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.
This week, we give you the straight pepperoni on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act fight in Indiana and as expected, the podcast mirrors real life (or at least real life on Ricochet). Then, former HP CEO and current 90% decided Presidential candidate Carly Fiorina joins to discuss why she’s the best person to beat Hillary, why she won’t fall into the same CEO trap that Mitt Romney found himself in, and why printer ink is so darn expensive (Thanks, @Lileks!).
Then, our good pal Andrew Ferguson joins from The Weekly Standard to discuss his must read profile of Jeb Bush, and his impressions of the other candidates in the field (he’s met them all). Also, will a dog allergy kill Scott Walker’s chances to win the White House? A Ricochet Podcast Investigation ® settles the matter. Finally, the curious case of new Daily Show host Trevor Noah — are his jokes off color or just not funny? We give our take — what’s yours?
Music from this week’s episode:
Indiana by Louis Armstrong
The opening sequence for the Ricochet Podcast was composed and produced by James Lileks.
Extra cheese, EJHill.
Yes, you should absolutely subscribe to this podcast. It helps!
Help Ricochet by Supporting Our Sponsors!
This podcast is brought to you by Harry’s Shave. For the finest shave at the best price, got Harrys.com and use the coupon code RICOCHET at checkout.
Subscribe to The Ricochet Podcast in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.
Are you honestly saying you do not see Christians criticizing promiscuity and divorce? Is that your claim? Or is the level of criticism simply not up to your standards, what exactly is required for you to be satisfied?
Yes that’s what I’m saying, to their customers.
Frankly I am really uncertain as to what your expectations are, do you think an enterprise needs to force customers to fill out surveys in order for you to be satisfied? If they refused to cater to a Simi Valley orgy, which would of course never in a million years make the news, would that be enough to satisfy you?
What are you looking for?
There really isn’t a problem in IN with discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in any way more than in a state where that is a protected class. I think adding sexual orientation to the protected classes would not result in a big change in the application of the law simply because no one is really claiming that type of discrimination is an issue any more than in other states. Sure, some companies aren’t giving family benefits to gay spouses, but that is changing as a result of the marketplace, and changing pretty quickly. As a purely legal analysis, yes, adding that to the list of protected classes would make the application of strict scrutiny to a law or court order imposing a limitation on religious freedom easier to apply and resolve and would give homosexuals protection that they otherwise would not have, for example, by making it easier to claim death benefits or hospital visitation rights. I think it would also solve part of the public image issue.
The problem is that non-discrimination law has become a legal weapon beyond what it was intended to be. Take, for example, the decade long fight that Westchester County has had with DOJ on housing discrimination. Or the application of Disparate Impact theory to cases all over the country, most notably by the DOJ in the banking industry. Many small business owners find themselves completely consumed by legal fights with former employees claiming discrimination that didn’t happen because there is a legal industry that profits off of it. These applications of non-discrimination law have had massive impacts on us all, and many don’t even know it. These may just be the necessary side effects of enforcing anti-discrimination through our legal system, but they are not cost-free. Where no one is really complaining that they are being discriminated against in a material manner, I would argue that expanding those protections is more harmful than beneficial – especially if the culture is already on the path to eradicating that discrimination as a practical matter. I would much prefer that IN pass a law that grants married homosexuals access to benefits on par with married heterosexuals rather than use the overarching protective class designation. Or use similar one-off laws to solve inequities.
Non-discrimination law has been eating up other areas of law now for a few decades. Expanding the classes exacerbates that effect. Unfortunately, there will come a time where real discrimination is not occurring except in rare circumstance but entire town budgets (like in Westchester) will be consumed by a government using non-discrimination law to impose its own preferences.
Rob,
The problem is that good faith is no longer a rational assumption in any issue of controversy when dealing with these people. We aren’t trying to strike delicate balances between competing goods and finding a way to live together in a patchwork pluralistic society.
These jerks are trolling reality; beginning meet end. These are sociopaths who get their jollies hurting other people, and they have been given a moral license to troll.
There is no good faith to be found.
Ahem. (That’s my way of contradicting the claim, because many of us have expressed grave concern with the current state of marriage in general, and the reasons behind it.)
You can ask couples whether they have abided by the traditional constraints before marriage, but to verify it, you would have to be so intrusive as to offend anyone’s privacy. The Catholic Church still does ask those questions anyway, but no one expects an intrusive investigation to verify them.
The difference with gays is that, by definition, the partners can’t possibly agree to bear children. They may agree to raise them, but they can’t possibly bear them. So the question is answered before it’s even asked.
For the record, however, I fully agree with your premise: if you really are against gay marriage, not because of sexual orientation but because of views about marriage, then you have to prove it by opposing the disgraceful disrespect of traditional marriage by heterosexuals. I fully agree with that.
Rob, this response by you is incoherent and is why I accuse you of dissembling and question your sincerity. None of what Nick wrote squares with the remarks you made in the podcast or your early posts in this thread. You cannot logically square the circle between agreeing with Nick and holding the opinions you’ve already made. Nick just refuted you and you said, “See, we agree!”
Claire pushes them in the front door and Rob kicks them out the back door. An interesting business model.
No, we’re talking about how you want to claim that you support freedom of religion but think that people who have sincere religious beliefs are anti-gay and don’t deserve protection. You offer incoherent and risible qualifications (hairsplitting) about “carve outs” that should be allowed, while understanding full well that no carve outs will be allowed to stand.
The left operates a one-way ratchet and is never satisfied with compromise or accepting of the common sense equilibria that private individuals and groups establish to coexist. The left seeks state imposed submission to the values of the ruling elite and will brook no dissent or questioning of the top-down order they seek to impose. You know this, I know you know this, and yet you still want to look down your nose at those who would defy this totalitarian impulse in defense of their god given and constitutionally protected rights of conscience.
I’m sorry but I must insist. This particular statement simply makes no sense:
You’ve just said that if a baker refuses to make a wedding cake for an engaged gay couple that’s cool. But if a baker refuses to sell a wedding cake to an engaged couple that’s disturbing. ?????? You think there are certain bakeries where wedding cakes just lie around made by the wedding cake fairy and that bakeries just act as the middle man?
The case law is clear. Sexual orientation is not a protected class. The government in the form of the executive or judicial branch has no right to apply strict scrutiny to any acts of discrimination against non-protected classes. It’s very simple and very cut and dry. If you want to wring your hands over the, in your mind, legitimate and valid fears that RFRA is stripping some legal protections from homosexuals, I think you first need to explain why you believe the misguided understanding about the novel harms that the Indiana RFRA law is imposing on gay people. What legitimate harm do you think gays should fear from this law, Rob? How does this law give some type of new power to discriminate against gay people, when it is already perfectly legal to discriminate against them in the first place?
How can I accept a logically incoherent argument from someone I know to be perfectly capable of logic and who is perfectly well aware of the totalitarian nature of the people he is siding with? I suppose to be generous I should just chalk up the incoherence and acceptance of mob-mentality arguments to a blind spot on your part, but I just don’t.
What I suspect, and forgive me in advance for the motive speculation, is that you actually just would rather no talk about these issues. You think these social issues and championing of Christian values drives people away from the Republican party so you’d rather people of faith and traditional moral values would just shut up and dutifully vote for the GOP the way other constituencies like African-Americans vote for the Democrats even though the Democrats simply pay lip service to the actual needs and concerns of that constituency.
Well, sorry, sticking our head in the sand and appeasing the braying mobs attacking our deepest held beliefs is not a winning formula. I don’t believe it will even win politically in the short term, and I know it won’t result in a win for the health and survival of our society in the long run.
Thank you Rob for your willingness to spar. It speaks volumes about your character. (Not that you needed my approval).
Rob:
My objection is to your use of the term “anti-gay.” I don’t know if you meant it or not, but this term comes across to me as the equivalent of “bigoted knuckle-dragging fundamentalist.” The very use of the term seems to concede the argument of the Left — that there is no room for good-faith objection to homosexuality in civilized society.
Perhaps a helpful analogy is to imagine a prominent left-wing opinion leader — perhaps Kirsten Powers — using the term “anti-life” to refer to the proponents of abortion at a left-leaning website. It is such a loaded term that its use would raise a firestorm of objection by those on the site.
Your use of “anti-gay” comes across that way to me, and I think to many others, and thus has raised the firestorm discussed above.
On the substantive issue of anti-discrimination laws, I recommend Richard Epstein’s latest Libertarian podcast, in which he makes an excellent case against having any anti-discrimination laws at all, except in cases of natural monopoly.
I really like Carly Fiorina! But shouldn’t a person with a tech background be able to arrange a better phone connection?
Aw man. I’m too late for the, “beat up on Rob thread”, Looks like you guys all kissed and made up already.
Matede
“Aw man. I’m too late for the, “beat up on Rob thread”, Looks like you guys all kissed and made up already.”
Guys all kissed? Here we go again.
Marythefifth #13: And is it hard to imagine a person having questionable history and habits but with whom you would associate, allow into your home, your church, club, whatever, but perhaps not want to see them with sole charge of your young children or your sister’s children for 7 hours a day almost 200 days of the year?
Mary, this comment isn’t entirely clear so I’ll ask. Am I correct in thinking you object to gay people being teachers?
On the other hand, Ms. Fiorina is wrong about Romney and turnout. Romney lost because The Stupid was simply too strong.
Please don’t try to explain the law when you know nothing about it.
I agree. I’d kind of been disregarding her, but she was very impressive. Who knows?
Well Cato please point out where I’m mistaken. Is sexual orientation a protected class? What level of scrutiny does discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation require from the courts? I’m open to edificatio. Or do you just want people who don’t agree with you to shut up?
Either way. I’m certainly not going to waste my time educating you if you’re going to talk to me that way.
That really is my main comment, KC. I loathe the way anti-Christians are using this issue for their own, yes, perverse ends (i.e., a will to power). But I do question the emphasis on gays when the issue is marriage itself. Thanks for being so perceptive (as per usual).
I haven’t insulted you. I responded in exactly the tone you used with me, calling me a no-nothing whose opinion shouldn’t be expressed. If you’re not interested in educating me, why not do it for the sake of all those I’ve led astray with my faulty analysis.
Karl Rove just had a column in the Wall Street Journal about the turnout problem. On the whole, I wasn’t too impressed by Fiorina. The foreign policy ideas seemed really broad and trite. I could’ve said the same thing as she did, and I don’t know the first thing about foreign policy.
Come on Paris you can’t use Karl Rove as a source to disprove the anti-establishment point. I mean Rove IS the establishment. I know, I know I’m showing my Tea Partyish cards but still Karl Rove isn’t the best source, he was so in the Romney camp his bunk was next to Mitt’s.
I have the same reaction. Note also the way the SSM advocates in CA used the “NoH8” line, as if the only possible reason for opposing the redefinition of marriage was HATE.
As long as we’re on the language issue, let’s split hairs down to single microns. “Anti-gay” suggests there’s “pro-gay.” Meaning, what? It doesn’t mean toleration anymore, because that suggests a certain condescending forbearance for the existence of homosexuality, and it is not enough to tolerate. You have to approve. Well, I don’t disapprove. I don’t care, as long as it doesn’t frighten the horses.
That said: It can help you understand someone in terms of what they might have experienced, and how those experiences formed their character and outlook, but it’s not the most interesting thing. I mean, if you met a gay former Navy SEAL ex-Astronaut who translated Shakespeare into Phoenician and was currently involved in a clean-water initiative in Africa, the gay part would be down the list when it came to conversational topics.
Alas: Indifference – an evident lack of endorsement – is a microaggression, to use the progressive jargon. You have to be Pro, and Pro is defined by a set of criteria from which there is no variance. If you’re 90% Pro but 10% Anti, however that’s defined today, into the fires with you.
As it happens I do not have objections to homosexuality. I think the optimal arrangement for childrearing, all things being equal, is a man and a woman, and I also know gay couples who are great parents. The former has nothing to do with my regard for the latter. If I ran a pizzeria my main criteria for catering a wedding would be whether the deposit check cleared, and I would wish them luck setting off the matrimonial seas. I am advocating for a position I do not personally hold because the diminution of religious liberty empowers the state, and the reduction of language despoils debate.
Carly Fiorina was no Mitt Romney in the business world, but I did admire her senatorial campaign in CA, particularly her focus on the harmful policies propagated by the EPA upon the Central Valley.
I liked what she had to say on this podcast and wish her well.
Sorry Rob, but when a gay person is the victim, there is universal acclaim to their victimhood. When a Christian is the victim , a lot of mealy mouthed equivalence nonsense gets spouted about how “both sides have grievance” and there are” bad actors on both sides”.
The case of the pizza shop is clear cut. They were trampled by an elitist media mob and run out of town. . Save the equivalence for an equivalent situation.
To try and mitigate the damage done to one of our American citizens is not offset by theoretical , not in evidence, potential ,maybe if, damage to nonexistent people.
Real people were really hurt here. We need to stop it.
A gay couple who cannot get a wedding cake anywhere in town for their nuptials is a problem. Let me know when that happens.
So Rob, the Pope is “anti-Gay” because he affirms the teaching of Scripture and the Church that homosexual activity is sinful. I believe he also affirms the Biblical teaching that greed, lust, sloth and such are sinful and we all practice these things at some time or another, so let’s just stipulate now that the Pope is “anti-human”. How many votes do you think the Republican nominee will get running against the Pope? (Because you know that will be the next debate question George Stephanopoulos would fire at GOP candidates, “Are you Anti-Gay like the Pope?” Candidate: “Well, I don’t think the Pope should be described in that way…” GS: “Well, hard-line conservative Rob Long describes him that way…”)
I’m not sure I understand your point, EThompson. You question the stats Rove uses? Do you have different statistics? Fiorina isn’t any less “establishment” than Rove or Romney, by the way.