Karl Rove Must Be Bursting with Joy

Crockett

Crockett

5,000+ Posts
Our entire political discourse is over wedge issues. There's not a human being smart enough, not even the governor or the sponsors, to explain simply what the religious freedom law will accomplish, but people on both sides are so mad they can think of nothing else.

Thanks Karl, for your enduring contribution to the American Political Landscape. We're all really pissed and I guess we'll stay that way. You must be so proud.
 
I am sure Rove has or will comment on the issue but do you actually think Rove had anything to do with the left and media outrage?
 
This law is a solution waiting for a problem. It was passed at the insistence of the right wing of the Republican Party, a majority of a majority party. Unfortunately for Republicans, the majority of the general population no longer has a problem with gay marriage. The issue of Christians having to cater a gay marriage sounds like injustice. But with a little common sense, the problem could be easily sidestepped on a one off basis instead of through legislation that has us at one another's throat.

6721 are you familiar with Rove's Wedge issue strategy? Funny thing is it worked better when the majority was on the Right wing side of the issue.
 
So, a hypothetical or two.
Should a person be able to go into a privately owned textile shop (whose ownership is black), and order sheets to be used for the KKK rally next month? And have the expectation that they MUST respect the order and fill it?

Should a person be able to go into a Muslim owned food store and place an order for 100 lbs of pork chops and bacon? And have the expectation that they MUST respect the order and fill it?
 
SN: Common Sense Says "No." If we needed a law to cover every bizarre hypothetical, we'd have a voluminous legal code that, because of inevitable unintended consequences would sometimes mandate injustice.
 
OK, so what underlying principle do you wish to advocate? Must a private business owner enter into a transaction with anybody who demands it, or do they have the freedom to say no?

I advocate allowing a privately held company to choose with whom they want to do business, and with whom they do not, for whatever reason they choose. And I also advocate that we do not need laws to make this so. What we need is less of the left wing, social media driven mob mentality that harasses and threatens to shut down anything the mob dislikes. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...the-matter-of-memories-pizza-vs-the-internet/
 
"The issue of Christians having to cater a gay marriage sounds like injustice. But with a little common sense, the problem could be easily sidestepped on a one off basis instead of through legislation that has us at one another's throat."

And you honestly believe that's going to happen despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary? It's funny how we constantly hear "Oh don't worry, you're being paranoid. No one's going to be run out of business for something like this" right up until it happens. "No one is saying you can be compelled to participate in something you don't want to do" right up until it happens. "No one is going to force you into "re-education" classes because of your beliefs" right up until it happens.

I understand your point and would love to say you're right. A certain segment of our population has ensured that will not be the case, though.
 
A lot of the laws you worry about have roots in what were not bizarre hypotheticals. The reality was that in the early 1960s traveling black people in the south could hardly find a place to eat, sleep or go to the bathroom, even if they had pockets full of money. A law limited businesses ability to restrict access and was justified and was good public policy, even though business' owner's rights to discriminate were infringed. Universities whose leader felt they had Biblical ground to be horrified by interracial dating, had to give up their rights not to be offended or give up their students' rights to federal education funds. The cause of justice was served by restricting the behavior or businesses or universities.

Can laws get stretched beyond the rules of common sense? Sure for people who set out to do that. Extremist on both side know how to set up a confrontation and make the hypotheticals real, though I'd argue in almost every case lawsuits could have been avoided had either side been a little creative. Hard cases make bad law and for some people ... those enamored of being on the "right" side of a wedge issue, bad law gives them something to fight about. Fighting is what they love. I'm not one of those people.
 
So as a result, those people who get caught in the crossfires are just out of luck?

The examples you cite are real and definitely issues, but they have no relevance to the laws under discussion. It's well established that public use (I forget the legal term, common use goods?) such as restaurants, accommodations, etc... are all covered under the Civil Rights act. At this point, there is no law anywhere that exempts someone from their obligation to serve or admit. But the real instances that have brought about this round of "protection" laws have to do with instances in which people are not being refused service that is guaranteed to anyone and everyone else. But it's being depicted that way, which has been extremely dishonest, and that's not being done by the "fringe." That's Yahoo News (for one), which screamed out in a headline that an Indiana business was "the first" to say they would refuse service. The implication (and a point that was specifically claimed in some articles) was that because of the new law, these people had been emboldened to not serve gays.

As a result, the rage ensued and the family had to close down due to death threats. All because a journalist walked into their restaurant and point-blank asked them what they would do in a hypothetical situation which had never taken place in their restaurant and likely never would. They answered according to their conscience and now for something they've never done and likely will never do, they are being vilified publicly. So in that environment, do you honestly think that their rights or conscience would be respected in any way, shape or form? Do you just see them as "collateral damage" in this whole thing?

I get that you're "not one of those people", but at what point do we finally say that we can't allow bullies on either side of the aisle to coerce people who just are trying to live their lives and aren't looking to bother anyone? If we're not willing to protect those people, then what's the point of even having a free society? Let's just send out a questionnaire right now, get every business on record as to what they support politically and socially, and then we can just have big giant free-for-all where everyone boycotts everyone.
 
I feel very sympathetic for the folks in the Pizza Parlor who said that they would refuse to cater a gay wedding. The journalist (unwitting young thing hired for her looks I'm believing) asked if they would cater a gay wedding. The owner said she wouldn't and has been attacked by leftist culture warriors. And it was a bizarre hypothetical. As a straight guy, I think it would be great to have a pizza parlor cater a wedding --- Chicago Style Pizza in cardboard boxes beats the hell out of finger sandwiches on silver trays to my way of thinking. I'm not believing any women or gay guys I know would go along. When straight guys start marrying one another....
I'm seeing the pizza caterer becoming an issue.

The contested bill was the work of right wing culture warriors. They start a fight and are surprised the left wing culture warriors show up? Again, we can start trying to make enough rules so nobody gets treated unfairly. But I think it's a fool's errand.

Again, opening up this can of worms was a stupid idea from those enamored of "winning" the culture war. Personally, I think the only winning is in avoiding a divisive and unnecessary fight.
 
Except that they didn't start it... it came about as a reaction to other decisions in other states against private citizens. Now the REAL irony in all this is that this law likely wouldn't have stopped the kind of forced compliance that many Christians want to avoid, so in very many ways, this whole thing is an argument about nothing. Politifact (which I tend to view a little skeptically) even pointed out that ultimately this law wouldn't do what either the liberals OR conservatives thought it would do, and it ended up being just another excuse to yell at each other.

My frustration has increasingly been with conservative leaders who are seemingly incapable of crafting thoughtful legislation, articulating a clear rationale and then sticking to the plan despite criticism from the extremes on either side. The fringe and the media will do what they always do, so I guess there's no sense expecting anything else, but the actors who ought to have figured this out by now still seem to always get caught completely by surprise. And what makes it even funnier is that they think by "fixing" the legislation, that these groups will then forgive them and magically NOT think they're bigots and hate-mongers.
 
That "unwitting" reporter falsely stated that the pizza parlor refused to serve gays. The interview I saw, which the person interviewed was very young - doubt she was the owner, stated they do and would serve gay people but would not cater a gay wedding. The headline came out as Pizza Parlor refuses to serve gay people. Another example of how far journalism has fallen.

There is another thread which discusses the Indiana law, so I will not repeat my view. Just wanted to clarify the pizza parlor reporting.
 
So PH, you and I can agree that the Indiana fight is about the fight and not about achieving results. Victory for the dividers.
 
I would definitely agree with that. Maybe I'm overestimating people, but I tend to think that we can generally work through things on our own without lawyers and bureaucrats. We may sometimes get irritated with each other, but we adjust our behavior accordingly and move on, and it just seems like when we suck the outrage out of the situation, that's what happens. The reason I know it works is because today there are hundreds of Muslim-owned businesses that are not the source of outrage over slights about gay marriage. Somehow people just manage to not go to those shops if they don't think they're going to be received well. And if they do go to one and a Muslim owner refuses to cater to them, they just move on to the next shop and don't come back. Does that approach "changed the world"? Maybe not, but it lets us live in the same society without tearing each other apart. In a country as diverse as ours, I think that's a pretty good goal to aim for.
 
The contested bill was the work of right wing culturewarriors. They start a fight and are surprised the left wing culture warriors show up?
Click to expand...

Crock,

I have to challenge you on this point. Yes, Right wing culture warriors did push for this bill. However, it isn't fair to say they started the fight.

I agree that the bill is a solution looking for a problem, because Indiana doesn't have nondiscrimination legislation. However, the politics that led to the bill was the stories of bakeries, etc. being penalized by government through civil penalties or lawsuits because they didn't want to get involved in gay weddings for religious reasons. That occurred because some states and municipalities enacted nondiscrimination laws and basically didn't give a damn about anyone's religious concerns.

So as misguided as the Indiana law is, it is a political reaction to out of state Left wing culture warriors who had contempt for Christian business owners and wanted to use the power of the state to rub their noses in the gay marriage issue.
 
Well, there's no question the left wing culture warriors are spoiling for a fight. Now that the majority of Americans are sympathetic with gay marriage, they'll probably start using the "wedge" themselves. As a lawyer, you probably know better than I what's "legal" and what's "just" doesn't always coincide. Laws and lawsuits are expensive unwieldy tools for getting people to live by the Golden Rule.
 
Crockett said:
Well, there's no question the left wing culture warriors are spoiling for a fight. Now that the majority of Americans are sympathetic with gay marriage, they'll probably start using the "wedge" themselves. As a lawyer, you probably know better than I what's "legal" and what's "just" doesn't always coincide. Laws and lawsuits are expensive unwieldy tools for getting people to live by the Golden Rule.
Click to expand...

It is already used as a wedge issue. In fact the recent political storm on this issue is such an example. The problem for the Left is that while the public is now supportive of gay marriage, I think that support comes from a socially libertarian perspective rather than an affirmative interest in embracing homosexuality or screwing with Christians. That means there's probably a limit to how far they're willing to go in supporting the gay policy agenda. The line could be drawn with issues like forcing Christian businesses or clergy to participate in gay marriage ceremonies.

I also am a believer in the ******* penalty. If a political movement's activists act like jerks, it hurts the movement. The Right has paid dearly for this, but it has happened to the Left in the past and happen again if they push this sort of thing too hard and too far.
 
The NCAA said they would have to reconsider having championships and their offices in states that have religious protection laws. They also won't hold championships in states that fly the Confederate flag.

So, how do they feel about one of the star players using the N word on TV? Is the N word ever right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top