Breitbart News reported, “Craig James Sues Fox Sports for Religious Discrimination over Gay Marriage Firing.”
Daniel J. Flynn wrote Monday,
College football analyst Craig James filed suit against Fox Sports in a Dallas court this morning contending religious discrimination for his 2013 termination over his stance on gay marriage.
“Fox Sports fired James for one reason only: his religious beliefs about marriage,” the 35-page suit charges. “In so doing, Fox Sports violated the law. Specifically, Fox Sports violated the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (‘TCHRA’) and Texas contract law along with a myriad of equitable principles.”
The suit filed in Texas district court lists numerous defendants, including Fox Sports President Eric Shanks and Fox Network Groups President Randy Freer. The text of the litigation, along with the accompanying exhibits, proves at least the corporate sensitivity of the case in the numerous redacted sections therein.
The personality redacted from its airwaves by the network expressed deep concern that a corporate entity could fire someone for voicing an opinion shared by three-fourths of the voters of his state in a plebiscite on gay marriage.
“This is very troubling as an employee when your boss holds against you something you said about your belief system nearly eighteen months before you were recruited and hired,” James told Breitbart Sports in an exclusive interview. “I said nothing about my belief system on the air at Fox Sports. So, the fact that they reached back in my past nearly eighteen months and responded to a comment about my biblical belief in natural marriage as a candidate—that’s troubling.”
On principle, I don’t believe that employers or employees are committing a crime when they end the relationship on the basis of religious discrimination. There may be a case to be made for damages if you recruit a person and then suddenly deem him unworthy of employment because you didn’t do your research. If Fox Sports recruited and hired James, ending his previous employment, and then cut him off for reasons he had no reason to expect, then there could perhaps be a fraud case.
However, I am interested in fighting our new heartless regime in the real world, not in a fictional world of property rights (as much as I wish they were respected). Our regime is using anti-discrimination laws and rhetoric as a weapon against Christians. He who lives by the sword must die by the sword. If the government believes in protecting people from discrimination to the detriment of Christians they can be made to face the reality of discrimination when it favors Christians.
So I am fine with James’ lawsuit. He ought to win according to the statutes of Texas and the Federal Government. Of course, there is no reason to expect the government to act in a fair manner. So he may lose.