Amidst all the brouhaha, folderol, bewailing, and Tier 3+ spinning in regard to the Masterpiece Bake Shop Supreme Court ruling (my take on it is here), we find two words that provide total clarity into the deep rift that exists between today’s Left and the rest of us. Those two words, repeated nine times in the Court’s ruling:
Protected Class
That legal construct is why the Left believes government is justified… nay… obligated to force a baker to decorate a cake for a gay wedding, but is justified… nay… obligated to deny such coercion when requested by someone seeking a swastika cake. It’s why it’s OK to disinvite campus speakers who won’t say the correct things. It’s why it’s OK to defend NFL anthem kneelers’ free speech rights while telling wavers of the Confederate Flag to fuck off. It’s why transgender people can choose the bathroom they’re most comfortable using, but cisgender people cannot voice discomfort about that choice. It’s why the ACLU won’t stand up for gun rights. It’s why a judge says a bar can refuse service to someone wearing a MAGA hat. It’s why Linda Sarsour, not Ayaan Hirsi Ali, is a darling of the Left. It’s why members of “oppressed” identity groups who think wrong are treated with especial scorn.
You see, it’s not enough to be “of” a protected class. That’s mere identity politics, and it’s insufficient to explain why Clarence Thomas is so reviled. One has to be active in actually “protecting” those classes. That addresses speech and thought, not simply accident of birth.
The Court’s decision spoke of the nearly 60 year old doctrine of public accommodation, which Title II of the Civil Rights Act imposed on private businesses. A naif who thinks that real liberty actually exists in this country may believe that a private business has the right to refuse service to anyone, at any time, for any reason, because freedom of association is a fundamental and inalienable right, but all three branches of the government have decided otherwise (the Court affirmed the principle promptly after the Act’s passage). As a remedial measure to a worse systemic infringement of rights (Jim Crow was the law, and “white” businesses weren’t allowed to serve minorities even if they wanted to), the public accommodation mandate, which prohibits any business that serves the public to refuse service to a member of a “protected class,” served a good and noble purpose. As I noted yesterday, I think its purpose has been fulfilled, and that lesser infringement that is still an infringement should be undone.
But, the concept of “protected classes” has gained strength and breadth, instead of ebbing as society’s racism and bigotries softened. The grievance structures carry on, undeterred by their successes, and reinforce this idea that some people should be protected, and others should not.
The pigs of George Orwell’s Animal Farm, in the early days of their liberation, established seven Commandments of Animalism, the seventh of which was:
All Animals Are Equal.
Thus they established the same “equal treatment under the law” that is (supposedly) a cornerstone of our society and our government. Indeed, Thomas Jefferson reminded us that “all men are created equal.” He and many of his era didn’t fully practice what they preached, but the principle was unassailably valid and remains so today.
By the end of Animal Farm, however, the pigs had become fat, wealthy overlords of the other animals, the principles of Animalism had been cast aside, and the seven commandments, which had been painted onto the side of a barn for all to see, had been painted over and replaced with a single one:
All Animals Are Equal, But Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others.
Yes, indeed. We are now deep into the last chapter of Orwell’s prophetic book (it’s supposed to be a warning, not a fucking instruction manual!!), where some members of our society are “more equal” than others. This has been perpetrated (mostly) with noble intent, to countervail the past bigotries and injustices imposed upon them, but, to quote Chief Justice John Roberts:
The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.
And yet, we discriminate more than we ever have before. Just like non-bigoted shop keepers of the Deep South, we find ourselves in a situation where we must recognize identity groups and modify our behavior accordingly, even if we wish to be truly identity-blind. Indeed, asserting that you don’t see race is now considered a racist dog whistle.
How does a society move toward true equality, if it becomes more focused on identity differences and on the notion that some must be protected, everywhere and in perpetuity?
Understanding your ideological counterparts is usually a good idea. So, take a moment and process all that’s implied by those two words “Protected Class.” It explains just about everything.
Loading ...
“Indeed, asserting that you don’t see race is now considered a racist dog whistle.”
That exact outcome happened to me over on Popehat in the last week. For me, racism is a very simple concept; it means you consider race as a meaningful factor in making decisions; and it can be either “for” or “against” a race.
It is also clear that “race” now means “color” and doesn’t actually consider race.
But I had many people correcting me saying I was wrong, while not providing their own definition. One responder provided a link to an 18 year old (or so he claims, and also claims to be transgendered) Authority on the topic.
https://www.popehat.com/2018/05/30/randazza-latest-appearance-on-infowars/
The short version is that Marc Randazza appeared on InfoWars and stirred up a firestorm of “virtue signaling” how the act of appearing on the enemy’s show is itself an offense.
The irony or hypocrisy is how many people are quick to point out the evil of shunning while doing that very thing. But as you have doubtless noticed, and write about, is that there’s “good” hate and “bad” hate, good shunning and bad shunning, right down the line.
I have tried for many years to identify the secret, the key to understanding all that and I think you are closer to understanding than I.
I have saved that entire thread/page or whatever to a text file since it illustrates “Animal Farm” remarkably well. Given that all the responders start out as “equal animals”, you can see cliques forming, sending each other virtue signals (sheep bleating) and some jockying for alpha status, ending with “Sol says June 7, 2018 at 12:24 am @Total Don’t feed the troll”
And there’s your pig, the “more equal” responder that thinks he is in charge of the others.
I look for the “we” instead me “I” or “me” in comments. That is such a force in some people’s lives that even when pretending to be a libertarian, the groupie will instinctively use “we” in nearly every pronoun, where a libertarian tends to be conscious that he speaks for himself and not others unless the context is clear and the rest of “us” have agreed to you as a spokesman.
In fact, I think I’ll mention on that thread having discovered Orwell’s pig! That ought to breathe some new life into the non-versation.
It’s not a left versus right issue. It is a legal issue of Constitutional law as to whether or not homosexuals are a protected class. Many on the so-called “left” will agree that homosexuals are not a protected class under the US Constitution. Many on the right believe gays and lesbians should be afforded equal protection. Calling it left versus right just dumbs it down.
“Many on the so-called “left” will agree that homosexuals are not a protected class”
Really? I’d love to see something to back that assertion up.
Yes, there certainly are people who can be categorized as being of [fill in the blank] but who don’t conform to the full spectrum of [fill in the blank], but the modern Left (note, “modern,” today’s leftists have an authoritarian tendency that would horrify their 60s counterparts) has a habit of shredding its own when they don’t fully conform.
So long as you maintain an “us versus them” mentality and are determined to see everything through that mindset, there is no convincing you to see things otherwise. It is a comfortable position to put people in neat little categories, but it is wrong. Thought on the left is diverse as is thought on the right. Many take differing opinions on legal issues such as this. Many on the “left” are libertarians. That may surprise you. You only need to talk to them with an open mind.
I try talk to everyone with an open mind. That doesn’t obviate the reality of tribal behaviors, it doesn’t mandate that I accept viewpoints contrary to my own as equally valid, and it doesn’t mean that your assertion that thought on the left is as diverse as other thought.
Note, by the way, that I didn’t make mention of “thought on the right,” because that’s not the issue at hand. I break it down into collectivist vs non-collectivist, and while there certainly are some who self-identify as “left” who don’t cleave to the orthodoxy, I don’t think it unfair or without merit to note that the orthodoxy exists, and has grown more rigid and demanding of full compliance in recent times. If you don’t see it, perhaps you’re not looking at matters as clearly as you might think.