« BACK TO TMZ TMZ

Our TV Shows

Got a Tip?

Call TMZ at (888) 847-9869 or Click Here

Fox Sports Commentator

FIRED For Homophobic Comments ... BUT

9/8/2013 11:30 AM PDT BY TMZ STAFF

0908-craig-james-youtube
A FOX Sports Southwest commentator was reportedly fired for making some pretty awful anti-gay comments ... the wrinkle is that he hurled the homophobic remarks long before he was hired.

Craig James -- a star at SMU and a former member of the New England Patriots in the '80s -- ran for a senate seat in Texas.  During a 2012 debate, he had some choice words:  Gay people "would answer to the Lord for their actions," and being gay was a choice.

James was hired last month by Fox Sports Southwest and then reportedly fired after just one appearance.  According to the Dallas Morning News, an unnamed Fox Sports honcho said, "We just asked ourselves how Craig's statements would play in our human resources department."

Apparently Fox didn't fully vet the dude.  The question -- should he be sacked for statements he made before coming on board?

090813_craig_james_launch

For more sports stories, check out tmzsports.com!
205 COMMENTS

No Avatar

Previous 15 Comments | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
91.

JB    

I'm straight & support gay marriage, but this firing is ridiculous. His comments should prevent him from being a state senator, but not a SPORTS COMMENTATOR. Should we exclude all conservatives from TV Sports?

410 days ago
92.

clarkins    

Explain to me why his is "HOMOPHOBIC" from my understanding he merely stated that people will answer to god for thier lifestyles, he did not say they were going to hell.. only that god will be the judge in the end.. and he, like many others, believe that homosexuality is a choice... does not sound like being homophobic.

410 days ago
93.

Charles27    

Now you can't even express your opinion about someone who is gay. Nothing about God or that it might be a choice? It just has to be gay is hard-wired and God is not real? End of story? Or your fired. Oh and also, if someone says they're gay they're to be championed. Basically for just being gay among other things... Nice world we live in.

410 days ago
94.

hank the tank    

He didn't say gay people would answer to the lord. He said we all have to answer to the lord. Of course on this libtard blog everyone who doesn't think like a libtard is a bigot.

410 days ago
95.

WTF    

**** you Harvey. Disgusting queer

410 days ago
96.

Ant    

Everything he said is true. Why did he get fired?

409 days ago
97.

umadbro    

http://www.gayorrepublican.com

409 days ago
98.

Sandy     

I thought we had the right of free speech here in America. Since when is it not OK to voice your opinion about something? Oh yeah, I forgot, if it doesn't go along with right wing liberal agenda, then it's labeled as hate.

408 days ago
99.

Steve Cornell    

A civil rights argument for gay marriage depends upon a public naively accepting an absurd and irrational comparison between the kinds of sex people prefer with the color of skin someone is people born with. There is no scientific evidence that people are born gay. If gay sex is something they desire, they are free as consenting adults to engage in it in every state in America. Cresting a special class of citizens based on the sex they want and then manipulating data to suggest that gay can be compared with race is blatantly dishonest. Only really gullible people will acquiesce to this. Or. perhaps people afraid of losing a job.

405 days ago
100.

Guest    

"Same-sex marriage, if someone chooses to do that, that's them. And God's going to judge each one of us in this room for our actions. And in that case right there, they're going to have to answer to the Lord for their actions."

396 days ago
101.

Guest    

At least put the whole comment:
"Same-sex marriage, if someone chooses to do that, that's them. And God's going to judge each one of us in this room for our actions. And in that case right there, they're going to have to answer to the Lord for their actions."

396 days ago
102.

W@rb!rd    

Pretty soon pro-gay will be a prerequisite for success. What happened to freedom?

394 days ago
103.

dylan terreri, i    

as a gay "man" or masculivoid, please keep in mind that i lust for my own gender, i am getting sick and tired of society putting homosexuality into a good light by not stopping to ask themselves anything that can be regarded as "homophobic".

why isn't there a counterpart to the word "homophobia," and why isn't it considered a problem (or a "condition") for anyone to judge gay people in a favorable light based solely on who they sleep with? how many times have we heard "not that there's anything wrong with that," with regards to homosexuality? how much is it hammered into our thoughts that "it's okay to be gay," and why is "matthew shepard" a household name when names like "jesse dirkhising" are not? it's because matthew shepard's situation wcould elicit sadness and pity and would spawn gay-affirmations from the public, and little jesse's situation would not (jesse was bound, drugged, tortured and raped by gay people...come to think of it, matthew's murder was more about meth than men. it seems that gay people love their drugs and anything that gets them away from their semi-charmed kinds of lives).

homophobia. why is it a problem for people to automatically think bad things about "men" who lust for masculinity, why isn't it a problem for people to automatically think good things about these masculivoids?

homophobia. it's like gay people got so tired of automatically being put in a bad light, so they all got together and organized a grand ol' "pee-wee herman" defense of "i know you are, but what am i" to put their detractors in bad lights and to label whoever is anti-gay as the ones who have problems (or "phobias"), just to keep from facing their own problems. dare i bring up an old madonna-lyric sung by a self-righteous finger-pointer, "YOU'RE the one with the problem," but gays are ones to point out other peoples' problems in an effort to keep from acknowledging their own. "you hate me because you're scared of yourself" and "you hate me because you really envy me," how blind are gay people to say such things to their opposers without knowing anything about their opposers? don't they like to say "you can't judge me if you don't even know me" and stuff like that? they are blinded by their own spite which they commonly regard as "gay pride," but maybe we seem like we hate gay people because we don't want to be around self-righteous people. i know that, as a proud (i was vengeful and spiteful) 18 year-old who was walking down the school's hallway while smoking a cigarette, i realized that "gay pride" (or the ignorance and belittlement of any opinions, rules or customs counter to one's own) is a problem that is born of a low self-image. i did what i did because i felt that i was as much of a "little bitty pissant" as was the "country place" that dolly parton sung about. my "pride parade" and all "pride parades" are better defined as "spite parades" - pride is not loud and it is not haughty and it is not ignorant of other human beings' feelings.

the roots of "gay pride" are so closely linked to the roots of "a woman can do anything a man can do," i just feel the need to associate them. as gays hated their "bad light," vaginas from coast to coast got so tired of automatically being put in a weak and lesser light, so the vaginas all got together and organized the whole "Strongwoman" campaign. nowadays, we don't hear the word "woman" without hearing "strong" before it...unless, of course, it's preceded by "violence against," i guess. you know, because it's kind of a slap in the face to suggest that the Strongwoman isn't strong enough to prevent violence from happening to her.

badum-bum.

it is flat-out ridiculous that we use overcompensating placebo-words to placate the egos of members of the gender having the lesser physical statures. from athletic teams to eating competitions to the entry-level requirements of the military - there is a reason that these are all male/female and gender-based. the reason is that women are not strong, the reason is that women can only legitimately compete alongside of men (not with men). still,though, how they want people to know them as strong. this is the reason you rarely hear "woman" not having a prefix of "strong". it's like they all got together and organized that "i know you are, but what am i" defense...and called it "feminism: the strongwoman experiment".

just as ridiculous as the Strongwoman-placebo, is the overcompensating placebo to placate the gay "men" and their gender-identities. in reality, gay "men" are little boys who haven't internalized any masculine gender-identity and who therefore feel blessed to be in the presence of naked men. as gay "men," we rely on men as a crutch or as a seeing-eye dog to bring us to a state of masculine fulfillment, simply because we don't have enough masculine self-respect to rely on ourselves to fill our void for masculinity. now, despite the gay male's lackluster sense of masculine self-respect (just ask him who the man of his dreams is), he wants people to know him as a man who is all grown-up emotionally, so it is commonplace to hear gay "men" being referred to AS men - just as much as a vagina refers to her little son as a man - but an asexual "guys" is how we refer to the men who've developed both a physical superiority over vaginas and an emotional superiority over gays. the men who are justified both in body and mind AS men are not men in today's society - they are referred to with as asexual a word as "guys".

why is it constantly impressed upon the public that there's nothing wrong with finding security and fulfillment and something excitably taboo in other members of one's own gender, why can't anyone even fathom the self-compromising errs of homosexuality? speaking of which - why is it fine to regard as "men," every clueless masculivoid who lacks masculine gender-identity enough to want to inspect the masculine gender? why are men who are straight with themselves AS men (and with masculinity in general) more commonly referred to as "straight guys"?

manphobes. from vaginas to gay "men," they both disrespect real men because they all want masculine identity for themselves (vaginas want to be regarded as "strong" and they want society to give them a facade of the PHYSICAL masculine-identity, while gay "men" want to be regarded as "real men" and they want society to give them a facade of having an acceptable level of PSYCHOLOGICAL masculine-identity). this is why i refer to feminists and gay "men" as "masculine wannabees".

mr. dylan terreri, i
dr. sheldon cooper, ii
miss abingdon blazavich
www.abbyblazavich.com
--------------------------
"When I'm hungry, I eat. When I'm thirsty, I drink. When I feel like saying something, I say it." - Madonna
www.jaggedlittledyl.com/essays
--------------------------

376 days ago
Previous 15 Comments | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

Around The Web