We are wiser than we know.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Image of the Day
Gov. Jan Brewer (AZ-R) Vetoes Business Religious Freedom Act, SB1062
I probably would have vetoed this bill, but this is a nuanced position, largely in sympathy with the motivation behind the law. My stance has nothing to do with political correctness, the contemptible talking points about it being "anti-gay", the ugly extortion threats, including one by the NFL, suggesting hosting a future Super Bowl was at risk.
The motivation behind the bill had to do with fascist gay activists going after small businessesmen, like photographers and bakers, whom, based on their religious principles had declined to be vendors for certain gay couple events like commitment ceremonies or "weddings". I think that the complaintants eventually found alternative vendors but wanted their troublemaking pound of flesh for the vendors refusing the transactions and won various appeals/judgments; in at least one case, the owners had to close their storefront. This act was determined to protect businesses being sanctioned by anti-liberty judges or commissions.
The first issue I have is where do you draw the line on economic liberty? There are all sorts of reasons why I might choose not to transact; my religious/moral beliefs are just one subset. Why are religious reasons more equal. Recall the kerfuffle over the Bill of Rights; the concern was once you enumerated individual rights, individual liberty would be seen as mere exceptions to Statist control. So I suspect drawing the line might be seen as arbitrary and probably unconstitutional.
Second, it's unnecessary. I believe that the original judgments were unconstitutional abuses of the businessmen's religious liberty. A state law reaffirming religious liberty is redundant by application of the first and fourteenth amendments.
Third, I don't like the idea of pushing-on-a-string legislation. I am only aware of a handful of these cases. I think a multiplicity of laws defeats the concept of generality and the rule of law. If there was a definitive contagion pattern of behavior, I might be more empathetic.
Finally, I think the problem has more to do with rogue jurists and commissions. I would like to see more focus on impeachment and term limits for judges, downsizing or eliminating commissions, etc.
As a practical tactic to hassled businessowners, I might suggest something like telling gay customers all proceeds from the sale of "gay marriage" goods and services will go to organizations promoting traditional values.
Facebook Corner
(Cato Institute). As Arizona Governor Jan Brewer is weighing her options on her state's proposed legislation, why not begin a debate about whether RFRAs have gone too far or not far enough?
If you run a public endeavor your freedom to believe and practice are your own. You do NOT have the right to use that public endeavor to decide who is appropriate.
People like [discussant] believe they should be able to impose their values on other people. People often decide whom to date for superficial reasons, but it doesn't matter. If someone verbally abuses me in front of my employees or customers because I support traditional marriage, I will tell him to take his business elsewhere. My store is not a public square; it may not be smart business to turn away paying customers, but it's none of your business whom I sell to and for whatever (or no) reason for doing so. If you want to cater specializing in "gay weddings", by all means go for it. But you have no moral authority to stand in judgment of the voluntary transactions of others.
(Tom Woods). I guess this is supposed to be a conservative/libertarian-lite site.
The guy -- a conservative! -- is angry that some people believe in property rights, and that no one should be forced, say, to bake a cake for someone if he doesn't want to. This is John Locke 101. The nonaggression principle, if you prefer.
He's then angry when an Oklahoma legislator accidentally falls into the correct position and says the state should have no place in the marriage business one way or the other. The writer calls this "taking marriage away from everyone." Got that? A conservative thinks that without the state, there's no marriage.
I guess no one was validly married throughout all the centuries of Christendom.
Look at how morally hazardous government policy has devastated the social institutions of marriage and family; nearly 40% of births are illegitimate and a significant number of couples divorce.
It's not like traditional marriage vs. polygamy was an issue during the Civil War era, that SCOTUS did unanimously rule in favor of pro-traditionalist legislation, that it was an issue in whether the territory of Utah would be admitted into the Union.
Why wouldn't gay people want their traditionally unregulated relationships under the scrutiny of largely straight politicians, bureaucrats and judges?
As to political correctness being a credible political perspective, this unoriginal pathetic polemical rant makes no attempt to understand the freedom principle behind the legislation, the voluntary nature of market transactions. If a bakery declines to sell me a cake for any reason (e.g., I could stand to lose a few pounds), I'm not going to allege size discrimination. Another baker knows my money is just as green as the next guy's.
However, in community (like many, including mine) where there is only one hospital, and it is a Catholic hospital (like mine is) and it does not recognize same sex marriage contracts so I can;t be with the person I am in a contract with while they are in the ICU, it's not quire so simple.
It's not a Catholic principle to exclude visitation, which is a matter of compassion. They may not recognize your relationship like you would prefer, but (speaking as a Catholic) I would be very surprised if they refused visitation. My third-grade teacher in a Catholic school was not Catholic.
However, a Catholic institution does not lose its religious liberty just because of the nature of its market and competition. You have the right to migrate to a community more consistent with your values.
(Reason). These two idiotic zero tolerance incidents will make you angry, and then glad that teachers are at least providing kids with a valuable lesson on authority and how stupid and dangerous it can be.
Student give beer to teacher. Student brags to friends he had given beer to teacher. Teacher doesn't report it cause he feels the kid did the right thing. Word gets around that the teacher took beer from student. Principal finds out, teacher loses his job. It works the same way for any job. Teacher did not do anything wrong. Principal made that decision. If any of you are teachers and do not report any of this and it gets found out, you lose your job. A job that takes a minimum of 6 years of college education to complete on top of competing against everyone else with a teaching degree.
How pathetic, trying to rationize an excuse for contemptible teacher behavior. I've seen my share of bad bosses (including as a former professor. I've seen some really bad student behavior, but whether I escalated things depended on the nature and extent of the infraction. I had less tolerance for academic dishonesty.)
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of the original artist via Patriot Post |
Carly Simon, "Let the River Run". I will not talk about the hairstyles. I will not...
