Thee California Miss USA pageant has officially fired Carrie Prejean and appointed her runner-up to take over as Miss California for the remainder of her reign. The official reason for the dismissal is failure to meet contractual obligations. Not the furor resulting from her controversial answer to Perez Hilton’s gay marriage question during the Miss USA telecast.
I have several thoughts on this subject.
1. Carrie Prejean was asked her views on same-sex marriage as part of the Miss USA competition. An unfair and inappropriate competition question. As were several of the other questions. Unless you understand that the only appropriate way to respond to these questions is to bring out your best Stepford-wife smile and give the vaguest, simpiest, most politically correct response – and understand that your real views don’t matter. At all. World peace!
2. Carrie Prejean needs to understand that adding, “no offense to anyone…” to her comments does not magically make them inoffensive to those that are, um, offended. It’s tap-tap-no-erasies. “I think all Jews should be exterminated because that’s the way I was raised…no offense to anyone!” Get it now, Carrie? World Peace!
3. There is not a doubt in my mind that Carrie Prejean did not fulfill every single of of her contractual obligations. There’s also not a doubt in my mind that she really got fired for her comments, her adherence to those comments, and her new association with organizations that feel the same. Pageant officials were gunning for her, period. World Peace!
4. The head of the California Miss USA pageant might get more people to believe that the contractual obligations WERE the real reason for her ousting if he didn’t – in the same interview – derisively point out that Carrie’s attorney is also the attorney for a group that works to prevent the passage of laws allowing gay marriage. Um, so what? We know how she feels on the subject. Why should she not have an attorney with similar beliefs? Would Perez Hilton hire an attorney who was against gay marriage? And while we’re on the subject…
5. Perez Hilton is an asshat. You don’t agree with Carrie? Fine. Don’t call her the C word. Don’t make fun of her (and millions of others’) belief in G-d. I could write pages on his asshatity, but he’s just not worth my time.
6. Tami Farrell, the pageant 1st runner-up who takes over as Miss California, cannot keep from smiling. She’s been rubbing her hands together and licking her chops for weeks. Better mind her p’s and q’s, that one. World Peace!
“Politically correct“. Dangerous words, those. People are starting to be afraid to speak their minds in fear of retribution – political, financial, social. Methinks that’s happened a time or twelve in the history of the world. Anyone remember The Crusades? The Inquisition? The Holocaust? Tiananman Square?
I think we need to proceed with caution. And lots of it.
June 20, 2009 at 11:44 am
You make one good point, re item 2. Otherwise I’m not entirely sure what your point was in this post. This is a private company firing someone for something – as long as they don’t violate their contract rights they can do whatever they want (and if they did violate her contract rights she can get $). If someone wants to have hateful beliefs they are entitled to them, but an employer is certainly entitled to fire them for having such beliefs. Of course it is disingenuous for the company that owns the California Miss USA corporation to suggest that they aren’t in the business of pleasing people – this is a beauty contest after all. I am happy that you, at least, did not mention her “First Amendment Rights” – although you suggested that they were impeded in your “Politically correct” comment. I would mention that people are more free to speak now than at any time in the past – the fact that a private employer can fire someone for something they said isn’t new and is probably essential in a free society (see how freedom means the ability to fire someone for disagreeing with you?). I enjoy the juxtaposition of Prejean with Hilton – it is ok for her to express her belief but not ok for him? And the fact that millions of people who justify their restricting Hilton’s ability to live his life fully and equally perhaps gives him a right to criticize belief in god – remember, people justified slavery, jim crow, etc. on belief in god, is it not justifiable to criticize believe in god in those instances?