The Bully!

By -
A photographer is in legal trouble for refusing to photograph a lesbian wedding. According to Noah Smith classificatory scheme, the photographer is a "bully" for thinking she should not have to take part in events that run against her moral beliefs, while the couple who had her dragged through years of legal hassles, despite the fact that they easily found someone else to take the photos, are the poor downtrodden little folks.

I bet Noah Smith, when he was young, complained about the bullies whose chins got in the way of his fist.

In an interesting side note, Dreher points out that his freedom of conscience principles are not a matter of whose side he is on: "If a gay photographer believed in good conscience that he could not photograph the wedding of Christian fundamentalists, then I think he absolutely should have the right to refuse, on First Amendment grounds."

And finally, isn't Vanessa Wilcock an inapt name for a lesbian?

Comments

  1. Anonymous6:24 PM

    Nice closer. Haha.

    I've nothing against gays, lesbians, gender-benders, or any of that on a moral level. I am a live and let live sort of person, you do what you want, so long as you aren't imposing it upon or hurting others. All I ask is that once you know that I am not what you are (gay, for instance), that you don't push the issue, and that you don't expect me to cater to your own personal preferences.

    This has nothing to do with equality or any of that mumbo jumbo, it has everything to do with people who are different from the norm expecting other people to cater to their wants against their will. You cannot expect to call something a right if it negates the rights of others.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Daniel8:56 AM

    Can't we just call them both bullies?

    The case against the couple that you make here is rock solid. But the photographer sounds like a real piece of work too.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more