Monday, March 30, 2015

Perverting the language

Star Trek's Mr Sulu, George Takei, has written an article for MSNBC [Emphasis mine—DK]...
The so-called “Religious Freedom Bill” would have allowed proprietors of establishments open to the public to refuse to serve customers if doing so would violate the “sincerely held” religious beliefs of the owner. 
On the surface, the proposed law seemed like a neutral way to protect the First Amendment rights of business owners.
But beneath that surface lurked a dangerous and divisive effect, granting hotels, bars and restaurants the right to refuse to serve LGBT persons and couples such as Brad and me, simply because our love did not comport with the religious views of the owners.

But thanks to pressures upon the governor’s office in days before she was set to sign the law, and in the face of a boycott of the state by tourists and the NFL, which threatened to move the Super Bowl to Pasadena, Gov. Jan Brewer ultimately decided to veto the law. Tolerance and equality won out that day.

So, "tolerance" for LGBTQ means intolerance—enacted with force—towards people who would like to choose who they do business with?

Whilst I don't support a religious position, this definition of "tolerance" does rather illustrate how our language has become utterly perverted.

To be honest, my attitude is pretty much espoused by Tim Cook, i.e. that serving everyone equally is good business.

Or, as I put it after the heated feminism debate at this weekend's Liberty League Freedom Forum...
I am an individualist. I discriminate on whether or not you are a cunt, not whether or not you have one.
That pretty sums up my attitude to all identity politics, frankly.

1 comment:

david ervin said...

I don't see where anyone wants a law that "would have allowed proprietors of establishments open to the public to refuse to serve customers if doing so would violate the 'sincerely held' religious beliefs of the owner." This is a red herring or a straw man, take your pick.

If I have a business that poses people for pictures in a studio and someone wants me to pose copulating adults my answer would be no, I don't take those kinds of pictures and you cannot force me to do so. If I have a business that sells cakes and a member of the public walks in to buy a cake no law should allow me to say no. But neither should a law force me, as the proprietor, to write something I find offensive on that cake. If you buy the cake you can do what you want with it, I don't care, and I don't care who you are, and I don't care what you stand for. But I do care what I do with my own hands and with my own work. And you cannot force me to bow to your icons any more than I can force you to bow to mine.