I recently made a comment to a post of Booman’s named “Dinner Denial is a Warning” (<http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2018/6/24/112248/490>) A number of commenting people were all in a twitter about how the neocentrist press was downplaying the the righteous importance of the Red Hen affair and others. Something smelled a little…off…about the whole “Why…we are OUTRAGED!!!!!!” thing, so I wrote a comment on it. Here it is.
############################################################################################
29 posts and counting, all agreeing that the owners of establishments that refuse to serve people that they find morally abhorrent have the right to do so.
Make that 30. I agree. If I owned a jazz club and found that these people were attending it I would also throw them out/refuse to serve them.
But…where does one draw the line? Apparently the line is drawn at the point where you agree with the moral stance of the owners/disagree with the moral stance of the patrons who are refused service. So…what happens if someone who has a different moral line than do you refuses to serve people on “moral” grounds? Like the bakers and the recent gay wedding cake foofaraw. I do not discriminate against gays and I find it disgusting. But did the baker not have a right to express his own views in that way? Is a puzzlement. A puzzlement for which I have no answer. Enlighten me, please.
And while we’re at it…many of the posts above are clouting the New York Times as a useless piece of yellow journalism shit. I also agree, and have said so on this blog and others hundreds of times for going on 20 years. My usual line is something like “It’s only good for the recipe columns, and you have to watch your step even with those.” My own final awakening to the sins of the Times came when it took part in the anti-Howard Dean/pro-John Kerry plot that foreshadowed the way HRC got rid of Bernie Sanders in 2016…followed by Kerry’s cowardly retreat in the face of Republican vote fraud. “FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY!!!” trumpeted the neocentrist media…including the NY Times. Even earlier, when the Times supported an obvious CIA asset…Judith Miler…in the whole Iraq “YELLOWCAKE!!!” fiasco that led directly to Bush II’s Blood For Oil War. But where were y’all when it was supporting Obama, HRC and the other neocentrist Dems for the past however many years? Oh yes…it agreed with you then and it apparently does not agree with you now.
You simply cannot have it both ways.
Unless of course…it’s all political posing.
All smoke and mirrors.
On all sides.
Then?
Feel free.
Just as I will feel free to continue to call you out.
Sauce for the goose must be sauce for the gander as well.
Unless it’s all bullshit.
Carry on…
AG
