interracial marriages
Rite to right
I'd argue that the writing was on the wall when marriage was legally defined and moved away from being a religious rite to being a secular right.
Read More...Comments
NeoNotes — government requires
❝❝There's a very real question why there should be any government grants, but I will leave that for another time.NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.
Assume for a moment that you ran a bookstore. Should you be required by law to carry the Bible even though you were not Christian and did not believe Christianity was a valid faith? What if someone complained because you didn't have it?
Should a vegan restaurant be required to sell pulled pork BBQ?
Should a health food store be required to sell pipe tobacco?
Except we know that government does mandate that some products and services be sold or provided.
Let's take another example or two, shall we?
Imagine you are a lawyer or accountant. You know a specific businessman is crooked and can't be trusted. Should you be required to provided services?
Imagine you are an employer. Should you be required to verify the immigration status of each of your employees?
Most importantly, why should prior marginalization get a higher priority when it comes to the rule of law? Doesn't that lead to abuse of it's own when the formerly victimized class games the system?
Ah, so you are going to stick to "class of people." That's the problem. People aren't their labels. Or at least they shouldn't be.
Someone doesn't have higher moral authority because their group has been marginalized in the past.
And just in case you hadn't noticed, "American identity politics" is all about oppressing everyone else. All of which is predicated on the guilt of the former oppressor.
Black Lives Matter. All too ready to go after "white" cops, but doesn't want to address the problem of "black on black" crime. Nor does it want to address the major underlying problem, single parent families. Something that was encouraged by government, effectively relegating inner city families to poverty. Nor do they accept any criticism of their movement.
Much of third and fourth wave feminism. Apparently feminism is no longer about equality, it's about forcing men to sit down and shut up. And if a man complains, he's accused of rape.
The recent kerfuffle over the "redesigned" rainbow flag that put black and brown stripes at the top so that "people of color" had "representation." Literally "my victimhood is more important than your victimhood."
Identity politics is built on a carefully maintained hierarchy of victimhood. You're not allowed to speak unless you rank high enough with your victimhood or have demonstrated sufficient "compassion," usually by drawing attention to the "problem." But never actually solving anything.
And you are not allowed to question the victimhood.
Stop.
Step back. You are excusing their behavior.
Look at what has been done, not at the justifications.
Look at what is allowed within the groups.
Your enabling is just one example of what has locked people into their victimhood.
What you've given is excuses why people can't be held accountable.
Black Lives Matter is pushing a narrative that all police interactions with minorities but especially with "blacks" are racist. That's not true. And as I said, they overlook "black" on "black" crime that does not fit with the narrative.
It's victimhood I don't like, especially when perpetuated by bad government policy and "community outreach" that exploits the victims by keeping them victims.
And the courts were wrong.
Not because interracial marriages were wrong (they aren't). But because government can't be trusted to make individual moral decisions for you.
If you didn't choose your morality and if you do not commit to your morality, is it really yours?
Or did it just get sacrificed for the greater good?
Remember, most of the complaints against the current President are because he is doing the wrong moral things. Or at least, according to some people. Such as pulling out of the Paris accord.
Frankly there are people I want to discriminate against. There are evangelical Christians I want nothing to do with. There are radical feminists that I also don't want anything to do with. My list also includes some of the climate alarmists, the man-boy love crowd, anyone associated with a child beauty pageant, the extra-devout followers of Silver Ravenwolf, pretty much any organized political party, and a few dozen others.
Should government protect those people from my discrimination?
Actually we don't know that pulling out of the Paris accord is dangerous for the planet.
Here's what we do know. The "debate" about climate change has been heavily weighed on one side. A recent study has some of the most prominent climate alarmists admitting that the predictions didn't match the reality. President Obama committed the US, but the G20 and Obama didn't call it a treaty so it wouldn't have to go to the US Senate for approval. These aren't exactly moral actions.
Commerce is based on voluntary economic transactions between consenting adults. There's no “public service” about it. A company improves it's product or service (and lowers the price) because it wants to keep business from the competition. The "moral good" is based on pure greed. Nothing government demands from a business won't impose greater costs on the customer. Government relies on force. When government acts against people, it distorts the economy and morality.
It's not about public service, and commerce shouldn't answer to corrupt politicos.
The data was fudged. The people who fudged it knew it. The people who sought to make it a political issue beyond the control of any single government knew it.
If it's not about "saving the planet," then you have to ask what it is about. Especially when there is an everchanging deadline and No One Is Allowed To Question the failed predictions.
The entire movement is built on computer models, not science. I can't emphasize that enough. Models, not science. If the models have bad assumptions and/or if the data has been changed, the models aren't accurate.
But, "the science is settled." So you aren't allowed to dissent. You wouldn't accept that from a Creationist, why accept it from people who benefit financially and politically from forcing their agenda?
That wasn't what I said.
The models haven't been accurate in more than a dozen years. Even before that, the models had to be "goosed" to show a link between the past and the present.
I've said before that I can create a spreadsheet that makes me a millionaire in a week. That doesn't mean that the spreadsheet is accurate. And it sure doesn't mean I should wave cash around.
If the model isn't accurate, if we know it's not accurate, and if the people pushing the model hardest know that it's not accurate, don't you think it's time to ask why we should use the model?
No, that is what you have been told that the model is.
I strongly urge you to take a closer look. And I would remind you that there is no science in history that has ever been considered holy writ and beyond criticism.
For example, if I wanted to know the average global temperature right now this very minute, I'd have to accept that most land based measuring stations are in developed areas, many in highly urban areas that influence the readings. Satillite measurements are better, but don't go back further than about sixty years. And most of the ocean is a mystery below a mile deep.
So what exactly is the global average temperature?
I'm not shy about it. I don't approve of their life choices. I especially don't approve when *insert group name here* demands that it is not enough for to acknowledge their words and actions, it must be celebrated as the only accepted truth.
I don't want them on the ballot. I don't want to do business with them. I don't want them in my town.
And I think they are corrupting society.
Again, should government protect them from my discrimination?
I may not be a pure libertarian when it comes to the Zero Aggression Principle, but I don't usually initiate force. It's sloppy and takes too much energy.
“How many NAMBLA neighbors do you have, anyway?”
One.
Once.
I've been a corporate VP and I've run my own business.
Can you point to the spot in the Constitution where it defines the powers of the Federal government to control who I can and can't do business with? How about the spot where it defines that I must do business with everyone who wants to do business with me? Because under the Tenth Amendment, there isn't one.
If government isn't defending my ability to choose as long as I accept the consequences, then government has failed.
Even if my neighbors don't approve of my choice.
Especially if my neighbors don't approve of my choice.
If I am not free to discriminate as I choose, then government is discriminating against me. And that is what we see now. Some choices are more equal than others.
Not really.
That clause is the most abused in the Constitution, largely because it does not place significant restrictions on the Federal government. By some interpretations, the government can do what it wants when it wants and despite what people want. When you consider that everything from FDA approval to requiring transgender bathrooms is shoved through that loophole, it's a wonder that there is anything left of the rest of the Constitution.
Even in your flawed interpretation, public accommodation only applies in certain cases. Some are more victimized than others, remember?
Volumes have also been written against it. For generations in fact, right back to to the Anti-Federalist Papers
And then there is always the practical common sense approach. Here's the clause straight from Article 1 Section 8.
“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”
I can tell you know many Diné, Hopi, Havasupai, and White Mountain Apache who think that "Great White Father speaks with forked tongue." Just look at what the Interior Department did when it came to mineral rights.
You've tried to tell me what the consensus says, but you haven't disputed my conclusions. The commerce clause has been used to expand Federal power far beyond the scope of the rest of the Constitution. The only other comparable Federal power grab in American history has been the USA PATRIOT Act and the open-ended declaration of hostilities that happened after 9-11.
Or we could just stop handing out government grants and do something radically different like lower taxes, reduce government spending, and let people decide what to do with their own money.
Church playgrounds aren't national religious issues unless government is funding them.
The First Amendment is very clear: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
Neither help nor hinder. It's the only way to win this particular battle. Otherwise you have things like a Faith Based Initiative (for certain faiths approved by law) and school prayer.
I think we do. And it's right there in the First Amendment.
Don't.
If there is one thing worse than a politico wrapping themselves in the flag, it's a politico standing on religion wrapping themselves in a flag.❞❞
