Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Legal Discrimination and the Death of Virtue Signaling
The Trump administration is reportedly considering an executive order granting broad religious freedoms (you know, the kind we enjoyed prior to Barack Obama). From the Nation:
A leaked copy of a draft executive order titled “Establishing a Government-Wide Initiative to Respect Religious Freedom,” obtained by The Investigative Fund and The Nation, reveals sweeping plans by the Trump administration to legalize discrimination.
I find myself unmoved. By far, the biggest source of discrimination in American society is political — i.e., discriminating against people with the “wrong sort” of politics — which is legal in most states and universally approved of by the Left. Of all the varied forms of discrimination I’ve faced, political discrimination was by far the worst and the most difficult to fight. Unlike other forms, it’s almost impossible to plan for; it strikes randomly, like lightning (note, I am not talking about discrimination on the basis of political opinions, but on membership in broad political coalitions).
After politics, the second worst form of discrimination I experienced was the result of corporate anti-discrimination and diversity policies. Sometimes I wonder if employers would be happier if I brought a list of the popular “oppressed” groups I belong to job interviews, but I’ve never been able to bring myself to do it; it would be a deeply painful violation of my privacy.
I loathe anti-discrimination laws, and I hope President Trump gets rid of each and every one of them. It isn’t possible for the government to ban discrimination any more than it was possible for it to ban alcohol, homosexuality, or gambling. All these laws do is feed the narcissism of our virtue-signalling professional class, and serve as weapons whereby they can bully each other — and those beneath them — into submission.
Trump got elected in part because a large number of Americans were facing politically correct forms of discrimination. But, instead of trying to pass yet more anti-discrimination laws, he is trying to weaken the ones we have. He is wise to do so.
Published in General
Don’t overlook the idea that anti discrimination laws have led to (or were designed in the first place to produce ) a booming business for lawyers who are given the opportunity to both virtue signal and get rich at the same time!
No doubt this will come as a surprise to The Nation, but the founders beat the Administration to the punch 226 years ago.
@Joseph Eagar: Bravo! Very well stated position. the first amendment to our beloved constitution is all that was, or is needed. All the rest is political horse pucky.
beautifully worded
A great post.
Nice article!
Yeah, well, I agree, BUT, don’t beat up on lawyers. I have nothing against lawyers per se. It’s just that 95% of lawyers give the rest of them a bad name ;-)
Before we ever embark on discussing religious freedom, let’s make sure we understand that the refusal to participate in, or pay for, some controversial practice is not “discrimination.”
Most of those “raise the alarm” screeds skip over that distinction. They presume that any right that the Constitution or Supreme Court might grant means that the state has to subsidize it. And that’s where we have the objection.
For instance, I may not believe that abortion is moral, but the Supreme Court says that it’s legal. That still doesn’t mean that I have to pay for it. When a gay couple asks for a wedding cake, they have every legal right to do so. It would be legally wrong to deny them that. But that doesn’t mean that I have a legal obligation to support that right … or pay for it.
Almost all of these protestations of horror, where they shout that religious liberty is just allowing discrimination, are driven by that rhetorical obfuscation of the difference between allowing a practice versus not supporting it or paying for it. The debate about the Hyde Amendment proved that – critics argued that their rights were meaningless unless the public used taxpayer dollars to support it.
I am not legally required, nor morally obliged, to pay for your abortion, birth control, or your wedding cake. That’s not discrimination. It would only be discrimination if I blocked you from paying for it yourself.
Yes, yes, and yes again – this distinction needs to be shouted from the rooftops
Anyone should have the right to discriminate as they please. If someone wants to open a “whites only” restaurant, they should be allowed to do so. The only American way to challenge such discrimination would be to build a restaurant right next door that caters to all and that restaurant, makes more money or possibly conducts its business in a way that causes the discriminating business to change its practices.
In fact, if someone is a racist, sexist, homophobe, anti-semite, etc., they should not be demeaned any more so than those they themselves hate should be. Any true American, should be able to TOLERATE such people and if anything, be motivated to find out what makes them tick and if they find their bigoted views offensive, to reach out to them in an effort to persuade them to think and act otherwise in a respectful manner.
The wording of statutes, regulations and executive orders is barely the tip of the iceberg. The post-modern interpretation of “discrimination” and “tolerance” is the issue. Mandated acceptance of the Narrative is the problem.
Gay marriage, for example, was never about removing any restrictions on living arrangements or the right to make legal covenants but a mandate under penalty of law and social sanction that all of us must pretend that such unions are equal in all respects to a natural marriage.
The expression or practice of religion in public is “imposing one’s views on others.” In contrast, the overt heavy-handed imposition of the Narrative liberates us from “hate”.
Under Obama, the left came to assume that the future of America would consist of a sustained beatdown of those who hold conventional Western values and/or adhere to traditional Christian or Jewish religious beliefs. They clearly had no cognitive preparation for Trump and they are reflexively doubling down on the use of their declining social, media and political power in a sustained, self-defeating tantrum.
Even Ted Kennedy buddy Oren Hatch now realizes the left has no intention of going down quietly like a Bob Michel, David Gergen-counseled Republican and that it will be a long, hard slog to the final bunker.
OMG – I’m a white conservative straight male who is a lawyer! What am I to do???
Your claim of freedom to resist the Narrative is merely an unwarranted license to hate. Making nuns submit to birth control mandates, making Christians bake phallic wedding cakes, making everyone pay for abortions and the forced public denigration of caricatures of ‘white male culture’ is the only way we can be sure that Tolerance and Diversity will prevail. Your “private” feeling and beliefs can still threaten and subvert the Narrative so your sustained public endorsement and participation is required to prevent Hate. A zone of “private” opinion is much like “private” property or Israel–an entity stolen from a collective to which it rightfully belongs. The Narrative frees us from the cognitive slavery established by the so-called Bill of Rights…
Heh. I still remember when I could read about the Frankfurt School as a source of amusing nonsense…..and I’m not even 40 yet.
Hate yourself.
So if we agree that discrimination is a bad thing, what is your plan B to reduce it? Or maybe you think it’s fine.
Check your privilege. Constantly, while groveling to those whose sensibilities are sufficiently developed by their undergraduate studies in the XXX studies departments.
These departments serve as training grounds for our political commissars and provide the initial cannon fodder for the groups blackshirts and brownshirts so recently seen on the streets of Berkeley. The shadowy network of organizations who coordinate and train the thugs can then select the better suited for more intensive training and greater responsibility, with which go stipends and transportation.
Meanwhile, the less violent majority (at any rate those not selected for graduate indoctrination or hired into entry level commissar jobs in HR departments everywhere) provides a network of provocateurs and informants in every organization and workplace.
You are being watched.
I wish that anti-dsicrimination laws were a state and not a federal issue, and I do think they should be confined to the workplace, universities, etc., rather than regulating the marketplace (narrowly defined).
I would also take a narrower definition of discrimination in exchange for an actual legal right to enforce a company’s own policies. If a company promises an environment free from harassment, there is no legal way to enforce that. People who are not members of protected classes are hung out to dry, and those who are members of protected classes must prove that the harassment not just happened, but was also based on their membership in said class.
You are obviously a “deplorable” and are totally irredeemable. The only solution is to commit suicide. I understand that the state of Oregon will assist you in this endeavor.
Also, please remember to recycle yourself. “Be kind. Rewind.”
I agree in theory, and this argument is similar to the libertarian one made by Richard Epstein in his book opposing employment discrimination laws. However, when the concept of nondiscrimination in public accommodations was made part of the ’64 Civil Rights Act, entire states practiced separate but (allegedly) equal, and there was no hope of “competition.” Try rolling that law back.
Speaking for myself, the government (and its institutions such as universities), at any level, should not be allowed to discriminate. In a perfect world, the government would not even be allowed to collect racial/ethnic information.
The policy problem with Jim Crow was not that discrimination existed, it’s that discrimination was enforced by the government.
What about a business or a landlord? Should they be able to reject someone they don’t want based on race, religion etc.? Sounds like a recipe for discord.
What we have has been a recipe for discord.
Make your money defending the Defendant in an anti-discrimination lawsuit …. it’s a dirty job but somebody’s gotta do it…
Um not to be a jerk or anything but you look like a WASPY guy. Wouldn’t you experience political discrimination before anything else?
To contradict myself a little from what I just wrote, does anyone else notice that African-American services and Muslim bakeries are never targets for discrimination suits? As far as I know, not even Catholics or Mormons have been targeted. It’s just white evangelicals.
Crowder demonstrated that it’s pretty easy to find Muslim bakers who refuse to bake cakes for gay weddings.
If I understand you correctly, I might respond by saying that individuals and private organizations should have a right to discriminate that public organizations should not have.
“entire states practiced separate but (allegedly) equal, and there was no hope of “competition.” Try rolling that law back.”
That would be that whole “government enforced discrimination” I mentioned in comment #21. Very different thing from individuals.
Even in 2017 America, individuals have the right to be racists/bigots [and/or leftists!]. The government doesn’t.
I don’t agree with your thinking at all. Open a white only restaurant? Racial discrimination is different than religious persecution. There’s being tolerant and then there’s the law. The Civil Rights Act became law. But our founders gave us Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech – they go together. The Johnson Amendment created a law where clergy or the faithful could not, as a tax-exempt group, speak freely on politics. It should go. Remember the IRS? Targeting conservative and faith-based groups under Obama – that law gave them leverage.
“I find myself unmoved. By far, the biggest source of discrimination in American society is political — i.e., discriminating against people with the “wrong sort” of politics — which is legal in most states and universally approved of by the Left.”
If I am reading this right Joseph you seem to think this Trump Executive Order is no big deal. It is a big deal – a very big deal.
From the drafts I have seen it seems to very well written, compressive, and would not tolerate the proliferation of religious bigotry that is almost pervasive in our government today. It is clearly a blow against the Left’s growing tyranny and blow for freedom.
Furthermore, it has become very difficult to determine where the Left’s moral and religious bigotry ends and their political discrimination begins. Wrapped up tightly in almost all of the Left’s political discrimination is a moral/religious argument reflecting the Left’s predominant Atheist view that religious and patriotic Americans in the old school sense are hopefully bigoted, seriously compromised morally, and in the end downright evil.
Just identifying oneself as a religious or patriotic person destroys the credibility of any argument you might make in the eyes of many leftists.
To clearly outlaw the Left’s discrimination of the religious is a very big deal and also helps tremendously in fight against Leftwing political discrimination by our government and our bureaucrats.