At this juncture even Blacks should not have the same racial privileges their parents and grandparents used to have. Today's generation of Blacks never endured under Jim Crow laws, so why should they enjoy the privileges for the discrimination of their great-grandparents? This whole "Affirmative Action" thing reminds me the caste system of the old Europe, where small class of noblemen enjoyed the privileges for the deeds of their ancestors.
I always thought the case for marriage equality was argued wrongly.
It was a civil liberties issue for all Americans.
No American regardless of their motivation to do so could enter into a marriage contract with someone of the same sex.
What business is it of the government why somebody wanted to (thus recognizing the current social construction of sexual orientations which will change) and what business is it of the government what a person's sex is?
Of course the effect of banning it for all Americans had the effect of hurting the people who wanted to marry someone of the same sex, but it never really should have been argued in favor of a class of people but a civil liberties issue for everyone.
I don't have strong opinions on bakers or web-site designers. These cases always are about such trivial things. If it were about opening a bank account I might be able to get my brain cells to form an opinion.
Personally, as someone who is already paranoid about being poisoned, I would *not* eat a cake if it was only made for me on the basis of a Supreme Court decree. You can be guaranteed it's not a cake baked with love, at the least. And its safety would be questionable to me.
As you guys know I'm black/ADOS, we are preferred in several spheres because of Affirmative Action and in a handful of others i.e. sports or music due to physical/cultural success in those niches.
However, those preferences only go so far when a culture is broken. For the other non black readers here if you continue on with American culture: ingenuity, family values, perseverance etc you'll continue to excel despite any handouts given to other groups.
I'd also argue that handouts make you generationally ill-equipped and weak. Read Dalrymple's Life At the Bottom. Welfare and Affirmative are morph from a crutch to an anchor.
The for-profit race-victimization industry has been a cancer to America's soul ever since it sprang up shortly after the Civil War. The legendary black Republican Booker T. Washington referenced it in 1911:
"There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs-partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs."
Seeing how lucrative the race-victimization industry has been for well over a century, other groups are naturally trying to cash in and are endlessly trying to push the boundaries of civil rights laws far beyond their original intent.
In the recent cases of the lesbians versus the Christian bakery and the gays versus the Christian website designer, however, there's a fairly new twist. Nobody was "actually" suffering discrimination in either case of course...the lesbians could have gone down the street to find another baker and there's absolutely no shortage whatsoever of gay website designers...what was truly happening was that the cudgel of civil rights law was used as a mechanism for furthering anti-Christian bigotry.
The plaintiffs specifically brought their cases BECAUSE they were intentionally attacking Christianity and core Christian beliefs, not because of any actual "discrimination".
They might have encountered a similar resistance to their business requests at a Muslim bakery or with a Muslim website designer, but their hatred is focused on Christians, so that's who they attacked.
Odd, because I haven't heard of Christians throwing gays off of buildings or collapsing walls onto them...hmmm...
Why do the liberal justices never ask a hypothetical like this, “Let’s say that you are a member of a religious group like the non-profit Christian lobbying organization Family Foundation of Virginia and you make a reservation to eat at some restaurant...let’s say at Metzger Bar and Butchery in Richmond, Virginia and you are denied accommodation and service because of your religious views...would you think that is like being discriminated against because you were black?”
14th amendment did not allow interracial marriages, public access and school integration. If one reads the discussion in the house during the 14th amendment debate in 1866, the author Mr. Stevens when answering the question about interracial marriages said the amendment protects freedmen's right to do what white men can do in legal setting like testify in courts and buy property. Mr. Stevens explicitly pointed out, When a distinction is made between two types of married couples (interracial and same race), then it is unequal legislation: but where all of the same class are dealt with in the same way then there is no pretense of inequality. Hence 14th amendment would not overturn ban on interracial marriages.
In some ways civil rights act of 1964, was unconstitutional but we can consider it as our reparations for slavery and Jim Crow era ( when South discriminated against blacks in legal setting, right to testify, serve on Jury etc. which was explicitly banned by 14th amendment ). Gays, Mexicans, transgendered people should never get the same civil rights acts type protections.
Ann is my mother. I am going to make Ann Coulter t shirts and merch. I am officially an Ann coulter super stan. Ann understands me in a way that my birth mother could never.
Blacks have much more than equality today. Today they have supremacy and black skin privilege. An accusation of racism from a black person can literally destroy a white person's reputation, job security and/or business. This should be totally unacceptable but whites have been so guilt tripped about race and America's "painful" history that they do nothing.
The plain language of the Civil Rights Act does not prohibit discrimination against homosexuals, but "conservative" Neil Gorsuch delivered an activist ruling and rewrote the law to say that it does.
The Civil Rights Act is almost never invoked on behalf of white people who are routinely discriminated against on a racial basis. Since the act destroyed federalism and states rights and is selectively enforced on behalf of blacks and other non-whites it should be repealed.
Thank you for your perspective Ann. No arguments from me on this one. Live and let live. Take our lumps as they come. Civil liberties. Justice for all. Thank you for providing the 168 page opinion of the arguments while presented. Will definitely read it.
Ann responded! Best day EVER! my biological mother sent me $80 for dinner I'm definitely getting a cocktail and dessert. This John guy is pretty old and I don't have time to listen to everything he said, what did he say that he was right about?
At this juncture even Blacks should not have the same racial privileges their parents and grandparents used to have. Today's generation of Blacks never endured under Jim Crow laws, so why should they enjoy the privileges for the discrimination of their great-grandparents? This whole "Affirmative Action" thing reminds me the caste system of the old Europe, where small class of noblemen enjoyed the privileges for the deeds of their ancestors.
I always thought the case for marriage equality was argued wrongly.
It was a civil liberties issue for all Americans.
No American regardless of their motivation to do so could enter into a marriage contract with someone of the same sex.
What business is it of the government why somebody wanted to (thus recognizing the current social construction of sexual orientations which will change) and what business is it of the government what a person's sex is?
Of course the effect of banning it for all Americans had the effect of hurting the people who wanted to marry someone of the same sex, but it never really should have been argued in favor of a class of people but a civil liberties issue for everyone.
I don't have strong opinions on bakers or web-site designers. These cases always are about such trivial things. If it were about opening a bank account I might be able to get my brain cells to form an opinion.
Personally, as someone who is already paranoid about being poisoned, I would *not* eat a cake if it was only made for me on the basis of a Supreme Court decree. You can be guaranteed it's not a cake baked with love, at the least. And its safety would be questionable to me.
As you guys know I'm black/ADOS, we are preferred in several spheres because of Affirmative Action and in a handful of others i.e. sports or music due to physical/cultural success in those niches.
However, those preferences only go so far when a culture is broken. For the other non black readers here if you continue on with American culture: ingenuity, family values, perseverance etc you'll continue to excel despite any handouts given to other groups.
I'd also argue that handouts make you generationally ill-equipped and weak. Read Dalrymple's Life At the Bottom. Welfare and Affirmative are morph from a crutch to an anchor.
Great column, Ann!
The for-profit race-victimization industry has been a cancer to America's soul ever since it sprang up shortly after the Civil War. The legendary black Republican Booker T. Washington referenced it in 1911:
"There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs-partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs."
Seeing how lucrative the race-victimization industry has been for well over a century, other groups are naturally trying to cash in and are endlessly trying to push the boundaries of civil rights laws far beyond their original intent.
In the recent cases of the lesbians versus the Christian bakery and the gays versus the Christian website designer, however, there's a fairly new twist. Nobody was "actually" suffering discrimination in either case of course...the lesbians could have gone down the street to find another baker and there's absolutely no shortage whatsoever of gay website designers...what was truly happening was that the cudgel of civil rights law was used as a mechanism for furthering anti-Christian bigotry.
The plaintiffs specifically brought their cases BECAUSE they were intentionally attacking Christianity and core Christian beliefs, not because of any actual "discrimination".
They might have encountered a similar resistance to their business requests at a Muslim bakery or with a Muslim website designer, but their hatred is focused on Christians, so that's who they attacked.
Odd, because I haven't heard of Christians throwing gays off of buildings or collapsing walls onto them...hmmm...
Why do the liberal justices never ask a hypothetical like this, “Let’s say that you are a member of a religious group like the non-profit Christian lobbying organization Family Foundation of Virginia and you make a reservation to eat at some restaurant...let’s say at Metzger Bar and Butchery in Richmond, Virginia and you are denied accommodation and service because of your religious views...would you think that is like being discriminated against because you were black?”
Silly me 🤷♂️
14th amendment did not allow interracial marriages, public access and school integration. If one reads the discussion in the house during the 14th amendment debate in 1866, the author Mr. Stevens when answering the question about interracial marriages said the amendment protects freedmen's right to do what white men can do in legal setting like testify in courts and buy property. Mr. Stevens explicitly pointed out, When a distinction is made between two types of married couples (interracial and same race), then it is unequal legislation: but where all of the same class are dealt with in the same way then there is no pretense of inequality. Hence 14th amendment would not overturn ban on interracial marriages.
In some ways civil rights act of 1964, was unconstitutional but we can consider it as our reparations for slavery and Jim Crow era ( when South discriminated against blacks in legal setting, right to testify, serve on Jury etc. which was explicitly banned by 14th amendment ). Gays, Mexicans, transgendered people should never get the same civil rights acts type protections.
Ann is my mother. I am going to make Ann Coulter t shirts and merch. I am officially an Ann coulter super stan. Ann understands me in a way that my birth mother could never.
This is Ann Coulter at her best!
Tribal “Sovereignty” .... let’s talk about it.
Great article, Ann. It is always refreshing to read your thoughts.
Blacks have much more than equality today. Today they have supremacy and black skin privilege. An accusation of racism from a black person can literally destroy a white person's reputation, job security and/or business. This should be totally unacceptable but whites have been so guilt tripped about race and America's "painful" history that they do nothing.
The plain language of the Civil Rights Act does not prohibit discrimination against homosexuals, but "conservative" Neil Gorsuch delivered an activist ruling and rewrote the law to say that it does.
The Civil Rights Act is almost never invoked on behalf of white people who are routinely discriminated against on a racial basis. Since the act destroyed federalism and states rights and is selectively enforced on behalf of blacks and other non-whites it should be repealed.
Thank you for your perspective Ann. No arguments from me on this one. Live and let live. Take our lumps as they come. Civil liberties. Justice for all. Thank you for providing the 168 page opinion of the arguments while presented. Will definitely read it.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂oh my goooood😂😂😂😂😂this. This is the funniest shit I’ve read all year. I’m going to start using this “ you’re not black honey”
Ann responded! Best day EVER! my biological mother sent me $80 for dinner I'm definitely getting a cocktail and dessert. This John guy is pretty old and I don't have time to listen to everything he said, what did he say that he was right about?
Blind people should not be denied hire as lifeguard so long as they pass a hearing test.
So blacks can't be gay? I hear you Ann but being gay has a lot of races.