Here’s something that I read on the show today as we were talking about laws being passed to keep those with men parts out of bathrooms frequented by those with lady parts (even if the former are delusional about not having such) in the context of Steve’s great post here. From This Ain’t Hell (a mil-blog I frequent) this is from Poetrooper with a great question:
Here’s my conundrum: if it is immoral, even criminal or civilly liable for these mom-and-pop Christian businesses to deny services based on their fundamental beliefs, why is it not also immoral or legally actionable for large corporations to refuse their services to the citizens of those states where those who govern choose to pass legislation to protect the religious freedoms of their citizenry?
If I’m a huge professional football fan living in Atlanta and the NFL people remove my city from contention for a near-future Super Bowl because they feel my state is discriminating against the transgendered, am I not the victim of discriminatory business practices on the part of the NFL? What about those organizations and corporations that cancel annual conferences and business meetings because of the actions of my state legislature? Aren’t these big corporations refusing to do business with my state simply because they consider our practices immoral, just as those bakeries, florists, and photographers see gays as immoral? Other than scale, I see little difference.
Okay all you smart readers: Tell me where I’m wrong.
Short answer? You’re not. Why IS it wrong for Christian small biz owners to voice their beliefs and refuse service (and then get sued out of existence by the Gaystapo) yet the NFL, Hollywood studios like Disney, other government entities, Cirque du Soleil, and other large corporations get to do the exact same thing and get away with it? Why are these large corporations so adamant about not allowing their possible customers to act the same?
And the Left shows its inconsistency and double standards in that they are so adamant that these corporations aren’t citizens for the purposes of political speech (e.g., their huffing and puffing about Citizens United) but APPLAUDING them now as they speak the Progressives truth to bigotry? Simple – these corporations have taken their side in this LBTQRSTUVWXYZ (I’m tired of keeping up with the alphabet soup of political correctness of the day so I threw in a few more letters in hopes some of them might hang in there) attempt to rid the nation of any religious views and beliefs, those living their lives on the same. In essence they are working to silence those that disagree with them, the gaystapo with the media and corporations with the financial pain – again, the tactics of totalitarianism.
Erik Erikson is correct – “You will be made to care” and you will be made to care only what is allowed by this evil intersection (facilitated by feckless politicians who value the way the political wind blows instead of protecting the liberties of their citizens (the first responsibility of Government).
*******************
Talked about this during the pre-show:
OOPS: Man accidentally ‘deletes his entire company’ with one line of bad code. Even the backups were deleted, though if things had been properly set up that wouldn’t have happened.
I’ve had customers with this same condition – and that the system administrators never tested to see if their backups were readable and actually had good data. Sucks to that guy.
*******************
And there are folks that just don’t believe they have to follow the Second Amendment – the Pacific Island version of Heller in DC and Chicago?
On Monday, Governor Ralph Torres signed the “Special Act for Firearm Enforcement” (SAFE) into law. In addition to using the same misleading acronym as other recent gun control laws, the Act reads like a pieced together compendium of the “reasonable restrictions” other antigun jurisdictions have passed to thumb their noses at the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago.
The Commonwealth’s new “SAFE” law generally bans “assault weapons” and “large capacity magazines”, prohibits the public carrying of any firearms, and creates so many “gun-free zones” as to make firearm possession on the islands practically impossible.
The Act also creates a one thousand dollar excise tax on the importation of any pistol. This tax alone is in direct contravention of the court’s ruling that the people of the Commonwealth have a right to possess handguns for defense of themselves and their families.
Am betting that this $1000 tax (on a semi-automatic pistol that could cost between #400-$500???) will be judged to be seen what it is. A court will probably judge this as a pig being called a rose – and still is a pig.
*******************
So much for the First Amendment’s Right to Free Association?
Harvard’s oldest male-only club accuses officials of ‘McCarthyism’ for coed mandate
The Porcellian Club has been around since the Bill of Rights was ratified, but it hasn’t publicly defended its right to freedom of association until this week.
Harvard University’s oldest male-only club is savaging the administration for threatening to expel anyone who remains a member of the school’s so-called final clubs unless they accept women – one of the sweeping recommendations of a sexual-assault task force.
Two days ahead of a new deadline for informing the school whether they will voluntarily go coed, the graduate board president of the media-shy Porcellian told The Crimson:
“I sincerely hope that the administration will not set the precedent of creating a ‘blacklist’ of organizations that students cannot join,” [Charles] Storey wrote. “Such McCarthyism is a dangerous road that would be a blow to academic freedom, the spirit of tolerance, and the long tradition of free association on campus.”
RELATED: Harvard sexual-assault task force recommends nonstop training, eradication of male-only clubsIt’s folly to expect that a coed mandate on male-only clubs – particularly those like the Porcellian, which has a no-guest policy – will reduce sexual assault, Storey said:
“Given our policies, we are mystified as to why the current administration feels that forcing our club to accept female members would reduce the incidence of sexual assault on campus,” Storey wrote. “Forcing single gender organizations to accept members of the opposite sex could potentially increase, not decrease the potential for sexual misconduct.”
He defended the club’s right to determine its own character while noting its membership “reflects the diversity of the [undergraduate] male population”:“As a club that is completely independent of Harvard, which accepts no funding from Harvard, which owns its own property, and believes fervently in the right to self-determination, that decision is ours, not Harvard’s, to make,” he wrote.