I Just Want to Know
When states like Alabama or Louisiana pass laws that will save the lives of children with a heartbeat, it's called "anti-abortion." So I'm just wondering ... when they report that Maine's governor has signed a law expanding abortions, why is it not called "pro-abortion"? Seems like that would be fair and balanced. Oh, yeah, the media isn't fair and balanced.
Conspiracy Theory
Now, I am not a conspiracy theory kind of guy. Lots of people from all walks of life like to trot out their favorite conspiracy theories and I start from a position of skepticism on those. But this one seems to be too blatant. Jack Phillips is the Colorado baker who got in trouble before because he stood on his 1st Amendment right to the free exercise of his religion and suggested that the gay couple who wanted to enlist his artistic skills to celebrate their gay mirage (I didn't mispell that; it's what I believe) use any of the hundreds of other bakers in the area that would be happy to do it. A birthday cake? No problem. A graduation or promotion cake? Jack's your guy. He just wouldn't celebrate a so-called "gay marriage." That is, it wasn't "anti-gay" going on; it was about marriage and the freedom of religion. After losing in court then winning in the Supreme Court, it looked like Jack had squeaked by. So why did Autumn Scardina, a confused Colorado guy who thinks he's a girl, go to Jack to get a cake celebrating his "gender transition"? Random access? You know that's not the case. You know that Christians that raise their hands in these kinds of cases and say, "I'm sorry, but I can't; please feel free to choose another vendor" are now not merely pariahs; they are targets. So you have to ask yourself: when will you run afoul of the issue du jour and become a societal target? The Supreme Court ruled last year that Jack was the victim of "anti-religious bias" and I think it is abundantly clear that 1) they were right and 2) it hasn't stopped.
Applause or Crickets?
You remember Steve King, right? The House member from Iowa who got in trouble for his comments on white supremacists. Unlike the Dems who ignored their side's anti-Semitic comments, the Republicans stripped King of his duties and relegated him to the back corner for his behavior. Well, that was the story. Now it's this President Trump was going to Iowa, so King asked if he could tag along on Air Force One. The president denied him. "Good job, Mr. Trump," right? I mean, he denied access to a "white supremacist" guy. We like that, right? Oh, no. Nothing but crickets. Because if Trump did it, it's bad. "Breaking news! President Trump solved the Global Climate Change problem today." "Oh, no, that evil man!!" It's just the way it goes. I'm no Trump fan, but this just doesn't seem ... equitable.
Problem Solved
For a mere £1 trillion (about $1.3 trillion US) UK's Theresa May pledges zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Understand, first, that "zero" is not actually ZERO, but "net zero." That is, "We'll still be producing greenhouse gases, but they'll be counterbalanced by trees in third world countries." Second, she didn't pledge the trillion; she pledged a trillion of the citizens' money. Finally, you should realize that they're dubious that she can accomplish it for that "little" cost. But that's okay. Problem solved.
Laying Blame
Okay, so, how does this make sense in the new modern paradigm we hold of "Believe the accuser; burn the accused"? The story goes that in 2016 Allyson Gibson (white) of Gibson's Bakery in Ohio confronted an Oberlin College student (black) who shoplifted a bottle of wine. That student and two other black students assaulted Gibson. The three students pleaded guilty, but the bakery filed suit against Oberlin College for slandering them as a "racist establishment" and taking steps to destroy the family's livelihood. A jury, Friday, awarded the Gibsons in total $44 million from the college known for its strict coherence to politically correct (but not always sane) ideas. The court found Oberlin College liable. The court figured that out? I'm not sure how to process that.
Counting the Cost
The Dioceses of Springfield, Illinois, warned Illinois state House Speaker Michael Madigan that defending legislation to kill babies more generously would result in him being barred from taking communion. He knew it, but "With women's rights under attack in an increasing number of states across the country, Illinois is now a leader in making sure women are protected and their rights are upheld." "Let's see," he said, in essence, "a living relationship with the church I am a part of or murdering babies in the name of 'women's rights' ... which will I choose? I'll go with murder." Regardless of how you think about Catholic Communion or Catholicism at all, we have a clear case of a man willfully choosing to defy his religious beliefs to protect secular, anti-religious beliefs. You should have no question regarding his priorities ... and it's not his God.
Missing the Point
It could have been a headline from the U.S., but this one was from Switzerland. Swiss working women went on strike this week to protest the government's resistance to gender equality and equal pay. On what do they base gender equality? Women are "under-represented in management positions." Gender equality would be a numerical equality without regard to skill, ability, value to a company, or the like. On equal pay, the aim is to make it so that women (as a group) will earn dollar for dollar what men (as a group) make without taking into account any other factors than gender. And for gender equality, companies should have equal numbers of men and women in management, etc. Amount of work, hours worked, type of work, skill, training, and so on will all have no bearing because the only reason there are businesses in the world today is to provide equality. (And, I was wondering. The story says that "on the average" women make less than men and are under-represented in management. Would women be as swift to confront women-led companies for under-representing men or complain about situations where women are making more than their male counterparts? I know I wouldn't ask them to.)
2 comments:
My own inclination is to let the market reward/punish business owners for their personnel predilections. If a pink-skinned transsexual starts a business, s/he should be allowed to hire only pink transsexuals, and if the service or product they put out is at least as good as what other companies are providing, long may they thrive. If not as good, then the owner will be economically punished for being so anti-diversity.
I tend to agree that the marketplace will sort this sort of thing out to a great degree. I was taking a CE class about social media and one of the points was not to put politics on your social media because you’re automatically going to offend half of your potential client base. I’m just finishing an absolutely wonderful experience with a young coupe with whom I have many potential areas of disagreement. Yet, they’ve been very happy with my service and I expect that I’ll get referrals from them and that I’ll work with them again at some point.
Having said that, if you have a workable business model that involves a client/customer base where you can exclude potential clients/customers and still make a living I don’t necessarily think you should be prevented from doing that.
Post a Comment