Granted, the competition is fierce and the "winner" might not be known until the Final Judgment, but Loftis certainly qualifies, based on this report from the CBS affiliate in Miami:
A Miami-Dade teacher's past life in the adult entertainment industry has gotten him kicked out of the classroom. The school district's investigation into Shawn Loftis, a substitute teacher assigned to Nautilus Middle, Miami Edison Middle, Fienberg-Fisher K-8 Center and Miami Beach Senior High, began last January.
"One day I get a phone call from Miami Dade County Public Schools telling me not to go into work the next day," Loftis told our sister station CBS4 in Miami, "Because I was found out to be involved in the adult entertainment business." Loftis said he planned to use his experiences from the porn industry to help keep young people on the right path. ...
But then Loftis decided to change careers and get out of the business altogether. Loftis said he wanted to sell his company and use his Master's Degree to teach. He qualified to be a substitute, taught for about a year until one day the past caught up to his present.
Now, if Loftis went on to say, "I realize now that I made some serious mistakes in the past and I regret the choices I made. I want to help kids understand that porn is a rotten thing that destroys lives and denegrates men and woman, sexuality, and marriage", I think that most folks, like myself, would cut him some slack. But, instead,
Loftis said he can understand how some parents and administrators would judge him from his past, but he doesn't think it's right. "I totally see it from the parents' perspective... but why can't I have that separate life?"
As for his future, Loftis is considering a couple of options. He may go back to the adult film industry. He may also find others fired under the "values and morals" clause and work to change the way things happen in the future.
He says he wants to teach "lessons" based on his past—the same past he thinks should be considered "separate" from his work as a teacher. In other words, he thinks the Boulevard of Morality should only run one way: his way. He wants to be able to say whether it is right or wrong for people to condemn his profitable and degenerate work in the sex trade, but won't allow that his actions should have any bearing on him working with teenagers.
But the story gets even more surreal, as Miami News Times reports:
Yes, Loftis — who studied international relations with a focus on the Middle East at Florida International University and earned a master's in public administration from the University of Miami — has never been just about the porn. He has achieved some national notoriety, in fact, for his dedicated "citizen reporting" on CNN's website. The news giant has featured his videos and, he says, is well aware of his day job: "They don't mind at all." ...
He points out that his porn career was perfectly legal. He suspects he would have been treated differently if he had appeared in straight films. "She [the school's principal, Allyn Bernstein] exposed herself as a big old homophobe," Loftis says of Bernstein, who didn't respond to requests for comment for this story.
Loftis went to the American Civil Liberties Union with his complaint, but a representative there reluctantly turned him down, writing, "Your case would be stronger if your job did not involve supervising children."
Uh, so he "studied international relations" (and filmed them as well!). Okay, I'll step over that one. Anyhow, the appeal to his porn career being "perfectly legal" and blatantly playing the homophobic card are expected, but still appalling. But, ultimately, the revealing thing (ahem) in this story is how moral relativism, in the real world, never results in the complete absence of moral standards, or even in shifting moral standards (although that is obviously the case), but in a one-way street of moral condemnation, in which one person's politically-correct actions are deemed free and clear of any judgment or condemnation, even when—or especially when!—pitted against traditional, commonsense understandings of morality and public accountability.
The telling word above is "reluctantly". How long before the ACLU decides, "Aw, what the heck—the guy is a victim of bigotry, homophobia, and witless parents. Let's help him out!" My guess: not long.
UPDATE: Another example of the one-sided nature of moral relativism has been making news:
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals reportedly plans to launch a porn site. [It will be] "a pornography site that draws attention to the plight of animals", according to Reuters, which cited a spokesperson.
With thousands of well-known companies reluctantly queueing up to pay up to block their trademarks in the forthcoming .xxx top-level domain, PETA appears to be a unique case of a non-porn brand that plans to embrace "adult entertainment" to further its cause.
Put another way: fighting for the rights of animals is more important than humans doing what is right. Just another case of a certain good (treating animals humanely) being taken out of proportion and completely trampling an even more central good: treating people as creatures created in the image and likeness of the Creator.