Category Archives: conservatives
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.
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.
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.
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?
It’s so very nice to be able to just rant on this blog.
It’s very freeing.
Anyway, I saw a post tonight from someone I used to be friends with. They were talking about how they made $3 above minimum wage in their state and they still couldn’t live on that, so clearly minimum wage needs to be increased because living on minimum wage is not easy to do…or even possible according to her.
Look, if you want to be in the military and be in combat I don’t really see a problem with that. If you can do that job then more power to you, thank you for your service, but don’t you dare ask that you be giving lowered testing standards in order to qualify.
Now I apologize, for the most part I don’t think it’s actually military women who are bitching about this. It’s mostly feminist groups like Code Pink and whiny feminists on tumblr who think that if women have to put forth more effort than men to pass the test that it’s somehow “sexist” and “only in place to keep women out.”
I was told the other day by a feminist that it was convenient how my “bigotry” (saying that women should be held to the same standards as men in jobs) was disguised as concern for “safety”.
Let me preface this article with the disclaimer that I know very little about the state of education in North Carolina. I know that public schools in general are usually disgusting paper mills that push students through without much care to whether the students are actually learning anything and I know the North Carolina came in 38th in SAT scores in 2013.
I also know that being for a public institutions because “think of the children” (even when the institution regularly screws up children’s education) is not a conservative principle.
So imagine my shock when I read this article on Diane Ravitch’s blog that basically said that if conservatives are more interested in results and the free market being used to encourage schools to excel, we aren’t really conservatives.
The movement to snuff out public education begins by funneling public dollars to private schools, home schools, and charter schools, none of which are accountable for their spending or actions.
Conservatives don’t destroy their community’s public schools. Conservatives don’t blow up traditional and beloved institutions.
Conservatives don’t place the free market above human values.
Because apparently pouring money in failing schools, essentially bailing them out, is a conservative idea? Nuh-uh Diane.
Look Diane, more money doesn’t make a school function any better. If it’s a crap school is generally not lack of funding that’s the culprit, it’s more the top heavy administration and the teachers (and teacher’s unions) that are at fault.
But let’s talk this through.
You say that taking money from failing schools and giving them to successful schools is not a conservative value. I think that rewarding success was a very conservative value.
You say that we’re putting the free market above human values. This confuses me because in my opinion the work of the free market is directly related to human values. Unless your “human value” is more about saving a failing cultural institution than it is about giving children a good education…which makes me question your human values.
You say that charter schools and private schools are not held accountable, but public schools that have a monopoly on citizen’s taxes (whether their child attends the school or not) are? I shudder to think what your opinion on school vouchers would be if you have a problem with the free market working at this level. After all wouldn’t parents taking their kids from failing schools, along with their child’s portion of state funding, and putting them in a successful charter or private school would just make them a bad person (like an outrageously liberal Slate op-ed said in August of last year), right?
The odd thing though is that when I check North Carolina’s own standards (using a sample of 100 regular public schools and 100 charter schools) the Charter schools are meeting all the state standards in 66% of schools, while only 44% of public schools appear to be meeting those standards. How are they not being held accountable exactly?
The free market is what we need Diane, not an attempt to shore up broken public school districts. Just because it’s the way we’ve done things for a hundred or so years, does not mean it needs to continue that way. The fact is that our public schools are not getting any better, despite drastic increases in funding over the years. It’s time to try something new and let the market compete to give our kids the best education they can possibly get.
If school vouchers and shifted funding can get more kids into private and chartered schools (where they are held accountable by the parents, who aren’t trapped at a school by geography, as well as the state) then I’m all for it.
And so should any conservative.
Sometimes you have an encounter that really reminds you of why the cradle to grave mentality of progressive politics can be so sickening.
I meet a lot of people in my day job and, because of the city I live in, many of them are from very different backgrounds and cultures. One in particular struck me the other day. It was a family where the father and mother had grown up in Iraq. They had moved here in the 90s, having grown up exclusively under the rule of Saddam Hussein.
The father had nothing but good things to say about Iraq. He had been given no choice on what he studied in school, no choice in how he received healthcare, and no freedom in almost any aspect of his life…but the government took care of him….and jailed anyone that didn’t follow the rules to the letter.
His healthcare was free and so was his education.
Good thing he wasn’t a Kurd I guess.
Sometimes it’s impossible to differentiate between the ideals that progressives strive for and the actions of a government ruled by a tyrannical (and ethnic cleansing) ruler like Saddam Hussein.
There is something truly wrong with that.
The scariest part is that people like this man, who were raised this way, see nothing wrong with it.
They are completely and utterly brainwashed into believing that having no freedom is fine, as long as you have the government giving you everything you “need”.
How many children of today’s progressives will have no wish to change anything because “freedom is overrated”?
How many will fail to realize that life isn’t worth living at all if you have no freedom?
How is it that we have reached the point where we are deciding that emulating Hussein’s Iraq and the failing country’s of Europe was a good idea?
Honestly it baffles me.
When I was reading Greg Gutfeld’s book, The Joy of Hate, this year I thought he was being a little melodramatic when he complained that Republicans/Conservatives were starting to get offended as easily as liberals. (I can’t remember where he said that and I’m sure it’s not an exact quote…my copy of the book is at home and I’m not.)
But unfortunately I’m beginning to see his point.
We spend an inordinate amount of time on petty issues when it comes to our news cycle.