Who, whom.

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/new-mexico-business-owner-no-trump-supporters-allowed-816267331877

So now it seems you can deny service to people based on your private moral convictions!

Good for him. It is his money and probably a small, closely held business. This is a local color story, and de minimis non curat lex.

But if you are an old lady with qualms about arranging flowers for a gay wedding? Is that OK now?

Didn’t think so.

Remember this: political correctness isn’t about what people do or say to each other, but who does it to whom. It has nothing to do with right and wrong and everything to do with my side humiliating your side.

Advertisements

3 comments

  1. Yeah. I’m smack in middle of this stuff and it’s totally one sided and downright ugly.

  2. There are two fundamental problems with your argument. The first is you’re presuming there’s widespread agreement with what’s being done. Reporting on the issue at the Washington Post, for example, was entirely neutral.
    The second is (as you’ve done before) you equate discrimination and opposition to discrimination. I recall when I did a timeline of the anti-gay campaign of the religious right, your position was that it went “two ways”. That equates an attacker with a victim.

    1. The reporting and general reaction seems to be one of general neutrality, which is as it should be, this is a private decision of an individual about his choice of business partners. It isn’t really newsworthy. What I do not hear is indignation, lawsuits, boycotts or threats coming from the state attorney.
      You are right, the cases are not quite analogous, this one is more discriminatory: a man is refusing not only to participate in what he considers an immoral act – voting Republican – but even to do business with people who commit those acts. He is more of an “attacker”, to use your language. The little old lady was happy to serve gay people, but didn’t want to be tangentially involved in a gay wedding. She separated, in her mind, serving the sinner from participating in the sin, one of those Christian moral distinctions make life so much more civilized. The NM guy makes no such distinction.
      So the question isn’t which is discrimination, they both are, but which form of discrimination we think is OK.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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

%d bloggers like this: