What Does GetEqual Have Against Freedom?
Whether it’s public universities who wish to discriminate against Christian student groups requiring that their officers adhere to their faith’s moral code or activists who, in the name of equality, want to prevent a private organization from boycotting a private enterprise, some social liberals turn their noses at the notion of social conservatives expressing their beliefs — or acting on them.
There is much more to the latest story than what I considered in my previous post, significantly that, yet again, we see a private enterprise (AKA, a business) leading the way in social change where governments lag. Our system of free enterprise (under attack though it may be) allowed Home Depot — and other corporations — to enact its progressive (in the true, not politicized, sense of the word) policy on domestic partnerships.
For now, I’ll highlight this mentality of the left, this aversion to freedom. Rather that criticize what they find distasteful, they want to challenge it in court — or otherwise suppress it.
It is a troubling mentality and merits further scrutiny.
RELATED: ”ANDREW KLAVAN: From Book Publishers to the Media: The Left’s Crusade to End Debate.”
12 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Dan, I somewhat agree with your post. But people have the right to petition the courts, if even such reasons are not worthy of it. It’s up to the courts, if it gets that far, to sort this out.
If, somehow, the courts rule in favor of GetEqualNow, then the problem is the courts, not GetEqualNow. Because, the troubling mentality, as you put it, will only continue.
Comment by Pat — July 28, 2010 @ 5:22 pm - July 28, 2010
Oh, for heaven’s sake. BDB, you’re misrepresenting if not openly lying about the Hastings issue.
The university is not discriminating against those who to practice a faith. The university is simply not willing to pay for anyone’s bigotry. It’s amazing how conservatives complain about not being free to practice their faith when what’s going on is they’re simply not getting paid to do so.
The UC Hasting CoL has an anti-discrimination policy in force. The Christian group that wanted money also wanted to discriminate in violation of that policy, the policy that every other group had to follow to. Were they denied the ability to gather? Were they in any way threatened or harmed for holding that opinion? No! But the school in no way has to subsidize that exclusion.
Nor is the school discriminating on the basis of viewpoint. It has a policy of non-discrimination that every group must follow. You don’t get a get-out-of-compliance-free card just because you cite religion as the basis for your exclusion.
The analog is this: if a Muslim group wanted a) to meet on campus and be recognized as an official group and b) receive resources and fundings but c) banned gays, women, Christians, and ex-Muslims from being members or officers under the logic that such people did not follow their moral code or were not worthy of leadership, would you want the school to subsidize them? Of course not! Have your opinions all you want, but don’t expect to feed at the trough. Follow the rules like everyone else. The same with the Boy Scouts that want to discriminate but want sweetheart deals with the government for nearly-zero rent bills: they want their “freedom” AND government payouts.
The ignorant answer to the above is to complain about black or Hispanic or women’s student groups, but once again there is no issue there. None of these groups if receiving public funding can legally bar anyone from joining; any race or gender must be allowed to join, and as anyone with any experience with these groups knows, people from different ethnic backgrounds join such single-ethnic-focus groups all the time.
I don’t agree with a cease-and-desist letter to AFA, btw. Exposing the haters for what they are is fine; suing them simply allows them to play the victim card again. Not that GEN is wrong about what hate groups like the AFA do: their actions lead directly to death for and violence against the GLBT community. I’m surprised I didn’t see that mentioned in your post, BDB (/s).
It’s sad that what you refer to as freedom is actually “freedom to discriminate while taking government money in violation of the rules everyone else has to follow.”
Comment by torrentprime — July 28, 2010 @ 5:53 pm - July 28, 2010
torrent, look up the definition of discrimination please. I did say the school was “discriminating against those who to practice a faith” (as you put it). Read what I wrote as I made sure to phrase that opening sentence quite carefully, understanding, of course, that it is the business of some of our critics to misrepresent what I said.
If I’m misrepresenting or lying, please show me my words which are either inaccurate or dishonest and, as per the leftist complaints of last week (but not this one), make sure they’re in context.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — July 28, 2010 @ 6:02 pm - July 28, 2010
You said, “Whether it’s public universities who wish to discriminate against Christian student groups requiring that their officers adhere to their faith’s moral code”
And this is simply incorrect. It is not discriminating in the slightest. It is applying the same rules to every group that wants funding: it is being non-discriminating in the application of its funding policy.
Your words are inaccurate. Unless you’re pulling some “I didn’t sat they discriminate, only that they wish to,” which is simply a distinction without difference. Whether your words are dishonest only you can say. I await your response.
Also, given that half of your two-exampled attack on “social liberals” is faulty, doesn’t that somewhat weaken your case? What you laughably attempted to call an aversion to freedom is actually an equal application of the law. Any thoughts on this?
Comment by torrentprime — July 28, 2010 @ 7:57 pm - July 28, 2010
The university is not discriminating against those who to practice a faith. The university is simply not willing to pay for anyone’s bigotry.
The university doesn’t have a choice. If it funds one group, it has to fund them all. “Equal protection”, remember, torrentprime?
Unless you’d like to argue that “equal protection” doesn’t really mean that, that it is perfectly acceptable for the government or individuals to deny funding and privileges based on standards, and that to do so does not constitute “discrimination”……
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 28, 2010 @ 8:00 pm - July 28, 2010
It is applying the same rules to every group that wants funding: it is being non-discriminating in the application of its funding policy.
So it is not discriminating to apply a rule that affects a particular group if the rule is applied to every group.
Therefore, the application of the rule that marriage is only recognized as the union of one man and one woman is not discriminatory because it is applied to every group.
Now watch how quickly talkingpointsprime reverses himself.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 28, 2010 @ 8:04 pm - July 28, 2010
the operative word which you neglected in your first comment was “groups.” And yes, it is discriminating against these groups.
Look up the word, “discriminate,” as I requested.
It’s actually your comment, “an aversion to freedom is actually an equal application of the law”, which is laughable. This may well be equal application of a school policy, but it does limit the freedom of student organizations to set their own rules. The policy itself is inherently discriminatory and, by its very definition, limits freedom.
Please attempt to get my point about the tensions between freedom and equality.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — July 28, 2010 @ 8:14 pm - July 28, 2010
Same thing all progressives have against freedom: when people are allowed to choose for themselves, they make choices progressives don’t approve of. Hence, the freedom to choose must be taken away “for the common good.”
Comment by V the K — July 28, 2010 @ 11:05 pm - July 28, 2010
I just found this blog minutes ago, and for the sake of being thorough, I looked up the comment-posting policy before posting a comment. It says you must remember that your opponents and those you disagree with are humans, and that it is inappropriate to question others’ patriotism. This blog itself is loaded with article following article questioning other American citizens’ patriotism and how much they value freedom. I find that not only repulsive and a weak way to debate, but more so, it is dangerous and stifles real conversation about important issues.
Comment by Ryan P — July 29, 2010 @ 11:39 am - July 29, 2010
Ryan, please provide examples to back up your allegations of our posts questioning other citizens’ patriotism
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — July 29, 2010 @ 1:19 pm - July 29, 2010
Ryan: “Examples… uh, yeah… examples… I have some… in my car. I’ll be right back.”
(Footsteps… sound of door slamming… engine revs… brakes squeal.)
Comment by V the K — July 29, 2010 @ 2:09 pm - July 29, 2010
V, something tells me Ryan has either been her before or was directed here by a left-wing blog.
I’ve always noticed an increase in such posts when left-wingers link us. Always based on their assumptions about what conservatives say, never based on examples of what conservatives have said.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — July 30, 2010 @ 2:05 am - July 30, 2010