Comments on: Liberalism in Action:English Town Council Forced to Show it was Sufficently Gay

By: heliotrope

heliotrope — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 21:49:06 +0000

Amen to that, Sean A. Hate crimes, diversity, affirmative action, race relations, community organizing, level playing fields, political correctness, fairness doctrines and the general liberal lexicon for curing the globe, managing society and picking which noses to pick are all the same bunk. But, the libs thrive on it and they do manage to round up enough victims who are will to play for pay to win elections.

Frankly, I can not see how any self respecting person can overlook the flagrant whoring in the Democrat party.

By: You’re kidding, right? : Pursuing Holiness

You’re kidding, right? : Pursuing Holiness — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 20:38:30 +0000

[...] your town’s gay quotient sufficient? Imagine a government ombudsman investigating to see if your town sufficiently promotes gay [...]

By: Sean A

Sean A — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:51:33 +0000

#8: “So, if you have a high school where all the gays and straights get along in perfect harmony, shouldn’t you bus in some gay bashers just for the sake of diversity?”

Actually, heliotrope, your facetious comment invokes more evidence to show that government cannot be trusted to regulate and legislate on matters of social relations. Do-gooder government bureaucrats (especially judges) are incapable of translating their “good intentions” into laws that ensure equality because they mistakenly see “equality” as a dynamic concept (versus a static concept). For them, it’s not enough for a private business to have a white CEO and a legitimate policy of non-discrimination. They aren’t satisfied that they’ve done enough to help “equality” along until the CEO is black. The advent of affirmative action conclusively proves this because Title VII (the 1964 law that prohibits discrimination in employment based on sex, race, etc.) is, on its face, neutral. But for decades, it was interpreted by do-gooder judges and government bureaucrats as a legal mandate to implement quotas. Consequently, without any explicit authorization in the laws themselves, liberals now interpret “equality” to mean “diversity.” Therefore, they have been permitted to take it upon themselves to impose “diversity” on the rest of us through discriminatory means. Government ALWAYS screws this up. They can’t help themselves, which is why society would be better off if government just left well enough alone.

By: heliotrope

heliotrope — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 18:46:22 +0000

So, if you have a high school where all the gays and straights get along in perfect harmony, shouldn’t you bus in some gay bashers just for the sake of diversity?

By: GayPatriotWest

GayPatriotWest — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 16:34:09 +0000

Nate, Jim Crow was state-sanctioned discrimination. To allow that social change for African Americans, the government simply needed to remove the discriminatory laws. In short, the problem with Jim Crow was government.

By: ILoveCapitalism

ILoveCapitalism — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 14:23:10 +0000

(i.e., the desire to dominate and control others; the desire to use the State to oppress others)

By: ILoveCapitalism

ILoveCapitalism — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 14:21:42 +0000

Liberals, however, believe that social change comes from the state. And while those advocating state action on our behalf may do so out of the most noble of motives…

How is it noble to want to use the State to, in essence, force others in society to be nicer to oneself?

The State has certain proper functions: protecting objective rights to life, liberty and property, where they exist. Wanting the State to do anything other than that means: wanting the State to ignore or violate others’ rights to their life, liberty and property. That isn’t noble and isn’t born from noble motives; it’s morally wrong and born from evil motives.

By: Nate

Nate — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 08:49:20 +0000

I like your idea of how the private sector promotes freedom, but how would you reconcile that view with Jim Crow and the Civil Rights movement? I think many people would claim that social change for African Americans could only be accomplished through government. What do you think about that?

By: GayPatriotWest

GayPatriotWest — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 05:39:56 +0000

Good questions, Sean A!

By: Sean A

Sean A — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 05:07:25 +0000

As ridiculous and absurd this story is, just imagine if the two-month investigation had concluded that the town was (GASP!) gay-deficient. What then? Government spending on shovel-ready gay infrastructure projects? Affirmative action programs and set-asides for transplanted gay citizens? Costly educational programs designed by leftist Ivy League academics to implement. And of course, there would have to be criminal prosecutions and civil lawsuits because there is always someone to blame and someone to pay for allowing such egregious insensitivity to fester in the community. Western societies have been so beaten down by the politically correct thought police that no one has the guts to risk being labeled a bigot by standing up and saying, “are you fu*king kidding me?!” That’s how what was once unthinkable becomes routine.

By: V the K

V the K — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 01:01:58 +0000

This is the sort of thing that happens when community organizers are given government power.