"Religious freedom" = freedom to discriminate

It's a growing trend, unfortunately. With gay marriage being legalized in an increasing number of states, so too have "religious freedom" laws as a counter move by the far-right. These laws make it legal for companies to not offer service to those they feel are not in line with biblical teachings - namely, the LGBT community. They say forcing them to offer their services to homosexuals or gay couples is an affront to their religious freedom to believe what they want as Christians. But, as the saying goes, let's not beat around the bush, and just call these bills what they are. They're not "religious freedom" bills; they're "freedom to discriminate" bills.

These bills are bass ackwards in multiple ways. First off, there's a distinct difference between one's personal life and their professional life. These "Christians" can believe whatever they so choose. They can go to church on Sundays, can read the Bible every day before bed, can pray every morning, and can firmly believe that after they leave this earth, they'll be rewarded by joining a higher power in a paradise known as heaven. However, while they can still believe these things at work, as professionals, they still owe equal treatment and service to each and every customer. Just because a person is dressed in goth attire, another has a green mohawk, or a person is extremely overweight, doesn't give these professionals the right to refuse them service because they don't like or approve of something about them. I'm sure if they looked at each and every person closely, they could probably find something about their past of which they didn't necessarily approve, including themselves. It seems rather hypocritical to deny a person of service because they're deemed "sinful" when every person has "sinned." Also, how does it help professionally from a financial standpoint to refuse service to at least one demographic? From both a moral and professional vantage point, the move appears to be twisted.

There's been a long line of such service protections for people like those in the LGBT community in order to offset potential discrimination by businesses. African-Americans know this better than anyone. Was it right then to afford businesses the "freedom" to not serve these individuals because of their skin color? No. Would it be right to allow businesses the "freedom" to not serve women if they so chose? No. Just as such, it's not right for businesses to not offer their services to people based on their creed or orientation.

What these "religious freedom" backers seem to be missing is the fact that, regardless of where they work, they have the freedom to believe as they so choose. If they're a mechanic in Reno, Nevada, they have the freedom to be a Muslim. If they're a librarian in Pierre, South Dakota, they have the freedom to be a Christian. If they're a landscaper in Roswell, Georgia, they have the freedom to be a Buddhist. Yet when these far-right individuals pass "religious freedom" laws, what they're essentially doing is stripping others of freedom by making professional discrimination legal once again. When it comes right down to it, "religious freedom" laws aren't about religious freedom at all; they're about the freedom to discriminate.

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"

The Kind-Hearted Smart Aleck

Search This Blog