Roger Pilon at the Foundation for Economic Freedom discusses the Washington State case against florists.
Make the Bouquet… Or Else!
- Back to the Main Site
- Daily Links
- Hat and Hair
- Topics A-C
- Topics D-G
- Topics H-M
- Topics N-S
- National Security
- Not So Easy Pieces
- Nuclear
- Obamacare
- Omaha Beach Diorama
- Opinion
- Outdoors
- Politics
- Poll
- Prepper
- Privacy
- Products You Need
- Racism
- Rant
- Recipes
- Regulation
- Religion
- Reloading Series
- Reviews
- Right to Repair
- Rule of Law
- Satire
- Science
- Second Amendment
- Secret Nazi President
- Sexuality
- Social Justice
- Social Media
- Society
- Sports
- Strength Training
- Subsidies
- SugarFree
- Supreme Court
- Topics T-Z
Select Page
The lower court had found Stutzman personally liable and had awarded the plaintiffs permanent injunctive relief, actual monetary damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.
I have often heard it asked why you would force people who don’t like you to cater your wedding/make your floral arrangements, etc. There’s the answer; it’s not about making them provide services, it’s about punishing them for daring to refuse.
You got it. It is about punishing people that disagree with you and forcing them to do your bidding. The money doesnt hurt either.
It is the proggie dream.
Notice how now they’re claiming to be ‘fighting’ for liberty now because Trump.
These people spin so much I don’t know how they don’t get vertigo.
It’s the #1 game in America. Everyone is playing! Get on the train, y’all, we’re headed to FunTimesLand!
You know who else wanted everyone to get on a train?
Governor Moonbeam?
California legislators?
Ron Jeremy?
Nice
Cat Stevens?
Dagny?
Thomas?
Sir Tophan Hatt?
Damn.
The Quad City DJs?
Don Cornelius?
WIN.
If you were in the plaintiff’s shoes, would you actually ever have this person you dragged into court and beat over the head legally actually do anything for your wedding? I definitely wouldn’t.
The sad part is I can kind of understand why someone would be this petty. It’s painful and sometimes even embarrassing to be rejected, particularly by someone you thought was your friend or at least longtime associate like in this case. Using the state as a club is tempting, but it doesn’t make it right.
See: ADA
Note that these people are wisely not pushing the issue with restaurants. As a friend once said to me when I was having a bit of an argument with the staff in a French restaurant, “Shut up and let’s go. When they bring your food, there’s going to be some bodily fluid in it, and while I can’t say specifically which one, trust me, you don’t want it.”
+1 Jesse Jackson booger
Double baco-cheesburger…it’s for a cop.
Because it’s opposite day?
“We also hold that the WLAD may be enforced against Stutzman because it does not infringe any constitutional protection. As applied in this case, the WLAD does not compel speech or association. And assuming that it substantially burdens Stutzman’s religious free exercise, the WLAD does not violate her right to religious free exercise under either the First Amendment or article I, section 11 because it is a neutral, generally applicable law that serves our state government’s compelling interest in eradicating discrimination in public accommodations.”
I find 3 errors within the last 8 words. Impressive.
The entire thing is gibberish.
As applied in this case, the WLAD does not compel speech or association.
See, this is what happens when you let people redefine words. Now, being required to “associate” with someone as a customer isn’t “association”.
Just like prohibiting someone from carrying a gun without a state-issued permission slip isn’t an “infringement” on the right to bear arms.
Etc. ad infinitum.
Making up concepts like “compelling government interest” as an all purpose trump card helps as well.
“Compelling government interest” = “Something we just really want to” = official sounding FYTW.
Y’all remember my story about how an LP Sherrif’s candidate was kicked off the ballot cause the state “Has a compelling interest in avoiding confusion on the ballot.” So there was then only one candidate on the ballot…wouldnt want people to vote the wrong way.
Wait, what? Don’t remember that one.
ill find his decision and forward it to you.
Dude, profit’s involved. That makes it subject to regulation of anything and everything.
IOW: fuck you, words mean what we say they mean. Now get in line or suffer the consequences.
Sloop, I may have posted it on a dead thread where there were comments about incorporation of the Glib. But, I would advise thinking long and hard about going with the 501c status. Incorporate for profit, spend a couple days considering what failure looks like, contract the shit out of that and never think of it again.
We’ll have something on that tomorrow, I think. We’re all meeting tonight about it.
You guys having cocktails?
Fava beans and a nice chianti.
Kill me quickly
Profit?! You’re all a bunch of sellouts!
What’s the difference between that and the push for disparate impact claims regarding facially neutral laws when it comes to religious or racial discrimination in other contexts?
“generally applicable law that serves our state government’s compelling interest”
The government was doing the suing?
“Such is the wrath of the crowd that wants our every act to be circumscribed by law—*their* law, of course. ”
(NSFW)
Lawwwwwwwwwww? I AM THE LAW.
l’état? c’est moi!
I am torn between wanting to see what derp is on display at that link, and not wanting to support the purposeful retardation of thought by giving them a click.
Click the link. The Foundation of Economic Education are good guys, and they are *not* fans of laws that infringe on the freedom of association.
Ah, perfect, I didn’t recognize the URL and the context of the post made me assume the worst.
Oops. My bad. This is my first foray into not being sarcastic when I post something. It’s very uncomfortable for me.
Hey, no problem. It’s good to expand your horizons on occasion.
The headline was supposed to be a joke about a certain person’s tendency to equivocate, but I see now how it looks like I was “correcting” the linked article.
Even when he’s not here Robby is messing things up.
🙂
So instead of Sugar Free’ing the link, you Soaved it?
I’d like to think I preemptively desoaved it. Or “Unfruited the Sushi” as it were.
My mistake, yes desoaved indeed.
“Unfruited the Sushi” does has a nice ring to it.
Do you stroke your handle bar mustache evilly? Because that’s what I’d do.
Euphemisms, dude
Yessssssss.
What else is it for?
Mustache rides.
From the Washington State Supreme Court’s decision:
“And assuming that it substantially burdens Stutzman’s religious free exercise, the WLAD does not violate her right to religious free exercise under either the First Amendment or article I, section 11 because it is a neutral, generally applicable law that serves our state government’s compelling interest in eradicating discrimination in public accommodations.”
That statement is fundamentally progressive. To a progressive, the legitimate purpose of government is to use its coercive power to force people to make sacrifices for the greater good. If the government can’t compel individuals to sacrifice their First Amendment rights for the greater good, then progressive government isn’t really possible when it’s applied to speech, press, or religion.
In their progressive minds, hate speech laws/hate crimes, prohibitions against Citizens United type advertising, and protection for LGBT from discrimination by Christians–all that stuff needs to be possible.
When we say that the legitimate purpose of government is to protect the right of individuals to make choices for themselves and that the First Amendment protects the right to choose one’s own religion free from government coercion, we’re saying that the text of the First Amendment protects individuals from progressive ideas. They know that!
They aren’t misinterpreting or misapplying the First Amendment. The First Amendment is just extremely libertarian. They simply can’t apply it as written and come to a progressive conclusion–so we shouldn’t be surprised when they justify violating people’s First Amendment rights by saying that’s okay if it’s all for the greater good.
I pictured you with white hair for some reason.
You mean like Billy Idol?
Uncle Giggles.
Then again, I picture everyone looks like Uncle Giggles.
Ken and Suthen look very much alike to me
*squints at Ken’s avatar*
But which one of us is more cunty?
BTW Ken, good to see you here
d you look just like I pictured you. An evil lizard.
Darn! That sarcastic comment got mangled.
First word should be And.
Get a haircut, hippie!
When they start with their feels, and then find the proper conclusion which will best feed those feels, everything else flows naturally from there. The brain just rearranges what facts are known until the pattern fits.
Ken is the guy who posts pics of himself from 30 years ago on dating sites.
Is that a polite way of asking for a dick pic?
I though we were supposed to keep it SFW.
Jesse says we’ll make one exception.
One?
The science is settled!
Hi Ken. Welcome. Glad to see you.
Seconded. Hi Ken.
One of many decisions that highlight how fucked the country is. The first amendment says you can make no law to prohibit the free exercise of religion. This law prohibits it. It should have been case closed two minutes of thought, law stricken. Instead we have an entire hierarchy of the judiciary who has spent decades spinning nonsense to effectively move conversation about the text of the first out of the Overton window.
An argument against using precedent to legally decide matters of constitutionality.
Well we do have a precedent…the constitution.
That headline image is the worst HITMAN level I’ve ever seen.
We have here yet another striking example of how modern state statutory anti-discrimination law has come to trump a host of federal constitutional rights, including speech, association, and religious free exercise. It’s not too much to say that the Constitution’s Faustian accommodation of slavery is today consuming the Constitution itself.
I always thought it would be an interesting alternate history idea to have some rabid Constitutionalist go back to the founding father’s time period with a collection of media from the 2000s and go “Look, look at how much we fucked things up, fix it!”
There is no construction of language impervious to three branches of government hell-bent on twisting it to their own ends.
Ah see, but that’s the twist at the end, the Constitutionalist thinks he’s fixed everything by making the fathers aware of the issues so they can respond to them ahead of time, but then he goes back to the present day and finds it’s even worse.
The Bradbury estate is quite litigious.
The Bradbury estate can’t copyright a time travel trope, I still haven’t been served for becoming my own grandfather.
That double copy of the FMR1 defect is a real bitch, ain’t it?
Ah yes, John Totor, my goody-two-shoes Mirror Universe equivalent. Man can’t even grow a goatee.
I don’t know what you mean…
[manical laugh]
[manical laugh]
How about…
“The citizenry may hang elected violators at their discretion.”
It’s a compelling interest of mine
The slave states wouldn’t be too happy to find out how long slavery lasted under the Constitution.
The founders did discuss that John, they knew it was coming. They concluded / warned that freedom is only suited to a moral people.
I propose a lawsuit protesting the Supreme Court’s discriminatory practice of choosing which cases they will and will not see.
Although I suppose I’d have to make ‘plaintiffs refused by the Supreme Court’ a protected class first…
SugarFree receives an invitation in the mail to the cocktail party. All the lines are struck through. He shows up anyway, of course. Probably wasn’t the best idea to tell him where or when it was even as a joke, in retrospect.
“Who shat in this plant pot?”
it is a neutral, generally applicable law that serves our state government’s compelling interest in eradicating discrimination in public accommodations.
The nail that sticks up must be hammered down. For the good of the collective.
Are you going to thread here?
Maybe Monocle can determine who he is responding to and force him into the thread.
The mail saying guys just about anywhere, too
*nail
I eagerly await the classification of deadbeats as the credit-handicapped and being forced to deal with them.
Wasn’t this what the Community Reinvestment Act was all about? Credit scores are anti-poor and also racist.
Pretty much. But who cares when you can bundle that shit, get a AAA rating, and sell it off to the Saudis and Chinese?
Or the GSEs…
I say we just go back to classifying them as credit-kneecapped, with the help of a guy someone knows
Well, here is the thing when it comes to all the “to be sure” equivocation when it comes to fundamental liberties like freedom of speech or association.
I am pretty much a free speech/free association absolutist myself. This decision was wrong on many levels.
HOWEVER, I believe it is incumbent on those of us who ARE libertarian absolutists on those issues to condemn those instances where people exercise their rights to produce a result that we might find morally wrong.
Because, if we don’t, then those who aren’t libertarian absolutists on the matter will use their moral high dudgeon to present a false choice: either “society” lets this moral scourge go unchecked, or we use the power of the state to crush the liberties of the immoral reprobates. And since they are immoral turds, who cares if their liberties are crushed? Amirite? That is how the argument will go.
We can present a different choice: that there is no contradiction between respecting the liberties of people to do offensive things, while still condemning the immoral behavior. Only condemnation by private individuals of “immoral” behavior can we have a society in which both individual liberties and “moral” behavior are defended and respected.
I don’t want the state to be deciding what is moral or immoral behavior, but IMO that is what will happen eventually if we cede the moral high ground to the nanny-state scolds (on both the left and the right).
Just my $.02 on the matter. Eviscerate away!
No, that’s a fair point. There’s a difference between “you’re being a dick but are still well within your rights” and “clearly this can’t be allowed”, though not making flower arrangements for a gay wedding doesn’t cross into the former territory for me personally. Libertarians don’t all agree on what the correct moral stand is in any given situation, just in where compulsion can be applied.
Eviscerate away!
YOU’RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME!
The way I tend to phrase such things is to say “I’m not saying (some bad behavior) is a moral action, only that responding to that action by having armed agents beat and arrest people, take away their freedom and/or property, or force them to work against their will is not a moral way to respond to that action. The end do not justify the means.”
Fair point, Grumble. The difficulty in this fallen age is communicating a nuanced distinction between “this is wrong (morally)” and “this is/should not be wrong (legally)”. I haven’t come up with a pithy way of doing so that gets the strength of the distinction across, and why it is important.
I usually go with the situational comparison… e.g. “if a fundamentalist christian is forced to cater a gay wedding, why shouldn’t a kosher deli be forced to cater a neo-nazi gathering?”
Sometimes it works.
Often it doesn’t; they usually come back with one’s sexual orientation not being a choice but an inherent quality (thus being worthy of being a “protected classification”) whereas one’s political beliefs are in fact a choice.
Sadly, they want freedom of association for themselves even though they believe it should be denied to others – i.e. they can come up with a million rationalizations for excluding people they don’t like (‘e.g inbred hicks from the south have bad political views and I just don’t want to deal with them’), while denying the people outside the circle to act similarly on their prejudices and stereotypes.
In fairness there is a difference between innate characteristics and political ideology. We might not see it as sufficient, but if you’re arguing to persuade you need to understand how to speak to someone else’s POV.
difference between innate characteristics and political ideology
That line has been intentionally blurred over the last few decades.
“would you serve trump in your B&B?”
one’s sexual orientation not being a choice but an inherent quality
Funny how they go back and forth on this one, depending on what advances their argument du jour. Personally, I think sexual preference is a mental state, and thus is not inherent/unchangeable in the way that genetically determined things (sex and race) are. It may be very difficult to change, but impossible? No.
If sexual orientation is “inherent”, couldn’t bigotry against sexual orientation also be inherent in the same way. Aren’t they both pre-rational/instinctive? How can you distinguish one reflexive reaction (“I wanna tap that so hard” and “Eww, gross, homos”) from the other?
Simply ask which is the greater evil , a gay couple snubbed and have their feelings hurt or a blanket, society wide violation of freedom by armed agents?
The problem is, progs will always claim their moral high ground because they will say that if you were REALLY condemning this action, you would be in favor of using State power to crush them to dust.
To be fair, the conservatives claim that high ground too.
This is the fundamental point on which libertarians diverge from the rest of the political spectrum. Which is why it is so goddamn annoying when a libertarian publication that shall not be named hedges its arguments when discussing it.
Because they have decided to speak to the retarded premises of the zeitgeist instead of making the actual logical argument. Because, well, people don’t respond to logic, they respond to feelz, and so these authors feel compelled to add in some feelz to hope and pray that someone swallows the message.
It is akin to evangelical churches who do sermons on the Avengers, hoping that they might swallow a bible message in there as well.
I don’t find it morally wrong. Th equivocation is retarded and brings nothing to the table.
Every business discriminates along the lines of price, can’t afford it, no service. I find that to be equivalent morally.
But a lot of people do find it morally wrong. So if you make people choose between the following two choices:
1. Their actions are immoral and should be illegal
2. Their actions should not only be legal, but are also morally justified
then we shouldn’t be surprised if many of them choose #1 over #2 because that is the only one of the two choices that we’ve presented to them that affirms their own sense of moral right and wrong.
If we rhetorically allow people a third choice:
3. Their actions should be legal, and affirming their legality still allows us to condemn their supposed immorality if we so choose
then we give people who are “libertarian-curious” a means to still express their moral disapproval while not crushing the rights of the supposed reprobates.
But if we only demand that people choose between #1 and #2, I think we see that too many will choose #1, because their moral sense of disapproval is stronger than their libertarian commitment to freedom of association.
Who, among libertarians, is presenting the false choice of options 1 and 2?
My choices are:
1. Forcing people to serve you is immoral
2. Not forcing people to serve you is moral.
Personally I think my argument is stronger. If you’re going to make a moral argument, playing defense against an incorrect accusation of immoral behavior isn’t a winning strategy IMO. Libertarians should most definitely argue morals, but ceding the moral high ground and arguing logic is less effective than seizing the moral high ground, and still arguing logic.
Yet those same people recoil if you apply ‘immoral should be illegal’ to almost any other circumstance
I agree, *that said*:
Strongly condemning something that you disagree with, is very different from using social sanction and shaming (even if they’re non-violent) to banish opinions and people outside of the realm of discussion altogether. Tactics that avoid discussion or specificity in condemnation are trying to *hide* rather than *reveal* a wrong. This difference is too often brushed aside by libertarian free speech absolutists and by the “to be sure” camp alike. There’s something to be said for keeping an open discussion from becoming a power play, and “you’re a racist”-style responses are often nothing more than power plays. Should they be legal? Sure, but they should also be fought against as the worst case practical application of free speech.
PS: Great site, everyone. Love the articles I’ve read; keep up the good work.
To me the line should be drawn at public vs private. A private entity should be free to decide whom to serve even if that makes me personally unhappy. Government should not discriminate or require discrimination as it did with Jim Crow laws. I’m open to the idea that some monopolies, like the power company, should not be allowed to discriminate, but I’d be worried that the definition of monopoly would suddenly change to “there’s only one flower shop in town!”
NEVER
Death before threading.
Who are you even talking to? 😉
Honestly, if you started threading now, no one would believe it was you.
“Troll.”
“Someone kyped his handle. Bastard.”
“Should we check on real Brooksie? Anyone got his email?”
OT: Can we get some ads up in this bitch? I would like to see the creators get some cash in their pockets, maybe invest it in an edit button or something.
I even disabled AdBlocker Plus from running on this site, for just such an occasion.
same.
Sloopy is working on adding Taboola
Moar Honey Boo Boo!!!!
Don’t accuse me of that kind of evil. I’d rather be called a pederast than someone who would put taboola up in this tip.
…and you won’t believe what happened next!
maybe invest it in an edit button
*narrows gaze*
I believe it is incumbent on those of us who ARE libertarian absolutists on those issues to condemn those instances where people exercise their rights to produce a result that we might find morally wrong.
I have no problem with someone seeking relief for actual harm. “Oh, no, I have to call the next baker listed in the Yellow Pages!” doesn’t count.
Every time I bring this up amongst friends (mostly progressive), I get the “But what if it’s the only florist/baker/etc. in town?” argument. I don’t bother to come up with an answer to it, because no answer would ever be good enough for them.
People who live in towns that small go to nearest big city regularly for their more esoteric needs.
The funny thing is that the people generally making this argument to me live in LA or NYC, and I don’t think they’ve been in a “small town” in their lives.
(by way of example, this is what I was told last time I posted about this exact thing on Facebook. Yes, I’m dumb. My question was more or less “Ignoring everything else, if I was gay and was rejected in this way, why would I want to force somebody whom I know hates me to take my money?”)
I highly doubt the Pickrick Restaurant was the only one in Atlanta in 1964.
My response is “If there’s only one restaurant/baker/florist/whatever in town, then the spurned customer would be wise to invest in starting up a competing business that serves anyone. They can offer the same services at likely lower prices than the formerly monopolistic business, become inordinately wealthy, and drive the bigoted competitor out of business. Win/Win.”
Oh, and if it takes longer for a person to start up a business than it does to file and complete an anti-discrimination lawsuit, you may want to look into rectifying that.
Oh, that’s good.
It really is. I may have stolen it.
sorry.
There’s a great libertarian response to that, you know?
That sounds like an under-served market to me. Why not find one of those places and start a competing business?
Then just drop it and refuse to engage that conversation further because anyone who can’t get that point is not worth arguing with.
I would love it if my competition refused to serve certain customers. It would make my marketing really, really easy.
Alas, they all seem to love money as much as I do.
You mean like ATT (I think it was them) slammed Verizon for not offering unlimited service on their Super Bowl ad?
BTW…guess what Verizon just offered me? Funny how competition works, isn’t it?
It’s almost magical!
Those damn corporations, giving us what we want.
They are very nefarious and sneaky.
And if you really insist on checking back later after you lob that grenade into the conversation, add the following to the thread after the first person protests:
If you’re not willing to start a business to support that market, then it really doesn’t matter to you as much as you claim anyway.
No survivors.
I like it. It’s along the lines of what I tell people who want to be on the Historical Preservation Zone Committee.
Rhetorical head shot. Nice,
It’s remarkable how businesses can think only about profits yet also manage to discriminate against various groups of customers and engage in rampant sexism by hiring and overpaying male employees.
Yeah, it’s almost like there’s a blind spot in the left’s reasoning skills, despite them claiming a monopoly on all the intelligent arguments.
But what if it’s the only florist/baker/etc. in town?
So? The business owner’s Constitutional rights aren’t dependent on the presence or absence of competition, are they? Many towns have one daily newspaper – doesn’t that newspaper have the same First Amendment rights regardless?
This, of course, only matters to those of us who are libertarian converts. A statist is never swayed by an argument from the vantage of individual rights trampled by force. The only time they ever seem to remember the Constitution at all is when they want to make a bad faith argument against someone who wants to reduce the state.
Or when they try to assert that the 2nd amendment only applies to militias
Dredging up a discussion from long, long ago:
I think there is a qualitative, substantive distinction between saying, “I ate there. The onion soup tasted like somebody pissed in it” and “I have been informed by a reliable, knowledgeable source that the chef pisses in the onion soup.”
How do you define the harm incurred from the second case? Good luck.
The harm from both statements is reputational damage (however you want to quantify that). I’m not sure that there is much of a distinction between the harm caused by the two statements, other than at the (very) margins – is a statement of personal experience more likely to be credible/have an effect than re-“publishing” a statement attributed to an authoritative source.
Naturally, you can conclude either (a) there should be no recoverable damages from defamation or (b) there should be recoverable damages from defamation. But if you pick (b), I’m not sure damages would necessarily be much different between the first-hand statement and the re-published statement.
By the way, SugarFree, A++ headline.
I even disabled AdBlocker Plus from running on this site, for just such an occasion.
Good p[oint. I only installed an adblocker recently, because a certain site I used to frequent started using autoplay video ads which would restart every time I refreshed the goddam page.
What’s up with the attitude that if we let someone privately discriminate all of a sudden everyone would do it?
It’s a weird attitude. All of society automatically follow the actions of supposedly bad actors? That’s not true.
Well it makes you think for a second about whether the purpose of this push for “more laws” is really about addressing the underlying reality of discrimination…
…or whether its actually about giving people tools to wield against perceived political enemies.
I think its one thing to shrug and go, “Meh, whatever, bakers/florists should serve anyone’s wedding”. which is probably right at least in the sense its not a hill anyone wants to die on. (see: Nazi-Cakes Johnson)
But then – shocker! – in the immediate wake of that sort of thing, you get *more*… like NYC’s law which makes it a ‘hate crime’ to mis-gender someone
(*or at least costs you a lot of money)
The specific instances of “bakers and florists” tend not to get my 1st amendment dander up so much. What DOES bother me is that i see this sort of thing as part of a steady encroachment of law into “enforcing Affirmation” (instead of passive tolerance)
this whole distinction about “affirmation” and “tolerance” was something we debated a while back, and it was interesting and enlightening (back when reason had lots of that)
IMO, the left is increasingly trying to foist an idea that anything short of “affirmation” is intolerance. And its dangerous; because its basically giving legal cover to thought-policing.
It’s a political tactic. You see it in the choice between a woman and a man for President. If you don’t affirm (vote) for the woman, well it was obviously misogyny. Keith Ellison should be DNC chair because he’s Muslim and that’s a contrast to Trump. If you disagreed with Obama, it was because you hated a black man being in the Oval Office. I expect to see more and more of it in the coming years as I don’t think they know how to get off that train.
That’s exactly right.
The definition of “hate” is increasingly being watered down to “insufficient love”. Basically, its “anything short of the prescribed consensus”
And that would be bad enough as a rhetorical fad (which it has been for years now); the scary part is that its increasingly being institutionalized.
There was an article (or link) a while back which described a parent complaining about a school which had some after-school religious thing… and she said, “My child will be discriminated against for not participating”;
basically she was arguing that allowing these (outside of school hours) events was de-facto persecuting her child because he might be seen as ‘unpopular’ for choosing to not attend.
See how that works? Suddenly the logic that “‘everyone has to agree’ and not-agreeing is the same as hate, and hate should be ostracized”… is being used as an argument that anything short of *total consensus* means that government must intervene and ‘fix’ the social situation.
Its “Anti-Pluralism“, frankly. People simply don’t understand what pluralism means. The idea that our society will always have people who disagree – and that its OK to disagree, and that we should be able to co-exist and engage with people even tho they disagree…. is quickly being traded in for this concept that there’s some “happy middle” where everyone should be, and if you’re not in the happy middle, you’re a threat to everything.
The definition of “hate” is increasingly being watered down to “insufficient love”.
Well put. It reminds me of “affirmative consent”. Silence is no longer acceptable, you must enthusastically and vocally support one position. It is grotesquely totalitarian, and the reason I despise proggies, SJWs, and their brainless squishy lib useful idiots.
Here’s some grist for the mill:
Reflecting On One Very, Very Strange Year At Uber
According to this engineer, Uber’s approach to dealing with sexual harassment was … er… pretty Machiavellan:
…
In tarrantopia, this would be how it should be handled; the former employee shares the situation with the rest of the world, and then Uber has to cope with the consequences of a significant population of engineers declining to work there (seriously, would you work in the organization she described as a male? I wouldn’t), either by cleaning up their act, paying more, or accepting only the types of people willing to work there.
Christ, Uber sounds completely dysfunctional. I’m assuming it’s mostly millenials in that management chain too.
In regards to your comment, I think I agree. She may have grounds for a lawsuit based on the terms of her employment contract as well. I generally disdain regulatory involvement.
Any specific reason for assuming it’s all millennials?
The CEO was born in 1976, which makes him more of a Gen Xer, for what that’s worth.
Because those little bastards won’t get off my lawn, that’s why.
I’ve been called many things, little is not usually one of them.
The whole thing sounds like a toxic clusterfuck.
With that said, it sounds like her manager was happy she stayed because he kept a woman on his team? It would be ironic if diversity goals provided perverse incentives for managers to sabotage their female subordinates in order to keep them from going elsewhere.
There is no end to the insanity that perverse incentives create in the workplace (and everywhere else).
You get more of what you measure.
One of my coworkers at LTV steel was a guy who hated programming, sucked at it, and had been given a bait and switch by the department head who wanted a black guy in the department for the purpose of racial diversity stats.
The poor guy was trying to transfer the whole time we worked together, and the dept head kept blocking it.
He stayed because he was getting the company to pay for his MBA. If he left, he’d have to pay his tuition back.
It had a happy ending. When the company went from chapter 11 to chapter 7 bankruptcy, he had just got his sheepskin. So he got a job in Detroit with GM.
So he got a job in Detroit with GM.
So what was the happy ending?
LTV went into Chapter 7?
“I wish to subscribe to this newsletter” should serve as a first post for moderation, no?
a true hero appears!
(not some type of weird sandwich either)
Long time lurker finally decides to join in after everyone flees.
[John] Well this is just typical of SucreLibberals dishonest commentary which is obviously just part of this publications hatred of what is ACTUALLY a Freedom of Religion Issue and a disgrace which should offennd anyone who cares about the constitution its like the millionth time this has been done and its simply unacceptable and your denials simply prove that this is a strategic choice to marginalize religious people in America because cosmo-sipping elitist beltway fags[/John]
I was going to avoid bringing up John and his “religion is mentioned in the Constitution, so it’s the only that matters in this argument” bit.
“Just admit it, you love fags more than you love liberty.”
Well duh
Isn’t it nice to have a rational discussion without having to put up with that?
You needed to pepper that with misspelled words and incorrect homophones if you want to give it the real flavor of a John post.
John can actually write some interesting things sometimes, but you can’t have a legitimate debate with him because he simply ignores everything that doesn’t buttress his own opinion.
Why don’t we just leave other site’s commenters out of this, our own place?
Nothing says enlightened progressivism by making people feel guilty for their personal beliefs and having the full force of the violent state to back them up.
Because every great idea requires force to implement.
LOVE TRUMPS HATE
OT, but I have always found it idiotic that the anti-Trump left adopted a slogan that starts with “Love Trump”.
Seriously, step it up.
it is mighty stupid.
at CU during the election I saw lots of chalk graffiti. One day there was that slogan all over. That afternoon while walking home someone changed it to “I love trumps hate for PC culture”, along with a few others.
Insanely, the progs would claim that they are for freedom of association.
Ripped from Think Progress.
Shorter version for that declaration, ” I don’t understand the difference between negative and positive rights.”
Exactly
Coming to understand this distinction was part of my conversion.
Actually, I think their split means they DO understand the difference.
I think you give them too much credit. It’s word salad. Progressive Bingo card. No contemplation required.
First, we believe that all people should have freedom from undue interference by governments and others
What with the “undue” and “others”, I’m pretty sure this means nothing at all. They can’t even get negative rights, well, right. And then they sail right into the “gimme dat” positive rights, with no inkling that legally enforcable positive rights cannot coexist with negative rights.
Because most kids think that civics (I know, I know, lawn, get off, etc.) means plural economy Honda cars.
the most basic progressive value is freedom.
He left off the ” for me not thee” qualifier.
First, we believe that all people should have freedom from undue interference by governments and others in carrying out their private affairs and personal beliefs.
That’s some funny shit, right there.
The rest of the treatise proceeds to undermine that statement.
Cooperation being defined as things that the mob decides.
Berkeley called and would like you to explain this Progressives believe that if we blindly pursue our own needs and ignore those of others, our society will degenerate.
See, I would have said “Cooperation being defined as those things you can be forced to do by the State”.
Progressives believe that if we blindly pursue our own needs and ignore those of others, our society will degenerate.
This place looks familiar; I could swear I’ve been here before. Look, there’s a sign over there. It says, The nail that sticks up must be hammered down.
Ayn Rand, I know, I know, but I did like one book of hers
Isn’t it nice to have a rational discussion without having to put up with that?
YOU JUST WANT AN ECHO CHAMBER.
ECHO CHAMBERR
chamberrr
I’ll be happy with a place where people don’t think they win arguments by screaming louder than their opponents.
SAFE SPACE! BIGOT! RACIST! HATE SPEECH!
YOU DON’T EVEN COMPREHEND WHAT I’M SAYING BECUZ U R 2 STOOPID!!!111tenplusone111!!!
THOUGH I DISAGREE WITH YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THIS ISSUE, I SEE SOME OF YOUR COMPLAINTS AS VALID AND WOULD LIKE TO FURTHER EXPOUND ON THESE AT A LATER DATE!!!!1!
What if I refuse to bake an ironic Swastika Kake from a Proggie?
I think the better test is, “get a conservative muslim Halal restaurant to cater your gay-wedding. And demand Barbecue”
Kinky!