DO LIBERAL DEMOCRATS REALLY THINK THEY ARE TOLERANT?

A picture of a lightbulb is often used to represent a person having a bright idea.
A picture of a lightbulb is often used to represent a person having a bright idea. (from here)

When Liberal Democrats tout diversity, we get lots of pictures of people who look different. What we don’t get is a picture of bunch of people with different ideas. Perhaps that is why Liberal Democrats can handle the appearance of diversity. They can picture our surface differences.  Whatever the reason, what Liberal Democrats cannot tolerate is people who disagree with them.

Here is an example.

Here is something to think about from the CNN article.

Phillips argued that compelling him to make cakes for same-sex marriages compels him to convey a celebratory message about the ceremony, in conflict with his religious beliefs.

The court disagreed.

“By selling a wedding cake to a same-sex couple, Masterpiece does not necessarily lead an observer to conclude that the bakery supports its customer’s conduct,” the court ruled. “The public has no way of knowing the reasons supporting Masterpiece’s decision to serve or decline to serve a same-sex couple.”

Here we have a private citizen, a businessman, trying to do what he thinks is right. From the court’s perspective, what that businessman thinks of his conduct doesn’t matter. It is what others think of his conduct that matters. Doesn’t that sound positively weird? Isn’t what we do when we think no one is watching the true test of our character? At least that is what I think. I guess that Liberal judge thinks I still need to be properly indoctrinated, that is, sent to a reeducation camp.

How about you? Do you have personal standards, or is it just a matter of what others think when they are watching you? Are you a Liberal Democrat?

Advertisements

57 thoughts on “DO LIBERAL DEMOCRATS REALLY THINK THEY ARE TOLERANT?

  1. I’ve found with most Liberals that diversity does not extend to minorities who hold Conservative beliefs. Then you are an Uncle Tom as in Clarence Thomas’s case or a Hispanic from the wrong country a la Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, or, in my case, a woman who doesn’t know any better. It’s stunning really when you try to point inconsistencies like these out. This is usually when the subject gets changed to “Bush lied” or “Faux News” or whatever…;)

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Conservatives are generally easier to talk to. Some Liberal Democrats will debate without stooping to attack the motives of their opponents, but not many. I suspect the reason has to do with motives and leadership. Why do people insist they have the right to redistribute the wealth of others. What do the leaders of the Democratic Party do to their opponents?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Very true Tom. And you’re right, it’s not all Liberals, there are some very reasonable ones just as I’m finding there are also some very unreasonable Conservatives.What I see more often than not with the Libs that get unreasonably upset is that either A. they are being confronted with a philosophy about Conservatism they’ve just never been exposed to and their minds can’t comprehend it or B. they take accusations against their political stances as attacks on their personal morality because it’s become part of their identity. These are the die hards that will stick with failed reasoning even as the world collapses around them. The popularity of Bernie Sanders is explained by this in my opinion.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I never expected Obama to get elected twice. How can so many people be that stupid? I wonder how many Liberal Democrats are so guilt-ridden they have learned to hate both the country and themselves.

          Liked by 1 person

    2. I did some writing a while back on the leftist understanding of tolerance. The seeming discontinuity is quite intentional; they teach that their intolerance of “reactionary” ideas, i.e., anything against the advance of progressive statism, is taught as necessary.

      Among the topics touched on is the progressive notion of “art, not-art and anti-art” and the effect of progressive “tolerance” upon academic institutions. Since this was written, the progressive “tolerance” effects upon America have continued to grow worse.

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

      Liked by 2 people

  2. I am a liberal democrat. Baking a cake is not a sin. Discrimination is a sin. Let us say that the couple was an unequally yoked couple. One was a believer, the other was not. Does this baker have the right to refuse service to that couple based on his personal beliefs. What if the baker felt that interracial couples were ungodly. Should he have the personal freedom to refuse to bake that interracial couple’s cake? If this individual is in a business where his personal convictions prevent him from performing his job in a manner that treats everyone equally then he is in the wrong business.

    Of course, I do “tolerate” your right to disagree with me. 😉

    Like

    1. The better question is this. Why does anyone else have a right to decide for that baker who he should serve? What do we need such busybodies for?

      Without government involvement, wrongful discrimination really isn’t much of an issue. Are people foolish? Do we sometimes discriminate foolishly? Yes, but when we discriminate stupidly we already pay a price. When individuals discriminate in our business decisions, that means we have to do business with somebody else. When businesses discriminate against paying customers, those customers go elsewhere. Yawn! Why would anybody want to buy a cake — something they are going to eat — from somebody who doesn’t like them or what they are doing? That is how dumb this whole thing is.

      Are politicians people? Do politicians make foolish decisions? With government involvement in our personal decisions, we risk organized wrongful discrimination like the Jim Crow laws or even slavery. Why do would we would to trade the punishment the marketplace already imposes for that?

      Consider your question again. Discrimination is about making choices, about deciding which is better. What does that judge know that you don’t know? Why do you want him making choices for you and you neighbors. Don’t we each have the right to make choices for ourselves.

      Government exists to protect our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Government does not exist to run our lives for us, but that is what busybodies want to do, and that is why they seek control of the the government. What the busybodies want — what the Liberal Democrats want — is a cure that is worst than the disease.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Take this entire set of arguments, bring them back fifty years in time, and drop them into the heart of Alabama or Mississippi.
        Then leave them there. I would have hoped we, as a society would have moved beyond such archaic ways of thinking.

        Like

        1. Archaic? Freedom of conscience? The First Amendment?

          We would like to think slavery is an archaic concept; it is not, but it is an old concept. Slavery is something every generation must fight. We must fight in our time and in this country too.

          You realize that slaves are not allowed to make their own choices. In the United States, slaves had no First Amendment rights. The government — including the Federal Government — officially denied slaves the rights that would have made them free. Upon the slaves they imposed the values of the majority, and they said it was for their own good.

          BJ, you are expert with words, and your thoughts on the Bible are often quite deep, but I have to wonder how much you have studied politics. Please consider the fact you simply dismissed what I said. You did not even attempt to refute what I said. You simply called what I said archaic.

          You never offered any justification for empowering government to force a baker to serve everyone equally. How would you define equality? How would you measure and enforce equality. When everyone is not the same and not everyone wants the same service, why should equality even be an objective?

          Actually, equal service would not help customers. When we walk into a store, we each want we need and can afford. That is why we can find 20 different types of deodorants in a grocery store. Nevertheless, the busybodies would be empowered. So they would love it, and they do.

          When we speak of equality, what we want — if we understand what we need — is equality before the law. That’s because we cannot trust politicians to be impartial. We trust business people, on the other hand, to treat their customers with more respect. Why? Even if a businessman does not have especially high moral standards, he knows his customers can go elsewhere. Government? We are often stuck. Whenever we are in the minority, we can’t even vote the bums out.

          You mentioned (here => https://citizentom.com/2015/08/16/do-liberal-democrats-really-think-they-are-tolerant/#comment-66224) that the definition of Liberal varies from place. The definition of Liberal has varied more in time. See => https://citizentom.com/2014/07/22/of-twisted-words-liberalism/

          Like

        2. I said, take this entire set of arguments, bring them back fifty years in time, and drop them into the heart of Alabama or Mississippi. Then leave them there. I would have hoped we, as a society would have moved beyond such archaic (ie old fashioned or of an earlier time or culture) ways of thinking.

          Perhaps you did not understand what I meant by this. So let me illustrate:

          “Why does anyone else have a right to decide for that baker who he should serve? What do we need such busybodies for?”

          This is a primary argument you would expect to hear from a 1950’s businessman in Mobile Alabama saying when “that meddling government” is trying to tell him to remove his “white’s only” sign from the front door of his shop.

          “Without government involvement, wrongful discrimination really isn’t much of an issue. Are people foolish? Do we sometimes discriminate foolishly? Yes, but when we discriminate stupidly we already pay a price.”

          Says the lawyer defending the restaurant owner in Starkville. If he wants to make less money running his business the way he wants, spending extra money for the creation and upkeep of separate “but equal” counters for blacks and whites, that is his right. The government does not have the right to interfere.

          “Why would anybody want to buy a cake — something they are going to eat — from somebody who doesn’t like them or what they are doing?”

          There are plenty of other businesses that cater to “their kind”. Why would they even want to do business here when they surely know they will end up getting inferior service because they aren’t wanted. – Sounds like an opinion article in the Scottsboro Star complaining about them folks shopping on our side of the tracks.

          Do you get it? Do you see it? The same arguments I am so often seeing in defense of this cake maker are the ones that were used decades back to defend racism and segregation. Government was right in forcing integration on a culture and in communities that did not want it. That way of thinking is archaic. It is something of an earlier time that we have learned to move beyond.

          Like

        3. BJ

          I am well aware that you have the best of intentions. However, good intentions are not enough. Without self-restraint, even with good intentions we can do great harm.

          So it is that I wrote this post => https://citizentom.com/2015/08/25/silencing-the-lambs/.

          Because your views on these matters are quite common, apparently the majority opinion, I did not aim that post specifically at you. Nevertheless, I do hope that you will read it and try to understand my concerns, why I hold the opinions I hold with respect to limiting the power of government.

          When someone operates is own business inappropriately, discriminating against people for reasons we believe wrong, all we have to do is ostracize his business. If his actions are sufficiently repulsive, we can ostracize him too.

          Ostracism is an old and effective way that Christians punish those who refuse to behave, and it doesn’t require any increase in the power of government.

          Like

      1. YW. I should probably qualify that on some issues I am a liberal democrat. On others, I most certainly am not. Also, liberal and conservative often mean very different things here in Turkey than they did back in the states.

        Like

  3. novascout

    Tell me more about the Judge. How do you know that he’s a “liberal Democrat”? Did you research his history before you wrote the post? Does he have a track record of importing liberal Democrat ideas into his dispensation of justice? Did you read the decision to see how it tracks with relevant precedent on the point, in Colorado or elsewhere? The judge’s reasoning sounds (at least from the links) very much like that of Justice Scalia in the Oregon peyote case, doesn’t it? Do you regard Justice Scalia as a liberal Democrat? Would it not be possible for a “conservative Republican” judge to come to the same conclusion – i.e., that baking cakes for commercial purposes is not a religious activity protected by the Constitution (state or federal) and necessarily means that cake bakers should serve the public under the same circumstances that any other commercial enterprise must operate – that we have these laws about commercial discrimination because we have had an evil history of merchants denying commerce/accommodation/transport etc. to people for arbitrary reasons and invoking religion as a rationalization for that conduct? If the baker had refused service to a left-handed customer on the grounds that the baker’s religious views teach him that he should have no contact with southpaws, would you support that behavior in a court of law? If not, how do you distinguish between a merchant who refuses to serve people on religious grounds that are more or less in line with yours, but not in circumstances where the religious principle is different than yours, or, in the case of the anti-left-handedness baker, overtly silly, but sincerely held. Should the courts be put in a position where they have to evaluate the correctness, the theological soundness, or the sincerity of professed religious beliefs as grounds for granting exemptions from laws that apply to every other citizen?

    My own view (subject to modification and correction when I read your cogent responses to my questions) is that this decision has little to do with “liberal”, “conservative” or any other label jurisprudence. It probably has more to do with Rule of Law and how we, in a democratic society of equal opportunity and equal protection protect our democracy from anarchy – a concept that, I venture to opine, finds favor in some very respected “conservative” circles.

    Scout

    Scout

    Like

  4. novascout

    Tom: re your comment at 2152 of 17 August: wouldn’t the rationale for requiring cake sellers to sell to everyone wishing to buy be the same or similar to the requirement that a motel or hotel owner offer accommodations to everyone willing to pay his daily rate?

    Like

  5. Pingback: My Article Read (8-18-2015) | My Daily Musing

  6. novascout

    Excellent. Looking forward to it immensely (actually, as you well know, you certainly don’t “owe” any of us replies -we’re all just commenting, sharing our views).

    BTW, I actually have now gone back and looked at the decision you were posting about (as opposed to just looking at the new items linked in the post), and it wasn’t one judge (as I assumed, and perhaps you may have also). It was a three judge appellate panel. Not sure that makes any difference to either your post or my comment, but it does strengthen my hunch that the decision wasn’t just a piece of “Liberal Democrat” campaign fluff.

    Like

    1. As an aside, three-judge appellate panels are quite capable of being liberal Democrats. Any three of the four judges in the Los Angeles district of the California courts would be such, and this becomes quite evident in their politically oriented decisions, such as when a few years ago they bent statutes nearly inside out to protect Hillary Clinton from her obvious, blatant perjury in an affidavit claiming she knew nothing about Peter F. Paul’s $1 million+ donation. The evidence of her thanking Paul was ruled inadmissible and Paul was thrown in jail. The same month, the same panel of judges found out that I was a conservative, as I broke a story that made national news. It cost me tens of millions of dollars.

      Yes, liberal bias in the courts is “a thing” as they say, it is common, and it is growing more common with the series of quite radical appointments being made by the current president. Obviously, Citizen Tom and I don’t like this as much as you do.

      Incidentally, owners and operators of “public accommodations” can indeed decide to refuse service to people based upon a variety of grounds; this is well settled. Only certain specific criteria are exempted from this, an effort to override local laws put in place by Democrats to attack blacks, Republicans, and (to a much lesser extent) Catholics. So now the discussion is on adding sexual orientation to this list, plus some variant of the 50+ genders that the left is now claiming for their own.

      But an important point is that, as a general thing, these cases are not about people not being served because of sexual orientation, it is about specific ceremonies and acts being objected to on religious grounds. They still serve gays — how could they not? It is not an evident issue unless the gays make it so. But most of these places have announced that they’re happy to serve gays, just not for the purpose of a wedding that they object to on religious grounds.

      There is a massive re-education of the general public that has been underway for a few decades, and the goal of this progressive process is to convince Americans that Christianity is bad, oppressive, that the idea of a standard American family is out of step, and that even the notion of the phrase “American” is a microaggression that must be curtailed.

      The push to force gay marriage by judicial activism, not content to let states decide, suits a statist notion of furthering the decline of traditional families. Those traditional families have been shown to be strongly important in helping people succeed in and assimilate in American society, but this administration has made it clear that success, and assimilation, are undesirable outcomes. On that basis, any attack on traditional American culture makes sense.

      Could homosexual marriage be done in a way that does not damage the country? I think so, but it would be through a process of coexistence, gradual acceptance, gradual inclusion into the range of norms in the US. Instead, we have militant gays backed by a culture-disdaining administration that attacks everywhere, an “in your face” activism that wants to do as much damage to “norms” as quickly as possible.

      Is there a crisis for gay wedding cakes? No. No one has made such a showing, that no other sources for such support could be had. But the manufactured crisis is made to order for the purpose of de-Americanization.

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Keith, thanks for adding your two cents. You always think of something I would not have considered. Then you explain it quite clearly.

        I only have one point of disagreement. I doubt coexistence will work. The problem isn’t homosexuality. It is more fundamental. When people do something wrong, something that they know they should be ashamed of, they resent two things: (1) having the nature of their sin clearly defined and pointed out to them, and (2) being shown a good example.

        That’s why we see this massive re-education of the general public you spoke of. That’s why we have same-sex marriage. That’s why we see this effort to destroy people like that baker. The wrong-doers (and it is not just homosexuals) want to silence the critics and annihilate any example except their own.

        Like

  7. novascout

    Of course Keith’s reference to the obvious is quite right – it is possible for three judges, with the right spin of the wheel (judges and panels are usually assigned at random) to be hard-over conservatives or liberals in their political views. But, it’s more unlikely with three than with one. And, of course, it is often the case that judges at all levels of the judiciary leave their political predilections behind once on the bench and try conscientiously to apply law to facts and thus achieve justice.

    I practice in a number of federal courts around the country, Keith, and I haven’t noticed, even from my Republican perspective, that the Obama appointments are, on average, any more political or ideological than those of his predecessor. Most districts and Circuits are large enough that one gets a mix of D and R appointments that, over time, tends toward equipoise. There are, of course, exceptions, but, by and large, the judiciary is generally pretty low-level, politically speaking.

    I can’t speak, of course, to your particular experience of losing tens of millions of dollars because, as you witness here, you were “found out” to be a “conservative”. However, taken on its face, that sounds like a scandal and injustice of epic proportions and I have no doubt the miscreants who visited it upon you will end up in prison, if it is as you say. I look forward to reading more about it in the national press and I wish you well in your quest for recompense on that point. That such a thing could happen in America is a gross and evil aberration, and I have no doubt it will be sorted out expeditiously.

    Going back to the post, I must say that I further agree with you that this is somewhat of an illusory issue in that it will resolve itself fairly quickly through market forces ( we conservatives have great faith in that beneficent effect, don’t we?). Most homosexual couples would rather cater their weddings from McDonald’s than order a wedding cake from a baker who reviles them or their lifestyle. Most bakers who really feel that gays should be cast out of their premises, even if only for wedding cakes, can easily avoid the gay marriage issue by not selling wedding cakes to anyone, or selling the cakes, but letting the nuptial couple do their own icing inscriptions. So this will resolve itself fairly quickly, I reckon.

    Scout

    Like

    1. The incident in question was years ago, as I stated. I was mentioned in the Wall Street Journal perhaps 20 times as a result, and made various legal journals at national and state levels, but the “miscreants” still sit that court. The California Supreme Court declined to hear the business litigation case, as they declined more than 90% of all cases offered, and so did the US Supreme Court. All than could have been done was done. But I was personally insulted by Barack Obama on national television as a result of my being “outed” as a conservative (which also got me mentioned by Hannity, Limbaugh and others); I have memories to show for the affair. It was the visibility at that moment that brought my political leanings to the attention of the appellate clerks; the case itself was not political. But that court despised conservatives, and had a hard time disguising that despite being the loathing being carefully couched in the dry as dust language of appellate opinion. The “law of the case” went out the window at that moment, as did precedent established by 2,748 cases (to that point) since 1851 involving alter ego doctrine.

      Few on my side of the aisle, or even yours, would suggest that SCOTUS justices have left their politics behind them. The American Constitution Society for Law and Policy — your fellow progressives — as well as the Federalist Society who are a mix of conservative and libertarian both agree (and did in a joint conference) that this was an even more-than-usually politicized session, but that politics always weighs heavily in the process.

      As for you not noticing the extraordinary nature of Obama’s appointments … well, I have seen what you are capable of claiming to not notice here, so if I were to evince surprise I would be playing the same sort of deceitful charade as is your wont.

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

      Like

  8. novascout

    I share your concern that the Supreme Court may be falling into a more politicized and polarized ethos than has been traditionally been the case. I hope that that does not come to pass, but I cannot but acknowledge that in the last term, some of the decisions seemed to be fairly uninhibited political disagreements, as opposed to the kind of dry dissection of legal precedent that, over time, is the usual fare. We’ll see where it goes. But, as you say, very few cases get to that level and, in the day-to-day work of the trial and intermediate federal appellate courts, my personal experience (an obviously small sample, but supplemented by my reading of other cases) suggests to me that the bulk of decisions have little ideological or partisan content.

    Scout

    Like

  9. novascout

    PS: Keith, I am intrigued by your story, and certainly sympathetic on the face of it. My technical skills are primitive, but I have been unable to find links to the WSJ stories about your misfortune. I strongly believe that anyone who was mishandled by the justice system in this country solely because of his political views, whether they be “conservative”, “liberal” or anything else, deserves recompense. Please post up some links so I can understand this better.

    Scout

    Like

      1. novascout

        That’s your prerogative, and I didn’t mean to impose on your time. However, it sounds like a very compelling story of grave injustice and possibly criminal activity. I just wasn’t getting any hits on my searches for the Hannity/Limbaugh/Obama exchanges with you or the Wall Street Journal articles. But, I have to admit that I am not an adept at this kind of thing. I’ll ask my librarian to pull it out – she’s a whiz at this. I just thought you might have something handy.

        Like

      2. “Trust, but verify.”

        Over the years I have checked the background on quite a bit of your material. That was the stuff that raised an eyebrow and produced a soft little noise: “Really?” Sure enough, what you was true.

        I no longer verify what you say because I doubt it. I am just curious to know a bit more.

        Anyway, I believe your story. I don’t doubt you have lost millions because of problems with the court system, and I can guess why you use a pseudonym. When we debate, some people try to make it personal. Since we are all just imperfect human beings, the attacks are hurtful. Even if they just stupid, they take the focus off the subject of the debate, rendering discussion pointless. Therefore, to keep the focus on the subject of the debate, we limit the amount of personal information we offer up.

        Thanks for sharing the story.

        Like

        1. During those years, I got modestly proficient at law out of necessity, and quite proficient at managing a cadre of attorneys. But as you might recall, I was hand-catching rattlesnakes as a boy for sale to the Serpentarium who milked them for venom (I got 25¢ per foot for live snakes), so I had some appropriate experience.

          ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

          Liked by 1 person

        2. I have a brother who is an attorney. When he got out the navy (served as a Orion P3 pilot), the airlines were not hiring. So he worked hard, got the degree, passed the bar exam, and got himself a job with a law firm.

          I don’t think he liked the work, but he had a good excuse for leaving. The airlines do pay better, and he loves flying. So it is that when the airlines started hiring again, he got a job with Alaskan Airlines. Still, he has never been quite the same. What do they do those guys in law school?

          Like

  10. Hmm, I must be an outright anarchist then, because I believe all businesses should have the right to refuse service to anyone they please, for any reason. No shirt, no shoes, no service…

    A business is a bit like someone’s home, it is your castle, and people should not be allowed to infringe on your rights. That intolerance for the importance of an individual’s right to think for themselves has been seriously infringed on in so many ways. The NSA is actually listening in on our private cell phone conversations, for goodness sake’s. Marriages and parenting are being heavily regulated, as are our businesses, our faith, all things that we have traditionally respected as rights to privacy, as the fruits of freedom.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. All excellent points!

      When people set up a small business, they usually don’t make a lot of money, but they have one huge incentive. They choose how they will serve their customers, not somebody else.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. The original concept of regulating this had to do with the concept of “public accommodations.” Originally, these were lodging and medical and similar situations, and were specific attacks on Democrat-enacted laws forbidding Negroes from these facilities. There were many stories, sometimes tragic, of blacks who were refused medical attention in Democrat-controlled areas, because all the “Negro beds” were full or the hospital was whites-only.

      Not all of the stories are true. One such, of Charles Drew, the man who pioneered blood transfusions and created the American Red Cross blood bank, is alleged to have died after a car accident in North Carolina because he was refused treatment including a blood transfusion. He wasn’t refused treatment at all, as it turns out, but was too severely injured; the three other black doctors who were with him (and who were also injured) testified to this, and that in their opinion a transfusion might have killed him more quickly. But still, such things did happen, even with not quite that level of irony.

      As the anti-discrimination law progressed, the idea of “public accommodation” expanded so that those criteria (race, religion, sex or national origin) applied to just about any business open to the public; “lunch counters” was a common expression of the time, and commonly did not serve blacks in Democrat-controlled communities.

      There were those who opposed the Civil Rights legislation based upon anti-black (or anti-Catholic) bias, and those who opposed this on principle as you are suggesting above. One famous quote at the time by Barry Goldwater was, “You can’t legislate morality.” As Democrats controlled enough of Congress, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would have never made it but for the assassination of President Kennedy, which created a mood that helped Republicans finally defeat the 83-day Democrat filibuster.

      Is it appropriate for the federal government to interfere with businesses this way? I have mixed feelings about it. At the time, things were pretty bad for blacks in the US, especially (but not only) in the South; some limited version of this was appropriate from a purely compassionate standpoint. But not, strictly speaking, from a Constitutional one. A narrowly defined law designed to sunset after a period of time (like the Voting Rights act) would have been a better, I think.

      Free-market economists like Milton Friedman or Walter Williams opposed the Civil Rights act as an interference with and corruption of the free market, which would have sorted this out … and had before. After all, racial segregation was forced into existence by law, by Democrats after the Civil War through President Woodrow Wilson, where it had not existed before. (Wilson re-segregated government service and the military, and his policies led to separate bathrooms, restaurants, and other facilities across the country.)

      Democrats use other means now to control black people, from welfare to pandering. But like all government programs, this idea of government legal action for civil rights is hard to kill even if no longer necessary or appropriate. Look how much the left screamed when the long-outdated and many-times-extended Voting Rights Act was finally allowed to expire.

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Thanks Keith, that was a thoughtful and informative response. I’m familiar with some of the history you’ve presented.

        Somewhat funny in an ironic way, where I live the public accommodations law mandates that the tiny little espresso stand must be handicap accessible, as well as the second hand store, and the burger stand. They’ve all had to build long wheelchair accessible ramps and have designated disabled parking spots. Meanwhile, all our government services, the post office, the courthouse, city hall, are all housed in historic buildings and therefore exempt.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I have had to deal with that also. In 1997, we rebuilt an older and somewhat run-down office building to a new modern style. But because it had been built to ADA standards, and the stairs were a certain riser height and tread depth, we had to tear out the stairway and the back portion of the building. It turns out that the ADA standards had changed by a half-inch in the intervening years. Apparently, disabled people were a different size from what they had previously been.

          I can understand that now; I am much smaller than I was a year and a half ago, when I could walk.

          ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

          Liked by 2 people

      1. Lester Maddux was an odd little character, but he did a few things that didn’t always match with his critic’s portrayal of him. He reformed Georgia’s prisons and healthcare, appointed blacks to state executive offices, funded education, integrated farmer’s markets, and increased black employment and wages. Not everything is always as cut and dry as we like to perceive it.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. @novascout/scout/whoever you are today

        Adolf Hitler would be too extreme and too trite. So we resort to comparisons with good ole Lester Maddux.
        🙄

        His name was Lester Maddox, and insanitybytes22 is right. The truth about the man is a little more complicated than the fiction => http://www.theguardian.com/news/2003/jun/26/guardianobituaries.

        Instead of trying to understand them, we have a tendency to demonize our opponents. Then we take the opposite position. Be wary you don’t fall into that trap. If someone told you that Adolf Hitler disapproved of stealing and murder, would you suddenly decide stealing and murder were okay?

        You say you are getting up in years. Then you should know that the people previous generations did not know what to make of blacks. Many were wary about the prospect of whites marrying blacks. Nevertheless, most people did not abuse blacks.

        What was the real problem? If you go back to Lincoln Douglass debates, you will find Lincoln disapproved of slavery. Nevertheless, he did not think blacks the equals of whites. That mistaken idea, unfortunately, was quite prevalent and honestly held by quite a few people. Given their low expectation of blacks, most Liberal Democrats still seem to hold to this belief.

        What Maddox disapproved of was “forced association” between the races. Where does Congress get the power to force private businesses to serve anybody? There is no such power given the Federal Government in the Constitution.

        Were Maddox’s motives entirely pure? Probably not. So what? No one except Jesus had a pure heart, but it is easy to judge others mercilessly.

        Since none of us are fit to judge the heart of another, perhaps we should consider focusing more on each others arguments. Even if some of what Maddox said and did does not seem quite right, he still had a right to decide who he wanted to serve. Besides, what idiot wants to eat food prepared by somebody who does not want to serve him. It is hard to imagine how that would not be dumber than Maddox’s supposed malicious racial bigotry.

        Like

        1. Maddox grew up in Woodrow Wilson’s America, where Wilson directed that blacks must be kept from association with whites in all government facilities. His cabinet officers implemented this directive. Northern (and Washington DC) cities were already mostly segregated, as Democrats had been in control of these towns for a while. But the administration had long since integrated the military and government service … until Wilson. His cabinet secretaries ordered screens to be put up in government buildings so that white workers would not actually have to see black workers, and had separate restrooms and eating facilities built. The Pentagon was built with separate black restrooms and restaurants from the beginning; it was decades later that these were re-purposed.

          Wilson had gotten a chunk of black votes by promising them “peace and justice.” When they later objected to being betrayed, and sent people to meet Wilson in the White House to complain, he told them: “Segregation is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen.” That was his idea of “justice.”

          And of the hundred million or so people that were born and grew up during the decades where this was considered “normal,” many did not shake off the perceptions. Maddox was one of those. But, as I expect your link points to, Maddox as governor did a great deal for black education and hiring, more than any of his predecessors. I was amused at his later years, touring as a musical comedy team with a black former worker in his restaurant.

          ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

          Liked by 1 person

        2. Mark Levin often talks about Woodrow Wilson bigotry against blacks (That was the first I knew of it.). When we were taught about Wilson’s “accomplishments” in school, his success in reversing the integration of the government, including the military, should have been a major topic. I don’t recall that it ever came up. I am often amazed by the skeletons those “Liberal” Democrats have buried. Of course, scout probably doesn’t think Wilson was a Liberal Democrat.

          Like

        3. I notice that you put “liberal” in quotes, and I agree. The classical liberal — focused on liberty — is essentially what we now call a Constitutional conservative. But they liked the sound of “liberal” and commandeered it when they had poisoned previous words like “progressive.”

          I still use progressive for them, and it most clearly encompasses the movement from Marx to modern leftists. It was Marx that coined the notion of the “progressive” income tax, fittingly enough. And even Teddy Roosevelt, famously Republican, was fully under the sway of progressives and founded the Progressive Party. Even then, the name aroused suspicion; most of the time Teddy called it the “Bull Moose party” referring to himself. A bit of a proto-Obama, perhaps, with less racism and more ability.

          ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

          Like

        4. The fact the Democrats commandeered term “liberal” is history. Would be good to take the word back from them, but it will not likely happen any time soon. It is kind of like applying “settled” anti-discrimination laws to private businesses. People accept it as the way things ought to be. What they have forgotten is that any power that men are given men will abuse. Therefore, when we don’t need apply anti-discrimination laws to private businesses, we are just stupid to do so.

          Like

        5. On another topic, I must take exception to the characterization of Lincoln’s views. He felt that blacks were the legal equals of whites, and said so repeatedly. He even asserted this during the famous debates, despite his audience ranging from being very dubious of the notion to outright hostile. He convinced many in his audiences despite this, and actually edged out Douglas for the popular vote (although the actual selection was done by the Illinois legislature, who picked Douglas instead).

          Lincoln was concerned about the two dramatically different cultures living together. Consider how far apart they were at the time — by lack of education, for example, though this was largely the slave-owners’ fault. Just imagine how extraordinary it was for anyone of Lincoln’s time to think the way he did!

          But by the time Lincoln expressed the recognition of this culture problem, many tens of thousands of freed slaves had already gone back to Africa (with patronage help from abolitionist charities) and established the American-styled nation of Liberia, for “Liberty,” which still exists today. There were already many inclined to help them get there, and a great many of the freed slaves wanted to go while still retaining the Constitutional notions they’d been exposed to in the US. Lincoln’s view here was not based upon racism per se, but upon observation of recent clashes coupled with success in the resettlement of Liberia, an experiment that had been running for years by that time.

          It has become fashionable to say these days that “Lincoln didn’t care about freeing the slaves.” But essentially everyone in the country at the time, from the Lincoln-Douglas Debates on, were complete convinced that he was, from everything he said and everything he did. To the point where many states of the South seceded just because they knew he was coming and knew what he was going to do. Was the whole country wrong about this? No. Lincoln was strategic and careful, but his purposes were clear: He meant to end slavery.

          It’s true that Lincoln valued the Union even more highly, and I understand this. But he felt that he could preserve the Union and end slavery too, and ultimately succeeded in this after a horrifically painful war.

          The idea that “he didn’t care about the slaves” is a modern invention, and they have selected excepts of political speeches to try to prove the idea. You’ve featured those debates here previously, and they belie that notion in their entirety despite the gentle approach Lincoln used to try to convert the thinking of the Democrats and Whigs of Illinois.

          ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

          Liked by 1 person

        6. We have a natural tendency to identify with those we admire, to think of their views as our own. As much I may admire Abraham Lincoln, I am not he. I have not his capacities. I don’t know what all his thoughts might have been, but I know of some I do not share.

          When I finally got around to studying “The Lincoln – Douglas Debates,” I was appalled. How come these debates are not required reading? If we were properly educated, no one would consider making blankety-blank ego-manical reporters debate moderators, and no one would doubt that the North and the South fought over slavery.

          Anyway, those debates left me with no doubt that Lincoln detested slavery, that given a choice he wanted to free the slaves. Nevertheless, he did not think blacks and whites equal, and he said as much. However, he also thought the slaves should be free.

          Ending slavery, however, was not Lincoln’s highest priority. What he thought more important is that the Union had to be preserved. To preserve the Union, Lincoln fought the spread of slavery. To preserve the Union, Lincoln presided over a bloody civil war.

          Check out https://citizentom.com/2013/08/21/an-example-of-bigotry-part-2/.

          Like

  11. novascout

    Keith’s recounting of why we enacted laws forbidding discrimination in public accommodations is useful. In addition to the federal laws, many states enacted similar laws addressing similar concerns to cover intra-state issues. It was a Colorado state law that was interpreted by the appellate court ruling described in Tom’s post.

    Scout

    Like

  12. novascout

    My fleeting reference to Lester Maddox seems to have struck a surprisingly resonant cord here. Such an outpouring of nostalgia. But I could not have done it had Insanitybytes not triggered the distant chords of memory with his thought that a man’s business is his castle. I probably hadn’t thought about Lester for thirty years, and, suddenly, there he was, resplendently standing proud against the incursion of Negroes on his premises, axe handle at the ready.

    Tom said very little about Lincoln and I’m not sure what relevance that little had. However, I do appreciate Keith’s addition to that fragment. Lincoln was a very skillful navigator of an extremely difficult political issue. He had to be particularly cagey even within his own state, where attitudes toward racial legal status varied considerably, particularly north to south. But, as Keith said, despite the political complexities of the issue, Lincoln had enough moral and intellectual integrity to be publicly resolute that he thought slavery to be an evil that could not be sustained in this Republic. That may seem clear enough today, but at the time it was not a common sentiment among politicians with national ambitions.

    Scout

    Like

    1. I probably hadn’t thought about Lester for thirty years, and, suddenly, there he was, resplendently standing proud against the incursion of Negroes on his premises, axe handle at the ready.

      With his black employees standing shoulder-to-shoulder with him, some of whom became lifetime friends. That aspect of Maddox strikes people as odd. But similarly, most people don’t realize that Strom Thurmond fiercely defended blacks, provided education, jobs, and opportunity for them, and was perhaps the major player in ending the practice of lynching.

      On a related topic, to this day “states’ rights” is treated by the left as code words for “bring slavery back!” In reality, states’ rights issues in the lead-up to the Civil War led to the departure of the South, as they complained that states in the North were using states’ rights beyond their legal ability when they refused to implement slave-return laws. Southern states felt that they didn’t have that much power; in order to keep slavery against the impending inauguration of Lincoln, they had to depart the Union they had helped to form three-fourths of a century earlier. Over and over again, states’ rights were used against slavery, not for it, and the secession documents spell this out.

      I have a fairly broad view of states’ rights, but this hardly makes me a slavery supporter — and the rewritten modern understanding of this issue (states versus federal government power) is historically and Constitutionally wrong.

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Has it occurred to you that when you speak of Maddox, it is your own bigotry speaking. Except for the caricature of the man presented by a biased news media, you don’t know anything about him.

      State’s rights stand in the way of big government. Therefore, in the minds of
      “Liberal” Democrats, states rights have to go, and any who support or supported states must be demonized and/or made to look the fool. So the American news media went after Maddox to make him look like a demon and a fool. That’s why, even though it leans left, I referenced a British paper. When something is far away, we tend to be a bit more objective. Hence, the Brits spoke of Maddox more tolerantly. Because he is a dead American, the guardian had little to gain by exaggerating either Maddox’s virtues or flaws.

      Like

  13. novascout

    You folks are so easily distracted (of course we already knew that). I’ve said very little about Mr. Maddox, pro or con. He’s not particularly my cup of tea (Carl Sanders struck me as one of the great Georgia governors of the 20th century, and that all of his successors, including the one who became President, paled by comparison). But that’s neither here nor there since my reference was not to his governorship. If you folks want to emphasize other aspects of Mr. Maddox’s career, that’s fine. I’ll probably not get heavily involved, however.

    Lester popped into my head only because of the idea expressed by Insanitybyte’s 20 Aug 1214 comment that not only is one’s home one’s castle, a business is also. That struck me as a very Rip van Winkle moment, and hence the distant vaporous memories of Lester Maddox standing with axe-handle wielding supporters to bar Negroes from his restaurant in the early 1960s. I could have used any number of other examples from that period. Keith helpfully put it in perspective by volunteering a nice little sketch of the civil rights statutes affecting public accommodations, the need for which can be symbolized by Mr. Maddox, but I take the point that there were many others who held (and perhaps still hold) similar views.

    The subject at hand, however, was Tom’s about whether the Colorado appellate panel’s decision in a cake-selling case was a reflection of “Liberal Democrats” not being tolerant. I suggested (my morning comment on 17 August) that there was no evidence that the decision was a “Liberal Democrat” political action, that it appeared to be very similar to Justice Scalia’s reasoning in the Oregon Peyote worship case that spawned RFRA (Scalia, J., not being someone I would consider a “Liberal Democrat”, although that view might not stand up here, particularly since I am the one expressing it), that cake-selling is not a religious activity, and that there are real problems allowing people to self-exempt from the application of law by invoking self-professed religious beliefs, not least among them the problem of then having the secular courts make decisions based on an examination of either the sincerity of the professed belief and/or the validity of the belief under established religious doctrine. This latter outcome strikes me as one to be assiduously avoided as a severe threat to religious liberty and to our constitutional protections.

    Tom has said he is preparing a response. That will be interesting, I’m sure.

    Scout

    Like

    1. @*scout,

      You seem to wish to end religious liberty as you cannot tell what qualifies as a religious practice, and don’t want the courts put in the position of having to make this determination. And yet courts make decisions all the time; it is what they do.

      Your attempt at creating a one-person hypothetical to stand in for the billion or more who believe as Citizen Tom does isn’t striking me as very compelling.

      And your dogged insistence that participating in a religious ritual has nothing to do with religion also does not gain traction. Marriage may also be recognized by state and local jurisdictions, but it you are as foolish as “nothing to do with Islam” Obama if you think this means marriage has nothing to do with religious belief.

      Yes, attorneys have developed marriage and its impacts upon probate and divorce into gigantic revenue sources as they work to resolve issues that arise in their favor, and it is possible to enter into marriage outside of a church or temple or synagogue. This does not change the fact that the opening words “Dearly beloved, we are gathered here” does not arise from the secular spinoffs of matrimony.

      Many people feel strongly about this issue. And until laws are changed to protect people wanting to marry their siblings or pets or whatever the next phase is — and there are pushes already in both areas — people with religious objections to marriage services that go against their faiths should be left alone.

      There is a subtlety here that you keep misstating: The objection is not to persons, but to participation in religious ceremonies. These people have said repeatedly that they have no problem serving gays, they just object to what they consider to be the process of being forced into profaning what to them is a sacred ceremony. Your contrived chirality case does not work as an analogy.

      But back to your hypothetical, your left-handed complement to religious freedom: Should your new faith take off, however sinister it might seem and gauche in its impact upon your business, the actual effect upon the area’s commerce will be trivial. I’d say let you have your silliness; you demonstrate the right to it better than most.

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

      Like

      1. novascout

        I had not understood that the baker was be required to participate in a religious ceremony. That did not show up in the court’s opinion. I thought he was refusing to sell a cake. I agree that it would be a violation of one’s religious freedom to be forced to preside over or participate in a religious ceremony that one objected to. I’m not sure how the court missed that or how you knew about it. But, if that was the case, I’m on your side.

        BTW, I love your last paragraph. One could say describe it as verbally dextrous.

        Like

      2. There is a subtlety here that you keep misstating: The objection is not to persons, but to participation in religious ceremonies. These people have said repeatedly that they have no problem serving gays, they just object to what they consider to be the process of being forced into profaning what to them is a sacred ceremony. Your contrived chirality case does not work as an analogy.

        Keith, this is quite helpful. Thank you.

        Liked by 1 person

  14. novascout

    “Excuse” for what? The Maddox reference did indeed serve my purpose, which was to say that the Insanitybytes comment up the thread reminded me of Lester Maddox, a rather distant figure historically. That’s admittedly a meager purpose, but it was all that was intended. What purpose did it serve for you? If I can offer a sentence or two that serves all our purposes, I feel I have been useful in some small way.

    Scout

    Like

Comments are closed.