Probably not worth pointing out that the old rule that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…or the right of the people peaceably to assemble” is entirely dead. Well, words on paper, as we said before.
Used to be “freedom of association” meant a restaurant could put up a sign which read “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service”, but now some Wiccan hippy nudist can sue to belly up to the salad bar whenever he pleases. The restaurant’s denial was classed “discrimination”, or maybe “prejudice”, as if these were bad things. Once upon a time a bakery run by blacks could have made it store policy that it wouldn’t serve KKK gatherings. Now they have to bake them the damned cake, or face financial ruin, the bigots.
Progressives (self-labeled) particularly insist on that last one. They argue that individuals don’t have a right over whom they’ll associate with once those individuals put up a shingle. Store owners lose the right because, well, for no real reason. Maybe racism. Or some phobia. Who knows.
Anyway, some localities are attempting a return to a literal meaning of those old words. Take Georgia, which put up a Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The perpetually outraged heard of it, though, and started soiling their cages. According to CNS News, these sordid acts shocked the Georgian legislature to water down the original bill.
The new version of the bill provides Religious Freedom Restoration Act levels of protection for certain protected persons, but it explicitly says these protections cannot apply in cases of “invidious discrimination.” Of course, no one is in favor of invidious discrimination, but the problem is that in the hands of a liberal judge, everything looks like invidious discrimination even when it is not, such as religious universities or adoption agencies that want their policies to reflect their teachings on marriage. This apes the bad “fix” that gutted the Indiana religious freedom bill.
(Apes. Get it? Get it?)
In politics, this abject retreat is called appeasement, an act which, historians tell us, never works. So why is it re-tried? That the human race is insane can be the only explanation.
What happens after every attempt at appeasement? The enemy smells weakness and rushes in for the kill. As he should. After all, he learned that screeching and kicking his feet worked, so why not try more of it?
That’s what happened here. No sooner than did Georgia turn tail, than did the National Football League, Disney, and Marvel comics—all enterprises involved in mass entertainment, you notice—threaten to boycott Georgia if the now-boneless bill is passed.
The Daily Signal says:
“[T]he NFL acknowledged that the religious exemptions bill…could have an impact on the selection process for the championship game in 2019 and 2020.” Atlanta is one of four cities up for the next two Super Bowls…
“NFL policies emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness, and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard,” spokesman Brian McCarthy said in a statement, adding that the NFL may evaluate “whether the laws and regulations of a state and local community are consistent with these policies” when looking at Super Bowl contenders.
Yes, because tolerance and inclusiveness require making sure people of faith who don’t support same-sex marriage have no freedom to live in accordance with their beliefs.
Sexual orientation? I remind the reader, yet again, that bestiality is legal in several countries. Skip that, you bestiaphobe.
“Disney and Marvel are inclusive companies, and although we have had great experiences filming in Georgia, we will plan to take our business elsewhere should any legislation allowing discriminatory practices be signed into state law,” a Disney spokesman said in a statement released Wednesday, the Washington Times reported.
Also, “The Atlanta Convention and Visitors Bureau said Tuesday that Georgia could lose up to $6 billion if 15 companies that are threatening to take business elsewhere follow through with their word.”
Will Georgia choose freedom over Spiderman versus Donald Duck movies sets? The Super Bowl only lasts one day, but, hey, it’s the Super Bowl. Mammon calls! Will Georgia fall prey to the root of all evil? The governor, Nathan Deal, a Baptist, God bless him, has until 3 May to sign.
Either way, I say boycott these companies right back. Kick them the hell out of Georgia. And out of your lives, too, dear readers. Why give money to businesses that hate you? Is your need for sappy entertainment so strong that you can’t tell bigots like Disney to take a long walk off a short dock? Instead of watching football (five minutes of action plus some three hours of commercials and gabbing) on Sunday, go to church.
The only things these greedy amoral fools love is money. Stop giving them yours.
Georgia should first pass a law that makes it illegal to discriminate based on the laws of the locality. Sure, it forces Marvel and Disney and the NFL to do things in Georgia, but if they didn’t want to work in Georgia they shouldn’t have put up shingles there!
Disney allowed its “Woody the Cowboy” character to be used in an “It Gets Better” campaign. There’s an annual “unofficial” Gay Week (it used to be a day) at Disney. While of course no one can object to gay people going to Disney parks like anyone else, check out what goes on at the parks that week (you can easily find out — Google “gay travel guides disney”). It’s not just a nice time for gay people to go to the parks with their friends. When Disney — which is infamous for the ferocity with which it protects its trademarks from even the most innocuous use — makes it okay to use beloved childhood characters in for events and causes that promote ANY kind of sex, much less deviant sex, then no other word applies but “twisted.” When Disney prefers to link itself with DAN SAVAGE to some mom and pop toy store using its trademarks, something is seriously wrong. The NFL and Disney are partners. Don’t look to them for family values.
My wife maintains a list of items we will no longer purchase, use, or visit. Some of these include:
2) Oreo cookies
4) NFL items
First thought: Too late. I already boycott Disney (for multiple reasons), never was involved in Marvel and the NFL. I also boycott the YMCA, the Boys and Girls club, Home Depot as much as possible. Oh, let’s fact it. I just refuse to participate in buying from most corporations. I don’t like my money given to their charities, things are overpriced, etc.
The fact that people are spineless wimps assures they will be devoured by the beast. Then, when the beast runs out of those who opposed it, it will devour those who fed it. Human stupidity knows no bounds and will repeat the same act over and over believing this time will work. How to stop it? Only the beast eating those who fed it seems to work at this point. So when all the sycophant liberals are devoured by the monster they created, people that are left will wake up. It’s a bit late and very difficult, but people do recover for a while.
People are sick of the NFL and their bending over and grabbing their ankles (footballs is now the sport of wimps and whiners) and Disney long ago became a propaganda wing of the government. I am amazed “caring” parents let their kids see Disney garbage. (As for the NFL, remember how well Michael Sam worked out—the guy couldn’t play football, but who cared? He was GAY.)
I do look forward to the removal of pedophilia (saves billions on that nasty registry and jailing them), bestiality and every single sex act out there becomes legal. Porn shown in schools, sex in the halls. It’s a liberal utopia, you know.
Actually, Europe is starting to practice this with Muslim invaders—sex assaults, etc are overlooked constantly, even on children. How long before it gets here? Best prepare little Johnny and Susy now—start with soft porn and work your way up. Explain that the invaders have their own culture and it’s wrong to object to it. Hurry, time’s awastin’.
Disney, Marvel, and the NFL boycotting Georgia? Isn’t that discriminatory? To be fair they can’t leave out the rest of the states. Qualifying reasons (however insane) don’t count. It’s a fairness issue. Think about the children.
I don’t directly purchase any of the products of these businesses so my boycotting is already in effect.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion….” isn’t exactly a gift from the founders. What it was was a promise that the state and its laws and policies would be completely unfettered from religious doctrine and morality. Pope Leo had some thoughts on errors of American thinking: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13teste.htm
I saw a new (to me) symbol the other day. We’ve all seen the chrome symbols on cars, showing the outline of a christian fish, and the counter-symbol of the fish with legs. I saw a new one where a T-Rex was eating the Christian fish. I pointed out to the driver that there still seemed to be plenty of these fish, but I can’t seem to find any T-Rex’s lately. The driver showed me his symbol of last resort. The digital handsign.
If you’re disinclined to boycott Disney for religious reasons, a good secular reason would be the open contempt displayed for their American IT workers, whom they replaced with foreign H-1B workers, then added insult to injury by requiring the displaced workers to train their replacements before leaving. I believe the H-1B law requires a company show that they are unable to find a qualified American citizen to fill a position before using an H-1B worker. If true, their contempt shows not only for their employees, but for US law as well.
Dear Briggs… fantastic and spot on as usual… the response that you suggest… “fight back”… is in fact the essence of Donald Trump’s persona and the source of his popularity. Indeed he even fights back when it causes most, even his ardent supporters, to cringe… evidence his latest tweet of the photo comparison of his wife and Heidi Cruz. The response seems justified after Cruz surrogates posted a well-timed photo of Trump’s wife in a compromising pose… yes when you see Trump’s response in living color is does raise questions about the justification of asymmetrical warfare. So the question before voters this November is… will America choose to fight back rather than appease the world as it has done now since the 60s? If the answer is yes… the choice is clear.
Luckily you christians can go to the Holy Land Experience as an alternative to Disney.
John Z: We added Oreo cookies to our list also. If Americans aren’t fit to make Oreo cookies, we shouldn’t be eating them either.
Anon: You left out “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. I don’t see much of a way to miss the intent of that statement. The government is to leave religion alone and let people worship as they wish. How one gets to the “unfettered from religious doctrine and morality” from the amendment is highly suspect. These were the people who often said “In God we trust” and put it on the money. Seems to me they were not going for government free from morality, which sounds like anarchy to me.
John Watkins: Excellent!
Hans: Yes, Christians are indeed lucky.
Too late; already done. The same hubris that leads a corporation to preach deviance also has a tendency to render their product complete garbage. Or is it that corporations that fail to make worthwhile products boost sales by appeasing deviant causes? Perhaps some unwritten law of nature dictates that a devious tongue and skillful hands are mutually exclusive? Disregarding the complex issue of cause, the correlation between terrible products and immoral pandering is strong enough that moral standards descend through the quotient into standards of quality.
My husband was reading a blog post by a woodworker (Christopher Schwarz) apply titled “Now unemployable” where he said this suggestion was made:
“We should find one natural disaster per financial quarter and run a similar promotion corporate-wide,” he said. This was after the Japanese earthquake and the business had run a promotion promising donations for the needy victims. They also noticed a huge increase in sales. Mr. Schwarz voiced his opinion, which accounts for the title of the blog post.
Yes, corporations are sleazy. At least the heartless bean counters that run them.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion….” isn’t exactly a gift from the founders. What it was was a promise that the state and its laws and policies would be completely unfettered from religious doctrine and morality.
Not quite. The intent was to protect the federal laws from sectarian influence and the favoring of a particular denomination. Minority groups didn’t want the more popular denominations to be able to manipulate the laws against their specific practices and beliefs. The language was changed in the final version to the general word “religion” from more specific phrasings related to “articles of faith” and “modes of worship” and “rights of conscience” that had been debated in Congressional committees.
Not sure I would boycott a business that took its business to another country or employed cheaper foreign labor. While it sounds bad, they are doing it because the cost of labor and/or corporate taxes are too high here. American workers are generally seen as some of the best workers in the world so I don’t think businesses typically move based on much outside of the costs of doing business in the U.S. This is a problem that is not solved by boycotting. If you take away their revenue, they’ll just cut costs even more and that won’t include a return to America. This is a function of bad government and it will continue until adults take over and restore an environment better for businesses. Businesses do what they do to compete and earn a return for investors. I don’t blame them for moving when they’re getting squeezed so hard.
This is actually good news for the consumer and that seems to get left out of the conversation. Two thousand jobs might leave but 200 million consumers might get cheaper goods which frees their money up for other consumables or savings. Standard of living then can go up. When their dollar goes further, that’s usually a good thing for the poorest among us as well.
Fix the move toward socialism and the outrageous money wasted on crony capitalism and rent seeking and companies won’t leave in the first place. To do otherwise is to treat the symptom and not the disease.
I myself, continuously marvel (see what I did there? No? Well it was pretty banal I admit) at the inability of the self-professed intelligencia to understand the difference between oppression and suppression…
An interesting day this is, whereupon two bloggers impel me to write essay replies to fundamental principles and basic logical truths humanity used to know before it became the, “current year.”
As the space gets closer between the right and the nose, the room for debate inversely expands. This is clearly evident in the acceptance and integration of the wide variety of types in our society. That’s something society deals with. What else can you say?
Of course, what this is really about, when you boil it all down, the vast majority of the time, is the right to be a scumbag. My heart goes out to those people genuinely caught between the noses and the rights, but those are anomalies. Usually, it’s just some uptight, unworldly, classless, tasteless, dopey idiot demanding the right to be abusive. Screw them, I really don’t care what they demand. They should be shamed and given the chance to learn to act like good people.
Good for those companies threatening to walk from Georgia. They are good people. The people they’d be walking away from, are scumbags.
Wait, corporations are influencing laws in this country?
“As he should. After all, he learned that screeching and kicking his feet worked, so why not try more of it?”
In three places, change “he” and “his” to “ze” and “zis”.
Paul W: That seems a good argument until you consider that it’s unlikely Oreo prices would decrease enough to make up for the lost jobs by creating work in other areas. It’s like Hillary saying green jobs will make up for the unemployed coal and oil workers job losses. Not happening. As for fixing the problems of regulation, etc, I’m all for it.
JMJ: “Usually, it’s just some uptight, unworldly, classless, tasteless, dopey idiot demanding the right to be abusive.” You are referring the government and its abusive, evil regulations standing in the way of good people practicing their religion freely and trying to run businesses, right?
So you call for a boycott of Georgia because you disagree with their ideas. Seems that makes you as bigoted and narrow-minded as the right. What happened to all that tolerance and open-minded talk anyway?
JMJ on JMJ:
Sorry, but this had me LOLing: “what this is really about, when you boil it all down, the vast majority of the time,…”
The way the religious clause was framed (intentionally or not) had the consequence of giving power and influence to the “wealthy” who could easily bend the state to their will (sound familiar?). While we do have the remarkable system of “checks and balances”—there is no entity checking the checkers, and it could be argued that this has brought us to this lowly state.
Anon: How does the first amendment give power to the wealthy? Would not having the first amendment take away any of their power? Seems now the rich atheists are doing just fine trampling all over religious groups, so in reality, I think the rich just ignore the laws with impunity. Can’t see it mattered one way or the other.
Is there a way we can get the message to Disney that they have more to loose than Georgia if we turn the boycott around?
You’re not “practicing your religion,” Sheri. You’re shoving it down other people’s throats. You and Dover and the rest of you are making the same argument the Klan makes every day.
JMJ, unless you’re having an endoscopy, don’t let it happen to you.
…shoving it down other people’s throats.
I’m a libertarian. As I see it, the bad guy in any situation is the one who first resorts to force. A baker who declines to decorate a cake with a swastika on it is not “shoving it down other people’s throats.” The guy who invokes the coercive power of the state to punish the baker for declining to do so is the one who’s “shoving it down other people’s throats.” As I said in a previous thread:
The Thirteenth Amendment says: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
Apparently, being declared a “public accommodation” by an anti-discrimination law is tantamount to being duly convicted of a crime.
When homosexuals were victims of coercion, intolerance, and intimidation, I was sympathetic to their cause. When they became perpetrators of coercion, intolerance, and intimidation, my sympathy switched sides.
I was in the middle of planning a Disney trip for one set of grandchildren and their parents when this erupted in Georgia. I immediately stopped the plan. Cost them $1500. Buy Disney dvds at the thrift store and garage. No Disney toys for the 13 grandchildren . Emailed the CEO explaining that I wouldn’t be choosing Disney over our clergy and that I didn’t leave Disney, it left me. Bye. I will miss you but have many years of memories.