This is
an interesting blog that goes at the heart of private business being forced to
offer their services to homosexual wedding ceremonies. The news has recently
been riddled with stories about the oppression of homosexual couples that are
just looking to obtain equal rights as heterosexuals. The typically accusations
brought against mostly Christian organizations is that they are denying these
people their rights and are then being brought to court. What this blog gets at
is that none of these businesses have ever discriminated against gay people
because they are gay. Most of them have been good contributors to society, but
just don't want their products affiliated with an act they find sinful. As
businesses have said, they are more than happy to make baked goods or take
photos of gay's, they morally cannot use their resources for the wedding
ceremonies. The connection homosexuals make with blacks is disconnected because
homosexuals are being served all across the country by Christians and Christian
organizations. People of color were refused not because they wanted someone to
advertise, but specifically because of their skin color. So they received no
service at all. Now, homosexuals are getting the law on their side and carving
out special privilege. A bakery might supply cakes to a KKK member, but it
should possess the right to refuse to bake for a rally.
When a
President leaves office, they are able to have their records sealed for up to
12 years. For President Clinton, that ended in 2013. So far, the records have
not been released to the public but it appears most of the archive is scheduled
to be released. The Clintons, as well as President Obama, may be able to make a
case for keeping certain records sealed. This will likely set up a court battle
should Hillary decide to run for President, and will likely give a Republican
contender some ammunition claiming that she has something to hide. Which is no
doubt the case, some of the papers may be sensitive or classified, but others
have the possibility to rehash old controversies from the Clinton years. We'll
have to see what sort of things are released
Due to
the massive failings of just about everything the Democrats have put into
place, the mid-term elections could be a disaster for them. So, in order to
mount their defense, they have decided to target women voters. By using the
same rhetoric as always, Democratic campaign strategies will be adjusted to
focus on targeting women and promising higher wages and more benefits. The
typical promise offered by Washington. Many studies have been done on income
inequality among the genders, and depending on who you read, it's a big issue
or it's mostly a myth. There is sometimes a difference in pay between a man and
a woman in the same job, but that does not necessarily mean it's inequality.
Currently, the highest earners are typically male, so the overall income goes
to men. Also, more women stay at home with children than do men, so the gap
widens. Also, typically, women don't have as much time in the workforce due to
children. Also, insurance costs for women are higher because they typically
require more services and businesses account for things like maternity leave
(one of the promises by Washington is to extend that leave time). Check out
some more on the topic at Forbes
Ah Joe
Biden, such a respected politician and a clear thinker before he speaks. Wait,
I think I've got that wrong. He is of
course the blabbering fool. His latest accusation is claiming the Voter ID law
in South Carolina is based on 'hatred' and not helping to reduce voter fraud.
One thing is always sure, Democrats say there is no fraud and Republicans say
there is. Biden of course references this as being a step backwards for civil
rights. The democrats were also dealt a blow by the Supreme Court when it
struck down critical elements of the Voting Rights Act. So it must then be a
conspiracy between the Republicans and the Supreme Court, because you know,
those two are always in sync (not). All South Carolina is asking for is some
way to identify voters, seems pretty simple to me, so that people can't go in
multiple times under false names. But of course, the Democrats, who claim to be
for the poor, are calling this discrimination against those who don't have
government issued ID's. So, here's the
choice, let people fraud the system or some people might have a harder time voting.
With
the new Presidential budget to be released, the President has called an end to
the "Age of Austerity." This is hard to read without falling on the
floor laughing, or wrenching in pain. Since Obama took office, deficits have
skyrocketed. As Michael Tanner points out, "the real Obama debt increase
has been more than $4.7 trillion." If that's his version of austerity, I
don't want to know what he thinks are appropriate for regular spending. The
only deficit cutting that was accomplished came through the sequester, which
everyone blasted and now Washington is trying to undo. So, who knows what sort
of soaring deficits await us, since Obama's massive debt increase was his
version of 'austerity.'
I don't
know how many people who read this have ever been to Alaska. I have and it's
beautiful. Probably the most beautiful place I've ever been. There aren't many
requests that come out of this state for federal assistance (that I know of) so
when people in a remote village ask for the ability to make an emergency road
to get to an airport, you would think that would be fine. However, their
efforts have been shut down because of the wildlife that inhabit the area. The
Secretary of the Interior has blocked efforts for this road and is essentially
putting the safety of animals above the inhabitants of this small town. They
make it sound like if they build this road there will be no more wildlife
refuge, when in reality that's pretty much all Alaska is. People in the small
town have died in part because they were unable to evacuate because there is no
access to a road and the little airport can't handle the storms. So, I think
it's time for the families who have lost loved ones to send pictures of those
they lost, along with a bird picture and ask, "which is more important to
protect?"
Perhaps citing something over than the Cato Institute or Fox news would make this drivel seem like it actually had more substance. That's doubtful, though.
ReplyDeleteI would prefer that if you are to make a comment, make one that is actually constructive instead of bashing.
ReplyDeleteBecause your post was definitely constructive and not bashing. Oh, wait...
ReplyDeleteI would say it is in some ways primarily because it's responding to current events. Your comment was to just not cite Cato or Fox. No interaction, so not constructive. If you have something to say about those particular links you can. Anyway, my blog, my rules. If you don't like them, don't read it.
ReplyDelete