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.
‘Every American deserves to be treated with respect and dignity. With today’s vote, the House has again affirmed that LGBTQ people should enjoy the same rights and responsibilities as all other Americans,’ said Democratic Representative David Cicilline of Rhode Island, who led the push for the bill.
Sounds good, doesn’t it? The truth is that every American does not deserve to be treated with respect and dignity; rapists, murderers, illegal immigrants, and many Leftists have not earned respectful treatment, for starters. And the Equality Act H.R.5, which was passed by the House 224 to 206 votes on February 25, is not only deceptive but opens the door to abuses of the rights of most Americans.
The Equality Act, no matter what it says, is not intended to make sure that everyone has equal rights. Specifically, it would very likely show favoritism toward LBGT groups, and discrimination against religious groups, girls and women, businesses, medical professionals, and others. The Heritage Foundation describes the bill in this way:
The last time I chatted with someone in a public place, we were discussing the change of local lizards this year. We usually see mostly green anoles — “chameleons” that can change from green to brown at will. But this year brown anoles — striped cousins that can’t change color — are all one sees. […]
https://pjmedia.com/columns/megan-fox/2020/08/13/media-silent-after-white-5-year-old-shot-dead-in-front-of-family-by-black-neighbor-n787345 Are the “main” press outlets just trying to keep this quiet so they don’t start stomping some downtown, or camping in some park, or painting the streets? Preview Open
On Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, I was reminded of the trips we have made to St. Augustine, FL.
When tourists go to St. Augustine, many focus on the local fort, the Castillo de San Marcos, the candy factory, or listen to commentary about the countries that fought for control of Florida. On one of our trips, however, we located a quiet part of town, a neighborhood of discreet older homes with nicely trimmed lawns. These homes are a testament to the resilience of, and commitment to, the City of St. Augustine by the black community:
Founded in 1866 by former slaves, the district remained relatively static until the late 19th century. Segregationist practices that swept the South between 1890 and 1910 spurred the growth of black owned and operated commercial enterprises. Washington Street in the district became the heart of the black business community. In 1877 the “People’s Ticket” that included black Republican D.M. Pappy, a leader in the Lincolnville community, swept city elections. By the early 20th century Lincolnville was a major subdivision of St. Augustine with a high level of political participation among its residents. In 1964 St. Augustine became a focal point for the Civil Rights Movement.
Haaah-vahd is caught in a virtuous-victims vise, and it couldn’t happen to a more deserving center of intersectional grievance mongers. For the past year, Harvard has been slowly bled by allegations and then ugly revelations about their administration’s racial problem with Asians. Now, Harvard is being sued for profiting today from the racist Harvard past, specifically by exploiting the image of a slave. The plaintiff claims she is a descendant of the exploited African-American and suffers harm herself in seeing the continued exploitation of her ancestor by Harvard.
So, Harvard University is being sued for discrimination against Asians, in the same way as they once discriminated against Jews, and is being separately sued for the present-day continuation of its 19th-century exploitation of an African-American slave. Perhaps the Harvard shield of arms should be updated, replacing “Veritas,” written across three open books, with a plain black bar sinister.
It couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch:
Glenn C. Loury of Brown University joined Jason Riley to discuss the persistence of racial inequality in America. Their conversation took place at a Manhattan Institute event in New York City entitled “Barriers To Black Progress: Structural, Cultural, Or Both?”
Professor Loury, who has also taught at Harvard University and Boston University, is a professor of economics, with a focus on race and inequality. He’s published several books, including The Anatomy of Racial Inequality and Race, Incarceration, and American Values.
http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20180806-how-hidden-bias-can-stop-you-getting-a-job I was just reading the BBC essay above, on problems encountered in the hiring process, and how employers can further eliminate their hidden biases. Some of it was probably helpful but one sentence jumped out at me: Preview Open
One day I had a discussion with a man who (I thought) was a good friend. He was an ardent Leftist, and our discussion of politics and racism took a strange turn. When I pointed out that Jews had been discriminated against for centuries (and we’re both Jewish), he was outraged; he said that the Jewish experience couldn’t be compared to the tragedy of slavery. When I asked him, why not, he couldn’t answer me.
In another discussion, he was describing black people as victims and said we needed to acknowledge that fact. When I asked him how it benefited blacks if we acknowledged and treated them as victims, once again he couldn’t answer. We never discussed discrimination again.
Although some black people rely on the history of slavery in this country as a way to criticize and discount those who are not black, they actually entrap themselves and separate themselves from the rest of us. I wanted to take a look at their arguments and explore another way to look at racism and discrimination. My hope is to point out that all of us, blacks and whites, have a great deal in common.
I think the big picture is, If we as a society agree that we can’t manage to interact with our fellow citizens (in personal or commercial relationships, either one) without the federal government always coming in and mediating those relationships for us, then the outcomes in particular cases will sometimes go in favor of the […]
This year marks the 50th anniversary of the passage of the Fair Housing Act, the landmark legislation signed by President Lyndon Johnson aimed to end housing discrimination and residential segregation in America.
Martin Castro, chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, informs us that the phrases “religious liberty” and “religious freedom” are “code words” used to discriminate. Castro made the statements as part of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights’ 306-page report, “Peaceful Coexistence: Reconciling Nondiscrimination Principles With Civil Liberties.” Originally scheduled for issuance in 2013, its […]
One of the marvels of liberal civilization is that — if one sees goods or services for sale — one can approach the proprietor with a reasonable expectation of doing business, no questions asked. Even expensive and important transactions can be handled without the relevant parties being required to connect at any deep level if they don’t wish to. We don’t need to offer specific justifications for our worth as human beings to every cashier; we just need to treat them decently and present cash. On the other hand, there’s nothing inherently wrong with having a business be more discriminating; in many cases, it’s not only natural, but highly beneficial and desired by all parties. Laws that prevent this may protect against some ugliness and harm by sellers, but also enable some despicable behavior on the part of customers, as we saw repeatedly during the baker/photographer/florist cases of the past few years.
This is among the prime reasons I’m opposed to our current regime of public accommodations laws, which privilege customers’ potential complaints of discrimination over any objection — real, imagined, honorable, or dishonorable — a business might have to participating. Likening a decades-long, state-enforced regime of racial discrimination in a region with a history of chattel slavery to someone not wishing to photograph lesbian nuptials isn’t just a stretch, it’s dishonest, and little-improved by evocations to slippery slopes. But, as the likely legal troubles faced by a ladies-only Uber competitor show, there is another reason to oppose such laws: they don’t let specialized services … specialize. Via the Boston Globe: