The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

“Transformation” via “Rehabilitation”

Americans,
says the deconstructionist Left, need to be rehabilitated. They need to get
their minds right. If they won’t do it themselves, voluntarily, then legislation,
courts, lawsuits, civil rights laws, “social pressure,” public demonization,
social harassment, marginalization, and even physical or death threats, must do
it for them. 
The
“rehabilitation” won’t be as physically agonizing as that which Winston
Smith underwent in George Orwell’s dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, but the consequences would be the same: a
mind tortured out of its sovereignty, and, in effect, deconstructed to conform
and defer to the power of the State.
Americans
need to be deconstructed and put back together again, just as American history
has been deconstructed in government-approved textbooks, and the concept of
marriage, and freedom of association, and business ownership, and gender
itself, are being deconstructed, reconstructed, and revised to reflect the new
political and social realities. Some Americans, once deconstructed, like Humpty
Dumpty, won’t be able to be put back together again, and that’s too bad. They,
the advance guard of deconstruction and mandatory rehabilitation, won’t miss
them. They, the waves of the future, just wish that constitutional reprobates and
political recidivists would do them the courtesy and drop dead and save them
the trouble of taking real action against them.
Hard
but promising, conciliatory cases have a choice between classroom reeducation
in a local community college, or rehabilitation in a Nevada desert camp or an
Alaskan labor center.
All
they’re asking is that Americans be just like them: deconstructed. Cases in
point:
You
have no right to refuse to deal with anyone, says the government, regardless of
your convictions, religious or not, and especially not if the people you refuse
to deal with are gay. In “Judge
Rules Colorado Bakery Discriminated Against Gay Couple
,” Ashby Jones
wrote in the Wall Street Journal on December 6th, 2013:
Two gay men in Colorado won
discrimination claims against a bakery that refused to sell them a wedding
cake, beating back the business owner’s argument that he had the constitutional
right to decline service to a gay couple for religious reasons.
In a ruling issued Friday, an
administrative law judge in Denver, Robert Spencer, ruled that by rebuffing the
couple’s attempt to buy a cake, Masterpiece Cakeshop violated a state law
bagging discrimination in a public place on grounds of sexual orientation.
The baker, Jack Phillips, had
argued that applying the antidiscrimination law in this context violated his
First Amendment free-speech and freedom-of-religion rights….
But Judge Spencer shot down the
constitutional arguments, noting that the Supreme Court has “repeatedly found”
that those engaged in commercial activity are subject to state discrimination
laws, regardless of their religious beliefs.
The
chief problem here is not Jack Phillips or even the gay couple, but
antidiscrimination law, federal, state and local. Discrimination law nullifies
the freedom of association. If you don’t choose to associate, or deal with, or
do business with someone, whatever your reason, that is your business, and not
the government’s. But a welfare state cum totalitarian state can only use force
to overrule your mind, your values, and your convictions. Free society? Not any
more. The deconstructionists like it that way. They want what they want, and
will have their way with you.
Or,
take the case of the bakery in Oregon, as reported by Fox News on January 21st,
“Oregon ruling really takes the cake – Christian
bakery guilty of violating civil rights of lesbian couple
“:
The owners of a Christian bakery
who refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple are facing hundreds of
thousands of dollars in fines after they were found guilty of violating the
couple’s civil rights.
The Oregon Bureau of Labor and
Industries said they found “substantial evidence” that Sweet Cakes by Melissa
discriminated against the lesbian couple and violated the Oregon Equality Act
of 2007, a law that protects the rights of the LGBT community.
Last year, the bakery’s owners
refused to make a wedding cake for Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman, of Portland,
citing their Christian beliefs. The couple then filed a complaint with the
state.
We
have raised a generation or two of whim-worshipping wussies who turn to the government
when their “feelings” are hurt. Obviously, Cryer and Bowman could go
elsewhere for their wedding cake (and probably by this time have), but chose instead
to advance the deconstructionist LGBT cause in the country by putting the
screws to a small business. The object: to punish the “offender” and
hold the owners up as an example what will happen to anyone else who chooses to
adhere to their convictions. They wish the “offenders” to act against
their convictions (however irrational or rational they may be), and just obey. Cryer
and Bowman (why not “Bowperson,” that would be in conformance with
the anti-man premises of the couple) have displayed their totalitarian minds.
The backlash against Aaron and
Melissa Klein, owners of the bakery, was severe. Gay rights groups launched
protests and pickets outside the family’s store. They threatened wedding
vendors who did business with the bakery. And, Klein told me, the family’s
children were targets of death threats. The family eventually had to close
their retail shop and now operate the bakery out of their home.
Under state law, the complaint
against the bakery now moves into a period of reconciliation. If they can’t reach an agreement, formal civil
charges could be filed and the Kleins could face hundreds of thousands of
dollar in fines.
Last August, Labor Commissioner Brad
Avakian told The Oregonian, their desire is to rehabilitate businesses like the
one owned by the Christian couple.
“Everybody is entitled to
their own beliefs, but that doesn’t mean that folks have the right to
discriminate,” he told the newspaper. “The goal is never to shut down
a business. The goal is to rehabilitate.”
[Italics mine]
In
short: You may hold any convictions you wish, but dare not act on them lest you
run afoul of the law and incur the wrath of those you have offended. Hold any
ideas you wish, but hold a contradiction in your mind, as well, and attempt to
live with it. If it causes you distress, too bad. Gay “rights” trump
the integrity and honor of your mind. Gays, lesbians, welfare mothers, and
what-have-you have a “right” to your product, whether or not you want
to sell it to them.
The Kleins warned that what
happened to them could happen to other Christian business owners. And it
already has.
In December a Colorado baker was
ordered by a judge to either serve gay weddings or face fines. Jack Phillips, the
owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, was told to “cease and desist from discriminating”
against gay couples. Phillips is a Christian.
New Mexico’s Supreme Court ruled
in August that two Christian photographers who declined to photograph a
same-sex union violated the state’s Human Rights Act. One justice said
photographers Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin were “compelled by law to
compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.”
And the Washington attorney general
filed a lawsuit against a florist who refused to provide flowers for a same-sex
couple’s wedding. Barronelle Stutzman, the owner of Arlene’s Flowers &
Gifts filed a countersuit, telling the Christian Broadcasting Network she
“had to take a stand” in defense of her faith in Christ. Perkins told
me that in many cases gay couples are targeting businesses owned by Christians.
The
issue has little to do with Christian beliefs, or any system of beliefs. It has
to do with forcing a mind to act
against one’s best interests and values. When I do book signings, I could just
as well tell a gay couple to get away from my table because I don’t like gays,
or because I don’t like a person’s clothing, or because the person has body
odor, or I’m repelled by the person’s pierced nose and lower lip, or because the
person is black, yellow, brown or green, and refuse to talk with the person or
sell him one of my books. Whatever reason I chose to cite, is my call, not the government’s or a gay
couple’s or a Muslim’s. The rationality or irrationality of my reasons is not
the government’s to judge, assess, or forbid. I alone should be able to incur
the rewards or losses stemming from my choices.
Either
I own my own mind, or I don’t. Either I establish the rules of my life in the
way of freedom of association, or I’m just a steward of property – my mind, my
life – claimed by the government or by any random individual that approaches my
table.
In
a CBS affiliate’s story of December 6th, “Judge
Orders Colorado Cake Maker to Serve Gay Couples
,” quoted one of the
gays who were turned away by Masterpiece Cakeshop:
Mullins said he and Craig are
“ecstatic.” “To a certain extent, though, I don’t think that this is necessarily
a surprise,” he said. “We thought it was pretty clear cut that he had
discriminated against us.”Mullins said he hopes the “decision will help ensure
that no one else will experience this kind of discrimination again in Colorado.”
Let
that be a lesson to you, all you un-deconstructed genders. The
deconstructionists, in and out of government, must always resort to force to compel
a mind to do their bidding.  And they don’t
care. Their non-hurt feelings are all that matter.
Arizona
Governor Janet Brewer is undecided whether or not to veto a bill, passed by the
legislature that would permit businesses to “discriminate” against
gays. The law is an ill-considered, concrete-bound backlash against the whole
leftist national campaign to legitimize gay unions and to force businesses to
cater to them regardless of anyone’s objection to homosexuality. Such laws do
not address the fundamental right of freedom of association and freedom of
trade, focusing as they do on mere religious grounds. An example of this is
apparent in an NBC News story of February 24th, “Big
Business to Arizona: Gay Discrimination Bill Bad for Economy
“:
Apple, American Airlines and
Marriott delivered a message to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer on Monday: State
legislation allowing companies to discriminate against gays on religious
grounds would be bad for business.
The conservative Republican
governor is facing growing pressure over the bill, which the statehouse passed
last Thursday. Opponents
have called it “state-sanctioned discrimination” and an
embarrassment.”
Apple and a slew of big-name
firms issued letters and made phone calls to Brewer on Monday telling her the
state would take a financial hit if the law passed, according to CNBC. Apple is
just about to open large new glass manufacturing plant in Mesa, Arizona. Marriott,
meanwhile, noted that their bottom-line could suffer as a result of the bill.
This measure “would have
profound negative impacts on the hospitality industry on the Arizona and on the
state’s overall economic climate for years to come,” the hotel chain said
in a statement. American Airlines noted how deeply Arizona suffered during the
recession and said: “Our economy thrives best when the doors of commerce
are open to all. This bill sends the wrong message.”
This
is a most curious objection to the discrimination law. Call it a preemptive
LGBT impact statement, based on hand-wringing economics.  When was the last time Apple, American Airlines,
or Marriott asked customers about their “sexual orientation”? Do they
compile statistics on the number of gay and non-gay customers? Would federal
law even allow them to ask such questions? Has any one of these companies
discriminated against anyone on religious grounds, or broadcast their own
religious convictions and turned down business because of them? I doubt it.
However,
again, the law and the objections are not based on any fundamental concepts
concerning freedom of association, of the freedom to deal with, trade with, be
friends with, or even enemies with. The question is: What business is it of
government to pass any legislation governing free association? The answer is:
None.
Governor
Brewer, according to a CNN story of February 21st, “Arizona passes
controversial anti-gay bill
,” almost gets it right:
“I think anybody that owns a
business can choose who they work with or who they don’t work with,”
Brewer told CNN in Washington on Friday. “But I don’t know that it needs
to be statutory. In my life and in my businesses, if I don’t want to do
business or if I don’t want to deal with a particular company or person or
whatever, I’m not interested. That’s America. That’s freedom.”
That
was the freedom that was, and the America that was.
The
ancestor of the new “civil rights” is the Civil Rights
Act of 1964
:
In 1964 Congress passed Public
Law 88-352 (78 Stat. 241). The provisions of this civil rights act forbade
discrimination on the basis of sex as well as race in hiring, promoting, and
firing. The word “sex” was added at the last moment….
The final bill also allowed sex
to be a consideration when sex is a bona fide occupational qualification for
the job. Title VII of the act created the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) to implement the law.
Subsequent legislation expanded
the role of the EEOC. Today, according to the U. S. Government Manual of
1998-99
, the EEOC enforces laws that prohibit discrimination based on race,
color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age in hiring, promoting,
firing, setting wages, testing, training, apprenticeship, and all other terms
and conditions of employment. Race, color, sex, creed, and age are now
protected classes. The proposal to add each group to protected-class status
unleashed furious debate. But no words stimulate the passion of the debate more
than “affirmative action.”
Before
anyone exclaims, “Horrors! Cline is against the Civil Rights Act!”
readers should examine the law themselves and judge whether or not it conforms
to today’s newly-created “civil rights” in freedom of association in business
in the way of trading with customers or prospective customers, and not just in
employment. Yes, I have always questioned the soundness of the Civil Rights
Act, because it paved the way for today’s lunatic injustices and the violation
of individual rights. It merely codified those violations.
And
allowed the new “protected class” to assert its power over everyone
else, and to proceed with its deconstructionist agenda to rehabilitate the
whole country – with force. It fits right in with Barack Obama’s plan to “transform
the country.
“In five days we are going
to fundamentally transform America.”
….into
tribes of protected classes, who cannot be refused anything.

Previous

Federal Fly Swatters: Pit Bulls vs. Poodles

Next

God, Science, and Original Sin

2 Comments

  1. Michael Neibel

    The concept discrimination should never have been used in the civil rights and subsequent laws. To discriminate is to discern differences and in a rights protecting society includes the freedom to act on those differences according to one's own judgement of what is in one's own interest. The government has no right to determine how one exercises his right of free association as long as no one's individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are violated.

    The Civil Rights Act is also evil because it permanently moved the concept of rights from the individual to the collective paving the way for government to sacrifice the welfare of individuals for the benefit of the herd in things like urban renewal and other collectivist schemes.

    Great essay.

  2. Anonymous

    Liberty is messy business when belief systems become interwoven with government oversight. Protecting liberty is one thing, assuring liberity is another. Unfortunately, something like marriage which should be a celebration of the couple become an agenda point. Would society be declining into tribalism if gay (or Catholic, Baptist, Mormon, Hindu, Muslim, Humanist) communities advertised by word of mouth or print, that such and such photographers and cake bakers were friendly to their cause?
    Oscar

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén