Sunday, March 13, 2016

Remove the disingenuous hyperbole from Erick Erickson and nothing is left

Erick Erickson
Erick Erickson seems unable to write a paragraph without being self-righteously disingenuous. Erickson also lives in a simplistic binary world of Left and Right and the Right is always right. Erickson has a piece on Heritage Foundation's blog titled “The ‘Compassionate’ Bullying of the Left.” His “victim” is the discriminatory Washington State florist, Barronelle Stutzman.

As much as they try to say that white is black and up is down, the real victims here are the couple that was refused service. It is humiliating to be told that you are a second-class citizen. Stutzman does not approve of their marriage and she expressed her disapproval by denying them service in contravention to the law. Erickson has invented the concept of “compassionate bullying.” It becomes clear that he believes his own bullshit. There are three simple elements to this:
  1. Is the Washington law valid? — Yes.
  2. Did Stutzman violated the law? — Yes.
  3. Is there a religious exemption to the law? — No.
That's it. All the surplus verbiage in the world doesn't change the simple fact that this controversy is limited to those three elements. The opening paragraph:
Under the guise of compassion and caring, the Left attacks people like Baronelle <sic> Stuzman, a helpless grandmother who refused to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding from her flower shop, trying to force her to approve of that which she cannot in good conscience endorse.
It is “Barronelle.” Ms. Stutzman hasn't been “attacked” and political ideology has nothing to do with the matter. She has been civilly prosecuted for breaking the state's unambiguous anti-discrimination law. The fact that Ms. Stutzman is a grandmother is irrelevant and she is far from “helpless.” She has raised a considerable amount of money and has free legal representation from Alliance Defending Freedom. She has become a professional victim as ADF schleps her from venue to venue. Selling flowers isn't “approval” of anything other than the offer and acceptance mechanism of ordinary commerce. Ms. Stutzman wasn't asked to “endorse” anything — just to sell some fucking flowers for which she would be paid. This entire controversy is based on a faulty premise reinforced by people who wish to exploit it. Moreover, as ADF surely knows, it is settled law (Employment Division v. Smith). Most recently the Supreme Court declined to hear a similar (ADF) case from New Mexico (Elane Photography v. Willock), presumably because the issue is settled. He continues:
All the while, it claims it is acting in the best interest of society, acting on behalf of all those poor same-sex couples who can’t get flowers for their ceremonies—except that they can. They can even get flowers from Barronelle for anything other than a wedding. In spite of the lawsuits that happened after her refusal to sell the flowers, she says she still thinks of her former customer as a friend and would happily sell him flowers if he walked into her shop tomorrow. Meanwhile, both her former customer and the State of Washington are trying to take everything she has for not bowing at the altar of sexual sin.
Who or what is “it?” Erickson is manufacturing claims of an imaginary protagonist. The State of Washington contends that she broke the law. That's it. The fact that people can be served elsewhere is entirely irrelevant. That, too, is settled as a matter of public policy. Ms. Stutzman will not have the opportunity to sell the couple flowers for any other purpose. That ship has sailed and who cares?. Nobody is trying to “take everything she has.” After the state won in court she was offered the opportunity to settle the matter for a couple thousand dollars. She will not settle because she will not relinquish the self-manufactured privilege to discriminate in the future and she has lawyers who substantially benefit economically from continuing the matter. Stutzman is good for hundreds of thousands in contributions. “It” continues:
But these radicals want to look like they care as they force their views on others. It’s what bullies do. That way other people think better of them and they sleep better at night, assuaging any guilt they may feel for giving nightmares to genteel grandmothers. The progres­sives’ compassionate bullying reminds me of the catchy slogan for “Monsters, Inc.,” in the Disney Pixar film of the same name: “We scare because we care.”
The non-discrimination law was passed by the people's representatives and signed into law by the governor elected by the people. There is nothing “radical” about the law or enforcing it. This isn't bullying. In a civil society, grandmothers have to obey the law too. Just because Mr. Erickson doesn't like the law doesn't make it invalid.
For example, the very people who support Planned Parenthood’s butchering and selling of baby body parts also advanced the disaster of Obamacare because they care for children. The same people who insist that “The Vagina Monologues” be permitted on col­lege campuses also set up “safe zones” to restrict free speech because students must be protected from harmful ideas—like marriage being between a man and a woman. They outlaw incandescent light bulbs so we can use only toxic mercury because they care about polar bears and penguins with happy feet.
No one butchered babies and no one sold body parts and Obamacare is not a disaster and none of that has anything to do with Ms. Stutzman flouting the law. So-called “safe zones” don't seem to really exist although universities have placed limits on hate speech long before LGBT civil rights were an issue. And nobody has outlawed Erickson's precious incandescent bulbs. Again, none of this has anything to do with Ms. Stutzman who violated a perfectly valid law.
Around the country, progressive bullies have attacked Christians for daring to put their faith ahead of the pet causes of those who feign compassion while destroying life-giving liberties. What we are seeing is a scorched-earth, take-no-prisoners approach as the wildfire burns across our land. It is not enough that Christians be quiet. Christians must be silenced and punished. Their faith cannot be respected. Legislation that ensures people are free to live and work according to their faith without fear of being punished by government must be stopped and decried as discrimination.
Poor, persecuted majority you. This is just mindless demagoguery that has nothing whatsoever to do with enforcing the laws of the State of Washington.

Then this guy goes completely off the rails with some nonsensical rant that, again, has nothing to do with the State of Washington enforcing its valid non-discrimination laws.
In Denmark, France, San Bernardino, and elsewhere, we have seen Islamic extremists take lives because of the Islamic extremists’ beliefs. They do not want tolerance. They do not want pluralism. They do not want to show respect for the views of others. They will take life as revenge for being offended. There will be no magnanimity. There will be no mercy. In taking life, the Islamic extremists want to create a public spectacle. They want not just revenge for perceived wrongs, but also to make others fear—and to think twice before doing the same. They want to silence others and drive them from the town square. They use death and violence to do it.
There is more to this polemic but I am going to stop here because Ericson proves a point. There is nothing to the Stutzman matter other than her breaking a valid law that is not controversial. It's all about just those three irrefutable elements. What Mr. Ericskon seeks is White Heterosexual Christian privilege. He also wants a right of approval. Unfortunately for him abortion rights and same-sex marriage rights are the law of the land. Non-discrimination of LGBT citizens in public accommodations is the law in Washington. Ericskon's approval is neither solicited nor required. Poor dipshit him.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.