This Age of Tolerance: Triple-D Doublespeak

Upon entering the Dollywood (as in Dolly Parton) amusement park in Tennessee, a woman was asked to turn her t-shirt inside out.

It said: “marriage is so gay.”

She did so, but was “offended.”

She was not, of course, asked to leave the park. She was not criticized or ridiculed or otherwise harassed — all of which would be wrong. On private property, she was asked to respect the family atmosphere.

But in news reports about the incident, she makes clear why the “to each his own” arguments you often hear as valid reason to rewrite out laws don’t quite hold up to our new reality.

It is, in fact, as wet as anyone getting off a Dollywood log flume.

Olivier Odom, the woman with the t-shirt, says: “If marriage equality is going to happen, it’s not going to happen if people sit at home quietly.”

From AP:

Odom said that they visited the water park July 9 with friends and their friends’ two children when she was asked by a person at the front gate to turn her shirt inside out because it was a family park.

Odom said she complied so as not to make a scene in front of the children, but felt offended.

“That’s what we found so offensive — that he said it was a family park,” Tipton said. “Families come in a wide range of definitions these days and we were with our family.”

The two said they felt they needed to file a complaint with Dollywood because they believed it was important to stand up for their beliefs in marriage equality.

“If marriage equality is going to happen, it’s not going to happen if people sit at home quietly,” Odom said.

Odom said they understand the park can have dress code policies, but she felt Dollywood needed to make their policies clear and provide better training for employees when determining what is considered offensive.

Odom and Tipton are not legally married, but held a ceremony last year in North Carolina. They wrote an email to the park asking the park “to implement policies that are inclusive of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people; conduct staff sensitivity training; and issue a public statement indicating that the park is inclusive of all families.”

This isn’t just about rewriting the institution of marriage in our laws. It certainly is not simply about being legally friends with financial and visitation and other benefits. It’s about validation. It’s not about tolerance, but enforcing a new moral code.

Take that with your cotton candy.



  • Francis

    From reading the article, it sounds as though the t-shirt was objectionable, not the couple.

  • Frank

    u cannot force people to accept homosexuality. a family place includes children and some people dont want to see gay or lesbian couples. it is private property and has the right to enforce any rules they see fit to enforce. Forcing others to acknowledge one’s fallacious positions is not tolerance, but rather totalitarianism. And this is precisely what the homosexual lobby exhibits time and time again.There is no freedom, tolerance, or liberty when it comes to the homosexual agenda. they are always preaching tolerance only if you agree with them, God forbid you disagree then they call discrimination.

    • Laura Lawless Robertson

      There is a difference between “private property” – for example, my home – and a place of public accommodation, such as an amusement park, a hotel, a restaurant. Places of public accommodation are prohibited from discriminating in the provision of services on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, disability, and age. Despite the efforts of some to continue to deny basic civil liberties to the gay and lesbian community, it is a matter of time before prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is added to most state statutory codes as well. While it won’t undo the hate in the hearts of those who loathe the gay and lesbian community, it will be a welcome step in the direction of civil rights.

      • Jacob

        Being asked to turn a shirt inside out because of its message is no more discrimination than requiring people to allow messaged onto their property which they think are morally offensive.

        If the first is, the second certainly is. But in that case, you have to pick one. Which should get picked depends on whether or not the message is in fact morally offensive. This is now an issue of truth, not perception, and so requires an actual answer to the question. The answer favors Dollywood.

  • Fred

    It is private property and they did not need to enter. If the lesbian couple decided not to enter after learning their T-shirt needed to be reversed, then I would agree to a refund.

  • Davide

    Kathryn I think its important for me to point out the further one gets deeper into homosexual behavior the harder it is for them to come out of it. Most who are deep into it are atheists. By their code of conduct homosexuality is their religion which always results in a double standard. Every civilization who condoned and propagated homosexuality did not survive. Maybe we think sexually active “homosexuals” are smarter now or have evolved. The same mistakes they made in the past won’t be repeated. But our we willing to bet our children’s future on it?

    • Francis

      That is very interesting. I had not heard that before. What civilizations are there (other than Sodom and Gomorrah) that condoned and propagated homosexuality that did not survive? Basically, every civilization that is not currently in existence did not survive, but do any have a clear link to the presence of homosexuality?

    • Mike

      Please, where substantiate that most LGBT folks are atheists? My church congregation has a number of gay folks.

      Most civilizations have not survived. You need a more substantial argument to convince me that homosexuality causes civilizations to collapse.

    • Mr. Wonderful

      I think it’s important for me to point out that every civilization that has not survived reproduced heterosexually. They also used language. Coincidence?

      It would be interesting to learn if this writer actually knows any gay people, although the disgraceful nature of this post is unaffected whether the answer is yes or no.

      By this writer’s code of conduct, Christianity–which admirably calls on its adherents to check the motes in their own eyes before having opinions about others’–is not his or her religion. But then, most self-righteous moralists who are deep into Catholicism behave this way.

    • Peyton

      “Every civilization”
      Erm…. google Japan… one of the oldest civilizations on the planet, still going, historically, very tolerant of homosexuality.


    I certainly hope that Dollywood returned the visitors’ money. A loving couple with a beautiful family enjoying a day out should not be forced to change shirts anymore than Dolly Parton should have been encouraged to cover her cleavage (family friendly indeed). Something tells me that the righteous who objected to the loving lesbian family had no problem taking their admission money.

    • Bruce

      There is no such thing as a lesbian “family.”

      • The Dark Avenger

        There is no spoon.

  • Bruce

    No. Homosexual friends do not constitute a family nor a marriage. It is an impossibility (an untruth, a lie, etc). Forcing others to acknowledge one’s fallacious positions is not tolerance, but rather totalitarianism. And this is precisely what the homosexual lobby exhibits time and time again. There is no freedom, tolerance, or liberty when it comes to the homosexual agenda.

    • Bill S

      It seems like Dollywood were the people trying to “force a moral code” on others. It’s quite interesting how the author tried to take an act of discrimination and make it appear that the victim is the aggressor.

      • Herb

        And the person wearing the shirt isn’t trying to force her own.

        Consider, a person wears a tee shirt reading: “A a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.” to a gay student union at a university for a speaker’s lecture. They require him to turn it inside out if he wants to stay.

        Would you consider him, wearing a shirt offense to the atmosphere where he was going to be the bigot or them for making him turn the shirt inside out.

        Unless you can honestly say the latter your issue isn’t the promotion of a moral code but a code you don’t like.

        Why do I suspect that’s the case.

      • Chris

        Every private enterprise has the right to enforce its own dress code. The so called victim is the aggressor of an existing moral code. Discrimination is not always bad and you are also using it in your own post by establishing two classes “victim” and “aggressor”. The wearer of the T-shirt was trying to impose her agenda/moral code through a visual statement, don’t you think that she might be offending people with her imposition?

        • Peyton

          While they may be playing the martyr a bit, it does say they ask Dollywood to have a more explicit dress code. You can go to Dollywood’s site and read for yourself; it says nothing about what they consider to be morally offensive. I don’t think it is unreasonable to let people know on what grounds you will ask them to turn their shirt inside-out, leave, etc.
          As there is no comment from Dollywood in the article, it is entirely possible this employee was acting according to their own views, and not those of Dollywood. But without a clear dress code, how would one ever know?

      • Bruce

        On the contrary, Bill S., one cannot force truth on another. Truth simply exists and is there for all to recognize. The truth about marriage is simple and permanent: It is the comprehensive, exclusive, and permanent union of man and woman. Now, if one denies that reality, and chooses to hold a falsehood instead, one can only force that falsehood on others, since it is not a matter of simple truth to be observed and recognized. Homosexual activists force falsehoods on the rest of the world, because unlike truth, their lies and falsehoods cannot be recognized and, instead, must be shoved down the unwilling throats of the reasonable.

        • Lorraine

          What makes you so sure that your preferred view is the truth? There is certainly disagreement about it, and not just about the heterosexual component; non-Catholics, for instance, do not necessarily think that the union needs to be “permanent”. To claim one view as “truth” and another as “falsehood” without providing evidence is to evade honest discussion and argument.

          • Bruce

            Sorry, Lorraine, but truth is truth and the evidence is self-evident. There can be no disagreement about truth without the disagreeing party resorting to lies and falsehoods. That is what we have with the marriage argument. There is the truth – marriage – and the lie – homosexual friendships being considered marriages. It is really rather simple.

      • Confused

        The first time I heard the story I assumed that the employee asked her to do so because she/he thought it might offend the homosexual guests that are not “wearing their lifestyle on their sleeve.” I thought the tee-shirt was mocking gays the way people say just about anything is “so gay”. Haven’t the homosexual enforcers or endorsers or pushers or whatevers made commercials that tell listeners not to use the phrase “so gay” casually?

        Can’t have it both ways…

    • tex

      “No. Homosexual friends do not constitute a … marriage.” Nor does a heterosexual couple living in sin. Until Catholics can say that their own flock is living within the bounds of Church teaching, I think we should save our breath on those who have no intention of even associating with the Mother Church.



Receive our updates via email.