Any public person, group, company or church that identifies as Christian will be forced to take a stand on the question of whether or not they celebrate the LGBTQ lifestyle regardless of whether they want to or not, even if they barely care about the issue. That’s the plan. Because the Bible presents a clear position that is counter to the prevailing culture, it is an easy avenue of attack. The hate on this issue is one-sided. Christian theology teaches to love the sinner while hating the sin. Anti-Christian leftists practice hating the Christian while celebrating the sin. Christian unwillingness to celebrate the sin is the offense that cannot be overlooked.
As you will note from the chart above, roofing is one of the top 5 most dangerous jobs and the workforce is 97.7% male. Why do you think that feminists are more concerned about increasing the percentage of women in high-tech jobs than in helping women become roofers — or working in the logging or fishing industries? Isn’t obvious that these are jobs women don’t want to do? Toting heavy bundles of shingles up a ladder is rigorous exercise, but women would rather pay money for a yoga class or a gym membership than to get paid for the kind of exercise my son does, and yet feminists believe women are victims of discrimination.
What feminists want is not “equality,” in the sense of basic fairness — the equal application of recognized standards of merit — but rather they seek to impose quotas in hiring for certain categories of employment. Feminists use a rhetoric of “diversity” and “inclusion” to justify discrimination against males in certain occupational fields.
It is only such jobs — sitting at a desk in a nice air-conditioned office — that feminists care about when advocating “equality” and, by filing lawsuits over dubious claims of sexist discrimination, feminists have succeeded in compelling universities and corporations to institute de facto hiring quotas that favor women.
I did not know that truck driving was so high on the dangerous list. Maybe I should rethink my new career? Read the whole thing. And remember what RSM says about feminists:
The phrase “white heterosexual male” has become a popular term of demonization in the rhetoric of the Left, and you cannot expect white men to enjoy being assigned the role of Emmanuel Goldstein in this 21st-century version of Orwell’s dystopia. If the reaction of white men to being scapegoated is sometimes irrational and violent, this is to be lamented, but the irrationality of their reaction doesn’t mean that they are incorrect in their perception, or that they are wrong to be angry about being unfairly demonized as “privileged” by the college-educated Left.
How is the ordinary working-class white man, toiling in a low-status job to support himself and his family, “privileged” in any meaningful way? And how is it that the people accusing him of “privilege” are almost exclusively members of the college-educated elite? The average salary of a law professor at the University of California is over $270,000, whereas the median household income in Wisconsin is $66,432. Is the working man in Sheboygan more “privileged” than you, Professor Williams?
Read the whole email.
Source: E-Mail to a Liberal Professor
We all, in fact, discriminate because that is the essence of freedom and conscience. If we simply believe what the state dictates, then we are drones without any spark of life or reason. When people worry about “discrimination,” what they really mean is the unequal treatment of blacks and, to a lesser extent, women and Jews. But when the state extends “protection” to groups who no longer need protection, that creates simmering anger at those who are the notional “discriminators.”
Discrimination is a right. You have a right to choose, which means you’ve discriminated against what you didn’t choose.
Alamo Drafthouse is in a bit of a pickle here. New York City law strictly prohibits them from discriminating by gender:
In fact, New York City prohibits even advertising women-only events, meaning that Alamo is already in violation of the law.
If it is acceptable for Americans to say “no” to Muslims on the grounds that we don’t want any more Muslims, then we’re back to discussing the limits, if there are any, to the freedom of association. Put another way, if we don’t need a reason to say “no” to Mohamed, then we don’t need to ask for permission in order to say “no” to diversity.
University policies prohibit discrimination and harassment based on race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, disability, national origin, citizenship status, ancestry, age, order of protection status, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation including gender identity, arrest record status, unfavorable discharge from the military or status as a protected veteran.
In other words, no consequences for your poor decisions and past actions? I do discriminate based on your past performance and current mental illnesses. Discrimination is a right. It’s called freedom of association.