VALUE City Furniture has a chain of stores in the US.
In a video on its website it boasts of supporting charities such as the American Red Cross, Boys and Girls Clubs of America, and  Feeding America:
Our focus is on improving the quality of lives wherever we are.
Well, VCF – part of the Shottenstein Stores Group – did nothing to improve the life of Brian Worley, 47. Anything but. Within two days of his joining the team at the store’s branch in Falls Church, Virginia, he was subjected to homophobic abuse, believed to be religiously-motivated. His employment was terminated after he was physically assaulted by the VCF Store of the Year manager.
Thing is, Worley – creator of the Ex-Minister blog is not gay. Repeat. He is NOT A HOMOSEXUAL.
Ironically, a while back I thought – quite wrongly as it turned out – that Worley himself was homophobic. There was a misunderstanding on my part about his stance on gay unions, but this was cleared up after an exchange of emails, and I subsequently placed Ex-Minister on the FT blogroll, and became a friend of his on Facebook. I also ran a piece about him here.
By the way, Ex-Minister’s mission statement says it:
Assists former clergy, seeking to utilize their talents within society to build bridges and find peaceful solutions to problems exacerbated by secular or religious strife.
Worley’s own world now is in tatters. And two VCF employees are facing charges of assault and battery .
The attack on Worley took place in March, and was the culmination, he says, of a sustained period of homophobic abuse and bullying.
Worley was targeted on his second day with the company when his immediate supervisor greeted him with the words:
Hey gay … gay Brian.
Said Worley:
He then laughed about it. My response? I stepped out of the room to compose myself because I really needed the job. I re-entered the room and pretended as if nothing happened.
He added:
That supervisor had a Jesus license plate on the front tag of his car. Evidently, he didn’t want to train a ‘gay man’ either. There was a two-week training session, but since I had extensive furniture sales and management background, I was sent to the sales floor in that first week with less than five minutes of computer training (which is what I needed the most!)
The gay jibes continued; I was puzzled as to why? I’m not gay! There is nothing effeminate about me to suggest I might be a gay person. I’m in a long-term marriage and have a lovely daughter. If I were gay I’d have absolutely no problem about ‘coming out’ because, as readers of Ex-Minister know, I stand with and defend the LGBT community on most matters.
Brian Worley and his wife Everita
It appears that my standing with the LGBT community outside of the workplace has resulted with hostility within the workplace.
Worley said:
At first, I thought that management’s behavior towards me was just a non-consequential case of redneck teasing. But things kept getting worse. About two months into this, I contacted the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to discuss the workplace events.
The EEOC couldn’t help me because there are no federal laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation! Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and later amendments all fail to address sexual orientation.
So here I am – a straight person getting gay bashed and hearing the government say, ‘I’m sorry for your troubles but we can’t help you’. Equal opportunity to me means that both straight and gay people should be able to work in a non-hostile environment being judged solely on the merits of our work rather than sexual or perceived sexual orientation. The time has come; straight people need gay rights!
Worley was assaulted twice in March; once by the chain’s Store of the Year manager and by an employee who invited him to step outside so he could straighten him out.
Worley then decided to call the police.
I’m the size of a linebacker. It took some doing but the store manager ripped the phone out of my hands while I was calling the police and hung up the phone. He then ran me out of the store and I had to call the police from the parking lot.
Worley then went to the magistrate’s office and filed two counts of assault and battery. Arrests were made and a future court date set. The company has since terminated Worley’s employment and has filed to deny him unemployment compensation. The two facing charges are still employed by American Signature Inc.
Worley said:
Let me pose a rhetorical question with a role reversal. Suppose a secular employer were to isolate a vulnerable heterosexual member of Rick Warren’s church and start gay bashing him? My point is that it wouldn’t matter if he were gay or not because such rottenness could continue on unabated. So long as laws fail to prevent such behavior, companies will turn a blind eye. Some choice, tolerate gay bashing or leave the company for the unemployment line. I think there would be a civil war in America if secular minded folks did this to Christians.
There is much more for me to say about the hostilities and the affects that this has had upon my family and I, but I will close with a few questions. What values do Value City Furniture value? Is gay-bashing an American value? Until legislation prohibits such activities you would have to conclude that it is!
He added:
I know it’s a question of ethics, but does the absence of law alleviate one of moral responsibility? I wouldn’t dare think of taking this case public but after repeated attempts, I cannot get a corporate level person to sit down with me and personally discuss these serious matters.
They have picked a fight with me that reason and diplomacy has been unable to resolve. A poor man asking for justice usually gets ‘steamrolled’ unless he vigilantly stands up and demands his rights.
I’m not backing down as some victim. I’m going to fight a fight that I should win. I hope that people will stand with me!
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
April 30th, 2011 at 1:33 pm
You reap what you sow. I have no sympathy for the man, he is a homophobe who opposes marriage equality for gay and lesbian people.
So he gets subjected to homophobic abuse? Boo hoo.
April 30th, 2011 at 3:04 pm
From my experience homophobia is alive and kicking. And it is not necessary from religious people. Six month in the care profession and I ended up having to go to the Police. Personally all mention of sex, I feel, should be banned in the work place. There is a professional way to behave and clearly from this article some employees/employers have behaved disgracefully.
April 30th, 2011 at 3:32 pm
America sucks
April 30th, 2011 at 4:15 pm
He’s had an unfortunate experience to be sure, and may even have expressed a few laudable ideas on some issues important to free thought, but take a look at this idiotic post wherein he conflates atheism with violence: http://wwwdotexministerdotorg......-have.html I too have no sympathy for someone who so misuses what he calls “reason.”
April 30th, 2011 at 4:31 pm
I think the contributors of this site are having a street party somewhere,.
April 30th, 2011 at 5:01 pm
Paul said… “Luke is the only friend I now have with me.” That was because they were all having a street party somewhere. 2 Tim 4:11
April 30th, 2011 at 5:12 pm
My advice, if you want a real friend, who doesn’t discriminate and is a loyal companion – get yourself a dog. Or should that be GOD.
April 30th, 2011 at 5:20 pm
My understanding from the OP was that Worley was not a homophobe and the notion that he was one was an error. I agree with Walter that these people behaved disgracefully as did the employers for not having the backbone to support him or even the moral courage to do the right thing.
April 30th, 2011 at 5:44 pm
But, but, but…
“We hate the sin, not the sinner!”</sarcasm>
Boshhead, I’m not sure where you’re getting that idea from. Like Stonyground, I had the impression that Worley is not a homopbobe, and Barry Duke says as much in the OP.
April 30th, 2011 at 5:56 pm
Weird. I refreshed the page after posting the above, and two more posts, those of Bob and Brian, appeared in the middle of the thread.
Brian, that’s some nasty stuff, no doubt, but he’s still not homophobic, and he’s still been, apparently, bullied and assaulted at work for his views, whatever they are. Which is still morally wrong, no matter what his views on other subjects.
April 30th, 2011 at 6:47 pm
Just been to his web site,he may be an ex minister but he is still a dick.He may not be homophobic but that’s about as good as he gets.
As boshhead said “you reap what you sow”.
April 30th, 2011 at 7:07 pm
Stonyground, Daz,
Read more carefully. From this article:
The issue he doesn’t defend the LGBT community on? That would be marriage.
His position on the issue is here:
http://www.exminister.org/cont.....riage.html
And yes, it’s anti-equality.
April 30th, 2011 at 7:53 pm
boshhead
Yeah, that’s some serious wriggling. To sum up, he’s ‘not anti-gay’ but ‘anti-gay-marriage’. Some grey area: he’s pro-civil partnership, and the article is two years old — opinions can change.
Sounds rather like the usual hypocritical doublespeak to me. Maybe Barry Duke will clarify, as he seems to know the chap.
April 30th, 2011 at 10:14 pm
Actually, what we find here, is the difference between an atheist and a freethinker. I certainly believe that an atheist can be a freethinker, he could also be a racist, an armed robber, or a rapist. Why not? There is no hell.
But no one who takes the time and effort to search their belief system in search of balance which you need to do if you want to be a freethinker, would ever do any of those things. The fact that we went in search denotes that we care to understand the truth.
I wonder if the word “freethinker” should be wrestled away from atheists, the way fundy christians wrestled away the word “marriage” from gays. I’m not convinced they deserve it.
NeoWolfe
April 30th, 2011 at 11:02 pm
Jebus H Cripes Neo – can’t you contribute something other than that stuck record point you keep spinning. I’m a very tolerant sort, but it’s getting tiresome when you spam threads with inane semantics regarding the usage of the title “freethinker” from a magazine that dates back to 1881…
By all means go and start your own Agnostic freethinker site – maybe you’ll make some friends who enjoy reading your stories of family tragedy mixed with your crass sexual references, and condescending all-knowing attitude.
I asked numerous times what it is exactly you “believe” but instead of an answer, you’ve never hesitated to tell everyone here what we all apparently believe.
I’d like to ask you politely to drop the butthurt act and quit being so tedious (I think you have that capacity too, as sometimes you manage something pertinent on a specific topic.) I’m not asking you to leave by the way – it’s just a request on my own behalf that you stop hijacking threads with the same moot point again and again…
On the other hand – if you really do know how the universe began – feel free to elucidate!
April 30th, 2011 at 11:15 pm
FT, after reading Mr. Worley’s screed on “gay marriage” (I dislike that phrase intensely; marriage is marriage, period), my conclusion is that he is, indeed, a homophobe. While I understand that “gay unions” (or “civil unions” or “civil partnerships”) may be considered essentially the equivalent of marriage in the U.K., civil unions are not at all equivalent to marriage in the U.S.
And so, when Mr. Worley states, “Civil unions or something better is what needs to occur, not gay marriage,” he is denigrating same-sex marriages as inferior to his own heterosexual marriage, and telling us to settle for a legal status that is far inferior in the United States.
His argument is no different than those heard so often during the Civil Rights Era of the 1960s re “colored” water fountains and segregated lunch counters: “The water that comes out is the same — they’re still getting lunch — what’s the big deal?” That’s appalling enough — but in the case of marriage, it’s worse: the “colored” “water” and the “colored” “food” are even not of the same quality as the “white” “water” and the “white” “food.”
No offense to you intended, FT — I admire and respect you immensely (I was introduced to your work by my wife, Buffy [The Gaytheist Agenda]) — but I think Mr. Worley, in an effort to justify his own homophobia to himself, has, through a series of cagey twists that would put a Cirque de Soleil performer into traction, managed to convince you that he actually believes in equality for all.
He does not. Sadly, I suspect he does not even realize how desperately he wants to maintain his heterosexual privilege for the purpose of… I don’t know — feeling more “special” than gay people? If it’s not his religion to blame, then what else could it be?
Whatever it is, it always seems to boil down to that: Those advocating “separate but equal” (which is only separate, and never equal) seem to believe that welcoming gay people into an institution we revere as much as straights do (and oftentimes more, since we have to work so much harder for something too many straights take for granted) somehow lessens the “specialness” of their marriages. It makes no sense to me, either.
And so, until Mr. Worley retracts his abhorrent “gay marriage” post (and, from what I can see, he has not done so in the two years since he wrote it), he will remain a homophobe in my book.
And — as I wrote in a comment on my wife’s blog — “while his story of homophobic abuse is a terrible thing, it is a separate issue altogether. Yet, being human, knowing Mr. Worley does not (yet) perceive my humanity (or my marriage) as equal to his dampens my sympathy for him and my outrage over his situation.”
That may be completely hypocritical of me, but again, I am only human.
April 30th, 2011 at 11:15 pm
My criticism of skepticism centers around the all or nothing proposition. What I’m hearing from several in the comments is to support gay marriage or go to hell because we don’t give a dam about any other LGBT issue.
I haven’t changed one iota from my strong support of civil unions. This link outlines my support of civil unions and the case against gay marriage. http://www.exminister.org/fund.....riage.html
Neo Wolfe well pointed out the importance of freethinking. There are plenty of things on my website that we could argue or debate about and in the process ignore the common good! Here though, I have what could be a landmark case that could very well positively influence future civil rights legislation that would benefit both the LGBT community and straight people. I really need all the support that I can get!
Plenty of non-LGBT people will get a different perspective due to the events that I have brought to the public. I’m certain that bigots will laugh at skeptics fighting one that is battling for significant LGBT legislation.
April 30th, 2011 at 11:38 pm
Mr. Worley
What I’m hearing from several in the comments is to support gay marriage or go to hell because we don’t give a dam about any other LGBT issue.
On the contrary. We ask for full equal rights. Marriage equality is only one of the things on that list. Others include employment protection (it’s still legal in more than half of US states to refuse to hire or to fire people just for being gay),housing protection (it’s still legal in more than half of US states to refuse gay people a home just because they’re gay), and an end to DADT.
I haven’t changed one iota from my strong support of civil unions.
Which means you consider gay people your inferiors, and wish to relegate them to a legally and socially inferior class of union just because of who they are. You’re a bigot as much as those who supported anti-miscegenation laws. You think you should own “marriage” by virtue of your religious beliefs, and by virtue of the fact that you’re heterosexual. You don’t.
I really need all the support that I can get!
Translation: Now that you’ve been harmed by some of the very anti-gay bigotry you help perpetuate you want support from the people you help keep oppressed. Please tell me why you deserve it. You don’t seem to have learned much from the experience.
May 1st, 2011 at 12:14 am
Brian Worley:
I’ve tried to keep, and express, an open mind on this, as Barry Duke seemed to be at least partly defending your views.
Thank you for making me look like a twat.
Maybe he’s right. Maybe you’re not a homophobe in the strictest sense of the word. But…
If you’re not willing to defend any minority’s right to be treated as fully equal under law, then you sir, are a bigot, plain and simple. ‘Not being a fundy’ is the base-level you should be building upon, not something you should be proud of just for having attained.
May 1st, 2011 at 2:55 am
Saffocrat, why shouldn’t civil unions be equivalent to marriage in the US? I’ve said in writing that they should, but you want to say otherwise…I don’t understand the drama. Civil Unions should be equivalent and I cannot understand why you and others insist on calling me a homophobe? Does it give you pleasure to castigate a civil union and LGBT rights advocate? Why be so hateful? Why be so divisive? Why do you want enemies? Would you rather that straight people not take a costly stance for civil rights? The message your sending is to avoid LGBT issues!
Buffy what are you smoking? I don’t have religious beliefs, search 200 pages of my website and prove your false accusation and try to restore your credibility! Why do you INSIST on placing words into my mouth when you state that I: “consider gay people your inferiors, and wish to relegate them to a legally and socially inferior class of union just because of who they are�
I’m deeply offended by many of these inaccurate, drama laced comments. This type of treatment is exactly why more LGBT friendly people are hesitant to risk standing with the LGBT community! Why, because they might get unjustly ripped apart because they don’t go far enough! All or nothing usually gets you nothing!
Four or five cranky people doesn’t sway my determination to stand up and demand rights. I find it amazing that I have been greeted with “friendly fire.”
May 1st, 2011 at 3:07 am
Brian Worley
My understanding of Civil Unions in the US is that they’re a poor cousin to marriage, at best, with ‘properly’ married couples enjoying many rights that civil union partners don’t. Are you saying that they should be considered equal when they’re most surely not, or are you saying that those entering them should have the same rights as those who are married? If the latter, why not just campaign for the right for LGBTs to be able to marry in the normal fashion?
May 1st, 2011 at 4:28 am
Daz
Should means should! I’m working for that should. My stance is the same as President Obama’s was when he went into office. Problem was that people that should have supported Obama turned on him like they have with me. See the pattern? Obama didn’t go far enough and angry people lost their minds by “asking for the moon” (gay marriage)instead. Obama was in a position to bring progress but the hardline stance (which is so unlikely to succeed…near impossible)will prove to be a wasted opportunity for the LGBT community. In my opinion, I think the LGBT community is too emotionally involved to make wise strategic moves. These sabotage opportunities for success.
The opposition largely comes from the religion which is not properly truly understood by many LGBT advocates in my opinion.
Civil unions are far more likely to get backing in the US than gay marriage. It will take some doing for the US to attain civil unions as in the UK. I think it very unwise and arrogant for the US to skip past the UK civil union example by trying to ram gay marriage down the throats of Americans.
Today has reaffirmed to me that people are mad and want to fight and to villianize folks that could advance LGBT causes. The American public needs to have straight people work to convince a largely religious country that we need LGBT rights. I wrote about this here:
I make a very pragmatic arguement that hasn’t been refuted here. To answer your question, I answered your question in the above link. I doubt that my position will change on the matter. Sobeit if the LGBT community doesn’t want to make friends or progress. I’ve been very offended here today!
May 1st, 2011 at 4:48 am
“Should means should!”
It was a genuine question, not a snark. When you say “Civil Unions should be equivalent,” do you mean they should be considered equal as they now stand (when they aren’t, in point of the rights given to participants), or do you mean that you believe that civil unions and marriages should imbue participants with the same rights? Your wording doesn’t make that clear, and it’s a very important distinction.
BTW, I’m not in the LBGT community, being straight. I just happen to believe in equality.
If we’re swapping tales of who’s been the most insulted, maybe you’d like to re-read your own January 10th post. It’s mutual, so let’s stick to the point at hand.
May 1st, 2011 at 6:14 am
Daz,
Same rights, I wouldn’t conceive of it any other way.
May 1st, 2011 at 7:34 am
Brian Worley
Then I really don’t see your objection to LGBTs wanting the institution to be known by the same name. Obviously I can’t claim to speak for them, but my own personal feeling would be that the difference in name, trivial as it may seem, would be one more social stigma on top of the many they already face. I really don’t see wanting to be treated equally as ‘asking for the moon’. I see it as a basic human right.
Consider how a white civil rights worker 50-odd years ago, or a male supporter of the suffragettes, 100 years ago, would have been viewed if they’d advocated for letting black people or women have votes, but that their vote should only count as half a vote. That seems to me to be analogous to what you’re saying. You might mean well, but your attitude would, to me, seem patronising.
You’re aware, I suppose, that many LGBT people are actually members of the religion you claim they don’t understand? That we are actually in the position that, in some sects, we have gay clergy who are forbidden by law to perform gay marriages? And as for the ones that aren’t Christian, I think you insult their intelligence by making the assertion. They may not understand the finer points of the doctrine, but they surely understand the bigotry of those who use the religion to excuse that bigotry, as probably only the victims of bigotry truly can.
May 1st, 2011 at 9:06 am
I know embedded in this debate is an issue of equal rights but for me the term Partnership sounds so much better than marriage. A partner -someone equal, together, balanced etc.. On the issue of freethinker, well how about “informed thinker”. Freethinking could be deemed as woolly and open to one’s interpretation. You know the Calvinist were having a similar argument over free choice salvation or predestination years ago. Nonetheless, thinking out of the box, investigation and the acceptance that others will have opinions different from my own creates a healthy debate which we all can learn from.
May 1st, 2011 at 9:07 am
Brian Worley,
Marriage is not simply a package of legal incidents. It’s a status. To deny gay and lesbian people access to that status is discrimination.
We’re asking you for your reasons why you would to deny gay and lesbian people access to that status. From the link you posted, your argument seems to be that because heterosexuals have traditionally been privileged and afforded things that gay and lesbian people haven’t, they should continue to be, at least when it comes to marriage.
Do I need to spell out for you what is wrong with this?
Gay and lesbian people would benefit from marriage in much the same ways that heterosexuals can and do. We fulfill all of the state’s interests in marriage.
There is not a single purpose of marriage that you can name for me, that all heterosexual couples can fulfill, and no gay or lesbian couples can. That is, unless you think a purpose of marriage should be to privilege heterosexuality.
You cannot say that civil unions and marriage are equivalent and then insist on them having separate names and being separate institutions. Clearly there is a difference you are trying to maintain.
May 1st, 2011 at 10:48 am
from wikipedia:
Retail Ventures
Schottenstein Stores owns 51% of Retail Ventures, which is a holding company for DSW, and American Signature Furniture; 15% of American Eagle Outfitters, retail liquidator SB Capital Group, some 50 shopping centers, and 5 factories producing its shoes and furniture.[1]
It also holds an ownership interest in American Eagle Outfitters, Wehmeyer in Germany, Cold Stone Creamery, The Mazel Company, Gidding-Jenny [2], Shiffren Willens jewelry stores, and Sara Fredericks boutiques[3].
In 2006, a consortium of investors, including Schottenstein Stores, purchased 655 stores from grocery retailer Albertson’s[4].
≈
[edit] Brands
Schottenstein Stores owns the rights to various brands, including Bugle Boy (purchased in 2001)[5], “Cannon”, “Royal Velvet”, “Charisma”, “Fieldcrest”, J. Peterman, delia’s, SB Premier Brands and Leslie Fay.[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.....tores_Corp.
May 1st, 2011 at 6:27 pm
Featheredfrog,
You dug a little and saw what I saw. This is a rather large and strong group that I am up against. That is why I am in for the fight of my life! People don’t realize the resources or wherewithal behind this group, thank you for making it known to the readers here.
Boshhead,
You are one sick and divisive individual. I question your humanity and much more!
Daz,
I’ve taken a long time to express my views on the articles that I have written. Seems as if your not reading, liking or accepting what has been expressed. They DO STATE my positioning and REASONS.
Let me lean to your humanity. Do you realize what I am dealing with? Why not place some energy into WORKING FOR SOLUTIONS to my dilemma? Thirty questions isn’t what I need at the moment. Nor do I have the focus upon that when I am trying to deal with much more pressing items. The important ones like supporting a family when my source of finances have been cut off due to activities that sub humans such as Boshhead seem to think is OK.
This is EXACTLY why I’m skeptical with skeptics. Some get LAZY and pick an arguement RATHER THAN WORKING FOR SOLUTIONS. But there is a reason why I took my story to Barry here at the Freethinker rather than other places. Barry has shown me that he WORKS for solutions and that he does so with others without having to be in full agreement with them!
May 1st, 2011 at 7:21 pm
Brian Worley
Reading, yes. Liking, no. Accepting … I would accept such half-measures if that was what the LGBT community, not me, you, nor any other outsider, accepted. Maybe many would accept a half-a-loaf compromise, for now, but they wouldn’t appear to be very vocal about it, if they do. And I stress, this is their decision, not mine, not yours. We are not the victims, excepting your recent troubles, for which you have my commiserations.
And, by the way, the religious-right opposition to civil unions seems just as strong as that to full marriage. I’m not sure that your idea of the half-way-house being an easier sell really holds much water.
‘Sub-human’ seems neither a charitable nor a sensible way of describing someone, merely for disagreeing with you, no matter how vehemently they do so. Are we in the playground now?
I have little money, but I give what I can to causes I feel deserve it. I sign petitions, write to my MP etc. I do what I can. If that’s your definition of ‘lazy’ — based, I suspect, more on the fact that I have issues with the way that you want things to work than on any knowledge of how active I am on social and political matters — well I can live with that.
As far as it goes, I think you’re wrong on some issues, but that hasn’t stopped me talking to you. If you’d stop treating it as an attack and think about the issues being raised, something productive might come of this. I’m not saying you should agree with us, merely that we’re not the only ones who will raise these objections, and that you need to consider and make allowances for them in your planning, regardless.
May 1st, 2011 at 8:30 pm
Brian,
I didn’t place words in your mouth. You stated that you oppose marriage rights for gay people. You instead support “Civil Unions”, which are a legally and socially inferior form of union. They are the equivalent of the “Colored Only” lunch counter and drinking fountains of yesteryear. They say to the world that gay people aren’t worthy of the legal and social rights and status bestowed by marriage–that only certain, special people deserve those rights and that status. That makes you a bigot. If you don’t get that you don’t begin to understand the differences between the forms of unions. Furthermore, if you think Civil Unions are so equivalent perhaps you should take them and give us marriage.
We’re sick to death of people like you thinking you’re bloody magnanimous and that we should be kissing your ass because you’re willing to toss us a few crumbs from your lofty table. It’s degrading and insulting. What’s more, you don’t even realize how much you’re embarrassing yourself with your utter ignorance and audacity. You didn’t earn, nor do you deserve, your privileged status, and we’re sick to death of you pretending you’re the victim when we ask for what’s rightfully ours.
May 1st, 2011 at 9:20 pm
Brian Worley,
I’m divisive??
You’re the one who wants to create a dividing line between heterosexual and gay and lesbian relationships, for absolutely no good reason.
I don’t think pointing out your divisiveness should make me guilty of being divisive.
You want to live in a world in which heterosexuals receive privileges that gay and lesbian people do not. You want to live in a world in which heterosexuals are treated better than gay and lesbian people. And then you have the temerity to complain when you yourself are treated poorly when someone mistakenly believes you are part of the very group you wish to see disparaged!
Now, you may consider that denying gay and lesbian people the ability to marry is only a minor disparagement, but it is a disparagement nonetheless.
May 1st, 2011 at 11:24 pm
Mr Worley, I am unable to support you. Not only do you support a lower status for homosexuals, you don’t even realise that you are doing so. I want equality for all, but you want a different status for gays. That smacks of apartheid. I didn’t protest against the South African apartheid regime just to bring in apartheid for gays.
Oh, and by the way, I am an Atheist and proud of it so you can stick your claim that I am amoral where the sun doesn’t shine.
http://wwwdotexministerdotorg......-have.html
May 2nd, 2011 at 11:44 am
I’m still curious about how Brian’s co-workers came to the conclusion that he is gay in the first place.
May 2nd, 2011 at 1:49 pm
Pete H
I assumed it was guilt by association. After all, no one would defend Teh Gheys unless they wuz one, surely…
May 5th, 2011 at 12:18 am
After reading the article and the comments, I think that we are focusing on the wrong issues. The real issue is not whether Brian Worley is a homophobic bigot, the real issue is that a major American corporation protects the homophobic bigots that attacked Brian.
It seems very wrong to me to base our outrage on the worthiness of the victim instead of the heinousness of the crime.
May 11th, 2011 at 5:49 pm
The best thing about him is his great looking wife. Brian seems is just another “problem seeker”, hard to get along with. sorry folks, its how I see him
May 18th, 2011 at 10:55 pm
I find myself quite surprised to be in the position of agreeing with a bunch of deviants, but it is obvious that Brian deserves everything the employees of Value City gave him, and thus does not deserve anyone’s support.
After reading the writings on his blog, I only regret that the god-fearing Value City manager only grabbed the phone from him; he should have literally beat the hell out of him.
I have decided to increase my support for Value City by urging all of my congregation and other congregations in our denomination to buy furniture from this corporation.
Thank you for the free publicity given to this fine American instution.