It’s okay to discriminate against assholes

One of the Sad Puppies — a group of butthurt snowflake selfish white male Trumpites who whine about things like the 1% of female leads in science fiction movies — has been barred from attending a major science fiction convention after he planned to take disruptive action at the convention, having done similar things in the past.

sad_puppies

This is literally the Sad Puppies logo. They’re apparently sad because people get mad at them for being assholes to everyone else.

So of course, he’s claiming he’s being “discriminated against” because of his political views. These Sad Puppies, along with all the other whiny white males, KKK members, nazis, religious fundamentalists and Trump supporters, consistently complain that they’re being discriminated against because they’re no longer allowed to discriminate against others like they’ve always done.

Look, genius: A private organization has the right to deny entry to anyone they think will disrupt their group, including for political disruptions.

You have every right to hold whatever terrible political viewpoints you want. That is guaranteed to you under the Constitution. You don’t have the right to demand that anyone else provide you with a place or a forum for you to express those opinions, nor do you have the right to demand that someone let you into their group when they believe you don’t meet their standards. No shirt no shoes no service.

Discrimination is when you are being prevented from entering because of things you have no control over, such as your race or gender or place of origin. If you choose to be the kind of guy people can’t stand to be around and they say they don’t want you near them, that’s not discrimination. You chose to be that person.

As Frank Zappa said, “It’s okay to discriminate against assholes, because nobody was born an asshole.”

It’s always amazing to me how these people who always scream about how the “market” can solve all our problems whine and scream like babies when the market decides to do just that against them.

Edit:  Friend of the Blog Jim C. Hines explains this particular person’s history in more detail on his blog

Nothing about gay marriage, but Jesus does talk a lot about greed…

Hey, remember those fun-loving evil bakers who claimed they were being discriminated against because they were not allowed to discriminate against other people? And how the court said, “You know, that sure seems to violate the law. Pay the fine.”? Remember them?cake

Are you shocked to learn that they are refusing to pay the fine? Like bigot Kim Davis, they claim that God’s Law is more important than United States’ law (and of course, only their version of “God’s law” since there are plenty of Christians who think these people are absolute jerks).

If you ask these bakers where in “God’s Law” it talks about gay marriage, they can’t answer you because, you know, it’s not there. Jesus said nothing about it. He did, however, talk an awful lot about greed and how that was a terrible sin.

You see, these bakers were pretty smart about one thing: They got a lot of rubes to contribute to their “legal fund” and now they’re sitting on half a million dollars. You’d think that paying a fine would count as a “legal cost” but geez, that would mean they’d have to give up a small percentage of that lovely cash.

No, that cash is much better used elsewhere. Since Jesus told us all we should be giving to the poor and helping charity, it will go there.

Ha ha!  Just kidding! Of course they’re not giving a cent to charity!

Bigotry is very profitable these days.

Quit the damned job already, bigot

I had a nicer headline originally but you know, this better expresses my feelings.

The United States Supreme Court yesterday denied the Kentucky clerk’s appeal wherein she claimed that she should not be forced to perform her job because of her religious beliefs.

As a Christian, she has vowed to obey the Bible, which says gay couples should not get married. (It actually doesn’t say that at all, but that has never stopped True Believers). She is still refusing to do it. appealsAs a clerk, she is supposed to certify marriages and not discriminate, but she is claiming that God’s Law supercedes American law. (It actually doesn’t, but that has never stopped True Believers.)

All the standard hypocritical nonsense is there — for instance, she’s been married herself four times (which actually is prohibited very clearly in the Bible).

Bigotry in the name of religion is still bigotry. If her religious order was against, say, interracial marriage, she would not have the right to deny marriage licenses to interracial couples either. I assume her religion also says that marriages should be between people in her own religion, yet this woman grants marriage licenses to people from every religion and no religion all the time.

No, this is just plain bigotry.

I blame the Hobby Lobby case for some of this, wherein the Supreme Court decided that businesses can have religion (WTF?) and thus discriminate on the basis of it. The Supreme Court views this case differently for one major reason: This is not a business.  Seriously. Businesses always win in the Supreme Court these days.

But back to this woman: I’m sure she has firmly held beliefs. But if those beliefs prevent her from performing her job, then she should resign. Issuing marriage licenses is part of her job requirements.

Can you imagine if you refused to perform part of your job because your religion said you couldn’t do it?  How long do you think you’d keep your job?

 

Let them eat cake

A conservative who thought he was being clever recently called a bunch of bakeries owned by gays and demanded that they make him a cake saying “Gay marriage is wrong” and all said no.

Aha! Clearly there is a double standard here.cake

Well, no, there isn’t. A bakery has the right to say they won’t make a cake that says “gay marriage is wrong” or “gay marriage is right” or “support Barack Obama” or “Vote Republican.”

If a bakery gladly makes penis-shaped cakes for heterosexual parties but refuses to make one for a homosexual party, then I think that is wrong. Clearly, they do not object to what they are making at that point, just who they are selling to. And that’s the problem. It’s the exact same product!

If you offer a product to the world, you should not be allowed to discriminate. You can’t say “I will sell this wedding cake design to everyone except the Irish,” for instance. And that’s the issue — when a gay couple asks a baker to give them a cake exactly like a straight couple gets, the bakery should not be allowed to say no. (I say “should” because in most states, it is perfectly legal for individuals to discriminate against gays, even when the state can’t discriminate.)

This is different from a service. A band can certainly refuse to play at a KKK rally or even a “Ted Cruz for President” event. A caterer can say that they don’t want to cater to you. A hall can refuse to rent to a group it disagrees with. I, as a lawyer, do not have to accept every single client that comes into my office with money.

There are plenty of gray areas here, but I think this is the basic distinction that many do not understand (or agree with).

Bigots present another false argument

“Liberals want to force kosher delis to serve bacon against their will!”

Seen that argument yet? Stupid, isn’t it? Somehow, people who support bigotry think that if we require bakeries to make cakes for gay couples that then we will be forcing businesses to sell products that go against their religion. imagesizerNo, no, no.

This is not about forcing a business to sell something it doesn’t want to sell. Don’t want to sell bacon? Fine, don’t sell bacon.

This is about selling a product and then deciding that you’re going to sell it to everyone except a certain group. If you are opening a business, you open it to everyone. You don’t discriminate.

Didn’t we already decide this years ago? Is there any difference between pizza parlors in Indiana refusing to serve gays and lunch counters in Alabama refusing to serve blacks?

Oh, and don’t go giving me the argument that you are supporting freedom and libertarianism and all that crap. Look at the end result: You’re supporting allowing someone to deny rights to someone else. It’s as false as the argument that the South was fighting for “state’s rights” and the fact that it meant people would thus be held in slavery is irrelevant.

 

Indiana’s “Religious Freedom” law is different

The outcry over Indiana’s new law allowing discrimination is valid. Arguments that “other states have similar laws” is not.

Many states have religious freedom laws, and they’re good laws. They prohibit the government from interfering with one’s religious practice, as provided for in the 1st Amendment.bigots For instance, such laws protect a Catholic school that only wants to hire Catholics to teach their classes. That makes sense, doesn’t it? It’s the same concept that says a church cannot be forced to perform a marriage they disagree with. These laws often apply to various non-profit charities and businesses where it makes a difference who gets treated and/or employed. Charities often have religious foundations, for instance.

Indiana’s law is different.  Indiana’s law explicitly allows for-profit businesses to have these same rights. Thus, Jim-Bob’s restaurant is allowed under this law to discriminate when it violates Jim-Bob’s personal religious views. “Sorry, my religion says no coloreds can sit at my lunch counter.” (This, of course, is exactly what we predicted would happen when the Supreme Court decided the terrible Hobby Lobby case, giving corporations a religion.)

This is unprecedented. Here in Pennsylvania, for instance, our “religious freedom” law specifically prohibits for-profit businesses from doing this.

If you want to open a business, you need to open it to everyone. Don’t give me that tired libertarian argument that the marketplace will solve this. It didn’t do that for a hundred years before civil rights laws were passed, and clearly it is not doing that now or else we wouldn’t even be discussing this. In some small communities, there may only be one store within close distance, so don’t go arguing that this is a minor inconvenience.

Bigotry has no place in our laws, and the government should be supporting the people who are being discriminated against, and not those who wish to discriminate.

Italian, eh? Must be with the mob.

One of the most disturbing things people have said about Mario Cuomo after his death was that he didn’t run for President because he didn’t want to expose his mob connections.

Right. All Italians who are successful have mob connections.  Just like all blacks have gang connections, and all Irish are alcoholics. Everybody knows that.Mario_Cuomo

The fact that there are no “mob connections” with Cuomo doesn’t stop the rumors. As governor of one of the largest states in the country, he was under much scrutiny, especially once he was seen as a possible Presidential candidate. (And let me say as an aside, I really wanted him to run. He would have been a great President.) He came from an immigrant family and got where he was by working hard and graduating at the top of his law school class. Even as the valedictorian, he had trouble finding a job because he was Italian and had no connections, mob or otherwise. Nothing of the sort ever turned up other than rumors. The press loves a good scandal, so it’s not like they didn’t look.

But let’s discuss what led to those rumors, which were completely unfounded. Why did they surround him and not other candidates?

Solely because he was Italian.

Now, I’m half Italian and I’ve even gotten a few comments like that over the years. My father came to America when he was a baby and he ended up in an orphanage so he didn’t have much of an Italian upbringing. My mother is of “Pennsylvania Dutch” stock. We were raised as Methodists. Mom knew nothing about Italian cooking, we had no huge extended Italian family visiting us, and to this day, I don’t know anyone in “the mob.” I have no more knowledge of Italian culture than any other kid raised in Richmond, Virginia. But the stereotype persists.

And that’s why rumors of those sorts are hurtful. People who would never think of saying that all blacks are gangsters apparently have no problem assuming all Italians know or are mobsters.