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.
I know, I know, this is old news, but let me ramble.
I recently tangled with an idiot over whether or not Sandra Fluke wanted her college (or the American people) to pay for her sex life (and the sex life of every other woman on the campus). Their argument, as is typical, is that Fluke wasn’t making an argument about needing birth control for sexual reasons, she wanted the school to provide it for medical reasons. PCOS (Polycystic Ovarioan Syndrome) being the most popular of these medical reason for liberals (and Fluke herself) to bring up. She claimed that students who had PCOS, or other medical needs the necessitated using birth control, could not get the birth control they needed because of Georgetown’s insurance policies.
This was, of course, a load of horse manure and 1o seconds on a google could prove it. So it always struck me as odd that so many people spent time debating Fluke’s demands based on the morality of them or the 1st amendment issues. Yes, the 1st amendment is hugely important, but common sense is important too, which is why smacking Fluke in the face with the actual Georgetown student insurance policy (specifically the FAQ section of it) several times would have been more useful.
“This is offensive!”
I hear this all the time from liberals online, usually in response to something true that I’ve posted that sort of punches their worldview in the face.
In Breitbart fashion I respond: So?
Sometimes people in the Ann Coulter tag on tumblr start talking about how someone should “shut that b*tch up” and wondering why she’s “still allowed to talk?”
My response: The First Amendment.
You don’t have a right to not be offended, you don’t have a right to not be insulted, and you really don’t have a right to tell me it’s illegal to criticize your religion, your behavior, or anything else I choose.
For some reason liberals and Muslims both would like the government, in some way, to stop me from saying things that offend them.
Mr. President, you were totally asking for this photo of you “skeet shooting” to be edited the minute you told us not to do it. You know Americans, we are incorrigible and we really like our 1st amendment rights.
So this comment:
“This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photography may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggest approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House.”
was sort of like waving a giant red sheet in front of the raging bull of conservative disdain.
What exactly did you think was going to happen?
Sometimes I get very passionate about a topic and just can’t stop writing about it.
DS&P Magazine found this out the hard way when I wrote these two posts in the last two days.
Do I despise Westboro Baptist Church? I don’t think there is anyone who doesn’t, honestly, but that doesn’t make what Anonymous is doing right. Which is, sadly, something I’ve seen conservatives saying since Anonymous announced their intentions toward WBC. Not only that, but they want to exclude Westboro from the first amendment because they “intentionally cause emotional distress.”
You are doing the first amendment wrong here and you can’t claim to support it, while cheering on people that are illegally curtailing someone’s freedom to speak their mind, posting their names and addresses and encouraging death threats, hacking their website, shutting down their social networks; and while you advocate for restrictions of free speech.
I don’t always agree with the Supreme Court, that is obvious, but one decision I have agreed with from the very beginning was the 8 to 1 decision in favor of Westboro Baptist in the Snyder v. Phelps case.
It was a victory for free speech of every kind.
Nor do you forget your support of the first amendment just because you don’t like the person who is being suppressed, by legal or illegal means. Unfortunately that is not what I’m hearing from conservatives who are saying “well Anonymous sucks, but they got it right this time.”
It’s technological thuggery and terrorism and becoming a moral relativist suddenly, just because Anonymous is attacking someone you don’t like, is not right.
I think I’ve known this all along, somewhere in the back of my head, but the attacks on American Embassies throughout the Islamic world have really hit home how stupid, dishonest, and utterly outrageous the liberal view of Islam is.
I’m beginning to wonder if the liberal part of the population walks around with nothing between their ears, but air. How else could they possibly believe their own intellectually dishonest and politically correct bullshit?
Perhaps, similar to the early days of Catholicism, the leaders know what they are saying is complete shit, but they keep feeding it to their peons. However, in this day and age of readily available informatiom, that sort of ignorance doesn’t exactly reflect well on the lower echelons of liberalism and it doesn’t reflect well on the upper echelons when their views are so stupid that they can only get empty headed, Che Guevara t-shirt wearing, marijuana smoking dunderheads to buy their words.
The only other option is that the liberal leaders actually buy their own bullshit as well…which is just too scary for me to contemplate at this juncture. (I would bet on that being the case with Pelosi, Reid, Buffet, and Biden though…)
Now that I have the main insult portion of the evening done, let me discuss the truly hypocritical and hilariously (or obscenely) stupid notion of Islam that liberals keep trying to feed us.
Liberals keep telling us that Islam is the religion of peace. Over and over we hear a line that is either fed by the fact that they have never read the Quran, never watched the news, never listened to the sermons given by Imams in the Middle East, or simply willful ignorance and self-delusion.
But, suppose, for a brief moment, that they are right.
If Islam IS the religion of peace, then there should be no instances of violence fueled by the religion.
If it IS peaceful, then we should be free to criticize it without fear as we criticize any other religion in our country.
Stop supposing, that moment is over.
You can clearly see that this is not the case.
I actively consider my own safety when I post a cartoon of Mohammed on my political tumblr.
Our secretary of state and our President spend more time calling a youtube video “Disgusting And Reprehensible” than they do making it clear that they do making it clear that innocent American citizens being murdered is NOT acceptable.
They spend time saying that “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” and apologizing for America’s freedom of speech.
They drag citizens in for questioning when they make a video that speaks the truth about the background of Mohammed.
They are TERRIFIED of Islam.
They KNOW that Islam is not a religion of peace.
How else can you explain their quick decision to roll over and submit to them, apologize for American citizens exercising their rights, and beg and plead with us to not criticize this ‘religion of peace’.
That’s not going to happen, by the way.
I DID post that cartoon of Mohammed on my tumblr, because freedom of speech is something I would willingly die for, along with the other freedoms we have in this country.
But liberals need to realize we aren’t buying their act. Their speech of ‘Islam is a religion of peace and they would never do anything to harm anyone, but please don’t criticize them or speak out against them, because they might start killing us…even though they are peaceful and their religion advocates nothing, but peace.’
This is level of stupidity and a line that NO ONE in this country should be buying.
A religion of peace does not react to a video that mocks their religion with murder and rioting and burning flags.
A religion of peace does not advocate a ban on criticism of their religion, because what is there to criticize if it is so peaceful and enlightened.
I would call Buddhism a religion of peace much more readily than Islam and I know Buddhists aren’t exactly lobbying to ban negative speech against them. Mostly because Buddhists just don’t give a fuck what other people think, which, honestly, is the only reasonable way to live. Who wants to go through life getting angry at every person who disagrees with them? If I did that, I’d never have a moment of low blood pressure in my life.
More importantly though, your government doesn’t have to restrict your criticism of a peaceful religion. You don’t have to second guess yourself and wonder whether getting your words out there is worth the potential blow-back and danger to yourself and your family.
No, Islam is not a religion of peace and liberals are aware of this, or they are just plain stupid.
Liars or morons are your choices, neither option make for good leaders.
Here’s Pat Condell’s letter to the rioting Muslims around the world.
Co-signed, Me. I agree with him all the way.
Not really a huge deal, since I don’t go to class that many days a week, but still…
I take a completely ridiculous number of notes in my classes. Ridiculous!
Mostly because I have that little New Year’s Resolution to study more and note taking is a major part of that. I let myself slide a little last semester. But then again, most of my classes were so ponderous that taking notes would have felt like going from the frying pan into the fire.
Alright, here’s some neat little tidbits I picked up today.
Review of social contract theory, Declaration of Independence, Constitutional compromises….blah, blah, review, blah.
The first half of class was fairly average. We discussed the Articles of the Constitution. Order of ratification by the states. Steps to amend constitution. That sort of stuff. You would have to be there to really get how interesting my professor makes it all. The class is, as I’ve said before, my favorite. I will be looking for more classes taught by this professor in the future.
The best part of class came when we were polled about what our favorite amendment (from the Bill of Rights) was. About 3/4s of the class raised their hand for the 1st amendment, myself included. I have a lot of feelings about the first amendment alright?
Then came the 2nd amendment. I was shocked, for a state like Arizona, that only 3 or 4 people raised their hand. Once again, as we were voting on our top two, I raised my hand.
Our professor asked us to tell why we chose the 2nd amendment and I was completely honest. I said that, “even if the government isn’t on your side about your natural rights (Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness…Property, though it’s not named specifically) that if you have the 2nd amendment you can protect all the rest on your own…no government needed.
So I’m from a family of pro-gun people. I’m not ashamed. My dad is part of the NRA.
But the best answer came from one of the guys who had also answered the 1st amendment like me. He said “The First Amendment is the first step to abolishing a tyrannical government. The Second Amendment is the last step.”
My teacher said that would make a good bumper sticker.
It totally would. I want one when I get a car this year.
So on to the next class.
First of all, while discussing the Weimar Republic, our professor says that Germany was home to Hegel and Marx and was a “font of wisdom, knowledge, and civilization.” I’m going to hope that those two things are considered separate and having nothing to do with the other.
Who am I kidding. That was a slim hope.
Though while talking about what brought about the fall of the Weimar, the professor did surprise me by admitting the “deep-seated antisemitism” of Germany at the time. I was thinking he would gloss over that.
The reasons for the fall are all ones that we have heard before.
1. Exorbitant war reparations
2. Hyperinflation of the German Mark.
3. Deep resentment of those that were ‘responsible’ for the German defeat.
An interesting story that I once heard, I don’t know how historically accurate it is though, was that the inflation of the mark in Germany made is so worthless that a man could burn single mark notes for longer than the wood that he could buy for the same amount would last.
Not a good situation.
Not hard to see where a charismatic leader like Hitler, with big promises to fix the economy and restore Germany to its proper place in civilization, could come to power and take over.
Other than 3 pages of notes on the Portuguese “Revolution of Carnations” we didn’t talk about much else and the Revolution of Carnations doesn’t really seem interesting enough to write a lot about, other than that it is apparently considered the “beginning of the 3rd wave of Democratization” in the world.
Also there are some interesting photos from the revolution, such as this one. Which gives a clear reason behind the name of the revolution.
I don’t always agree with every talk show host, news pundit or political “expert” that comes across my TV screen (well…I say TV, but I only use my laptop.)
Does that mean that I think they should be banned from the airwaves?
No, I don’t. You know why?
Because the First Amendment is one of the truly unique and wonderful things about this United States. We take that freedom for granted. We live in a country where we are free to argue and debate and discuss and say anything we want about any topic under the sun.
I’ll grant you, there can be consequences if you choose to say something at the wrong time and the wrong place. If you shout “fire” in a crowded theater then you will have to accept the punishment for those actions, whether they punishments from the law or punishments from your conscience, but you have to accept them. You are still free to shout fire, but that’s what freedom is, isn’t it?
Freedom is a choice. Freedom of speech is included in that.
We make choices about our speech every day.
I make the choice between saying
“Thank you and have a nice day!” to a rude customer, or saying
“Fuck you, you inconsiderate bitch. Do you think I’m your slave or something?!”
I could choose to say either one (and, trust me, the urge to say something similar to option 2 is a daily occurrence at my job). I choose to say option 1 because option 2 would get me fired. I’m still free to choose though.
Similarly, when I read something on a news site or hear some completely idiotic statement made by the news (liberal or conservative) I have a choice.
I can get offended, scream and rant and tear my hair out and then try to get their show pulled from the air.
I can ignore it and change the channel, close the tab, or open a new youtube video.
Or I can write a blistering commentary on what I just heard and post it on my blog.
I usually go with option 3.
In fact, today is an option 3 kind of day. (This long lead is reminding me of Alice’s Restaurant a bit…)
I read this the other day.
(There is a video too, video proof that these responses were real.)
Here’s the backstory
Oliver Darcy is doing his part to expose liberal ideas and hypocrisy on college campuses. Last month he produced two videos showing students willing to redistribute wealth but not grades and also refusing to pay their share of the national debt. Now he (along with his colleagues Michael Fincher and Maurice Lewis) is back, and this time he’s showing how college students who say they support free speech are willing to sign a petition to “ban” Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and other conservatives from the airwaves.
All of these students expressed a support of the First Amendment and free speech. (Well…one supported free speech, but didn’t know what the First Amendment was. This was at a college? Do colleges no longer teach the history of the United States?) However, they also happily signed a petition to curtail freedom of speech, simply because they didn’t like the view point of these hosts.
The thing is I don’t even agree with Limbaugh or Beck all the time. In fact, I kind of don’t like Limbaugh much at all. That doesn’t mean he should be kicked off the air though. I don’t like Hannity or Colmes and several other conservative and liberal hosts. However, I love the First Amendment a whole lot.
The First Amendment lets me write these blogs, it lets me write novels and articles and study journalism and listen to debates and go to protests and, most importantly, it lets me be free.
You start pulling the foundation of freedom in this country down, even if it’s just over one radio personality that you think is a douchebag, and that can start a chain reaction. Think carefully before you kick that rock down a hill, you might just start a landslide that will bury all of us.
You take away our freedom, our right to disagree and have different opinions, and you take away what makes America…American.