Curt Schilling Suspended ESPN

ESPN Fires Analyst Curt Schilling for Anti-Transgender Facebook Post

Former Major League Baseball pitcher and ESPN analyst Curt Schilling was fired by the network on Wednesday for sharing a meme, via social media, mocking transgender people.

The Facebook post in question featured a grotesque photo of a man wearing revealing women’s clothing with the caption: “Let him in! to the restroom with your daughter, or else you’re a narrow minded, judgmental, unloving, racist bigot who needs to die!” Schilling later elaborated on the matter in a comment beneath the photo; though both have since been deleted, SB Nation’s OutSports has screen grabs of the posts.

In a statement released Wednesday, ESPN said it “is an inclusive company. Curt Schilling has been advised that his conduct was unacceptable and his employment with ESPN has been terminated.”

Schilling addressed the controversy in an unapologetic post on his personal blog, 38 Pitches.

“You frauds out there ranting and screaming about my ‘opinions’ (even if it isn’t) and comments are screaming for ‘tolerance’ and ‘acceptance’ while you refuse to do and be either,” he wrote. “YOU’RE the ones making it the issue. I don’t care, if you ask me about any of the topics it’s likely (much to the chagrin of many) I’ll answer with my opinion.”

Schilling began working for the network in 2010. In 2015, he was temporarily suspended from ESPN’s on-air baseball coverage in the wake of tweeting a photo of Adolf Hitler that compared Muslims to Nazis.

Do you think Schilling should have been fired? Tell us in the comments!

Comments are monitored, so don’t go off topic, don’t frakkin’ curse and don’t bore us with how much your coworker’s sister-in-law makes per hour. Talk smart about TV!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. Hmm says:

    Good riddance!

  2. Ben says:

    Look, I mean, it’s about a pattern, right?

    I don’t think people should be fired for having personal opinions. That doesn’t mean you have the right to be untouchable no matter how you express those opinions. In this case, I think Curt was probably justifiably fired based on the frequency and manner of expressing his opinions.

    • Joey says:

      If ESPN determined that Schilling was putting their company at risk (of losing profits), they have every right to fire him, especially as he is a public representative of ESPN.

    • Dude says:

      It’s not about having opinions, it’s about poorly representing a company. When you represent a company, you’re not allowed to share your offensive opinions because that’s a reflection on ESPN. If I made my company look bad, I’d get fired too.

    • Phil says:

      I think it certainly is an interesting view on capitalist society. It seems most people would tend to agree that he said stupid stuff and he probably is a bigot, but we also support free speech. He has every freedom and right to say whatever he wants, and he should have that right. But ESPN also has the right to maintain their image and their profits and I’m sure he has something in his contract that says if he publicly hurts ESPN’s image, they can fire him. So basically by signing a contract with ESPN he decided to either give up the right to free speech, or risk being fired. Just seemed like an interesting thought to me…

      • Walkie says:

        There are far too many people that don’t understand the concept of free speech. Schilling has the right to say anything he wants. No one is stopping him. However, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t consequences.

        • Phil says:

          I should have been more clear in my comment. He obviously didn’t literally lose his right to free speech, but essentially he did. Of course he can say whatever he wants. What I meant was I’m sure that he has something in his contract that protects ESPN and allows them to fire him. Which, to me at least, sounds like Curt essentially (not literally) didn’t have freedom of speech within the confines of keeping his job.

          • Elf says:

            Then he didn’t have to sign that contract. He did so willingly and agreed to abide by the terms. Most public celebrities are aware that they need to police their public comments very carefully and it’s best to avoid specific topics, and even more so when it comes to beliefs that attack or denigrate others.

      • Adam Bernard says:

        Well, remember that ‘free speech’ doesn’t mean ‘say anything you want without consequence’–that’s why you can’t yell ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater. Joining a company doesn’t ‘give up the right’ to free speech, but does engender additional consequences (especially if you are a highly visible public figure).

      • mazel tov says:

        The 1st Amendment says that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Nothing in the Constitution prohibiting a private employer from firing you because your statements (or behavior) is detrimental to their business.

        By the way, Schilling was a lousy analyst. A lot of these old time jocks & coaches are. Their “analysis” is confined to “back in my day. . . .”

      • dana says:

        “So basically by signing a contract with ESPN he decided to either give up the right to free speech, or risk being fired.” Now you’ve piqued my interest. It does seem like one has to check their free speech rights at the door when working for a company, agency, government entity, etc. Not so sure that’s constitutional. Company image vs. employee right to free speech on their own time. Would be a good legal discussion.

        • Roger Wilco says:

          It happens all the time. If you have a bone through your nose, Nazi tattoos on your forehead, or show up to work in KKK gear and you’re a server at my restaurant, I might have to let you go. Likewise, is you go about in pubic (or in a public forum) spouting the kind of bigot-oriented stuff that guys like Schilling and Steve Carlton do, I, as a private businessman can fire you. What I can’t do is fire you because you choose to support civil rights causes that support freedom, equality and decency.

          See the difference?

      • Roger Wilco says:

        Agreed. He’s got every right to be the racist, bigoted jackass that he is ( and a moocher on the public dole with his shady business dealing ) but when you are a recognized creep, as he is, ESPN has every right to let him go. I think ESPN was VERY, VERY, lenient with him. Why’d they keep this vile jackass on so long?

  3. Big Mike says:

    Free speech is only free when you’re agreeing with the prevailing masses. I may not agree with his outlook, but he has the right to have it.

    Employers rights have gone too far in this country. Firing someone over a Facebook post? Unless he was using company time/resources to make that post, ESPN should keep out of it.

    You can’t fire a minority for being a minority. You can’t fire a homosexual for being a homosexual. Why is it okay to fire someone for having different beliefs than you? How is that okay?

    • MrMank says:

      Because for decades now we all adopted a term called political correctness. Fruits of our labors, kids.

      • Big Mike says:

        And it’s led us straight to the precipice. Does nobody remember Orwell? What’s next, the thought police? Oops, too late…

        • John says:

          1984 in 2016

        • Roger Wilco says:

          It happens all the time. If you have a bone through your nose, Nazi tattoos on your forehead, or show up to work in KKK gear and you’re a server at my restaurant, I might have to let you go. Likewise, is you go about in pubic (or in a public forum) spouting the kind of bigot-oriented stuff that guys like Schilling and Steve Carlton do, I, as a private businessman can fire you. What I can’t do is fire you because you choose to support civil rights causes that support freedom, equality and decency.

          See the difference?

        • Roger Wilco says:

          You bring up an interesting point about George Orwell, but I think there is a significant distinction at play here. In Orwell’s anti-communistic works “Animal Farm” and “1984” he was writing in opposition to governmental doctrine that resulted in legally binding penalties. There is nothing in this firing that would indicate Mr. Schilling will be imprisoned, tortured or have his property confiscated. He is, however, being sanctioned economically by a private business entity. To prevent this private enterprise from exercising their free speech right by not having some amount of control over those that highlight the in the public eye would also infringe on their rights as well.

          There is a balance, although you do bring up a good point… private enterprise should not be allowed to run roughshod over the legislative process. Nor should they be allowed to railroad workers or their unions. Still, despite logical arguments to the contrary, you’ve got to be a total idiot to equate Orwell with Schilling’s situation. Orwell would be opposed to everything that Schilling stands for.. if his ideals came into play, we’d be Oceania. Re-read the book.

    • Joey says:

      So many people simply don’t grasp the concept of free speech. Free speech doesn’t guarantee him to stay employed. Free speech keeps him out of prison. Please learn the difference.

      • Lauren says:

        Ahhh you beat me to it! Thank you Joey. Free speech does not protect you in the private workforce! Never has, never will.

        • Big Mike says:

          And this is where the problem lies.

          • Ben says:

            You’re right. It is where the problem lies – that people are now so in love with the culture of the importance of their own opinion that they think they ought to have the right to express it in any way they choose, no matter what…

            The problem lies in the fact that people don’t seem to grasp that the fact you can say something, doesn’t mean you should, or that it’s respectful to do so.

            Having an opinion is not a virtue.

          • Big Mike says:

            @Ben – I agree with the gist of your post whole heartedly. The Internet, and more specifically social media, has given a meteoric rise to people’s sense of entitlement. EVERYONE needs to post EVERYTHING.

            And yes, I realize the irony of this comment.

      • Yolanda says:

        Exactly. They don’t freaking difference. You can say whatever BS you want and you won’t go to prison for that but it doesn’t mean you can’t be fired for your bigotry.

        • Phoenix5634 says:

          It’s becuz he slandered the whole transgender population into the stereotype that they’re like the dude in the picture he posted, and they’re all trying to perv on your children. Slandering is illegal. Freedom of speech is not. This dude is an idiot.

          • Big Mike says:

            Firstly, it amuses me greatly to be called an idiot by someone using the word “becuz”.

            Secondly, slander is spoken. You believe Schilling to be guilty of libel. Endeavor to learn the difference.

            Thirdly, you cannot commit the illegal “slander” (or libel for that matter) of an entire class of people. Schilling is not suddenly open to lawsuits from every transgender person in the country.

            Fourthly, my position has nothing to do with what was said, but rather what transpired afterwards.

          • Phoenix5634 says:

            First off, I didn’t call you an idiot, I was referring to the guy in this article, but now I’m starting to think that. Lol. And second, it may not be slander exactly, but I guarantee there’s a law similar to the definition of slander that applies to this. Third, obviously hes not going to be sued by the entire population of transgender, but they can protest and force his employers hand. Fourthly, I used “becuz” becuz, lol, it’s the frigging Internet, I’m not writting formally.

      • Big Mike says:

        I “grasp the concept of free speech” just fine. I understand that there are consequences to actions. However, when ESPN fires someone for a personal opinion/view, then I have a problem.

        If Schillng had said something that he PC-States of America agreed with and was fired, everyone would be in a hurry to boycott ESPN. But because he shares a minority opinion, the response is essentially “good, he deserved it”.

        Again, if Curt was on company time, or inappropriately used company equipment to make these posts, then termination is warranted. However, if he made them on his own time, then this has become very “Big Brother-esque”.

        Some time ago, I recall a story about a teacher in a catholic school being fired after posting pictures of herself on the beach (in a bikini) on Facebook. The PC crowd practically tripped over themselves leaping to her defense. What makes it wrong in her case, but right in Schillings? Both were fired over Facebook posts that they’re bosses disagreed with. Neither had done anything illegal, or had harmed anyone in any way. Both (presumably) were on their own time.

        This is a very slippery slope, and I fear we are too late to stop the Avalanche that is coming.

        • Joey says:

          Maybe it might help your delicate sensibilities to understand what ESPN did as a business decision. If ESPN did nothing and kept Schilling as an employee, many people may stop watching ESPN, visiting their website, purchasing their products, as a result. ESPN assessed the potential risk in keeping him, and the same for firing him, and decided it was fiscally best for the company to remove him from the payroll.

          • Big Mike says:

            Where does it end though? Since it is established that an institution can terminate someone based on social media posts, does that also mean that they have the right to do the same based on a persons political leanings? If he boss sees a “Vote for Bernie/Trump/Clinton/Cruz…” bumper sticker on an employees car, is that a firable offense? Or, to keep it similar, what about seeing a simple “Vote for ___” post on the persons social media? If the company is a “Republican Company” can they then fire you for your support of Democrats, and vice versa? If that isn’t okay, then why is it different?

          • Joey says:

            @Big Mike: Is that putting the company’s reputation at risk? I would argue no, and I haven’t seen anyone try to argue yes. So it doesn’t do to throw out hyperbolic hypotheticals.

          • Big Mike says:

            @Joey – 20 years ago, nobody would’ve thought that transgender issues would put a companies reputation at risk. Who knows what the next 20 will bring. It’s that slippery slope that I fear.

          • Joey says:

            @Big Mike: Slippery slope is a logical fallacy typically used as a form of fear mongering that I’d prefer not to engage in.

          • Adam Bernard says:

            There is a difference between demeaning (not libelling or slandering) a segment of the population vs supporting a particular politician. Schilling’s comment–even if it was done on ‘personal time’–suggests an atmosphere hostile to transgender employees, and, if fresh-out-of-college students think that ESPN supports that sort of atmosphere, that’s a hindrance to attracting top talent. Again, a business decision.

        • Tessa says:

          One was about a personal choice that wasn’t affecting others (the bikini). The other is targeting a vulnerable population. There is a specific difference to those instances. It’s also probable that his contract with ESPN had a clause prohibiting him from making statements that could danger the company. As he had to sign that contract to get the job, he was fully aware of the possible ramifications.

          • Big Mike says:

            “Targeting a vulnerable population”. Is having a differing opinion the same thing as targeting now? Is it not possible in this day and age to simply disagree with something/somebody?

          • Joey says:

            @Big Mike: When you’re posting an image insinuating that transgender individuals are simply “dressing up” in order to sexually harrass or assault individuals, that is targeting a vulnerable population.

          • Big Mike says:

            @Joey – I’d disagree with your assessment of the meme, as offensive as it is. Also, what makes a group “vulnerable”? Is it the simple fact of being a minority? Is it being a sexual minority? Or is there other criterion that I am unaware of? Because it seems to me that by calling the transgender population “vulnerable” you’re doing the EXACT thing that Schilling did – painting an entire group of people with 1 brush.

          • Joey says:

            @Big Mike: When the number of instances of transgender individuals being bullied to the point of suicide, kicked out of their homes by ignorant and bigoted family members, assaulted, and/or murdered starts to tick down, then maybe I won’t consider them to be as vulnerable as they are now.

          • dlraetz says:

            @BigMike In the USA our anti-discrimation laws offer protection based on Race, Religion, National Origin, Age, Sex, Pregnancy, Citizenship, Familial Status, Disabilty Status, Veteran Status and Genetic Information. Transgendered falls under “sex” As a spokesperson for ESPN anything that Curt Shilling puts on his Facebook page that targets a protected class puts ESPN at risk as it could easily be argued that his million followers followed the public figure and not the private man.

        • Boston2AZ says:

          @Big Mike – you said “Again, if Curt was on company time, or inappropriately used company equipment to make these posts, then termination is warranted. However, if he made them on his own time, then this has become very “Big Brother-esque”.” Actually it’s not. For example, I own a store and you work for me during the day. At night you stand on a corner and hurl racial and anti-semitic slurs at the people who live in our town. Because of that, people stop shopping in my store. You have every right to do what you want on your time, but I have every right to fire you because your actions are hurting my business.

        • Walkie says:

          You seem to be simplifying the situation a great deal. This is not an isolated incident with Schilling. This has been a pattern. ESPN could have fired him multiple times. But they gave him a certain amount of rope. He’s too stupid to realize that his verbal diarrhea might have consequences. I can’t walk around my workplace and say whatever I want. Social media is public, not private. What Schilling says and does reflects on the company he worked for.

        • is civics no longer required in school? says:

          Freedom of speech means the government can’t come after you for the things you say, with some exceptions (you can’t yell “Fire” in a crowded theater when there isn’t one, you can’t make serious verbal or written threats on someone else’s life especially if that person is a political figure, you can’t commit slander or libel, etc). It was put into place to protect citizens from exactly what the founding fathers had just been through themselves with their political dissidence while still under the rule of the English monarch. Since they didn’t specify “freedom of *political* speech,” however, it’s been applied to all speech, save for the exceptions I noted above.

          What that means: no one can arrest Mr. Schilling for what he said. It was perfectly legal under US law, however abhorrent. What it does NOT mean: there’s no such things as consequences. ESPN is a private company. They can fire anyone, at any time, for any reason. That’s what at-will employment is. That’s what private enterprise is, come to that. Under capitalism, the employer is king, and if they decide that your employment is no longer benefiting them for whatever reason, they have every legal right to fire you.

          Further, it’s worth noting that in this type of media, part of his job is to be someone that people want to watch and listen to. If he behaves in abhorrent waves, whether he’s on or off the air at the time, and said behavior causes people to not want to watch him or listen to him anymore, then he’s no longer worth employing from ESPN’s perspective. If there are two people I could stick on the air and one of them is well-liked and respected while the other makes people switch the channel in disgust, what incentive do I have to choose the latter? None. The former would make me more money, and so that’s who I would choose. This is one of the very basic building blocks of capitalism: going with whatever or whoever generates the most profit. By repeatedly causing controversy and thus ensuring that part of their audience would no longer tune in if he is on screen, he placed himself in a situation where his continued employment ceased to be profitable compared to other available choices.

          When you choose to speak, you choose to accept the consequences of what you say. Freedom of speech protects you from governmental action, not private.

      • Rob Horine says:

        Your right, it doesn’t. This just makes people who disagree with you less likely to view the four-letter network.

        See, Freedom of Speech means I don’t have to listen to people who give information that I’m not sure I want to hear.

        • Big Mike says:

          Excellent point. So, ESPN is putting the cart before the horse then. “Maybe” people will stop watching because they’re upset. “Maybe” ratings and ad buy rates will go down. But maybe not. Had he actually lost the company money, the situation would be much different.

          • Walkie says:

            Again, you are looking at this as a one time thing. See the bigger picture with Schilling.

      • Ben says:


    • Curt Schilling is in a field of work where public speaking is part of his job. As someone who is paid to expresses his public opinions, he should very well know that when he speaks publicly about hot-button issues (sports, politically or otherwise), he is trading on his reputation as an employee of ESPN.

      Basically, part of an on-screen analyst’s job is to be a PR person. It is generally written into on-screen performers’ contracts that they understand they are responsible for conducting themselves in a manner that reflects well on ESPN. It is not the same thing as if someone working a “standard 9-5” makes a Facebook post because as a public figure there are different business rules.

      Schilling should have known better and he may well violated some part of his contract.

    • Ryan says:

      Actually in most states, you can fire someone for being a homosexual. You can also deny them housing, and some state laws are being proposed pushing for you to even be able to deny them basic medical care on “religious grounds” since most hospitals are religious institutions.

      Just thought you should know that before you make that generalization. Some states provide protections for the LGBTQ community but a lot do not. That’s part of why the whole “equality” movement exists. They don’t want more rights, they want equal rights.

      • Phoenix5634 says:

        John Oliver did a good video on what you just said.

      • dlraetz says:

        If an employer fires someone for being a homosexual then they are violating Federal anti-discrimination laws. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen–I’m just saying that state laws can’t superceed federal laws and that they should contact the Federal Department of Labor

        • Lisabeth says:

          Federal anti-discrimination laws do not cover sexual orientation or gender identity for private sector jobs. It does for some public sector jobs though.

    • TJ says:

      You do not know what “free speech” means under the Constitution!

    • Suz says:

      Actually, in most states, you can fire someone for being homosexual. They don’t have the same protections under the law as women or minorities.

    • Hmm says:

      Free speech means the government can’t punish you for how you express yourself. It doesn’t protect you from civil backlash for whatever you say. ESPN is a private company and are well within their rights to fire the man.

      By the way, it is legal to fire and evict lgbtq people in 27 States for being or perceiving to be lgbtq. Congress hasn’t enacted ENDA.

      But by all means, keep ranting about things you don’t understand.

    • Geo says:

      Can we please include the information that Curt Schilling has not only previously been warned by ESPN, he’s previously been suspended by them for deliberately confrontational online messages (and not about transgender folks but about other minorities, etc.). He has a number of such incidents. ESPN previously suspended Schilling when he reposted a message that had an image of Hitler doing the Nazi salute and the caption saying “It’s said only 5-10% of Muslims are extremists. In 1940, only 7% of Germans were Nazis. How’d that go?” ESPN suspended him for that.

      In other words, ESPN has been telling this guy to knock it off for quite a while now. He didn’t. He was fired.

      Newsflash for those who think this is a “free speech” issue: nobody violated Curt Schilling’s free speech. Anyone has the free speech right in this country, should they choose to, to run around posting offensively racist messages supporting the Klan or post dumb sexist messages saying something like “a woman’s place is barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.” However, since “bigotry” or “saying outrageous things to stir up #@*#” isn’t currently protected at all by any Civil Rights law in this country, your employer has no legal obligation whatsoever to associate themselves with that garbage or employ someone who risks damaging their reputation.

      Schilling is someone who was even given more than one chance by his employer, ESPN. They told him forcefully to quit it. He didn’t. He was fired. The same thing would happen to most people who work at any credible company in the country and pretending to scream “free speech” over it won’t convince anyone: not the employers, not the courts, and not most of the public, who are bright enough to understand that telling your employer you aren’t going to do what they have every right to ask is a seriously quick way to get fired.

    • Chris Leonardi says:

      Freedom of Speech protects you from government prosecution. It doesn’t protect you from being held accountable for the things you say by the public or private companies.

    • tvjunkie says:

      The sad thing is that if he was a liberal who had ranted hate speech about Christianity then he would have shown up to work and gotten a whole lot of high fives. It’s disgusting how hypocritical liberals and the liberal media had become. Bad behavior should be treated equally, but sadly when it comes to liberals the get a pass.

      • Elf says:

        You really believe that, don’t you? I’ve never seen a public rant against Christianity in the United States. What I’ve seen is rants and protests against actions taken by Christians that they claim are sanctioned by their god that negatively affect other people. For example, it’s well within my rights to complain a Christian group that is trying to force prayer in public school. That is not railing against Christianity, but it is railing against small-minded morons who can’t accept that theirs is not the only opinion in the world.

    • Elf says:

      Apparently you’re well behind the news because in many parts of the country, you can fire someone for being gay. Do you defend that?

    • dana says:

      I agree. That’s why this firing didn’t sit right with me. All he did was express his opinion of the absurdity of transgender men using women’s bathrooms, while showing what is probably a good likeness of the types of people who would be using said bathrooms. He has a right to express that opinion and not get fired for it. Poor little ESPN. Got their panties in a wad afraid they’ll lose supporters, etc., because an employee of theirs stated what A LOT of people are thinking. Bunch a money-grubbing politically correct w u s s e s.

  4. MrMank says:

    Just another victim of the thought police. The sad thing is, this is less about what bathrooms we use (because again, why are we legislating where someone takes a piss, and who’s gonna enforce it???) and more about the first amendment. Land of the free, right?

    • Lauren says:

      THAT IS NOT WHAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT MEANS! You are protected in this country from being imprisoned because of speaking out against your government/another entity. In the free market, the right to hire/fire has nothing to do with first amendment rights. Am I the only one who stayed awake during government class?

    • Sarahliz says:

      The first amendment protects you from the government, not from your employer

    • madbengalsfan85 says:

      Freedom of Speech means that he can say whatever he wants (within reason) and not be thrown in jail. It does not mean he can say whatever he wants and get away with it.

  5. K. says:

    It’s about time.

  6. Rebecca says:

    Well, at least he has his job in Rhode Island to fall back on. Or not….

  7. Phoenix5634 says:

    Some people just aren’t too bright… lol, really, after all the controversy over this subject in the News lately, you choose this route to voice your opinion? Smh …

  8. Joey says:

    Sadly, I’m sure Fox News is already extending him a job offer.

  9. webly3 says:

    Yas! A rich transphobic white dude take down! Bye Felicia!

    • Phoenix5634 says:

      Let’s leave the white part out of what you said, yes he’s white, but other white people who aren’t like him, don’t really want to be lumped in with him lol. Let just celebrate another overpaid moron who got what he deserved.

      • Gale Weathers Riley says:

        Yeah, and because of what webly3 stated above, she should be fired from her employer for being a racist see you next Tuesday!

  10. Katherine215 says:

    Sorry, Curt, no one has to be “tolerant” and “accepting” of bigotry and hate.

    • Rob Horine says:

      You know he’s a bigot? Or maybe it will bring up discussions he wouldn’t want to have with his daughters?

      Just because you want to have them go to their birth bathroom doesn’t mean you’re a bigot.

      I’m amazed. With all the crap going on in this world, with terrorism, with assaults and others, THIS is the top fight on earth?

      Some people must live a charmed life for this to be their tipping point.

      • Joey says:

        Actually, it does mean you’re a bigot. With this image that he posted, he is insinuating that trans individuals dress up as something they are not in order the sexually harrass/assault members of the opposite sex. As far as I know, there has never been a single instance of this happening in the United States. Ever.

        • Rob Horine says:

          So, if I had a daughter, I have to shut my mouth when she asks me “Daddy, why did this woman pee standing up?” To your logic, I have to say that it’s normal when I damn well know it isn’t. And putting me, as a father, having to answer questions of a subject I didn’t want to bring up until my daughter is older.

          So why do I have to obey your temper tantrums of social justice?

          • Zac says:

            You should probably ask your daughter why she’s not minding her own business and imposing on someone’s personal space when they’re in a stall, where she has no business being. Not to mention that someone’s genitalia is none of your daughter’s business. You know what else isn’t natural? The Internet. So why don’t you get off the internet and go educate the daughter you chose to have so she doesn’t end up as ignorant as you.

          • If your daughter is watching people use the restroom while they’re in a stall there are bigger issues to consider than having to explain why someone is peeing standing up. Like, explaining boundaries and why we don’t invade the personal space of strangers.

            Alternatively, there’s a product on the market call “Go Girl Female Urination Device” for women who don’t want to have to sit on a toilet in a public restroom. As a cisgender female, I could get this and pee standing up.

          • John says:

            I think you would ask what she was doing in another woman’s stall to see her peeing standing up

      • Jules says:

        “Birth bathroom”????? Haaaaaahaaaaaa!!! You clearly don’t get it.

      • Chris Leonardi says:

        He compared Muslims to Nazis. Yes, he’s a biggot.

  11. Laura says:

    Gosh, I wish I could post the XKCD Free Speech cartoon here. Sounds like some people really need it.

  12. Rob Horine says:

    Remember, you can’t say ONE BAD THING about the politically protected. Cause they can’t deal with one person being against them.


    • Joey says:

      Trans people are politically protected? I guess you’re not living in North Carolina (or a number of other states) right now.

      • Rob Horine says:

        Dear Lord. Being forced to go to the bathroom of your birth gender, just as bad as Hilter exterminating the Jews.

        Are there any other issues that are more pressing.

        And by ‘politically protected’ means some group or classification of people that you can’t say one sour word about without facing the wrath of the morally superior liberals do-gooders.

        • Joey says:

          I wasn’t aware that caring about the rights of transgender individuals has to be the only thing I care about. I might also care about the murder of innocent Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip, or I could care about depictions of intersectional minorities in various visual media, or I could care about the corrupting influence of money in the poltical discourse. Not one of these things supercedes the others, and caring about one doesn’t mutually exclude me from caring about the others.

        • Zac says:

          Or the fact that Trans people are murdered on a regular basis and bullied to the point of suicide. On top of being fired, denied housing, denied medical care, and basic constitutional rights. Someone’s genitalia is literally 0% your business. Why don’t you compare the number of Trans people attacked and assaulted while using their “birth gender bathrooms” to the number of Trans people that have assaulted someone else in a bathroom? Good luck finding stories of Trans people assaulting people in bathrooms. Instead of wasting your energy being upset that you can’t be a total d*ck to strangers, why don’t you try to refocus that energy on being a better person and being nice? Do you realize how ignorant you are for throwing a tantrum that you can’t treat people poorly?

        • Walkie says:

          I’m so glad that people like you are a dying breed. The country is changing and you can’t do anything about it. So complain and moan all you want. But you will have to accept it.

    • F.R says:

      I don’t know what delusions one must be under to think that transgenders are politically protected.
      The suicide attempt rate in the general us population is 4.1 percent. In the transgender community, its 41 percent. Transgenders are THE most persecuted group in the U.S, according to hate crime statistics. The bathroom thing and this loudmouthed ass might just be the least of the problems they face.

  13. thisismenow says:

    Words only have power if you allow them to have power. If a jackass wants to speak ill against you, and you don’t give him the rage and the fire he is looking for, he’ll move on. Today, we allow ourselves to become angry over silly internet postings that don’t stop the sun from rising or setting. In the greater scheme of things, Curt and his opinions don’t matter. Why focus on the petty small arguments, when there are greater dragons to face? Anyone who seeks acceptance from the entire world ends up heartbroken.

  14. Phoenix5634 says:

    Could someone explain why exactly this bill is such a HUGE issue. Like I get it, people who are transgender want to use the bathroom for the gender they consider themselves, for acceptance and equality. Which alright. That’s understandable. But where I don’t I get it, is the bill says you must use the bathroom on your birth certificate, but transgender people can change that to their new gender. And why would they want the opposite gender on their birth certificate anyway, when they could change it? This is where part of the problem lies, unless it’s harder than I think to change, becuz if we just let anyone who calls themselves transgender use the opposite bathroom, what’s stopping the creepy guy or girl from just dressing up like the opposite sex, proclaiming themselves transgender, and perving on people?

    • Joey says:

      Copied from my comment above: “Actually, it does mean you’re a bigot. With this image that he posted, he is insinuating that trans individuals dress up as something they are not in order the sexually harrass/assault members of the opposite sex. As far as I know, there has never been a single instance of this happening in the United States. Ever.”
      As for your other point about changing the gender on your birth certificate, I assume you’re referring to the law in North Carolina. In NC, you can have the state issue you a new birth certificate if you undergo sex reassignment surgery (you also have to include a notorized statement from the doctor who performed the surgery or from a doctor who can assure the state that the surgery took place). There are issues with this, first and foremost, that you can be transgendered, and not undergo sex reassignment surgery. That doesn’t make you any less a woman or a man (if you identify as such).

      • Phoenix5634 says:

        Ohhhh now I get it. Thank you. Basically some people who are transgendered, haven’t or don’t want to, go all the way with the surgery, and they need that surgery to change their birth certificate. Now it makes sense why they are so outraged.

        And yes there might not have been any instances of people doing this in the past, as far as I know, but it wasn’t legal in the past, or at least it wasn’t widely known. As it stands, they need to make some amendments to the bill, or it could be abused by people with ill intentions.

  15. Bob says:

    So much for freedom of speech. His remarks may be stupid and backwards but he’s still entitled to voice his opinion. Besides it wasn’t half as bad as the crap Skip Bayless and Stephen A Smith spew every morning on First Take on ESPN.

    • Joey says:

      “He’s still entitled to voice his opinion.”
      Hence why he’s only out of a job and not in jail right now.

  16. Bigotry and hatred are not opinions they are mental illnesses and need to be treated as such. I will never, under any circumstances, tolerate hate. Curt Schilling is a horrible person, who is not worth his weight in horse crap, and he needs to take his ignorant ass back to his cave, and leave us decent people to live in peace.

    • Al Sharpton says:

      Careful, Amy Wigand…your speech is sounding VERY SIMILAR to that hate that you claim not to tolerate. Guess it’s okay for YOU to hate, but not for someone else. Hypocrisy at its finest, people.

      • Katherine215 says:

        Oh, get a grip. It is entirely possible, and I would argue ok, to hate an individual. It’s certainly not hypocritical to hate an individual for being a bigot. It’s bigotry when you try to force your opinions on others or use the law to deny someone equal rights because of your bigotry and hatred.

  17. Angela says:

    Gee, he sounds charming.

  18. Jules says:

    They should’ve fired Chris Broussard after he said ON AIR that being gay was “an open rebellion to God” when discussing Jason Collins coming out a few years ago. You are being paid to discuss SPORTS not give your personal opinion about a man’s sexual preference because you’re a self-proclaimed born-again Christian. Point blank. Period.

  19. KL says:

    In MA, Curt was a hero of sorts. But, since 2004 he’s done his best to basically allienate everyone. He’s been thrown off many “beats” at ESPN and this was just the last straw. You would think that since the guy needs the money so badly, he’ld keep his mouth shut.

  20. Mikey says:

    He’s 100% right & ESPN should be boycotted! Why we make these insane accommodations for .03% of the population is ridiculous. He should be awarded a medal not fired!

    • skyebright8 says:

      It’s not an insane accommodation, it’s just people using a bathroom, they were using bathrooms perfectly fine before this law was written. Transgender people won’t attack you in a bathroom they just want to do number 1 or number 2.

  21. Phoenix5634 says:

    On a side note, the picture for this article, where he’s smirking, under this context, it just makes him look all the more like an A hole. Lol. Which is ironic and kind of funny.

  22. Another lazy bit of journalism. He didn’t compare Muslims to Nazis – he compared EXTREME Muslims to Nazis.

  23. While it’s certainly arguable that ESPN has a right to fire someone for their political views, how does a company that IS the press, treat freedom of expression like that? It’s absolutely disgusting that ESPN is so intolerant that they react like this to someone in their employ having an opinion that isn’t extreme to the left.

    The guy posted a meme on Facebook that called out the hypocrisy involved in not agreeing with the left. ESPN’s reaction was far more disgraceful than any opinion Schilling expressed, because it goes against the fabric upon which our country was founded–the exchange of ideas.

    You don’t have to agree with Schilling–it’s your right. But to fire him for that? Disgusting.

    Imagine if Schilling got fired for expressing pro-gay marriage views. What would the media do? Would all this vilification be happening?

    The true outrage shouldn’t be at his views, but at the reaction to expression of them.

    • Esteban says:

      You obviously haven’t read a modern Human Resources harassment policy. Self employed?

      • There is no harassment here–except to those that have a very reasonable opinion that people should use the bathroom that corresponds to their biology. How is this even a debate? Non-transgenders have rights too, and they are just as important.

        But more important–it doesn’t matter what the topic is–the bottom line is the intolerance shown by ESPN toward Mr. Schilling. That’s just unAmerican.

  24. Keke Munnerlyn says:

    Mr. Schilling should not have been fired due to his first amendment right to express his viewpoint. While the tone in which he did so was graphic – it was also a very true factor to consider in the grand scheme of these types of allowances. Furthrr, the LGBT community and supporters need to be as tolerant and respective of opposing beliefs/opinions as they expect of everyone else. And in neither case does that have to constitute or ignite hate. But mutual respect is key. It is as simple as that.

    • Katherine215 says:

      No. No one needs to tolerate bigotry. Period.

      And for god’s sake, read the first amendment before you try to tell people what it actually says. There’s an app with the constitution on it, so you can carry the darn thing around with you.

    • Meg says:

      His right to free speech wasn’t violated. Check your facts.

      In order to get respect one must also give it

  25. Lena Wright says:

    So long free speech in this country..

  26. John says:

    Everyone has the right to their own opinion. This right is called, Freedom of Speech,” especially if they were posted to Mr. Schilling’s personal blog. Why even allow blogs if you’re going to limit what can be said. Shame on you CNN.

  27. Macil Bewley says:

    No, he has the right to freedom of speech. Curt is right and transgender people are wrong. Read your Bible folks.

  28. Hedy S. says:

    Love ya Curt! You will just move on to bigger and better things! So tired of the damn PC Police! Less than 5% of the population is gay, but they want us to think they are the majority!

  29. Warren says:

    Freedom of speech means nothing and we are all letting the bully win. I will join in a BOYCOTT, how about you?

  30. John maruscak says:

    I support Curt and NC. They both a more common sense then all the upper management at ESPN.

  31. pjki says:

    Free speech — not anymore in America!

  32. otis p schmuckmeyer says:

    Boycott, block & cancel espn. What morons!

  33. Bob says:

    Schilling is, way before being an ESPN talking head, an American with 1st amendment rights. The Egotistical and Sick Political Network has long seen its better days.