Monthly Archives: July 2011

Does Gay Marriage Imperil Free Speech?

One would think that one has very little to do with the other. That is, unless one is Gary Bauer, who seems to be taking a tactic I’ve seen too often out of leftists suggesting that if someone in the private sector wants to fire you for saying something bigoted, that it’s an assault on your freedom of speech.

Recently, Frank Turek, an employee for computer networking firm Cisco Systems, was fired for authoring a book titled “Correct, not Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone.” Turek had a stellar work record and never talked about his religious or political views on the job.

But after a homosexual manager at Cisco Googled Turek’s name, learned about his views and complained to a human resources professional at Cisco, Turek was immediately fired.

Also recently, Canadian sportscaster Damian Goddard was fired for declaring his opposition to gay marriage. Rogers Communications fired Goddard after he tweeted his support for Todd Reynolds, a hockey agent, who had earlier voiced his opposition to the activism of Sean Avery , a New York Rangers player who was part of the New Yorkers for Marriage Equality campaign in the lead-up to the same-sex marriage vote in the New York State Legislature.

Now, I don’t know the workplace policies of either corporation, but I would assume that in the first case, Turek violated some section of his employment contract with Cisco. I might call that an overreaction, but I wouldn’t call it a violation of his freedom of speech. It was, rather, an exercise in freedom of association (or, in this case, disassociation). The second case, the sportscaster is a public figure, and I think it’s quite likely that Rogers Communications might believe that his thoughts on gay marriage would impact ratings or the bottom line.

Should either corporation be forced to retain an employee that publicly espouses values — values that I’d call bigoted — inconsistent with those of the corporation? Cisco is a multinational company with highly diverse employees, and it’s quite possible that someone hired to put together leadership seminars [as Kurek was] may not be seen as a leader himself if he publicly advocates legal oppression against people who he is to lead.

But let’s take it a step farther. Let’s assume instead that either Kurek or Goddard were advocating against interracial marriage. Let’s say that Kurek was writing books claiming interracial marriage hurts families, and that the races shouldn’t mix. After all, many of the arguments at the time of Loving v. Virginia were based on religious beliefs. Would Gary Bauer be defending either? I fail to see any difference in principle here — in both cases, one would be arguing against legal equality based upon one owns religious convictions of what defines a proper marriage. And in both cases, the issue at hand LEGALLY [not morally] is whether the state can withhold access to a LEGAL CONTRACT between two adults.

Bauer continues with a slightly more thorny issue:

Same-sex marriage is already having a chilling effect on religious freedom. In states that have legalized civil unions or gay marriage, Catholic adoption agencies have been shuttered or lost their tax-exempt status for refusing to let gay couples adopt children.

Last week in Illinois, Gov. Pat Quinn affirmed a decision by the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services not to renew adoption contracts with Catholic Charities for the same reason because of the state’s law recognizing same-sex civil unions.

This seems like outright state hostility to religion, when viewed through Gary Bauer’s eyes. However, from a legal perspective, the 14th amendment demands equality before the law. If gay marriage is legal, then gays should be allowed the same rights as straights when it comes to adoption. And if an agency looking to work with the state on adoptions refuses to comply with equal protection clauses, those agencies should not get state funding.

Again, this can be greatly simplified if we refer back to other cases of equality before the law. Should adoption agencies be free to take state funds and refuse to allow interracial straight couples to adopt? Should state charter school funds be given to schools which admit white and asian students, but bar blacks and hispanics? The state itself is barred from discrimination in most cases, and while some wholly private organizations can discriminate, state adoption contracts and state school funding are most certainly not wholly private. If a religion wants to work WITH the government, they have to do so on the government’s terms.

I would think that if the arguments were advanced today, Gary Bauer would call the person advocating against interracial marriage a bigot. I think if someone were arguing for re-segregating the schools, Gary Bauer would call that person a bigot. A Gary Bauer of 50 years ago, I’m not so sure.

Of course, a Gary Bauer of only 3 years ago might give us a different tone:

Last week, a few days before Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to America, TV talk show host Bill Maher went on a profanity-laden tirade against the Pope and the Catholic Church. On his HBO Real Time program, Maher claimed that the Pope “used to be a Nazi,” and called the Catholic Church a “child-abusing religious cult” and “the Bear Stearns of organized pedophilia.”

The result: (Cue sound of crickets chirping.)

Maher believes he can get away with such overt bigotry under the pretext of “creative license.” As Maher said in his non-apology apology: “Now first of all, it was a joke, during a comedic context…”

And when the Catholic League confronted HBO about why it continues to give Maher airtime, the station insisted that his anti-Catholicism was a matter of “creative freedom.” Needless to say, such “creative freedom” would not be extended to those who make racist, anti-gay or anti-Muslim remarks. Ask Don Imus.

Based on a *very* charitable reading of that op-ed, one can potentially infer that Bauer things nobody should be fired for bigoted remarks, and that he’s merely upset at the double standard of the left. It seems, based on my reading of his article, that his concern with the double standard is that Bill Maher isn’t punished, not that right-wingers who make bigoted statements are.

Gary Bauer is not fighting for religious freedom, he’s fighting for the right to espouse bigoted politics with no social cost. Sorry, Gary, that’s just not how it works. You might not think that treating gays like they’re not worthy of the same legal rights is bigotry, but I’m afraid that an ever-growing portion of the country disagrees with you on that. If we call you on it, that doesn’t mean you’ve lost your right to free speech. It means we think you’re a bigot.

Government: Shows A Loss While Selling Money

I was passed this story by a relative, and thought it was absolutely genius:

Would you take advantage of a federal loophole that gives you a free first-class flight anywhere on Earth?

That’s what hundreds — possibly thousands — of shrewd travel enthusiasts are doing, in light of a 2005 law that unwittingly created a weird case of supply and demand.

The law intended to push more $1 coins into circulation. Dollar coins are cheaper for the U.S. Mint to maintain because coins don’t need to be replaced as often as the $1 bill.

The U.S. Mint sells the coins at face value, using taxpayer money to cover shipping and handling costs. If you want to buy $1,000 in coins, you simply pay $1,000 on your credit card and wait for the shipment to arrive in the mail.

Credit card rewards enthusiasts leapt at the program. They use a simple strategy: Purchase coins. Wait for coins to arrive in mail. Deposit. Use deposit to pay credit card. Repeat.

Brilliant! It’s a bit of a hassle, but no more of a hassle than dealing with the TSA. At least if you’re in the middle of a government groping, you can bask in the solace that your flight is free.

Now, some may suggest that taxpayers paying the shipping & handling is worth it if the coins are making it into circulation, given that the coins themselves are a better deal for the US Mint. So what happens to those coins?

A spokesman for the U.S. Mint calls this an “abuse.” Depositing the coins directly in a bank doesn’t put the coins in circulation. The banks simply send that money back to the Federal Reserve — often still clad in its original U.S. Mint packaging.

Yep. The government doesn’t have the balls to discontinue the dollar bill, so they set up a “voluntary” (& subsidized through packing/shipping costs) circular trade that does nothing but increase costs on all aspects of our system and doesn’t even manage to put the coins in circulation.

Well done, Washington!

Quote Of The Day

Apparently Federal Employees in many jobs are more likely to die than be fired… And we’re not talking the Dept. of Defense here…

Of course, it’s entirely understandable, as the Federal Government only hires dutiful, public-minded and competent people:

HUD spokesman Jerry Brown says his department’s low dismissal rate — providing a 99.85% job security rate for employees — shows a skilled and committed workforce. “We’ve never focused on firing people, and we don’t intend to start now. We’re more focused on hiring the right people,” he says.

Spoken like someone who has never had to decide anything based on P&L, in an industry without competition.

And, of course, there’s the implication that greedy money-grubbing corporations are less focused on hiring the right people. Considering they have a bottom line to meet, I’d say they’re *more* likely to be so focused.

Hat Tip: Reason Hit & Run

Too big to fail: Washington edition

From Megan McArdle, a list of reasons why the Federal Government is too big to fail (or even pause):

  • The nation’s nuclear arsenal is no longer being watched or maintained
  • The doors of federal prisons have been thrown open, because none of the guards will work without being paid, and the vendors will not deliver food, medical supplies, electricity,etc.
  • The border control stations are entirely unmanned, so anyone who can buy a plane ticket, or stroll across the Mexican border, is entering the country. All the illegal immigrants currently in detention are released, since we don’t have the money to put them on a plane, and we cannot actually simply leave them in a cell without electricity, sanitation, or food to see what happens.
  • All of our troops stationed abroad quickly run out of electricity or fuel. Many of them are sitting in a desert with billions worth of equipment, and no way to get themselves or their equipment back to the US.
  • Our embassies are no longer operating, which will make things difficult for foreign travellers
  • No federal emergency assistance, or help fighting things like wildfires or floods. Sorry, tornado people! Sorry, wildfire victims! Try to live in the northeast next time!
  • Housing projects shut down, and Section 8 vouchers are not paid. Families hit the streets.
  • The money your local school district was expecting at the October 1 commencement of the 2012 fiscal year does not materialize, making it unclear who’s going to be teaching your kids without a special property tax assessment.
  • The market for guaranteed student loans plunges into chaos. Hope your kid wasn’t going to college this year!
  • The mortgage market evaporates. Hope you didn’t need to buy or sell a house!
  • The FDIC and the PBGC suddenly don’t have a government backstop for their funds, which has all sorts of interesting implications for your bank account.
  • The TSA shuts down. Yay! But don’t worry about terrorist attacks, you TSA-lovers, because air traffic control shut down too. Hope you don’t have a vacation planned in August, much less any work travel.
  • Unemployment money is no longer going to the states, which means that pretty so, it won’t be going to the unemployed people.

Now, how many of the companies that leftists were screaming were “too big to fail” could have had one one-hundredth the impact of a Federal Government failure? Yet these same leftists who recognize too big to fail as a bad thing want to endow the Federal Government with ever more power. Amazing.

Policing the Right Way: A Positive Personal Encounter with a Highway Patrolman

Many of my detractors may assume that I am someone who encounters the police on a regular basis since I am very critical of bad cops. The truth is personal encounters with the police are very rare for me; it’s very rare that I get pulled over and I haven’t had the cops called on me since I was in my early 20’s.

Well, my streak of not getting pulled over came to an end last Thursday. I was driving to my mother-in-law’s house when I saw the dreaded flashing lights in my rearview mirror. As I pulled over having no idea why I was being stopped, I started thinking about the “10 Rules for Dealing with Police.”
With my window rolled down and my hands on the steering wheel (always a good idea to keep your hands where the police can see them) the highway patrolman asked why I thought he pulled me over. I shrugged and patiently waited to hear his response.

So why did I get pulled over? I didn’t have a license plate on my front bumper. The bracket for my front plate had broken off some months ago. When he told me his reason for pulling me over, I pointed to the plate that I had put just inside the front windshield. From there the patrolman explained that by Colorado law, the plate has to be attached to the front of the vehicle because sometimes the plate falls off in hit-and-run collisions (a plate left at the scene makes it very easy to identify the vehicle’s owner).

I have lived in three states, one of which does not even require a front plate at all (at least when I lived there). I wasn’t sure exactly what the Colorado law was so I took the gamble that placing the plate on the dash would be good enough. It wasn’t.

Of course there’s the old expression: “ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law.” The patrolman was well within his rights to write a citation but he chose to give me a verbal warning instead. A verbal warning and something else: a business card with his name and badge number.

The patrolman handed me the business card and said that I could call the number on the card to make a comment about the stop whether good or bad.

“When did they start doing this?” I wondered. I was taken aback. What kind of comments would I leave if I actually called the number?

As I reflected on this, on balance I thought the patrolman did his job well. Though he could have written the citation, he decided to inform me instead of punish me. For my part, I followed rule #1 (Always be calm and cool) and was very respectful (again, this may surprise my detractors that I wasn’t being snarky toward the patrolman. It probably helped that my wife answered the one question that annoyed me: “Where you folks headed?”). In following this first rule, I didn’t need to worry about the other nine.

But the thing that impressed me the most about this encounter with an officer of the law was the business card. Apparently the Colorado DPS actually cares about how well their patrolmen do their jobs! How refreshing! This in a time of police scandals, use of unnecessary force, and “professional courtesy” that has plagued the Denver Police Department and departments across the country.

What the business card policy (?) says to me is that yes, the police work for me. It’s a statement that recognizes that the job of the police it to serve and protect me: their customer, their boss, the person who pays his salary.

This is how the police should do their jobs and I hope this is something we will see more of more generally.

1 2 3 4 5