Sober Reflections

I’m sure some of you have noted lugubrious gnashing from the corporate/liberal left following recent ratification of Indiana’s religious freedom law. I have not actually found a clean copy of the legislation and so am relying on journalism’s renowned good-faith to describe its provisions. From what I can discern it grants wavers for Indiana businesses to deny service to BLTs on religious grounds. This being a direct result of the crass BLT baker knock-out game of which most are likely aware. Though for those not advised, it has become quite chichi for homosexers to specifically seek out businesses not inclined to leaven colonary confections and either force them into their own ovens or sue them to bankruptcy for the impertinence. These are champions of tolerance, you see. The Indiana law was an attempt to forestall this playful movement before it could find traction in the Hoosier state.

Here’s why that’s a problem.

The articles I have read on the topic have not been merely apoplectic. They have been grindingly dumb, with comments to match. Not typically prosaically dumb, as one would expect from remarks on any liberal hobby horse. But surprisingly dumb, almost shockingly so. “The Indiana Law that fell off the stupid tree.” A click of the link above will reveal a grown man actually serving up that primeval cliché.

In no single article or comment did I see acknowledgement of the native friction assiduously not under debate. That being the inherent tension between freedom and some youthful concept called “nondiscrimination.” Whether they are angelic moral paragons or satanic teapartiers, free people will discriminate. And in a vast array of manners. It would be useful if this could be openly acknowledged without triggering a cacophony from the hate hens. Alas, it may not. Though not speaking isn’t the same as not being. And granted latitude, people will do, say, and think what others want them not free to do. Those others, in turn, will desire a range of motion that separate third parties wish equally restricted. And for each, the sodium pentothal position is: We want to be free to speak and associate exactly as we please, and for you to do exactly as we say. Everything else is a lie marinated in moralizing. And the winners are those who have the platform, discipline, or guns to maintain their lie to victory.

If one were actually interested in a minimally manageable heterogeneous society for the brief duration such things are fated, certain questions must be openly debated. Contra 319,572 comments and counting, that question actually isn’t “who’s the white bigot?” Rather it is where are the boundaries between freedom of association and this thing called nondiscrimination? And where frontiers are unmarked, to which do we default? Though these are the queries of extremists and hardly the province for sober reflection. Instead we get this:

Let’s be 100-percent clear: Indiana’s brand new Religious Freedom Law is a measure that fell off the stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down. And I say that as not only a conservative, but a religious conservative.

Conservative Ghost Shirting. There is no more frequent preamble to a litany of liberal positions than the words “I’m a conservative but…”

The law isn’t even a day old and it’s already showing very bad results for the entire state of Indiana, including the religious people it was supposed to protect. Just hours after Governor Mike Pence signed the bill into law, founder and CEO Marc Benioff announced on Twitter that his company is canceling all business with the state that would require its customers to, “travel to Indiana to face discrimination.” Other tech company leaders followed suit with similar statements before the day was out.

I’m not going to continue quoting as its tedious and the most garish drivel follows in the comments. Though again we note the core premise of modern “conservatism:” serving big business. Indiana’s law was jettisoned from the ‘stupid tree’ because it’s “showing very bad results” for corporations. And for what other purpose are infants in Indiana conceived than to produce robust margin growth? One could understand this unseemly allegiance if the relationship were remotely symbiotic. Though it is not. Conservative voters empower the political stooges of big business, who subsequently undercut them at every opportunity. Democrats are equally obedient and perhaps even more comical in indulging long cherished fantasies of opposition to the CEOcracy.

Would it be discriminatory to refuse my guests Rock Hill bourbon rather than Basil Hayden? WTF cares. It’s the very good results going down that I’m interested in.


29 thoughts on “Sober Reflections

  1. Celebrities offer their considered opinions on the subject.

    Miley Cyrus: You’re an asshole @govpenceIN ✌️-1 cc: the only place that has more idiots that Instagram is in politics @braisoncwukong thank you for standing up for what is right! We need more strong heterosexual men fighting for equality in both men and women! Why are the macho afraid to love muchoooo?!?

    Statesmen will ruminate on those words for centuries to come. Let’s hear from the bridge of the Enterprise…

    Join me to #BoycottIndiana . Show Gov. #Pence we won’t stand for bigotry in the name of religion.

    I think the AJC may have something to say about that Lt. Sulu.
    Ashton Kutcher expands on the idea…

    Indiana are you also going to allow Christian establishments to ban Jews from coming in? Or Vice Versa? Religious freedom??? #OUTRAGE

    Who would have imagined such a tantalizingly provocative recommendation from Hollywood? The lich Larry King shambles out of his fetid lair to prove that warm blood isn’t required to produce outrage…

    Indiana’s anti-gay ‘Religious Freedom’ bill signed by Gov. Pence is absurd & insulting. This is 2015. Ridiculous. #RFRA

    Exactly, it’s 2015 already. BLTs should be fired out of canons over the Thames by this point.

    I did notice Ms. Cyrus’ disquisition had garnered 3,278 comments. Which is even more than my own musings above. There’s probably a message in that disparity beyond feeble state attempts to resuscitate federalism and the 10th Amendment. I’ll have to put more thought into what that message is.

    • Agreed. Though there’s a conspicuous absence in all of this liberal panty rendering. I don’t expect Miley Cyrus or Harvard con law professors to understand the concept of federalism, though states did not intentionally relinquish their sovereignty upon joining the union. The expectation was that they would maintain a vast breadth of autonomy limited only by the enumerated powers granted the federal government.

      Indiana was never intended to be California or New York. Instead each state existed to serve and represent the distinct disposition of its own people. That a person vexed by one state had forty-something others in which to decamp was an element of the system’s appeal.

      But we were fated to live among those who commune with the angels. And once in receipt of heavenly designs, they set about to apply them consistently across the country. The desires of majorities within individual states being wholly irrelevant of course.

      For liberals there is always the God-we-don’t-believe-in’s work to do. And it’s (insert current year) for God’s sake!

      • California wasn’t even supposed to be California. Propositions 22 and H8 were passed as an expression of the will of the California electorate.

      • “For liberals there is always the God-we-don’t-believe-in’s work to do.”

        Thank you for this.

    • There’s a comforting consolation for countries languishing at the bottom of refugee receipts: Eternal supply. No matter how sluggish the tempo of race replacement in 2014, every new year brings the opportunity for a multitude of amends. Africa alone could provide a fresh billion Canadians in the next generation. One would think that fact would well assuage the anguish of last year’s poor performance.

      Though note the top refugee destinations in 2013:

      1. Germany
      2. USA
      3. Turkey
      4. Sweden
      5. Italy
      6. France
      7. Hungary
      8. United Kingdom
      9. Austria
      10. Holland
      11. Switzerland
      12. Serbia
      13. Denmark
      14. Belgium
      15. Canada

      So Serbia takes in more refugees than China.
      Austria more than India.
      Hungary more than Nigeria
      Belgium more than Brazil
      Holland more than Indonesia.

      Why is that exactly? It’s almost as if there’s a malign global agenda at work. If the natives ever wake to what that is, we will be able to add some number of western leftists to the refugee roster.

      • What gets me is the unabashed biased reporting on display. How can you be on the bottom of the top 15 of 220 total countries? I can make any country in the world the bottom of any metric by that voodoo.

        Or this quote: “In 2014, Canada received 13,500 asylum claims, about one-third more than the year before. In comparison, Sweden, a small Nordic country with 9.6 million people and a quarter of Canada’s population, admitted 75,100 refugees last year.” Yes, casually mention Sweden like its a random comparable nation and not a deranged society hellbent on committing demographic suicide.

        And yet, I hold firm the hopeful optimism that this round of refugees will be the last, and that very soon internal clashes and disputes will no longer occur in countries with a lower standard of living than ours.

  2. Africa will add an average of 1.5 million to its population every week over the next 35 years, people it has not the slightest chance of feeding, nor controlling as the competition gets ever more violent for the dwindling resources. If there was even a trace of sanity left in our own countries, we’d be have a permanent task force dedicated to strengthening our borders against the coming invasion. Instead, our rulers cower at being chastised for being near “the bottom of the list” when it comes to allowing their countries to be invaded.

  3. Republican lawmakers in Indiana are now scrambling to…umm…”clarify” the legislation.

    And that’s all it required. A few shrieking homosexuals and legislators go feets don’t fail us now. There’s a lesson in this. And it’s not the one most will take. Politicians aren’t just cowards to the left. Their pusillanimity is broad spectrum. Some energetic and unapologetic demonstrations from the right could create similar “clarifications” for our side.

    • I wonder if all these capitulations are prearranged, just a ritual they go through before the inevitable conclusion.

  4. I don’t have the links, but I’ve seen some columns arguing that Indiana’s law is using the cover of freedom to actually restrict freedom. Yes, and thank you for that tautology.

    Giving Americans the freedom to draw and defend their borders restricts the freedom of colonists and invaders. Giving me the freedom of having a front door restricts the freedom of burglars and squatters. Giving people in Indiana the freedom to decide with whom they wish to associate restricts the freedom of those who want to involuntarily force association upon them.

    When you suffer a deficit of sophistry, there’s always the left with a ready supply.

  5. “I’m a conservative but,” has become a more common distortion than, “I have lots of black friends but,”. I suppose they’re both merely “little white lies”.

  6. Sailer cribbing my CEOcracy. That’s going to cost you a link, Steve.

    Also our part-time own Ben Tillman makes a good point in the comments:

    Bakers and photographers cannot choose whom they do business with, but Benioff can.

    Hoosiers can’t discriminate against gays, but gays can discriminate against Hoosiers.

    It’s obscene.

    • I still peruse Sailer and his comments, but I cannot even summon the energy to refute most of the crap they spew. Since he moved to Unz, his commentariat has gradually morphed into rightist Jews versus neocon Jews versus leftist Jews who think they’re centrist Jews. It would be funny if one didn’t have to pretend they’re one’s fellows.

      Sorry Porter, but my disgust and rage have burst all bounds. I am maintaining my sanity reading the Covington books, even though I would not be eligible to live in the fictional Republic. One can dream.

  7. National Review is so craven they’ve actually circled around to snide. You’re a genius Lowry.

    Okay. For the record, I think that refusing to cater someone’s wedding based on their sexual orientation is the wrong thing to do

    I’m a staunch conservative but…

    Still, I stand firm in my belief that burning people’s property down when you disagree with them is never the answer

    I honestly LOLd reading that. That’s uncompromising conservatism there, boys. Standing athwart arson yelling “I’m not homophobic!”

    • And the takeaway is that the caveat earns him what, exactly? A get out of homophobia jail free card? Of course not. They’ll continue to smear him regardless.

      • The conservative movement has all but conceded something called ‘gay marriage.’ Otherwise, what so-called wedding are they talking about? What’s even more pusillanimous is that the NR worms are actually wriggling away from popular opinion. The entire phenomenon is a judicial imposition.

        And of course you are correct on their mewling qualifiers, which are nothing more than verbal displays of submission. The actual words are irrelevant. The meaning is always the same: I am not a threat.

  8. Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2015/04/03) | The Reactivity Place

  9. It’s a stupid law because it implies you don’t have the right to refuse service unless you have a reason to do so.

    That’s not just stupid, it’s evil. It’s evil because NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORCE ME TO DO JACK SHIT and this law implies that they can force me unless i have . Whereas, in reality I have the basic human right to refuse service for ANY REASON I LIKE. I can refuse service because I am a racist who hates white people, I can refuse service to white people because I am an anti-racist who loves white people, I can refuse service because it is monday and I believe the great spaghetti monster has taught me that mondays are the days the pasta people committed genocide against meatballs.

    The only legitimate complaint against my refusing to serve is when I am

    a) breaking a contract that I agreed to which stipulates otherwise

    b) a public official in the service of the public. In which case, I must either resign or comply.

    c) we are in a state of martial law, the shit has seriously hit the fan and there is a gun pointed at my head with a very pissed off man telling me to “dig motherfucker or we are all going to die”.

    Other than the above three scenarios, when we start justifiying when people can refuse service then we are making a legal decision as to what is and is not acceptable thought. And that is very dangerous. Because most (all) of you motherfuckers are insane. I would sooner see you all dead then rely on you fucking maniacs to make a proper decision as to what is or is not the truth. (and by “you”, I mean YOU, yes YOU, whoever is reading this. No, I really AM talking about YOU. No I don’t care if you happen to be or believe in or who you fuck or if you serve. You are all crazy and I don’t trust any of you selfish fucking assholes at all.) We are talking the principle of freedom of religion, and we are throwing that principle out the window. That is an ugly road to walk on.

    Suggestion: Criminalize faggotry. Bring back the death penalty for homosexual acts. If this is the choice the faggots insist on, then so be it. They are obviously too sick and selfish to understand otherwise which is why they chose it. I am completely uninterested in seeing something as important as Freedom of Association being destroyed because a bunch of miserable degenerates can’t keep their sickness in check.

  10. That’s uncompromising conservatism there, boys. Standing athwart arson yelling “I’m not homophobic!”

    Outfuckingstanding. That deserves to grace your banner.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s