' do everything themselves. Plus, never having seen the show, I don't know if what you say about there possibly never having been a gay couple is true. A lot of times gay couples in areas like that masquerade as other types of investors; brothers or sisters or business partners.
The question, I guess, has more to do with whether there is a duty to do something about the repression by over-representing? Just because they have a syndicated TV show doesn't necessarily mean that kind of mandate falls to them. So it doesn't, either, necessarily follow that in spite of their possible religious convictions they could be construed as under a duty to make that change. Definitely, if they had refused anybody appearing on the basis of their sexual orientation, they could be liable. But if the people come on and they are pleasant to them, not treating them any differently, it shouldn't matter what their opinion might be of them. It's even possible they did them a favor by not exposing them, should the actual couples really be in the kind of horrid situation where they might have felt threatened if they more openly presented themselves.
That's writing a lot into it, though. I wonder what you think about them maybe having a duty? If they did would it go so far as the over-representation that others have spoken of concerning other shows?
Keep in mind, it's not altogether illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual orientation. The law doesn't really shield them. They don't have an advocate, in many cases, other than the thought police. The thing I agree with you over is that the thought police shouldn't rise up and start throwing around accusations wildly. It doesn't matter whether there is a known attitude, in this regard, because those who are discriminated against and have no recourse need their advocates to act sparingly. Over acting, as when no real discriminatory act has occurred may actually hurt the cause of those who are being advocated for. It comes off as the boy who cried wolf, or as an individual reporter forwarding their own career at someone else's expense. That's what people may remember. In that manner there is a duty not to profane someone for no reason other than their beliefs. It only works otherwise, more gratuitously, when it's pointed at those who form the arguments, who can make actual law. These people don't fall under that category.
