This has been a question I’ve been pondering since the outrage from the Supreme Court’s decision in favor of religious liberty regarding a Colorado woman’s wedding website.Wrong Speak Publishing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Discrimination is not always bad. Wise & prudent people are discriminate in their decisions. We have to discriminate between multiple options on a daily basis. We have to be discriminate about who we associate with and what activities we involve ourselves with. Of course, this is just one context of what it means to discriminate.
In an effort not to relitigate the SCOTUS case regarding the gay couple and the baker's refusal to create a cake for their wedding, I have just these few things to say. First, in full transparency, I am gay - so for whatever that might add or take from this particular event, let that be as it may. The idea of discrimination should never have been a consideration or concern in this case. Why? For one, we enjoy our freedom of religion (for sone no religion at all) under our constitutional rights. Public business or no public business, government can not and must not be allowed to trample on anyone's constitutional rights. It is no secret that the vast majority of the world does not agree with gay marriage . I don't agree with gay marriage, for religious and spiritual reasons, and I'm gay. This particular gay couple could have gone to any of probably several hundred other bakeries to have their wedding cake made. Instead, they elected to insist that the one baker, who had made his position well known, forcing a legal battle. Sane people would have simply moved on to the next bakery. But this couple clearly wanted their few minutes in the spotlight. It was clear what their motive was. And because their intentions were grounded in an agenda and not authenticity, one might suggest that "karma" served them some justice. The couple had many other options yet chose to create a national scandal of an innocent man, his family and their personal religious convictions. Some say that God works in mysterious ways but I beg to differ. In fact, I believe He tells us very specifically what He expects and how He operates. He is a discriminating God. And He makes no secret about this (keep context in mind here).
On affirmstive action (AA), I have never seen so many fail to understand or see the absolute discrimination and racism in this horrendous policy. In fact, there is no better example of discrimination in policy. This is a case in which discrimination is always bad. What are the details of AA? They are as follows, generally speaking:
1) AA views everything through a racial lens. It requires that people be inventoried by skin color.
2) AA requires that percentages of people, based upon skin color, be closer to equal, qualified or not and regardless of whether it denies candidates of other skin colors who may be better credentialed and qualified.
3) AA sends the message that some people simply cannot make the grade based upon their skin color and thst government will coddle those people to their victory all the while reducing minimum standards to better enable some as opposed to maintaining high standards of excellence. AA says, "you can't do it, you're not good enough."
When it comes to AA, we have to ask, is something racist because of an action or because of an outcome? If I deny a potential future employee a job position because of their skin color, that would clearly be racist. But AA asserts that by giving those of certain skin color "something" that is is not racist. It is not whether or not not one is given "whstever" that indicates racism. It is the mere fact that the outcome is based solely upon skin color, and that is racist. That is discrimination either way you cut it.
This is the wrong way to look at AA: "If I get what I'm after, it's not racist. If I don't get what I'm after, it's racist." It's not about the outcome. It's everything to do with skin color as being the sole and primary driver of outcome that is racist.
If you think about the process of hiring a person, it is a process of discrimination. Not of immutable differences but of skill, ability, experience and education. Is that bad? IMO no or otherwise you would hire the first person through the door regardless of qualifications. Living life itself is a process of discrimination as you make everyday decisions. It is what differentiates us, it is what gives us a splendid array of personalities and what makes some artists and musicians, accountants and actuaries, doctors and engineers or skilled tradespeople. It makes us all unique.
“Shut up and sing” never made sense to freedom loving Americans despite what you may have heard from people who called themselves “freedom loving Americans”. Glad this was sorted out.
Discrimination is not always bad. Wise & prudent people are discriminate in their decisions. We have to discriminate between multiple options on a daily basis. We have to be discriminate about who we associate with and what activities we involve ourselves with. Of course, this is just one context of what it means to discriminate.
In an effort not to relitigate the SCOTUS case regarding the gay couple and the baker's refusal to create a cake for their wedding, I have just these few things to say. First, in full transparency, I am gay - so for whatever that might add or take from this particular event, let that be as it may. The idea of discrimination should never have been a consideration or concern in this case. Why? For one, we enjoy our freedom of religion (for sone no religion at all) under our constitutional rights. Public business or no public business, government can not and must not be allowed to trample on anyone's constitutional rights. It is no secret that the vast majority of the world does not agree with gay marriage . I don't agree with gay marriage, for religious and spiritual reasons, and I'm gay. This particular gay couple could have gone to any of probably several hundred other bakeries to have their wedding cake made. Instead, they elected to insist that the one baker, who had made his position well known, forcing a legal battle. Sane people would have simply moved on to the next bakery. But this couple clearly wanted their few minutes in the spotlight. It was clear what their motive was. And because their intentions were grounded in an agenda and not authenticity, one might suggest that "karma" served them some justice. The couple had many other options yet chose to create a national scandal of an innocent man, his family and their personal religious convictions. Some say that God works in mysterious ways but I beg to differ. In fact, I believe He tells us very specifically what He expects and how He operates. He is a discriminating God. And He makes no secret about this (keep context in mind here).
On affirmstive action (AA), I have never seen so many fail to understand or see the absolute discrimination and racism in this horrendous policy. In fact, there is no better example of discrimination in policy. This is a case in which discrimination is always bad. What are the details of AA? They are as follows, generally speaking:
1) AA views everything through a racial lens. It requires that people be inventoried by skin color.
2) AA requires that percentages of people, based upon skin color, be closer to equal, qualified or not and regardless of whether it denies candidates of other skin colors who may be better credentialed and qualified.
3) AA sends the message that some people simply cannot make the grade based upon their skin color and thst government will coddle those people to their victory all the while reducing minimum standards to better enable some as opposed to maintaining high standards of excellence. AA says, "you can't do it, you're not good enough."
When it comes to AA, we have to ask, is something racist because of an action or because of an outcome? If I deny a potential future employee a job position because of their skin color, that would clearly be racist. But AA asserts that by giving those of certain skin color "something" that is is not racist. It is not whether or not not one is given "whstever" that indicates racism. It is the mere fact that the outcome is based solely upon skin color, and that is racist. That is discrimination either way you cut it.
This is the wrong way to look at AA: "If I get what I'm after, it's not racist. If I don't get what I'm after, it's racist." It's not about the outcome. It's everything to do with skin color as being the sole and primary driver of outcome that is racist.
If you think about the process of hiring a person, it is a process of discrimination. Not of immutable differences but of skill, ability, experience and education. Is that bad? IMO no or otherwise you would hire the first person through the door regardless of qualifications. Living life itself is a process of discrimination as you make everyday decisions. It is what differentiates us, it is what gives us a splendid array of personalities and what makes some artists and musicians, accountants and actuaries, doctors and engineers or skilled tradespeople. It makes us all unique.
“Shut up and sing” never made sense to freedom loving Americans despite what you may have heard from people who called themselves “freedom loving Americans”. Glad this was sorted out.