Say, have you noticed that all the demographic groups that receive all this state legal protected status are all the ones that are the most politically favored and therefore in the least need of it? And that all these protections are targeted at the truly persecuted, discriminated-against, politically disfavored groups genuinely deserving of such state legal protection?
Madison, Wisconsin Christ-haters sure as shinola are aware of it:
While conservatives in Indiana and Arkansas were explaining last month why their new religious objections laws weren’t invitations to discriminate against gays, the leaders of Wisconsin’s capital city were busy protecting the rights of another group: atheists.
Which have not, are not, and never will be threatened or imperiled in the slightest. Which means the criteria for this law is more ersatz than powdered eggs.
In what is believed to be the first statute of its kind in the United States, Madison banned discrimination against the non-religious on April 1st....
Note the date.
....giving them the same protections afforded to people based on their race, sexual orientation and religion, among other reasons.
It’s hardly surprising that such a statute would originate in Madison, an island of liberalism in a conservative-leaning [?] state and the home of the Freedom from Religion Foundation. But the ordinance’s author, Anita Weier, said it didn't arise from an actual complaint about alleged discrimination based on a lack of religious faith.
Because it couldn't, because there isn't any such thing.
“It just seems to me that religion has spread into government more than I feel comfortable with,” said Weier, who left the council after the statute passed. “It just occurred to me that religion was protected, so non-religion should be, too.” [emphasis added]
First of all, no it hasn't, Miss Weier. Second of all, her statute is apparently based upon the proposition that discrimination against Christians insufficient for her atheistic tastes constitutes discrimination against atheists. Or, put another way, atheists are entitled to discriminate against and persecute Christians, and woe be unto anybody who tries to stop them, or even criticize them for doing so. They have a constitutional right to force their hate upon us. At least with the Madison city limits.
Jazz Shaw puts it this way:
[A]re atheists being denied jobs or rides on public transportation based on their (lack of) belief? More to the point, are atheist photographers, bakers and florists being forced to participate in Christian weddings? It seems like they shouldn’t be able to refuse such a request based on recent court cases, right? I mean, if it’s a service they offer to everyone else then they can’t really say no without going to jail or getting hit with some huge fine, can they?
Not anymore. And remember, the reverse scenario has now been codified as a protected atheist civil right - in Madison, Wisconsin, at least, but that's just where this skullbleepery has hatched. It'll spread nationwide in no time.
Exit question: What ever happened to equal protection under the law? Remember when that standard was universal instead of balkanized? Good times, good times.
No comments:
Post a Comment