Patterico's Pontifications

7/1/2015

Random U.S. Small Business Owner Bans Gays from Business

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:28 pm

USA Today:

An East Tennessee hardware store owner decided to express his beliefs following the Supreme Court’s ruling allowing same-sex marriage by putting up a sign that reads, “No Gays Allowed.”

Jeff Amyx, who owns Amyx Hardware & Roofing Supplies in Grainger County, Tennessee., about an hour outside of Knoxville, added the “No Gays Allowed” sign on Monday, because gay and lesbian couples are against his religion.

Amyx, who is also a baptist minister, said he realized Monday morning that LGBT people are not afraid to stand for what they believe in. He said it showed him that Christian people should be brave enough to stand for what they believe in.

“They gladly stand for what they believe in, why can’t I? They believe their way is right, I believe it’s wrong. But yet I’m going to take more persecution than them because I’m standing for what I believe in,” Amyx said.

Allahpundit:

If you’re a libertarian who opposes antidiscrimination laws in principle, because you feel market solutions are a better way to punish prejudice than handing the government power to tinker with freedom of association, you’re on his side. If you aren’t, you (probably) aren’t.

This misunderstands libertarians. I am a libertarian-leaning conservative who opposes antidiscrimination laws on principle, in part because I believe market solutions are a better way to punish prejudice than handing the government power to dictate the terms of citizens’ freedom of association.

But I am most assuredly not on this guy’s side. I’m part of the market that wants to punish him.

If the government comes after him, I will argue for his right to be a bigot. But I’m not on his “side.”

That said, how this is a nationwide story is beyond me — but the fact that it is, suggests there is less prejudice than the media would have you believe.

Same-Sex Marriage: One Week Later

Filed under: General — Dana @ 6:58 pm

[guest post by Dana]

So, this:

Untitled-2

Photographer Ed Freeman shot this photo 10 years ago and posted it on his Facebook page after the Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage was announced. It was accompanied with a victorious statement by the photographer:

“When I took this picture almost ten years ago, it never, never occurred to me that it would someday come to symbolize the victory we are celebrating today. Congratulations to all of us! Love to you all.”

As you can imagine, he has taken a lot of heat for the photograph. Everything from scorn, outrage, and of course, a death threat.

With a straight face, Freeman defended himself, claiming he never intended to be disrespectful:

“The principle complaint that people have is that I am equating the gay struggle with the contribution and sacrifice of American servicemen,” Freeman said. “But there is no equal sign here. This is not meant as a sign of disrespect. For God sake, no. I totally support people in uniform. There is no comparison going on here. The comparison is going on in people’s heads, and they’re spoiling for a fight. They’re already on edge because of the gay marriage decision.”

Sigh.

With that, now that a week has passed since gay marriage has been the law of the land, the gay community isn’t sure how to handle their new found rights and independence. After all, when a group successfully overcomes a self-perceived victimhood, where do they go from there?

The more victories that accumulate for gay rights, the faster some gay institutions, rituals and markers are fading out. And so just as the gay marriage movement peaks, so does a debate about whether gay identity is dimming, overtaken by its own success.

“What do gay men have in common when they don’t have oppression?” asked Andrew Sullivan, one of the intellectual architects of the marriage movement. “I don’t know the answer to that yet.”

“The thing I miss is the specialness of being gay,” said Lisa Kron. “Because the traditional paths were closed, there was a consciousness to our lives, a necessary invention to the way we were going to celebrate and mark family and mark connection. That felt magical and beautiful.”

Already, just one week into same-sex marriage, and the spark is gone.

–Dana

Vox’s Solution to the Financial Crisis in Greece: Write a Check!

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:36 pm

Yup, that’s really what Ezra Klein said:

Adam Posen is president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics and, like every international economist right now, he’s glued to the drama in Greece. There is, he says, a simple solution to the crisis: the Northern European countries should write a check and end it. But they won’t, and in a conversation on Monday, he told me why.

This the leftists’ solution to everything: write a check. They think, apparently, that money equals value.

It’s a simplistic mindset, and one that is wholly and completely wrong. But this mindset is not something that can be refuted in a few words. Basically, either you understand economics (and therefore why this is a moronic opinion) or you don’t.

Klein doesn’t.

New York Times Asks Why White People Are “Extremely” Uncomfortable Talking About Race

Filed under: General — Dana @ 5:18 pm

[guest post by Dana]

I love documentaries, both large and small. Over at the New York Times, there is an interesting section called Op-Docs. As you can guess from its name, it is a compilation of essays and short-documentaries about any number of subjects. I regularly check it out to see what interesting person they have profiled, or which controversial or everyday subject they’re covering.

Of course, it’s the New York Times we are talking about, so with some subjects, viewer beware. They have a point of view and aren’t afraid to use it.

In today’s op-docs, readers are asked – without batting a self-aware eye – why white people are so uncomfortable and uneasy talking about race:

Why do so many white people find it extremely uncomfortable to talk about race? Setting out to make the next installment of our Op-Doc video series about race in America, we hoped to address that question. Because we live in New York, where there is no shortage of opinions, we didn’t think it would be too hard to find white people willing to speak publicly on this topic. We were wrong.

The people we ultimately found to start the conversation on this fraught topic were uniformly well-meaning and in favor of equality. Certainly they didn’t consider themselves racists. Racism is something that is perpetrated by other people — the ones complaining about affirmative action, refusing to take down their Confederate flags and sharing racist jokes. But if so few people identify as racist, why are racial tensions so pervasive right now? Subtle racism is harder to confront.

It has become easier for white people to think about race through the superficial lens of thinking about other people, instead of themselves. Indeed, most of the people in this Op-Doc hadn’t given much thought to being white other than that it was obvious by the color of their skin. But when we dug a bit deeper, the discussion gets tense, and visibly uncomfortable.

With this Op-Doc video, we’ve attempted to lean into that discomfort and prompt some self-reflection. We are all part of this system, and therefore we all have a responsibility to work toward dismantling it. If we’re going to have an honest conversation about race in America, that includes thinking — and talking — about what it means to be white in America. It might be uncomfortable, but it’s a conversation that must involve all of us.

Here’s a wild thought, NYT: perhaps white people who don’t think too much about race or discuss it in general is because THEY ARE JUST TOO DAMN BUSY GETTING ON WITH THE JOB OF LOVING THEIR NEIGHBORS AND LIVING THEIR LIVES. Yes, you heard me. I just spouted off some seriously ignorant royal white privilege (which confuses my brown skin…). But sadly, the fact is that if you are white, you have no choice in the matter. By default (because we are a nation that judges by skin color), you embody the institutional racism pervasive in every aspect of America. Your behavior and actions mean little. Because white skin. Oh, white privilege have you no shame?! No one is allowed to get on with the job of living their lives until they first cry “uncle” and own it – all of it. Because those are the rules. Get used to it.

Moreover, it’s wearying and mind-boggling that journalists who spend their days profiling and filming people from all walks of life, both here at home and in the world-at-large, can be so blinkered that they have no absolutely clue why there might be some hesitation or reluctance to discuss race these days – particularly white people discussing it with the NYT. And given that public shaming and retaliation are becoming another new normal when one doesn’t see race through the required lens, the risk is often too great to have that conversation they keep nagging us about. You know, the conversation that only goes one way: admit you are white privileged or and be labeled racist. Buy what they’re selling. Get it right. Diversity is quite literally only skin deep. And we’re the worse for it.

Take a moment to click over to the comments section and compare the top Reader’s Picks vs. NYT Pick’s. I bet you can guess where they stand.

–Dana

Polygamist Family Applies For Marriage License

Filed under: General — Dana @ 11:16 am

[guest post by Dana]

Given the recent Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage, it’s not surprising that a polygamist family in Montana has now applied for a marriage license:

Nathan Collier and his two wives, Vicki and Christine, said Tuesday that they are simply looking for equality.Nathan is legally married to Vicki, but also wants to legally wed Christine.

On Tuesday, Nathan and Christine traveled to the Yellowstone County Courthouse to see if they would be awarded the right to marry under the Marriage Equality Act.

Polygamy is illegal under Montana state law, and recognized as a misdemeanor offense.

“We just want to add legal legitimacy to an already happy, strong, loving family,” said Nathan.

As the two filled out their marriage application they were met with questions.

“There’s a spot on there where you put the dissolution date of your previous marriage and we put ‘not applicable,'” said Christine.

In fact, the couple was met with varied reaction from employees, who were caught off guard.

“So, are you legally married, you didn’t get divorced?” asked one clerk.

“We’ll have to deny that, let me go grab the other supervisor real quick so I can get confirmation but as far as I’m aware you can’t be married to two people at the same time,” said another clerk.

The Attorney General offered no comment about the marriage application request, but instead cited state law prohibiting the practice. And there has not yet been any official denial made.

–Dana


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1812 secs.