Lion of the Blogosphere

Arizona’s “religious freedom” law

I’m in favor of letting businesses decide what customers they don’t want to serve. The profit motive should ensure that potential customers who have anything useful to contribute will be serviced by the vast majority of businesses. So I guess I’m in favor of the new Arizona Law, except that I’m disappointed that it’s tied to religion, which discriminates against atheists who might not want to serve certain customers for various reasons.

This all started because of a wedding photographer in New Mexico who didn’t want to photograph a gay wedding, but I don’t see why the two guys getting “married” would want to give their business to a photographer who hated them and probably wouldn’t do very good work as a result.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

February 26, 2014 at 9:43 AM

Posted in Uncategorized

58 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. The photographer likely couldn’t care less, but views obedience to the rules of the religion as a form of worship. I think Orthodox Jews view adherence to their views the same way. But, this is all about validation and projecting the power, thus significance, of the homo world view (and giving the state more power). They want you to kiss their asses. They want everyone to know they’re in charge and that their narratives prevail over the ‘weirdo’ narrative of the past or any conflicting narrative promoted by some competitor religion.

    Curle

    February 26, 2014 at 10:10 AM

  2. They did it because they’re bullies who can’t stand someone doesn’t approve of what they’re doing. As a non-religious observer, I’m not going to have any sympathy for the gays when the pendulum swings the other way.

    everybodyhatesscott

    February 26, 2014 at 10:35 AM

    • “I’m not going to have any sympathy for the gays when the pendulum swings the other way.”

      It won’t swing the other way; at least not in America. The battle is over. Gays win. In Europe it may swing in some countries. The moment the Muzzies take political power somewhere, there go the gay rights. Probably France will fall first.

      peterike

      February 26, 2014 at 1:34 PM

      • I wonder why liberals are putting so much effort into gay rights when they’ve had so much success equalizing blacks with whites. It’s almost like the latter has failed so hard leftists now need to distract themselves from the cognitive dissonance with a fight where the social indicators aren’t catastrophic…

        The Undiscovered Jew

        February 26, 2014 at 7:47 PM

      • Still I’d be willing to trade them all the gay rights they want in exchange for sterilization for welfare, citizenship buyouts, and . Gay men don’t turn beautiful neighborhoods into ghettos or Juarez. Quite the opposite; gays are master gentrifiers.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        February 26, 2014 at 7:52 PM

      • citizenship buyouts, and

        and whites only immigration.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        February 26, 2014 at 7:53 PM

  3. Christians aren’t taking the Bible seriously, and many of its’ teachings are so archaic and unconscionable that they have been obsolete and often outlawed in the US for generations.

    This is Christians doing what they like to do- legislate against other beliefs while ignoring the teachings of the Bible. According to Genesis 19:1-11 the way to deal with homosexual men isn’t to ban them but to offer them your virgin daughters (for sex)… and then God blinded the homosexuals! The Bible is so full of bad advice that I don’t see how anyone can claim it as more moral than an atheist who simply follows the laws of man.

    If the gay men resist the hospitality of the father offering his daughters virginity to homosexual strangers and continue to engage in homosexual acts the Bible offers more illegal advice that Christians don’t want to discuss:

    Leviticus 20:13
    “If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.”

    These gullible people should be exposed as the frauds they are whenever they try to take a position of moral superiority. As an atheist I should have the same right to discriminate as anyone who claims to be doing so to please God/Satan/Bobo the wonder dog.

    Sheila

    February 26, 2014 at 10:45 AM

    • Shiela, the officially athiestic societies have all been awash in a river, or rather an ocean, of blood. Every single one. There are no exceptions. A hundred million dead in just a short time. Keep repeating that to yourself until it sinks in. The conventional and and old time religions have gotten to be that way for a reason. They have stood the test of time.

      And in any case, from a strictly evo-bio perspective, homosexuality is a giant evolutionary error, implantation of one’s genetic material in a suitable receptacle being evolutionary prime directive number one. And from an epidemiological perspective it represents one of the most efficient disease vectors known to man. If one were to make up a religion from scratch, a taboo on homosexuality would be reasonable to include. The fact that so many proud atheists become so worked up in defense of homosexuality demonstrates that many aren’t into scientism as they would claim but that they are followers of the great religion of our time, equalism. Equalism is dumber than the old time religions because it is so easily proven false.

      Dan

      February 26, 2014 at 11:18 AM

      • Exactly. If you don’t believe in God, Aids is a pretty clear example that evolution hates gays too.

        everybodyhatesscott

        February 26, 2014 at 11:38 AM

      • “officially athiestic societies have all been awash in a river, or rather an ocean, of blood. Every single one. There are no exceptions”

        Do you actually have evidence that atheist societies are more violent than non-atheist societies?

        Alex

        February 26, 2014 at 9:43 PM

      • The officially “atheistic” societies I know just replaced God with Lenin/Stalin, Mao or Kim Il Song, i.e. they just created new religions. They weren’t really “atheistic” since replacing a supernatural God with a human God with supernatural powers is not exactly the point of most atheists.

        Petr Akuleyev

        February 27, 2014 at 2:24 AM

    • “This is Christians doing what they like to do- legislate against other beliefs while ignoring the teachings of the Bible”

      Pretty much exactly what the appeals court did, except by judicial ruling rather than the legislative process.

      J1

      February 26, 2014 at 1:58 PM

    • This is the first time that I’ve heard Lot’s offering his daughters to the mob as a solution to homosexuality.
      Did you make that up yourself?

      Half Canadian

      February 26, 2014 at 6:42 PM

    • Leviticus 20:13
      “If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.”

      Sounds good to me. Sodomites should keep their detestable acts deep in the closet.

      sciences with lisps

      February 27, 2014 at 2:45 PM

  4. I’m sympathetic to the photographer who didn’t want to photograph the Lesbian commitment ceremony. First of all, a commitment ceremony isn’t even a real thing, it’s not even a gay wedding. Secondly, the photographer wasn’t discriminating against gays as gays, but felt the ceremony was making a mockery of marriage (which it was) and therefore insulting to her religion,

    That said, the proposed law in Arizona sounds like it opens the door for businesses to discriminate against gays just because they are gays. I don’t think public accommodations like a business should do that. There should be a middle path to allow people to reasonably refuse to not provide services against their religious beliefs without opening the door to discrimination of gays just because they are gay.

    Mike Street Station

    February 26, 2014 at 11:25 AM

  5. “This all started because of a wedding photographer in New Mexico who didn’t want to photograph a gay wedding, but I don’t see why the two guys getting “married” would want to give their business to a photographer who hated them and probably wouldn’t do very good work as a result.”

    I literally just came from Pew’s site which discussed that story. It said the NM Supreme Court told the photographer that she had to serve gays or close her business.

    Ummm, when did courts get the right to tell people they have to shut down their businesses over a disagreement wrt a social issue? Does NM only have one wedding photographer?

    I also don’t support any “anti-discrimination” laws. Like I tell SSM supporters. All laws discriminate against somebody, so if you don’t want any legal discrimination, then that means we can’t have any laws.

    aki (@DSGNTD_PLYR)

    February 26, 2014 at 11:33 AM

  6. It’s not about being served as gays. Gay marriage has nothing at all to do with marriage, in the same way that it’s impossible for me to reproduce by budding, gays can’t marry. It’s about twisting the language to reflect their ideology, and having a hammer to oppress those who refuse to “celebrate” diversity (as opposed to merely tolerating it).

    It’s about creating tyranny. Not ending discrimination.

    Some Guy

    February 26, 2014 at 1:07 PM

  7. Only in our modern, utterly corrupt world does allowing someone to do what they want somehow equal an “anti-gay” law. We’ve reached the point where “freedom” means you are coerced at the point of a gun to do what you don’t want. That’s some freedom. It all goes back to who-whom. My freedom means your slavery. Better get on the winning side, chump.

    peterike

    February 26, 2014 at 1:31 PM

  8. 100% off topic but here’s a WSJ story from yesterday about employers asking for SAT scores http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303636404579395220334268350

    “Consulting firms such as Bain & Co. and McKinsey & Co. and banks like Goldman Sachs Group Inc. ask new college recruits for their scores, while other companies request them even for senior sales and management hires, eliciting scores from job candidates in their 40s and 50s.”

    dsgntd_plyr

    February 26, 2014 at 1:34 PM

  9. The two gay men wanted the anti gay photographer to photo their wedding as a symbol of dominance, a touchdown dance over the forces of oppression that they feel that they beat. They get off on humiliating the politically defeated.

    Rotten

    February 26, 2014 at 1:49 PM

  10. The photographer is an idiot. Gays are a great demographic to serve, if one wants to become enriched in the process. They are easier to deal with, than straight SWPLs or worse, proles. I’m being pragmatic.

    I have gay clients, nothing wrong with that, and they are eager to help build your business, if you serve them right.

    No surprise that Steve Jobs and Apple have a cult status among gay SWPLs. The same with Jeff Bezos. Savvy businessmen who know how turn a buck into billions.

    JS

    February 26, 2014 at 1:53 PM

    • “No surprise that Steve Jobs and Apple have a cult status among gay SWPLs. The same with Jeff Bezos. Savvy businessmen who know how turn a buck into billions.”

      Bullcrap. Even assuming Apple has a cult status among sodomites, it’s only because they fantasize about Jobs jamming his penis into their disease-infested rectums, or vice-versa. Ditto for Bezos.

      sciences with lisps

      February 27, 2014 at 2:50 PM

  11. If you wanna hear something funny, I was once thrown out of a Berkeley hot dog joint by a sausage slicer who didn’t like my views. He had judge Joe Brown on the TV and I made a crack to another customer about black judges. The funny part is that the founder/owner had stocked the place with libertarian literature and had various libertarian slogans on the walls.

    albino bobb

    February 26, 2014 at 2:44 PM

    • Interesting. The Libertarians are basically the authors of anti-discrimination law. Purely private firms or groups can discriminate all they please, but if it is offered to or by the general public, no favorites.

      rob

      February 26, 2014 at 7:45 PM

  12. Agree with your premise, which was stated in its earliest form by Milton Friedman in “Capitalism and Freedom”.

    However, if we ARE going to have anti-discrimination laws, the Arizona bill is flawed because it focuses on the customer rather than the product.

    For example, I have no problem with a Christian bakery refusing to provide a cake for a same-sex wedding. Perhaps they might bake the cake and let the customer have it decorated elsewhere, or some other compromise arrangement, but that is still beside the point.

    But suppose on the other hand that a gay customer asks for a product that the baker provides routinely–a birthday cake or graduation cake, etc. The bill would allow the baker to refuse service for such a product based on the characteristics of the customer, and that is contrary to the spirit of anti-discrimination policy.

    As another example, suppose a straight white male customer asked for a same-sex wedding cake for his gay couple friends. The baker would be on stronger ground refusing to do this, because it is not the customer, but the product in question.

    sestamibi

    February 26, 2014 at 4:51 PM

  13. I wonder how your average American queer feels about being a pawn in a mostly straight-on-straight white culture war.

    Slightly OT: Isn’t this Uganda thing a bit strange? Thirty-eight African countries have extremely repressive anti-gay laws, and many of them are controlled by Islamic governments. But according to NPR and similar media outlets, our biggest concern over gay rights in Africa should be about the influence white Christian Americans have on gay rights in Uganda, which is a country that has a big problem with witch doctors and ritual child sacrifice. Seriously, look it up.

    Robert

    February 26, 2014 at 6:19 PM

    • A lot of the L/libertarian organizers in Uganda are LGBT, so they’re up in arms.

      rob

      February 26, 2014 at 7:46 PM

    • I think that it’s an odd. modern form of liberal racism. They love to constantly blame whites for every problem that befalls nonwhites, but it’s easy to see that they only really care about the suffering of nonwhites when there is a big bad white bully to overcome. They don’t seem to give one fig about the millions of people in nonwhite countries that are treated horribly by people that look like themselves. It’s quite Eurocentric to think that blacks or others only really matter if there is some white guy involved pulling the strings. I guess that blacks in Africa have no free will, according to them. Well, if you are in the Third World, you better hope that it’s some white dude that’s causing you trouble. Otherwise, none of the media or political elites in the West will really care to say a word about it.

      Sean Q.

      February 26, 2014 at 9:48 PM

    • Cannibalism, too.

      Anthony

      February 26, 2014 at 10:41 PM

    • “I wonder how your average American queer feels about being a pawn in a mostly straight-on-straight white culture war.” ————————

      Hard to know. According to the MSM all gays are of one mind on all things, and that mind just happens to correlate with the position of the most vocal Left-wing agitators. When the conservative former mayor of Spokane was outed many years ago the Seattle media engaged in much confused pondering. He had opposed gay marriage, something they imagined inconceivable for a gay man to do or believe. Because, after all, opposition to gay marriage can only be a function of Republican prole stupidity and ignorance they theorized in their now familiar coded fashion. How could someone so smart and familiar with gays and their supposed ‘struggle’ have such an opinion they wondered aloud? He was also accused, post-death, of molesting children, but that was swept under the rug by the Seattle media; too off message.

      Curle

      March 1, 2014 at 12:29 PM

  14. I agree with you that the Arizona law, though flawed, is a step in the right direction. The longshoreman-philosopher Eric Hoffer said:

    Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.

    ….

    So it is with the anti-discrimination cause. However well-intentioned it was a half century ago, it’s now a racket for lawyers, bureaucrats and nanny thought police. In my Republic, there will be only one law concerning discrimination – The government must treat everyone equally. No discrimination, affirmative action, tribalism, quotas, etc.

    If all anti-discrimination laws were abolished today, what would change? Pretty much nothing. No one wants to discriminate anymore. If rare individuals or businesses should want to discriminate against certain groups, so what? Who is really harmed? Do you really want to eat in a restaurant that doesn’t want you for a customer? This isn’t Mississippi in 1956, although the nanny-crats would have you think it is. If a photographer doesn’t want to photograph gays, or wants to photograph only gays, who cares? I think discrimination is abhorrent, but I would gladly tolerate a small amount to get rid of the excess baggage of the “equal rights” mafia.

    Black Death

    February 26, 2014 at 6:27 PM

    • ” I think discrimination is abhorrent,”

      Why? It’s natural. People want to live with people like them. You can go live in Detroit if you want..Why force Detroit on everybody else?

      Desegregation and Civil Rights laws were forced on a group of people who didn’t ask for it by a group of people who didn’t have to live with the consequences. That’s democracy I guess. Most of them still don’t. Do you think the Kennedys live with the consequences of it?

      I suggest the book Democracy: The God that Failed.

      Why is not supporting gay marriage hate? Was it hate when people didn’t rent to unmarried couples or when divorce and remarriage were not allowed?

      Twain

      February 26, 2014 at 8:47 PM

      • it’s only discrimination when it’s been established by mass media as an “identity”. although savages engage in homosexual acts they have, in general, no gay-straight distinction.

        it is quite interesting that the foremost homosexual philosopher and the only 20th c french philosopher worthy of the name “philosopher”, who died from aids in 83 or 84, michel foucault, thought that homosexuality was purely the result of culture/environment. that it is heritable doesn’t contradict this, btw.

        jorge videla

        February 26, 2014 at 9:39 PM

  15. I view this bill as a could step towards compromise on SSM. If it is going to be legalized, at least let people decline to participate, without a threat of a lawsuit. It doesn’t bar gay people from obtaining services, it prevents them from suing people who decline to provide them.
    This also means that these people who decline to participate are giving up the money that would come from the sale of said good/service, and to some this is foolish. But freedom, ultimately, involves this right.
    In fact, I’d extend the right to refuse service to ANYTHING. Sure, doctors have a hypocratic oath, and contracts that were entered in (ie, insurance) need to be honored, and if I walk into a store wearing a Maple Leaf shirt, and the proprietor said “We don’t serve your kind”, I’ll be unhappy, but that’s what real freedom involves.

    Half Canadian

    February 26, 2014 at 6:54 PM

  16. Gov. Brewer vetoes law. Gays win! Gays win! Gay war is over everybody! Gays won again!

    peterike

    February 26, 2014 at 8:26 PM

    • such is the power of jive talk that homosexuality isn’t a perversion it’s an “orientation” and an “identity”. gay marriage isn’t a contradiction in terms it’s “equal rights”.

      as i’ve said before the american elite quite literally CANNOT THINK. they can only string terms together into a truthiness.

      jorge videla

      February 26, 2014 at 9:33 PM

  17. This is all about establishing the presumption that whenever a gay does not get what he wants, then discrimination is the obvious culprit and the gay should have the right to sue.

    Total value transference.

    map

    February 26, 2014 at 8:33 PM

  18. i’m a Cynic. i want the freedom to masturbate in public and urinate on passersby.

    jorge videla

    February 26, 2014 at 9:30 PM

    • As long as a guy can find a subway car with only one other passenger who happens to be a woman he already has the freedom to jerk off.. I managed to find myself in this situation about 15 years ago on the F train in Brooklyn in the middle of the day (and incidentally he was a middle aged white guy.) I looked away as inconspicuously as I could to avoid giving him the strong reaction of horror that I knew he’d be expecting.) It’s a shame I wasn’t a reader of this blog back then. I could have told him “Look, what you’re doing isn’t very g-loaded. There are lot of better things you could be doing with your time. There’s this thing called “value transference”………….”

      MaryK

      February 27, 2014 at 12:13 PM

    • “i’m a Cynic. i want the freedom to masturbate in public and urinate on passersby.”

      This. I too crave the freedom to defecate on a sidewalk with an audience of passersby, especially in front of a restaurant where people are eating — this is an important part of who I am and I’ve been this way since birth. And I don’t want to hear one word from my audience about how my behavior disgusts them — in fact, I demand they celebrate my bowel movement. And if anyone should lay a finger on me out of disgust for my public bowel movement, I’ll sue them and then sic Uncle Samantha on them because civil rights.

      sciences with lisps

      February 27, 2014 at 2:59 PM

  19. Libertarians arguing the “profit-motive” will guard against discrimination are naive at best.

    The argument for discrimination 60 years ago was that no self-respecting white person would want to eat at a restaurant that also served blacks. The law helped to have a transformative effect on backward southern culture. Same thing here: businesses open to the public should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of a morally insignificant characteristic, regardless of what someone’s so-called “Holy” book tells them.

    Vince, the Lionhearted

    February 27, 2014 at 2:11 AM

    • The argument for discrimination against blacks 60 years ago is the same argument as today: they lower property values. That’s why we discriminate by price instead of restrictive covenants and non-wealthy whites move as far out into the country as they possibly can. When these options are no longer available to whites, they will either shut down or they will start fighting. Either way, the society is going to end up … discriminatory, trillions of dollars and lawsuits and wrecked lives later. Thanks, social engineers!

      Gays are an evolutionary dead-end who end up on expensive chemical substitutes for a functioning immune system. That’s why all but a tiny fraction of humans are instinctively repulsed by homosexual practices. When we let gays do whatever they want, they will literally f*** themselves to death.

      The Anti-Gnostic

      February 27, 2014 at 8:17 AM

      • Actually, the law at the time prevented establishments from serving blacks and whites.
        Which was an intrusion on freedom and liberty.

        Half Canadian

        February 27, 2014 at 4:43 PM

      • “The argument for discrimination 60 years ago was that no self-respecting white person would want to eat at a restaurant that also served blacks.” ———- That may have been the argument, but the hidden agenda may have been a little more elaborate. “The Jim Crow laws . . . in the South were major factors in the Great Migration during the first half of the 20th century. Because opportunities were so limited in the South, African Americans moved in great numbers to northern cities to seek better lives, becoming an urbanized population.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws

        Curle

        February 28, 2014 at 12:46 PM

    • The profit motive indeed will guard against discrimination more or less when you have a culture that is entirely atomized. 60 years ago you could get the majority of whites in the South to agree on something. Now, in America, if you have two people you’d have three opinions. So if one bakery doesn’t want to serve gays (or blacks or whites or whoever) the next one down the street surely will.

      What I have never seen is a legitimate explanation of why PRIVATE interests shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate any way they like. Government entities are different: if the motor vehicles dept won’t serve me because I’m black-white-gay-etc, then I have no other options. I’m locked out. But if I don’t want to provide my private services to someone based on ANY reason at all — maybe you’re wearing a Yankees cap and I’m a Red Sox fan — why shouldn’t I be allowed to make that decision?

      peterike

      February 27, 2014 at 9:11 AM

      • Given that most private businesses are a monopoly, then you are screwed if a business won’t serve you.

        So for example, if Google doesn’t want me as an adwords publisher because I believe in HBD, then I’m screwed because there’s no one else besides Google providing a solution that allows me to make money from my blog.

        But unlike with HBD, there’s no evidence of any big businesses not wanting gay customers, and just the opposite, big business threatened to boycott AZ if they approved the law.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        February 27, 2014 at 10:45 AM

      • “Given that most private businesses are a monopoly, then you are screwed if a business won’t serve you.”

        No they aren’t. We are talking about retail level business interaction here. Butchers and bakers and candlestick makers. The vast majority of business transactions you engage in every day are NOT with monopolies. Your doctor, your lawyer, your accountant, your mechanic, your grocer, your banker, restaurants — none of these are even close to monopolies and even third tier cities have a wealth of options for the consumer.

        Monopolies are mostly created by government — you have little choice in schools if you can’t afford private, or paying the toll on the bridge — or regulated industries like electricity and cable TV. You don’t have a lot of options there and it would make sense for government to insist that an electric utility serve anyone who shows up.

        peterike

        February 27, 2014 at 12:15 PM

      • What I have never seen is a legitimate explanation of why PRIVATE interests shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate any way they like

        Of the three replies I see my to post, this is the only intelligent one. On the issue of Augusta prohibiting women, Christopher Hitchens argued that females could still golf on plenty of courses in Georgia. In his view, the government should only butt in if women were not allowed to golf any where. In addition to balancing a person’s opportunities and pursuit of happiness with freedom of association, there’s the oft-overlooked issue of simply being a public citizen.

        Many libertarians complained about the costs associated with the ADA, charging it would be cheaper to just give people in wheel-chairs brown bags filled with cash, which critically misses an important point. People with physical disabilities were more likely to be invalids completely dependent upon someone else if venturing out in public. They wouldn’t want to go to a restaurant for fear of embarrassment for making a scene, trying to fit their round peg in a square hole. They worried about bathroom accessibility. Not being a public citizen makes it difficult to form and maintain friendships, closes off business opportunities, threatens self-worth, limits the imagination of the non-handicapped, and so on.

        So, these types of laws, I think, critically depend upon context. Should it be legal to discriminate against gays in Alabama? I’d say “probably not.” Should it be legal do discriminate against gays in New York City? I’d say “probably yes.” Am I stacking the deck against bigots? Yeah, I guess.

        Vince, the Lionhearted

        February 27, 2014 at 1:46 PM

      • Lion, you’re dreaming if you think Fedgov would hold Google’s feet to the fire about denying adwords to whatever politically incorrect group they wanted to.

        We’re not in power, therefore the marginal cases, grey areas and the exceptions will be decided against us every time.

        BurplesonAFB

        February 27, 2014 at 1:51 PM

      • ““Given that most private businesses are a monopoly, then you are screwed if a business won’t serve you.”

        No they aren’t. We are talking about retail level business interaction here. Butchers and bakers and candlestick makers. The vast majority of business transactions you engage in every day are NOT with monopolies. ”

        Right. I never heard of big business discriminating in the past. Coke, Pepsi and big tobacco sold to everyone, but maybe you had to go to a certain store to buy it.

        There were many black small businesses that sold to blacks in the South.

        People should be allowed to live in their own neighborhoods with their own schools. This is so obvious, but we can’t do it now. A public college is different than a grade school.

        I grew up in an all white area. I never saw any nams. My kids will not be able to live like that.

        Whites desperately try to live in white areas, but it’s harder and harder. A guy at my company just moved into the area and was talking about places to live. One suburb has many many blacks and hispanics and he said that he couldn’t live there even though it was cheaper. He never said why, but I new what he meant.

        Twain

        February 27, 2014 at 9:21 PM

    • Vince, I hate to break it to you but no self-respecting white person does want to eat with blacks. Check out the range of shades in any of the trendy restaurants in oh-so-enlightened Manhattan if you don’t believe me. Of course they are discriminating on the basis of class not race but the end result is very few to no blacks. Funny how that works isn’t it? Surely the amount of money someone makes is “morally insignificant” but your holy book tells you only backward Southerners need to be socially transformed not the righteous SWPLs amirite?

      To eat together with “your kind” (however defined) is one of the most intimate, morally significant of acts more sacred than any God which is probably why ritual meals are at the center of most religions. Evolutionarily this probably goes back to the days when the tribe was defined by who got to share in the food the hunter-gatherers brought back.

      When Chad and Jennifer decide they want to ingest spicy third-world animal entrails instead of the tuna casserole of their hallowed ancestors the decision is not entirely based on taste or the amount of calories they need to get through the day. They are also making a moral statement that they are brave and virtuous for stepping outside of their tribe. As readers of this blog should surely know In-group versus out-group preference (or discrimination as you put it) is the major difference between conservative and liberal morality.

      So back to this topic, you can’t simply declare it “morally insignificant” Nobody gives a shit where homos get their cakes from. Moral significance is precisely the issue at stake.

      Sudoless Cosmopolitan

      February 27, 2014 at 10:12 AM

      • However, SWPLs love associating with token blacks. With acculturated Hispanics, it’s a non-issue, especially if they are physically “White” enough. There is a kernel of truth that Hispanics are very much in line with the Italian proles of the past. Not successful enough to attain elite status, but not stupid enough to be like blacks.

        In NYC, it’s really the Asians that the SWPLs don’t really like, paradoxically, the only non-White group who commonly share similar educational and income backgrounds, with those sushi eating Whites.

        JS

        February 28, 2014 at 12:23 AM

  20. This is a good take on this exact issue:

    https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/lincolns-slaves/

    peterike

    February 27, 2014 at 3:30 PM

  21. What about motels? It’s late, dark, you’re tired, but they won’t give you a room.

    jef

    February 28, 2014 at 4:43 AM

  22. There’s already legal discrimination of customers by any business. Think of “no shirt, no service”, bank loans based on credit score, etc. Was there any need for this law?

    evgeniysharapov

    March 1, 2014 at 8:55 AM

    • Most states have equal access codes that includes providing services to people based on sexual orientation. A religious exemption from that would allow owners of businesses whose beliefs condemn some activity, say homosexual unions, from facilitating said activities by providing services to the celebration of the activity, as per the NM wedding photographer who didn’t want to photograph a gay wedding.

      Curle

      March 1, 2014 at 12:14 PM

    • No. AZ law has no punishment for sexual orientation discrimination.

      Ironically this law would’ve only allowed discrimination for religious reasons. Thus reducing legal discrimination. Opponents of the bill didn’t read the bill.

      dsgntd_plyr

      March 1, 2014 at 1:13 PM

      • Was there a fear one would be found in the common law by some enterprising judge or that some other state code provision would ‘evolve’ to accomplish the same purpose?

        Curle

        March 1, 2014 at 10:12 PM


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: