I think it should be vetoed because I disagree with the language of the law. I don’t disagree with it because it’s “anti-gay” (it’s not) or because it’s “like Jim Crow all over again” (it’s not), but because setting it up as only protecting those with a legitimate religious reason is kind of a stupid move which turns the whole thing into a “religious bigotry” issue…which it shouldn’t be.
This is where 90% of the hate is coming from, the idea that it’s legalizing “bigotry” from religious people. The law should be rewritten to protect something that, while it’s not codified in the exact wording of the First Amendment, has been verified as being part of it by the Supreme Court.
Freedom of Association.
If I don’t want to be associated with you, I shouldn’t have to be whether I have a religious reason or not. My business is not your business, you are not an investor, a stockholder, and my business is not run by the government/taxes, therefore you should have no right to have a say in how I practice business…aside from the obvious free market controls of boycott and bad press.
The fact that it was written the way it was, was stupid beyond the telling of it. It was written that way for an obvious reason, that it was push back against lawsuits towards religious business owners, but writing a law should not just be in reaction to dick moves by gay people. You have to examine the issue closely and understand WHY those protections for business owners should exist and pass a law that reflects that reasoning.
Veto it, go back, and rewrite it as protection for private business and freedom of association the way it should be.
Otherwise you are just feeding the flames of idiotic protesters in a way that will hurt the GOP overall.
While I’m not the biggest fan of the language used in the Arizona SB-1062 bill that was passed in our state legislature (for one thing, why should only religious people get protection?) but the fact is that discrimination in clientele is nothing new (or wrong) for businesses.
I used to work security in a busy privately owned district near a college. Not only was it regularly made clear to us (and I only worked there a little over a month) that the rules we enforced where there to keep a certain type of “riffraff” off the streets and that our enforcement need not target the non-homeless, but many of the nightclubs and other venues in the area had dress codes as well. I spent most of my 8 hour shift walking up and down the street, giving directions, reporting crimes, and telling off homeless people for sitting on the sidewalk…in other words I had a lot of time to read every single sign on every single storefront and club. One of the clubs in particular had a dress code that was pretty damn specific and clearly targeting men in it’s “no tank tops, no baggy jeans, no flip flops” rules of dress.
Hot girls got in, flip-flops or no flip-flops, let me tell you.
But hey, it’s no skin off my nose and as far as I know there hasn’t been a lawsuit levied against a night club over their “discrimination” against clientele.
They cater to a certain set and they want a certain type of clientele in their business. Sure it might hurt their bottom line a little, but maybe not. I’ve learned that people tend to like going to a club where their are rules and exclusions, it makes them feel special just for getting in the door, but the real point is that no one really disputed the club’s right to deny service to those that did not come dressed to their specifications.
The same thing occurs in some of the more expensive restaurants. Dresses, sport coats, and ties can all be required to let someone dine in a restaurant.
You would never question the “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service” sign on a storefront even though it’s not actually an issue regulated by the state Health Department in most cases. Yup, that’s right, these stores are discriminating against the barefoot and shirtless, not because the state requires them to do so, but because they see these rules as being better for business.
Why is it an acceptable level of discrimination for these types of businesses to discriminate against their clientele, but not for an Orthodox Jew to request people dress modestly in their store?
The “I shouldn’t have to bow to their religious/moral/fashion views” idea doesn’t fly either, because no 5 star rated restaurant is going to seat me in torn up jeans and flip flops because “I shouldn’t have to wear a dress to eat a 5 star meal.”
They don’t care, that’s their rule and I can go screw myself (that’s an approximate translation of the facial expression the maître d’ would have on his face if I said that) if I think they are going to change because I don’t think their rule is fair.
It’s their business and they don’t want my money enough to change the type of clientele they cater to. There is an all night diner down the street that would take my money if I insisted on eating with a paper bag on my head.
Different strokes for different folks as they say.
Now I might be annoyed at the rules in any of the establishments I mentioned, but I’m hardly going to sue them over it, because, after all, they have the right to refuse service if they want too. It’s their business and I don’t have a right to their service, just because I have money.
This same rule should apply to any private business, as I’ve said before, whether they are discriminating because they are snooty French restaurants or jerky religious or racist business owners.
Get over it.
Over the last year or so we’ve heard numerous cases of “hate crimes” perpetrated on gay people. Of those the number that were hoaxes seem to have vastly outnumbered the real stories and the real ones are so pitiful that I hesitate to even call them “crimes”, as they were usually simple disagreements about whether or not a person has the right to force you to work for them against your own conscience.
Essentially the bakeries and photographers were making gay people “feel bad” because they wouldn’t bake them a cake or take their wedding pictures, but that’s not what I’m pissed about.
I can’t stand all the lies.
This latest hoax, where in a New York talk show host fabricated a story (and visual aides) about a pair of gay dads who received a hateful response to a birthday party invitation they sent out for their daughter, isn’t anything new and it was proven to be a hoax within mere hours of the story being published.
However, it was believed to be real long enough for leftwing bloggers all over the internet to work themselves up into a lather about a story that didn’t even seem reasonable (in light of the history of hoaxes these past few years especially) and of which they seem to have made no real attempt to verify the accuracy.
Someone on the internet/radio said it, so it must be true.
We are told by these same bloggers in the aftermath of a hoax (if they bother to acknowledge they were wrong at all), that it doesn’t matter whether the story of the hate crime is true or not, because hate like this DOES exist and the fake stories are just a way to open the door to discuss and “important issue” in today’s culture.
If that’s true, then why does it appear that 90% of these stories fake? You would think that if this sort of hate really existed, and was as prevalent as the left wing seems to believe, that their might be some evidence of it, but instead all we get are strings and strings of falsified “hate crimes” that left-wing bloggers spew across the internet like the aftermath of a gas station sushi lunch.
Here’s the truth.
I refuse to take your self-victimization seriously any longer.
You are the architects of your own victimization. Whether by creating hoaxes and perpetuating them in order to make yourself look more pitiable or by advertising and perpetuating the negative stereotypes that “bigots” hold against you with every Pride parade you hold.
Are the people whose hearts and minds you really want to change going to be impressed with hoax “hate crimes” and penis floats? Maybe, just maybe, letting people realize you ARE just like everyone else by ACTING that way would go a lot further than constantly turning yourself into a victim or running down the street with a rainbow flag, shouting about how you’re here and you’re queer and you are a homophobe if you criticize me.
Maybe there are real people out there being discriminated against in this country, but if you can’t actually reach out and find those real stories (either because they aren’t there or the people involved could care less about turning a stupid hateful person’s comment into their own 15 minutes of fame) then please shut up.
Or better yet, why don’t you talk about something outside your own shores for once. Discuss the gay men being put on trial by Sharia Islamic courts in Nigeria or the gay men who are hanged in Iran. Talk about something real for a goddamn change, why don’t you?
Or are you so selfish that you can only consider American gays as worthy of your attention?
Or maybe you are just so politically correct that you couldn’t bare to be called a “racist” or “culturally insensitive” for criticizing the actual homophobia occurring in Middle Eastern countries on a frighteningly regular basis.
Whatever your reason is, it’s pathetic. Get off your ass, stop pretending you are somehow more of a special snowflake than everyone else (because you aren’t) because you are gay or trans or whatever, and use your brain before you perpetuate hoaxes just because they give you “feelings”.
*Apologies if a couple of those links are repeats. Some came from my own files and others came from Matt Walsh’s recent blog on the subject of hate crime hoaxes. I tried to make sure not to repeat stories, but it happens.
Maybe it’s because my plaintive cries of “You are ruining my life” failed to appropriately guilt trip my parents when I was a kid and therefore I became a sociopath that stopped caring about the emotions of others.
Or maybe it’s just because blaming Common Core for a child being frustrated with a couple of math problems is so insane that it barely takes scrutiny to dismiss.
Sure, I feel terrible for the girl in the picture. I have an abundance of empathy because I was a high achieving child in my K-12 years (let’s just not discuss that college thing ‘kay?), this was long before Common Core by the way, and I remember having some very vocal and tearful breakdowns at the kitchen table over my homework, whether I was in public school, private, or home school at the time. Math was always an especially difficult subject for me (still is, I never really had a good math teacher) and I got frustrated easily. I could solve every problem but one and that one would give me a breakdown.
Can’t wait to see this film in it’s entirety.
Originally posted on Brodigan.tv:
It’s funny when you think of it because when a lot of us started off as “activists,” it wasn’t to start off as an activist. We were people who grew increasingly frustrated with the direction of the party and/or the country (depending on when you started to come up in the game) and needed an avenue to vent, and hey look over there…it’s something called the Internet.
Bitching on Twitter begat blogging begat podcasting begat talk radio begat TV hits begat a hobby turning into something you called a career. Who knew, right?
In Ben Howe’s case, it begat filmmaking and he has his first movie “Bankrupt” debuting in DC either tomorrow, today, or on January 30th depending on when you read this. It’s a look at crony capitalism and over regulation, and how it has destroyed the city of Detroit. Or something like that. Check out the website for a full description.
Lowest unemployment rate in 5 years? What are you smoking Obama, because it’s good shit. #SOTU
“Successful Women Don’t Fall in Love” by Amy Glass.
I knew the article was link bait when I clicked it, that didn’t stop me from clicking it though.
So then, why isn’t this piece titled “Successful PEOPLE Don’t Fall In Love?”
Because, when men fall in love, they get a wife. When women fall in love they get a husband. Despite idealism, the reality of these two paths is very disparate. For men, falling in love is an asset, for women it is a sentence to hard labor. I have no interest in marrying a woman, but I would love to have a wife. They cook and clean for you, remind you when it’s your mother’s birthday, and shoulder all the biggest burdens when it comes to raising kids. Hell, my ideal relationship would be if my husband and I could have a wife so we could both be supported without having to deal with all that minutiae ourselves.
Women respond to me when I talk like this saying, “oh, my boyfriend is progressive, he’s not like THAT.” I don’t mean stating my personal preference to be an insult, but it’s not the truth they relay during any other conversation about their relationship, even if they don’t use those words. We’re kind of brainwashed to take care of other people, and make them happy and for me, being single is kind of an armor guarding against whatever cultural or biological intuitions are telling me, as a woman, to be self-sacrificial.
Let’s say you want to have a husband and kids and a job that pays enough for you to be comfortable. That’s an achievable dream for most of my peers, the upkeep of a relationship with an easy to moderate job can work for a woman. You can balance. However, there’s people like me who don’t like middle ground, it’s not for everyone. I don’t want to be a latte, I want to be an espresso. I want all of something, or I don’t want it at all.
I want success. I want to be truly great at something. Being great at something requires sacrifice and focus. Like, when you close your eyes and your hearing improves. Obviously it’s possible, and for the vast majority of people, preferable to see and hear at the same time. But when it’s truly important, you’ll sacrifice one for the other. I caught a reality show the other day where a guy was asking his girlfriend to start a rule where three nights a week she would be done with work for the night by 5pm. THREE times a week. 5pm. That’s insane for people who are trying to build something big.
So now I’m pissed off about and I need to rant.
A latte is made with espresso you moron.
Okay, that was rude, but I had to start off the with most obviously dumb comment in your article and work my way down.
You say “I don’t want to be a latte, I want to be an espresso. I want all of something, or I don’t want it at all.” This is a dumb statement. Why? Because a latte is an espresso, with a little something extra. That’s what being in love, on top of having a career, is.
Espresso by itself, everyday, is bitter and will probably give you heart burn. That steamed milk in the latte is just there to cut the edge off the bitterness.
Unfortunately, you let the espresso everyday regimen make you permanently bitter and take you to a place that is both deluded and lonely.
Sadly Amy Glass is living in a delusional world where she sees all relationships as fitting some nostalgic 1950s archetype…that mostly didn’t exist even in the 1950s. Married women (or single women for that matter) were not all chained to a stove, forced to “hard labor” for their husband, wearing dresses and heels and pearls and getting dinner on the table by 6pm when their loving husband returned from work.
Women didn’t work as much as women today do, but they did work outside of the home.*
But somehow this is the image of marriage that Amy Glass had created for herself.
I would love to have a wife. They cook and clean for you, remind you when it’s your mother’s birthday, and shoulder all the biggest burdens when it comes to raising kids.
I can count on one hand the number of friends I had whose mother fit this stereotype over all the years I have lived. My own parents (married 40+ years) have never fit this stereotype in my memory. Not only do my parents share cooking and cleaning duty, but my father has always had an equal share of the burden in raising my sister, my brother, and I.
You know how successful my mom is? My mom has a doctorate and her own optometry practice.
You know when she got that doctorate?
After she got married, between her first and second child. She was pregnant with me when she was going to school for her degree and I was born before she graduated.
Who exactly does Amy Glass think was caring for me while my mom was at graduate school? Some nursemaid, like something out of the 18th century?
No, it was my dad.
Having a husband and children didn’t make her less successful, it made her more successful. She went to school to better herself, to become successful.
Would my mother have gone to optometry school without a family to spur her on? I have no idea. The point is that she did and she also got married.
I do know that having someone to share your burdens, to be the steamed milk in your espresso at the end of the day, is worth the occasional “sacrifices” that come with a relationship. Someone is there to carry the burdens with you and help you succeed and be the loudest cheerleader on your team, whether you are a man or a woman. Someone who takes care of you when your health is bad or you get laid off.
And fine, maybe you think that you would not be as successful if you were married, that’s alright. You clearly realize you lack the ability to multi-task and I won’t judge you for that.
But to claim that “successful women don’t fall in love” is to write off any woman who falls in love and gets married as being incapable of being successful, which is a blatant falsehood that just shows how little facts play into Glass’ view of reality.
Of the top 25 on the “100 most successful women” list on Forbes, 92% were either currently married or divorced or widowed. 76% were currently married. Only 8% were single and had never been married.
Successful women don’t get married?
Just like your article.
*Of course you have to consider that more women work today because our economy dictates a need for two income households. My mom WOULD have been a SAHM, by her own choice, if our family could have survived on my dad’s salary.
I find myself at odds, once again, with another gay Republican. I wrote an article a few months ago on why I don’t make politics personal and what triggered it was an article written by Jimmy LaSalvia, recently of GOProud.
Now I find myself writing a response to something he’s said once again…and steadily getting annoyed at myself that I feel the need to continue doing so.
It’s a temptation that we all face as writers, how much can we sensationalize an issue in order to get people to read our story.
When this is done in headlines it’s commonly referred to as Clickbait and it’s very successful on it’s best days and skirts the edges of journalistic ethics on its worst.
I know, I know, those of you in the “New Media” are saying right now “Journalistic ethics!? Why should we care? The MSM gave those up ages ago!” Yeah, they did.
That doesn’t mean we have to become like them though.
Now there is good clickbait and bad clickbait.
Last week I wrote an article for Damn Straight Politics that had the headline “CFL Light Bulbs Will Blind Us”. This was a bit sensational and it did draw in readers. However when reading the article there is no reason to feel like the headline duped you into clicking on something that wasn’t what it seemed. There is ample evidence in the article that CFL light bulbs are putting people on a faster track for developing optical problems that could lead to partial or complete blindness.
That’s good clickbait.
Bad clickbait makes you feel cheated. You were sold a bill of goods when you read an interesting headline and the you read the article and you realize that whoever wrote the headline was just dishonestly sensationalizing a bit of otherwise boring news that, in many cases, ought not have been “news” in the first place. When it crosses the line to outright lies that will mislead people intentionally, that crosses an ethical line.
Take this headline:
This headline appeared on my newsfeed this afternoon and I clicked the link expecting something truly heinous that would disturb me greatly. Something that would incense me to write an article about Universities prying into people’s private lives.
Instead I got this.
Boyd’s two-year contract states, in relevant part:
For so long as Dr. Boyd is President and a single person, she shall not be allowed to cohabitate in the President’s residence with any person with whom she has a romantic relation.
This isn’t even close to some sort of heinous control over someone’s sex life. Anyone with reading comprehension and half a brain should be able to see that.
Unfortunately we know that 90% of readers of news are only reading the headline and skimming the contents, so they end up with a completely false impression of what is going on. All because of a misleading headline.
This is true of readers of the New York Times as much as it is true of the Daily Caller (where this headline originated) and journalists SHOULD be taking this into account when they write an article/headline.
It’s the first thing we were taught in Journalism 101. Most people are not going to read the entire article, they will read the headline and the first paragraph and they might skim the rest, so you can’t afford to write something misleading that won’t be corrected until the end of the article. You write in a pyramid shape, headline then important details in the top paragraph and you branch out to my general information further in the article.
Format is actually sort of important with news and as much as I hated that semester I majored in Journalism, I did learn a few useful things.
So here’s some quick guidelines on headlines:
- Don’t misquote – If your headline quotes someone make sure you give the quote context in the article and make sure your use of the quote isn’t skewing the meaning.
- Don’t mislead – Don’t say someone or something is involved when they aren’t. Make sure any claim you make in the headline can be backed up with analysis of facts in the body of your article.
- Don’t lie – If you write an article then you clearly know the content and what’s going on in it. Don’t claim something that isn’t true just to make the headline sizzle a little more.
- Do make it interesting – There’s no reason why you can’t make a link look clickable and interesting while not breaking the other rules.
- No puppies were harmed in the writing of this article -
Daily Caller has become more and more guilty of this over the past few months, especially with their coverage of Common Core, but now apparently in other areas as well. I don’t care how you feel about Common Core, but when the articles about it are blatantly misrepresenting it in their headlines (and the content of the article does not support the headline and many times actually shows the Common Core is not responsible) that is unacceptable. I know they think it’s fun to blame Common Core in every education related foible in the headlines these days, but it’s flat dishonest. I don’t know who is at fault, but standards are slipping so much that I have decided to remove them from my RSS newsfeed.
Obama is promising 5 metropolitan areas something he calls a “promise zone” in order…well I’m not sure what it’s in order to do exactly. From the vague feel-good message on the White House website I think it has something to do with education though, so I guess we’ll go with that.
In a country as great as this one, a child’s zip code should never be what determines his or her opportunity. The government can’t fix this on its own, but it can be a much better partner in helping local leaders develop policies that improve education, protect the most vulnerable, and encourage the entrepreneurial spirit. That’s what we’ll be doing in these Promise Zones, where the federal government will partner with local innovators, advancing their work to expand opportunity in their communities.
These areas – urban, rural, and tribal – have all committed, in partnership with local business and community leaders, to use existing resources on proven strategies, and make new investments that reward hard work. They have developed strong plans to create jobs, provide quality, affordable housing and expand educational opportunity, which we’ll help them execute with access to on-the-ground federal partners, resources, and grant preferences.
Basically it’s just an excuse to pour countless tax dollars into certain areas of the country. Sadly most of this could be done, at no cost to taxpayers, if the federal government would give up some control rather than taking more control.
But how can a Democrat pass up the chance to expand welfare programs?