Radio DJ/Red Dead Voice Actor Cumia Fired For Racist Twitter Rant

[Plunkies]

How do you not get this? Saying something racial is not the same as being racist. You seem confused by that point. My comments on black people being more likely to commit crimes are based on statistics in which they are objectively more likely to commit crimes. Anthony Cumia's comment on "savages" and "animals", in context of both his known and publicly outspoken views as well as the twitter messages themselves, was obviously in reference to blacks who commit crimes or the black person (or people) that victimized him in the incident.

So, to clarify, I reserve the term "racist" for people who literally hate races. Someone who has an opinion on race, race relations, cultures or religions I do not consider racist. And I certainly don't accuse people of being racist because their views differ from mine, which seems to be the common thing to do these days.

[/b]Racism[/b]
/ˈrāˌsizəm/
noun
"The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races."

He's claiming that black people are "savages", he's making the false claim that they're more predisposed to crime than white people, he's claiming they're akin to animals and not once did he say "ONLY THOSE BLACK PEOPLE THAT ATTACKED ME ARE SAVAGES, GAWD GUYS!" if he wasn't trying to attribute this to the black population as a whole, there would be literally no reason to point out race. There would be no reason to say "those black people are savages" and launch into a long tirade about race when he could literally just say "those people were acting like savages".

He was applying an attribute to a race: claiming blacks are naturally "thuggish" and "savage"
He was claiming one race is superior to another: That him being a white gun owner left her lucky

This man is a racist. It is as simple as that.

You're the one saying these things and making these connections. He never said they're more predisposed to crime, nor did he say all blacks are savages. You made both of those connections yourself. He's stated repeatedly, on more than one occasion, in public, that the small black percentage of the population that commits crime at wildly disproportionate rates are savages. And, sorry, but physically attacking a stranger on the street is one example of an act of savagery.

There's no need to lie or make ridiculous connections or assumptions. The guy's views on race are out there, in ample quantity. This is not some closet racist that made one slip up, this is a guy who makes clear his racial views on an almost daily basis. If you want to take any of the actual facts and form an argument then go for it, but the flimsy assumptions holding up your phony outrage are unnecessary.

 

[The Hungry Samurai]

Ok so what I'm hearing is this guy's a racist. Not arguing that, but can we not classify the word savage as racist yet?

I don't want to get in trouble next time I see some general douchiness and I quote Clerks and say: "Buncha savages in this town"

It kinda has a long history as being used to describe black people, and in general non-whites.
I'm not sure how common it is these days, but it has a fairly racist history where the world was divided into a 'civilized' white civilization and the 'savages' who were just waiting to be colonized.

Probably depends on where you live, but I haven't heard it used as a general insult at all, it has always had racial under or overtones.

The word savage refers to a primitive being it has nothing to do with skin color. Using it to generalize an entire race is the very definition of racist and dehumanizing, (and this guys use of it seems pretty racist from what i've seen) but I do not think the word itself is racist and it just bothers me that another word in the English language is gradually becoming taboo because of dipsticks like him.

So in your neighborhood, Dante and Randall were just being casually racist in Clerks? It's kinda like a joke in the second Clerks made real. (wherein Randall fails to realize that another phrase is racist as well, due to his grandmother using it as a pet name for him, and goes on a campaign to bring it back.)

 

[klaynexas3]

How is this even up for discussion? Dude bro was being racist on the internet. He may have wrongfully been attacked(he's in New York, and he's not going to take pictures?), and yes he did take pictures of the girl, but after the fact and for the same reason that that teen video taped himself being attacked by that chick when flying his drone over the beach. HOWEVER, being attacked does not give one the right to say whatever they want and not expect social consequences. His first amendment rights are protected, as he isn't arrested for saying it, but his employers have a stricter code of conduct for how you act in a public space, such as twitter. Bar the statistics, bar the racial stereotyping, calling a group of people savages by their race is automatically racist. And yes, if you cannot pick up from the context clues that this man clearly has a bias against black people from these tweets alone, I think your high school English teacher needs to have a word with you.

 

[Bat Vader]

How could it not be phony? Some guy you never heard of said a mean thing about some person you'll never meet, and you're freaking out about it? Come on...

Hardly freaking out, and if I recall you're leaping to the defense of a bigot here. Hardly innocent in that regard.

This type of phony outrage story exists entirely for people like you. People who love saying how racist and awful other people are to feel superior themselves. People who love getting upset over words because it makes them feel important while simultaneously being easy and meaningless.

Right, so, thank you for the insult. Send my regards to the mods.

It's hardly a matter of feeling "important" this idiot represents a bygone age and his continued rants about "savages" is only holding the country back. Like those idiots in the tea party screaming about "Death Panels" and "Muslim Invasion" or other nonsense.

It's not hard. He's a talk radio DJ. He speaks, live, unedited, for 3-5 hours every day of the week on top of podcasts and television appearances.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw34J3R9kRg#t=5m15s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3s4lIvCu54#t=9m56s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yc_HSUq9xOI

The last one is literally him about tweeting and calling criminals savages. Could go all day with these links.

In each case he's still claiming crime is wildly disproportionate among the black populous. Which as others have pointed out, is consistently false. Convictions are common and harsher towards blacks. He's using this to construct some boogeyman of "The scary black criminal out to get you". These actions are quite simply an attack on the african-american community and nothing else.

"Oh I wouldn't hate them if they didn't become criminals so often!" is the crux of his "defense", it's a fallacy at its core and merely a result of racist thinking.

Because it is a black issue. White crime isn't wildly disproportionate. He brings up black people because it's a black problem

Crime is not a "black issue". This "CRIME IS WILDLY DISPROPORTIONATE AMONG BLACKS" talk is the same as those holocaust deniers, it's making some wild, outright insane claim and then backing away from such an obviously racist belief with buzzphrases like "We're just asking the tough questions!" and "We aren't racist, we just don't believe this happened!"

See. You're lying again. No where did he portray blacks as being inferior to whites. You're making things up to fuel more phony outrage. Enough.

He's claiming she's lucky he is a white gun owner. That is coming with the implication that a white man is somehow more willing to "restrain himself" while a black man would merely shoot her on the spot. Guess what: That's calling blacks inferior. Are you honestly having trouble following this basic line of logic?

It might be best for both of you to agree to disagree at this point. This is from an outside observer though.

On Topic: If someone I didn't know intentionally or not intentionally took a picture of me and refused to delete it I would get angry. This guy could have avoided all of this if he had just done what the woman asked and deleted her picture.

 

[black_knight1337]

"They" being an entire race of people. Slurring an entire race of people is racist. No moral person should have problem with this definition.

Or more appropriately, "they" being those who attacked him.

It is the worst insult to use against a woman in the U.S. and culturally-similar areas, and its slang term for genitals exists precisely because it reduces a woman to nothing but a body part.

In case you missed the relevant definition of it "Used as a disparaging term for a person one dislikes or finds extremely disagreeable." It was very clearly used in that way and it is in no way a gender specific insult. As someone posted earlier, it's as sexist as calling a man a dick.

No one uses the term to refer to prostitutes unless they are demeaning those prostitutes.

Which is exactly what my example was. And it's very clear that he wasn't using it in that context.

-Snip-

Erm, have you actually looked at the evidence? The first picture has her on the left side of the shot walking in his direction. The next couple of photos show her being very aggressive. He wasn't tweeting while it was happening either, he was defending himself by attempting to block the attacks.

He's claiming she's lucky he is a white gun owner. That is coming with the implication that a white man is somehow more willing to "restrain himself" while a black man would merely shoot her on the spot. Guess what: That's calling blacks inferior. Are you honestly having trouble following this basic line of logic?

Or he could be a) referencing the immediate jump to violence of his attackers or b) referencing the statistics that show that crime rates are significantly higher for people who are black rather than white. And yes, I know that there are additional factors involved but they really don't outweigh just how high those rates are.

 

[Plunkies]

How could it not be phony? Some guy you never heard of said a mean thing about some person you'll never meet, and you're freaking out about it? Come on...

Hardly freaking out, and if I recall you're leaping to the defense of a bigot here. Hardly innocent in that regard.

This type of phony outrage story exists entirely for people like you. People who love saying how racist and awful other people are to feel superior themselves. People who love getting upset over words because it makes them feel important while simultaneously being easy and meaningless.

Right, so, thank you for the insult. Send my regards to the mods.

It's hardly a matter of feeling "important" this idiot represents a bygone age and his continued rants about "savages" is only holding the country back. Like those idiots in the tea party screaming about "Death Panels" and "Muslim Invasion" or other nonsense.

Really? That's an insult to you? "Call the word police! Someone has once again said a thing I don't like!"

If you can't handle the discussion just tap out. No need to hit the panic button and hope an adult comes to take care of you.

It's not hard. He's a talk radio DJ. He speaks, live, unedited, for 3-5 hours every day of the week on top of podcasts and television appearances.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw34J3R9kRg#t=5m15s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3s4lIvCu54#t=9m56s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yc_HSUq9xOI

The last one is literally him about tweeting and calling criminals savages. Could go all day with these links.

In each case he's still claiming crime is wildly disproportionate among the black populous. Which as others have pointed out, is consistently false. Convictions are common and harsher towards blacks. He's using this to construct some boogeyman of "The scary black criminal out to get you". These actions are quite simply an attack on the african-american community and nothing else.

"Oh I wouldn't hate them if they didn't become criminals so often!" is the crux of his "defense", it's a fallacy at its core and merely a result of racist thinking.

This is from the cdc....

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/figures/m6227a1f3.gif

Is this false? Or are they all just decades of false murder convictions perpetrated on the black populace by a white conspiracy?

A 1994 Justice Department survey of felony cases in the country's 75 largest counties indicated that both the prosecution and conviction rate was actually lower, not higher, than whites. Prosecution rate for blacks was 66%, whites was 69%. Conviction rate for blacks was 75%, whites was 78%.

Because it is a black issue. White crime isn't wildly disproportionate. He brings up black people because it's a black problem

Crime is not a "black issue". This "CRIME IS WILDLY DISPROPORTIONATE AMONG BLACKS" talk is the same as those holocaust deniers, it's making some wild, outright insane claim and then backing away from such an obviously racist belief with buzzphrases like "We're just asking the tough questions!" and "We aren't racist, we just don't believe this happened!"

So the claim that blacks in the US (12.6%) are responsible for disproportionately more crimes (50% of homicides, for example, according to 2011 FBI data) is a wild and outright insane claim on the level of denying the holocaust?

Which of my facts are wrong and why? Do you have facts for your claims? If so, please present them.

See. You're lying again. No where did he portray blacks as being inferior to whites. You're making things up to fuel more phony outrage. Enough.

He's claiming she's lucky he is a white gun owner. That is coming with the implication that a white man is somehow more willing to "restrain himself" while a black man would merely shoot her on the spot. Guess what: That's calling blacks inferior. Are you honestly having trouble following this basic line of logic?

She absolutely WAS lucky. If you attack a stranger in the street and something awful doesn't happen to you as a result, you are extremely lucky.

He never said anything about what a black person would do. Again, you're making things up.

 

[BarbaricGoose]

My first reaction to that would be "Context?". If the context is applied that black people arent people, then yes its rather racist. If the context is based around several, apparently black guys, assaulting him for daring to take a picture which happens to have a black woman in the frame, then no thats not racist. Would you consider any guy, or guys, who attack you for such an insane reason as "Woman complains about being in frame of photo" people or vicious dickwads?

Its only racist once you bring race into it. In fact from all the tweets you supplied, i have not seen his connection to "black = savage violent animals". Rather he calls the people who attacked him, if they did even attack him as he claims, savage violent animals, which isnt that wrong since humans are animals anyway.

http://gawker.com/siriusxm-host-claims-cuntrag-assaulted-him-in-racist-1599491744

^ read. Took me all of the 20 seconds on Google to find that.

He keeps referring to himself as white and legal, and them as savages and "Not people." Also: "Savage violent animal fucks prey on white people." I'm guessing he doesn't mean white people are preying on other white people. Who do YOU think he's referring to there? Maybe the black guys he eluded to earlier? You know, the "Savages" he doesn't think are people?

The guy's a total fuckin' racist. He posted the photo that allegedly pissed the woman off, and it was just a photo of the woman. Not a landscape--quite the opposite. Some bars and bright lights obscuring the entire left half of the photo, save the woman. Yeah, the woman is pretty much the only thing of note in that photo. I'd be a little weirded out if someone took a photo of me like that.

 

[IceForce]

Even if he said "all black people are X" I still wouldn't consider it racist. I reserve the term racist for people who are actually racist aka skinheads, KKK, black panthers, terrorists, people who illogically hate an entire race. Not people critical of the behavior of a few.

Even if he said "all black people are X"

people critical of the behavior of a few.

"All black people"

"A few"

Since when did "all" become synonymous with "a few"?

 

[Verlander]

... just came here for the comments, didn't disappoint. I reckon that there are people on these boards that would argue the Nazis weren't antisemitic, they were only hateful to the Jews that they gassed, not all Jews.

You need to spend some time out of the basement boys.

Captcha - No Brainer. Certainly is.

 

[Pedro The Hutt]

If the context is based around several, apparently black guys, assaulting him for daring to take a picture which happens to have a black woman in the frame...

Do you really believe that's what happened? I don't. Not for a second. I think he was taking a picture of the woman's ass and got caught and she got mad.

"Just happened to be in frame..." that's a lame excuse for when you get caught taking a picture you shouldn't.

There was a story of a kid, well teenager being attacked by a woman because he had one of those drones which took pictures, from about 100 meters in the air. She didnt like that and attacked the teenager. So no, i have no reason to doubt that someone could go apeshit for being in the frame. Plus if the guy is racist, why the fuck would he take a photo of some black womans ass? Isnt the whole point of being racist to hate that group of people to the extent that you wouldnt find them attractive even?

Statistics have shown that the highest consumption of gay porn comes out of the bible belt states and the deep south, what you openly hate and what you quietly touch yourself to when all alone can be one and the same. Plus it's not so much that he took ~a~ picture of her, the saved tweets reveal that he tweeted picture after picture of her, with each successive one having her more and more prominently in the frame. I don't know about you but I remember a time where it was only common courtesy to ask if it was all right to take a photo of someone, much less to put it on the internet.

Never assume there is just one possible explanation to any situation, just because its easier to assume the guy was at fault doesnt mean he actually was. Nor is it right to assume because he went on a tirade about that happening makes him racist because the attackers happened to be black. Even if your assumption is correct, that is no excuse to be assaulted by anyone.

It's certainly not all right, but at the same time you should know when it's time to back down instead of continuing to provoke. If someone tells you to stop taking pictures the last thing you should do is continue to take pictures, jus' saying.

 

[Plunkies]

Even if he said "all black people are X" I still wouldn't consider it racist. I reserve the term racist for people who are actually racist aka skinheads, KKK, black panthers, terrorists, people who illogically hate an entire race. Not people critical of the behavior of a few.

Even if he said "all black people are X"

people critical of the behavior of a few.

"All black people"

"A few"

Since when did "all" become synonymous with "a few"?

I clearly said EVEN IF. He was critical of the behavior of few. I said EVEN IF he said "All black people are X" I still wouldn't consider it racist. As in, a racially charged comment and a racist are not the same thing. I know that's a bizarre concept to all the word police and those relishing in the phony outrage that stories like this bring, but I judge people on their actions, not a few words from a random outburst, an unpopular opinion or a provocative joke.

I can only speculate as to why people enjoy this kind of story and ensuing insanity it brings. A superiority complex from chastising a public figure? An insecurity in their own view of race that they need to accuse others of racism? A heroic feeling of paternalism by defending those they see as inferior and can't defend themselves? Who knows. All I know is that these witch hunts are stupid, they're bad for free expression, they're bad for race relations and they foster resentment in everyone who is touched by or participates in it.

 

[Twintix]

Well, this thread escalated quickly.

OT: My first thought about all this was: If he was assaulted, why was his first instinct to log in on Twitter instead of going to the police? I mean, he might've been assaulted, I wasn't there, but you'd think that the police would've been informed of the crime. Or maybe he doesn't trust authority? Or did he talk to them? I might've missed that...

Anyway, perhaps his rants were a "spur-of-the-moment" (My choice of words may be bad in this context; Please inform me of this if that's the case); A bunch of stupid things he said because he was mad. People don't tend to think rationally when they're upset. (Which might answer my first question, actually) I do think that the photo of the woman looks a bit weird, but he might've snapped it by accident. We don't really know for sure. Regardless of whether he really is a racist or not, I think his word choices were not the smartest, especially the part where he said that the woman was lucky that he was "a white man with a gun", as if that would matter in the slightest. The "they aren't people" part might just refer to the people who assaulted him, though.

Please don't misunderstand me, whoever would happen to read this! I'm not saying that he's not a racist who may or may not have made up the story of the assault. He could certainly be one. I'm just saying that he might also just be a man who's bad at communicating and didn't pick his words more carefully because he was upset.

[small](Now that I think about it, I realize that it may look like I'm rationalizing his actions because he's white. I don't mean to come of that way, so please inform me of how I could've expressed myself if you disagree with my word choices.)[/small]

 

[Bat Vader]

Even if he said "all black people are X" I still wouldn't consider it racist. I reserve the term racist for people who are actually racist aka skinheads, KKK, black panthers, terrorists, people who illogically hate an entire race. Not people critical of the behavior of a few.

Even if he said "all black people are X"

people critical of the behavior of a few.

"All black people"

"A few"

Since when did "all" become synonymous with "a few"?

I clearly said EVEN IF. He was critical of the behavior of few. I said EVEN IF he said "All black people are X" I still wouldn't consider it racist. As in, a racially charged comment and a racist are not the same thing. I know that's a bizarre concept to all the word police and those relishing in the phony outrage that stories like this bring, but I judge people on their actions, not a few words from a random outburst, an unpopular opinion or a provocative joke.

I can only speculate as to why people enjoy this kind of story and ensuing insanity it brings. A superiority complex from chastising a public figure? An insecurity in their own view of race that they need to accuse others of racism? A heroic feeling of paternalism by defending those they see as inferior and can't defend themselves? Who knows. All I know is that these witch hunts are stupid, they're bad for free expression, they're bad for race relations and they foster resentment in everyone who is touched by or participates in it.

Except when someone posts a comment online they have a good amount of time think and write what they are going to say. It's not like in real life where if someone loses their cool they say stuff without thinking. They have plenty of time to think and read what they are typing. I don't care how angry someone is that doesn't give them an excuse to make a racially charged comment. Usually when someone judges everyone of an entire race it pretty much means they are racist.

Just taking random pictures of people is just plain rude. If someone took a picture of me and refused to delete after I asked them I would get pretty angry too.

 

[IceForce]

I judge people on their actions, not a few words from a random outburst, an unpopular opinion or a provocative joke.

That's fine, but many people (possibly even a majority of people) DO judge based on those things.

In these times of social media, a random outburst can completely and permanently destroy the reputation and credibility of the person who posted it.

 

[black_knight1337]

-Snip-

I've already posted the definitions before, it's not my fault that you deny their existence. But I'm going to leave it at that, you're already using insults to try to argue your points so there really isn't any point in continuing.

 

[ASnogarD]

He said it to describe a woman so it sexually therefore sexiest in that context.

No it's not. The sexual definition of it is just "a woman's genitals".

I've never heard of that definition being used outside of things like "she's just a walking c***"

Just want to point out I didnt make THOSE comments, just the first one you quoted me...

The racism is implied but not really specific, according to the tweets the poster supplied, the DJ may of been commenting on the people at the event and bemoaning the amount of violence that is commonly perceived to be in the black communities...

... and I repeat, the words as posted by the forum member who kindly put up the deleted tweets does not say BLACK are not people, it just say THEY... which in the context could refer to the people who allegedly attacked him rather than black people as a whole.

Understand that I am not defending this man as much as arguing that this turned into a race argument based on the fact he was white and they were black, and based on the information in the original report and the posted tweets on the first page of replies I feel that the man was a dick, rude as hell but not completely classed as a racist (in the context of the story).

I feel all too often when a white person gets into an altercation with anyone none white, the racist card gets tossed about with abandon and basically its getting to a point a white person simply cannot afford to get into any form of dispute with a none white for fear of being instantly branded a dirty racist...

... while the other races can go at each other free of fear of being racist, it seems that only white people can be racist.
In none white to none white altercations the participants are just usually behaving badly but that's it, whites cannot seem to behave badly towards none whites as they will be branded racist.

 

[A-D.]

My first reaction to that would be "Context?". If the context is applied that black people arent people, then yes its rather racist. If the context is based around several, apparently black guys, assaulting him for daring to take a picture which happens to have a black woman in the frame, then no thats not racist. Would you consider any guy, or guys, who attack you for such an insane reason as "Woman complains about being in frame of photo" people or vicious dickwads?

Its only racist once you bring race into it. In fact from all the tweets you supplied, i have not seen his connection to "black = savage violent animals". Rather he calls the people who attacked him, if they did even attack him as he claims, savage violent animals, which isnt that wrong since humans are animals anyway.

http://gawker.com/siriusxm-host-claims-cuntrag-assaulted-him-in-racist-1599491744

^ read. Took me all of the 20 seconds on Google to find that.

He keeps referring to himself as white and legal, and them as savages and "Not people." Also: "Savage violent animal fucks prey on white people." I'm guessing he doesn't mean white people are preying on other white people. Who do YOU think he's referring to there? Maybe the black guys he eluded to earlier? You know, the "Savages" he doesn't think are people?

The guy's a total fuckin' racist. He posted the photo that allegedly pissed the woman off, and it was just a photo of the woman. Not a landscape--quite the opposite. Some bars and bright lights obscuring the entire left half of the photo, save the woman. Yeah, the woman is pretty much the only thing of note in that photo. I'd be a little weirded out if someone took a photo of me like that.

Gawker as source, oh dear. But yes, i did not scoure the intarwebs for all possible interpretations of this story. I look at the dudes argument and the womans..or accused and accuser. In all the tweets which were supplied he never made the distinct connection that all black people are savage violent animals, or that they are not people. He declared his attackers to be savage violent animals because they attacked him, justified or not. Just because these attackers happen to be black does not make his statement racist. What if the attackers were white? Lets go for the absurd even, what if the attackers were white neo-nazi skinhead douchebags? If he were to label them as savage violent animals for attacking him the way they did, is this racist? I think not.

If you only consider skincolor, then maybe its not that dude who is racist, but you are. Because if all you see is differences so you can feel morally superior for claiming that you dont see them, when obviously you make everything about race and skincolor, your argument is hollow and can be ignored. As to why he took the picture thats for him to know, we can speculate until the moon turns into a giant ball of cheese but that doesnt mean we are correct in our assessment. Should he have stopped when he was asked to? Yes. Does him not stopping justify him being assaulted by multiple men? No. And as i pointed out already, its not racist unless he referred to said attackers as savage violent animals because they were black instead of because they savagely and violently attacked him.

If the context is based around several, apparently black guys, assaulting him for daring to take a picture which happens to have a black woman in the frame...

Do you really believe that's what happened? I don't. Not for a second. I think he was taking a picture of the woman's ass and got caught and she got mad.

"Just happened to be in frame..." that's a lame excuse for when you get caught taking a picture you shouldn't.

There was a story of a kid, well teenager being attacked by a woman because he had one of those drones which took pictures, from about 100 meters in the air. She didnt like that and attacked the teenager. So no, i have no reason to doubt that someone could go apeshit for being in the frame. Plus if the guy is racist, why the fuck would he take a photo of some black womans ass? Isnt the whole point of being racist to hate that group of people to the extent that you wouldnt find them attractive even?

Statistics have shown that the highest consumption of gay porn comes out of the bible belt states and the deep south, what you openly hate and what you quietly touch yourself to when all alone can be one and the same. Plus it's not so much that he took ~a~ picture of her, the saved tweets reveal that he tweeted picture after picture of her, with each successive one having her more and more prominently in the frame. I don't know about you but I remember a time where it was only common courtesy to ask if it was all right to take a photo of someone, much less to put it on the internet.

Never assume there is just one possible explanation to any situation, just because its easier to assume the guy was at fault doesnt mean he actually was. Nor is it right to assume because he went on a tirade about that happening makes him racist because the attackers happened to be black. Even if your assumption is correct, that is no excuse to be assaulted by anyone.

It's certainly not all right, but at the same time you should know when it's time to back down instead of continuing to provoke. If someone tells you to stop taking pictures the last thing you should do is continue to take pictures, jus' saying.

Firstly, bad comparison on your part. Just because someone lives in the bible belt or american south does not make them a fanatical christian homophobe or whatever. Nor does it imply people living there cant be gay. Secondly yes he should not have provoked the woman to this degree, or the men around her which caused him to be attacked and ultimately fired when he vented on twitter. However taking someone's picture is not against the law, you can request that they delete said picture of you, there is no law that i would actually have to delete it. I simply cant use it in any advertising capacity.