I'm Not Getting It
Last week White House press secretary Sarah Sanders was kicked out of a restaurant in Lexington, VA, for ... being the White House press secretary. The Left defends the restaurant owner for doing it; the right is complaining that it was unfair. I'm not getting it.
To the Left, I ask if it's wrong, wrong, wrong for a Christian baker to refuse to make a wedding cake for a couple of same-sex individuals because it violates the baker's constitutionally protected First Amendment rights, why is it not equally wrong for a restaurateur to refuse to serve someone because it violates her conscience? To the Right I ask if it's right for a Christian photographer to deny service to a same-sex couple because it violates her religious beliefs, why is not equally right for this restaurant owner to stand on principle and deny Sanders service? It seems as if the two sides have run amok, not noting that they both are alternately defending and attacking the same principle depending on whether or not they like what was done. Seems like really bad standards all the way around. Either tell the innkeepers they're right for standing on principle and so is the restaurant, or tell them they're both wrong, but don't waffle here.
That having been said, I want to ask the owner of the restaurant, "Do you subject all your patrons to the same standard? You asked Sanders to leave because 'the restaurant has certain standards that I feel it has to uphold, such as honesty, and compassion, and cooperation.' Do you require these standards of all your customers?" Remember, it was unequal discrimination in Colorado that exonerated the Christian baker in the Supreme Court.
Beyond That
Following that incident, Maxine Waters (D-Calif) (thanks for that, California) urged people to harass anybody from Trump's administration, telling them, "You get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere." When the florist or the baker or the photographer backed out of providing service on the basis of religious principles, they all recommended other sources for the same service elsewhere. Imagine if any of them said, "You're not welcome anymore, anywhere." Double standard, anyone?
This Week in SCOTUS
First the Supreme Court finds in favor of the Christian baker in Colorado who refused to celebrate a gay wedding by making them a cake (surprise, surprise), and now they throw out a case against a florist for the same thing? Amazing!
Remember, now, the court did not rule that the baker's religious rights were violated. They simply said that the state had mistreated the baker in comparison with how it treated others on the other side. They said the state's anti-discrimination measures had to be fairly enforced for both sides. So don't think this one is a 1st Amendment victory either. No, the court simply said the Washington Supreme Court would need to look again to see if Washington, like Colorado, has failed to fairly enforce their anti-discrimination laws. If they have, it will be legal in Washington to deny 1st Amendment rights as long as they treat others who "discriminate" in the same way.
While we're at it, the Supreme Court approved ("upheld") Trump's "travel ban"??? Seriously? Even the president was surprised, tweeting, "Wow!" Critics have called it a "Muslim ban" which, if true, was the most inane "Muslim ban" on the planet since it didn't ban ... you know ... Muslims. It limits (not bans) travel from seven (not all) countries with Muslims in them. (Note: The list includes Venezuela ... not a "Muslim nation.") Now, mind you, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the policy. I'm just pointing out that if you want to criticize the president's limitations on travel, do it from fact rather than emotional allegation.
Then, in another stunning outcome from the Supreme Court this week, I learned a new term: "constitutionally protected medical services like abortion." It came up in the story about how SCOTUS ruled that clinics predicated on not giving abortions are not required to advertise abortions to their clients. The earlier ruling was that they were required to give information on ... that phrase. Now, I wasn't aware of any such medical services. I wasn't aware that medical services had constitutionally protected rights. Human beings labeled "non-persons" have no constitutionally protected rights, but medical services do. Odd. Learn something new every day.
And What Did You Expect ...?
The LGBT community fought for years to become viewed as "normal" by moving their "civil unions" into "marriage" because "Anyone can see there is a fundamental difference between a civil union and a marriage." So they succeeded in forcing a definition change on us all to take marriage from its roots to this new thing. Of course, it had to happen ... now a UK couple have won their suit to be allowed to have a civil union instead of a marriage because, obviously, marriage is "patriarchal and sexist." What did you expect? The end of marriage as we know it? Well, yes ... yes I did. Thanks for the demonstration.
Responding Badly
So, of course, the outcry is against "the separation of families" occurring at the border thanks to the evil Donald Trumpster. Except that Trump has already ordered this reversed. And a federal judge has ordered the families be reunited within the next 30 days. And sweet old Ethel Kenedy, widow of Robert Kennedy, has jumped on the hunger strike bandwagon to call for the change ... which Trump has already started and the judge has further ordered and ...
I, personally, am confused. If fictitious Bill, a husband and father of two, is caught robbing a liquor store, for instance, do they not separate him from his family? Why is no one protesting this injustice? And is no one aware of the fact that less-than-honest people use children as cover to enter the country illegally while, perhaps, pimping them out for sex? How does the border patrol know which are families and which are endangered children? Do you know? I'm not defending the "zero-tolerance" policies in the news; I'm simply pointing out that the situation is not as simple as you think and we are, once again, responding badly to a bad situation.
(Side note: You are all aware, I suspect, of the picture on the cover of Time with the crying child and Donald Trump (superimposed). I don't know if you were aware that this child was never separated from her family. This is a case of pure, unadulterated media manipulation. A lot like this one.)
8 comments:
On the first point, I say let business owners serve who they want because the market will reward or punish them accordingly. Personally, as a business owner, I’ll work with anyone who will work with me. One caveat, I’m bound by certain ethical rules in this regard, and I wouldn’t help someone buy a house for an illegal use. Business is hard enough, why limit your market.
Virtually every picture used in this reporting is “fake” in some way. I guess “fake news” is OK when it’s helping an issue you agree with.
Stan,
You, like so many others, are indeed wrong about comparing the Sanders incident to the florist and cake baker. Christians have not be discriminating against the people, and have previously served the couples that sued them. What they were against was providing their artistic talents for an event, whereas Sanders was attacked as a person. One can be friendly and give service to perverts in their store, allowing them to purchase whatever is there, and still refuse to use their talents for an event celebrating perversion.
A black restaurant owner cannot refuse service to a white person, but if a KKK group wants him to cater their klan meetings, he should not be forced to do so. Nor should a "gay" baker be forced to provide cakes for a Westboro Baptist Cult celebration.
Service the people, yes. Assist in celebrating something offensive, NO.
Glenn, I wasn't comparing the two because I agree with you that they're not the same. I was contrasting the beliefs of those who believe that they are the same kind of thing and then apply opposite standards to them.
I don't approve of public accommodation laws at all. They are an infringement of liberty, and as Craig said, the market will determine if one's business practices are acceptable.
In the first example, it is comparing a specific crime with another, when the issue is more basic than that...that a crime was committed, the perpetrator arrested and as a result, separation from children took place. Now, someone is using your example to pretend it bolsters their support of open borders and Trump hatred because your thief robbed a liquor store, which conjures images of the poor slob behind the counter wetting himself while emptying the register...forcibly taking money or goods from the merchant. But a burglar is a better choice, or some other non-violent crime, to make the point about American lawbreakers being separated from their kids.
Another point about lawbreaking is that most often, American lawbreakers don't bring their kids along to commit crimes.
The suggestion is that people who come to this country by violating the law are not violating the law. That's the fundamental difference between the guy who robs a liquor store and someone who enters the country illegally. It is not a valid difference. Both are illegal.
Nor does it matter if the perpetrator has their children present at the scene of the crime. A guy who goes to jail for having soliciting a prostitute is just as separated from his children as the parent who crosses the border illegally.
And my point was not that the practice of taking kids from parents at the border was a good one. My point is that those complaining about it regularly defend it in one case but are outraged about it in the other. I'm talking about the thing as if it's good; I'm talking about a double standard.
"Now, someone is using your example to pretend it bolsters their support of open borders ..."
I think it is odd that he continues to be baffled that I am "ignoring the answer" when I've repeatedly told him (as the only banned commenter to my blog) why he's banned and that I don't read what he writes. It's not "ignoring the answer"; I'm ignoring him. His open hostility has made it impossible to maintain any kind of a dialog.
I'm surprised that he continues to claim he is offering "reasonable answers", but I suppose it coincides with his version of "reasonable" without any regard to any contradicting issues others have.
And I'm, frankly, concerned that he might have a reading deficiency or serious memory lapse because 1) he can't remember that he was banned, 2) he continues to argue that I'm a "Trump supporter" when I have clearly and repeatedly denied it from before the election (he even commended me for a post I wrote before the election about my concerns about Trump), and 3) he continues to accuse everyone of ignoring his arguments and complain that he is being slandered while he ignores opposing arguments and slanders those who make them.
The problem is, that the argument being made is that crossing the border without going through the process “should” be legal, therefore it’s ok to act as if it is legal in terms of outrage.
So what about other things that people believe should be legal, but aren’t? Why not the same outrage?
Ultimately it’s not the specific issue that’s the problem, it’s the double standard.
Of course both are illegal. My point is how the example is used to invalidate that fact. One is seen as inflicting harm, while the other isn't. So, to combat that distraction, my suggestion is to use a different crime. You do that well with the prostitution example and that would have been harder to argue against when comparing it with illegal border crossings than it is when comparing those illegal crossings with robbing liquor stores. The issue is with whom one is having such a discussion and making the comparison, not the comparison itself.
Post a Comment