Did Not See That Coming
Jack Phillips, the Christian baker in Colorado sued for turning down a job offer to make a cake celebrating a "gay wedding", was exonerated by the Supreme Court on Monday. In a 7-2 decision, the court ruled that Colorado had violated Phillips' First Amendment rights. Didn't expect that outcome. Glad to hear it. Of course, while the ruling was 7-2 in his favor, the actual position offered by SCOTUS was so vague as to be almost useless. They sought to rule on the violation of Phillips' right to the free exercise of religion without reference to religion. It appears as if the only reason they ruled in his favor in this case was that Colorado failed to pursue the same ruling against bakers that refused to make cakes with messages opposed to gay weddings. They ruled that the state was unduly opposed to Christianity rather than a 1st Amendment ruling. It's a ruling in his favor, but not a landmark ruling that will reinstate religious freedom in America. Will it make a difference in future issues with Christian businesses? Not likely. (Lawmakers intend to make sure it doesn't.)
As a side note, please notice: The two guys who brought the original suit said of this ruling, "You should not be turned away from a business open to the public because of who you are." This is the fundamental problem. They were not denied a wedding cake because of who they were. They were denied a cake for a wedding that violated the religious convictions of the artist they were demanding to supply it. If they had asked for a birthday cake or something else, they wouldn't have been denied because of who they are. If it is "because of who you are", the story would look different. (As a test, find out if the baker ever made a cake for someone who was gay.)
When an Apology is Enough
Currently #MeToo rules our world. Any male who does anything at all that is deemed "sexual harrassment" -- from actual harrassment to just "made her feel uncomfortable" -- is guilty and no amount of defense, repentance, or apology is sufficient. Unless, of course, you're Bill Clinton who says he did not apologize to Monica Lewinski, does not owe her an apology, and doesn't plan to apologize. He apologized publicly to the nation and that was enough. I guess not everyone is held accountable to the new #MeToo rules.
Me, not You
Speaking of #MeToo, apparently the "me" in "Me Too" doesn't include all concerned parties. Actor Brendan Fraser claimed that in 2003 he was groped by Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA) president Philip Berk. The organization investigated and "concluded that Mr. Berk inappropriately touched Mr. Fraser," but that "the evidence supports that it was intended to be taken as a joke and not as a sexual advance." (The description of the confirmed inappropriate touching was no joke.) HFPA still keeps Berk as a voting member in good standing and claim, "All parties consider this matter to be concluded." Except Fraser doesn't. And it doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to see that this case is not handled like the vast numbers of unconfirmed-but-widely-touted #MeToo cases in the news. In every other case the women who felt harrassed were the issue and not the intention of the perpetrator. In this case, the accepted-at-face-value intention of the perpetrator makes it okay. No, Brendan, not you, too.
Defender of the Defenseless
Jon Stewart, self-imposed comedian/political analyst, defended Samantha Bee in a San Francisco event. He mocked people who thought referring to a woman with a derogatory and socially unacceptable term was offensive. It's right and good that some people should be held accountable for harrassment of women, but if Trump doesn't like it, it's okay. You see, Stewart claimed, it's the Right with the double standard.
I just want to point out that, while I thought the word she used was inappropriate and unnecessarily unkind (I would never use such a word in reference to any woman ever.), it wasn't the word that offended me. It was the other part. When Samantha Bee told Ivanka to dress seductively to influence her father, that was above and beyond any "c" word issue. "Do something about your dad's immigration practices ... He listens to you! Put on something tight and low-cut and tell your father to ... stop it!" "Put on something tight and low-cut"? Why is it that the single word has produced outrage, but urging a daughter to make herself a sex object to seduce her father into doing what she wants has not? Look, I get it. Black people can refer to black people with the "n" word when others cannot. Women can refer to women with the "c" or "b" word when others cannot. But when the issue of the day is sexual exploitation/objectification, encouraging it in incestuous form seems absolutely outrageous.
Samantha Bee's Apology
Speaking of Samantha Bee, she was back on the air this week, starting with an apology. She apologized for making the news with her vulgar term. Seriously, that was what she apologized for. She apologized saying, "I should have known that a potty-mouthed insult would be inherently more interesting ... than this juvenile immigration policy." The story said she was just attempting to "encourage [Ivanka] to speak to her father about changing a policy" without noting that she was encouraging Invanka to seduce her father into changing his policy. "'Civility is just nice words,' she said. 'Maybe we should all worry about the civility of our actions.'"
Strange apology. "Sorry for being in the news. Sorry for using a coarse word. Sorry that that word has been used to inflict pain on women." She did not say, "I'm sorry I publicly urged a woman to become a sex object to her father to get him to do what I think he should do." That wasn't in there.
2 comments:
It's funny (sad, not haha) that you expect anyone in this day to fully consider their actions or to be the least but consistent. I also have my doubts take anyone has brought the concerns you have to Samantha. They've all been deflected by Stewart and social media to be upset about the words she used so that they are ignoring the content of her speech. It's done all the time, everywhere. It's similar to a strawman or a magician. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." And we're all still looking at the glowing smoking head.
Did Not See That Coming
I didn't, either. I certainly didn't see it coming in the manner it did, with no real teeth to protect Christians in the manner needed against the LGBT activists looking to force their participation in abomination. "You can attack Christians...just be nice about it."
When an Apology is Enough
There's so much for which this dude should apologize and to so many. But it seemed clear to me that he was posturing as a victim in the whole thing. He expects apologies for that, but feels no obligation to apologize for anything he's done.
Me, not You
The double standard alone is blatantly obvious. But the point regarding intention is the more egregious example of it, given how easily "harassment" is leveled for the even the most benign and innocent provocative aside (assuming a provocative aside can be innocent). For the women, it doesn't matter if the intention is a joke (lame or otherwise), but only that the woman felt (or chose to feel) harassed. Malice is assumed. How very American.
Defender of the Defenseless
Most women hate that word. For a woman to use against another, then, is hypocritical if verbal abuse is a thing. Yet, I equate the two separate insults. They are equally reprehensible without any other references...such as the insipid immigration policy quip. Adding that, however, simply adds a lie...that it's the policy that's the problem, not the people acting contrary to it, for families being "torn apart". Bee just compounds her mistake with a worse verbal attack after another. In any case, Samantha Bee's Apology wasn't an apology at all. Not in any sense of the word. It was no more than her typical and unjustified arrogant condescension.
I gotta say, there are some people who provoke in me, just by seeing them briefly, as I do Bee in commercials for her show, an intense desire to slap them upside the head.
Post a Comment