Here Thar Be Monsters!

From the other side of the argument to the other side of the planet, read in over 149 countries and 17 languages. We bring you news and opinion with an IndoTex® flavor. Be sure to check out Radio Far Side. Send thoughts and comments to luap.jkt at gmail, and tell all your friends. Sampai jumpa, y'all.


Begging For What's Yours

The US 7th Circuit Court recently issued a decision that LGBT folks were protected under Title VII of the Equal Rights Act of 1964 (ERA).  That's the law that is quoted on every job application in the US, where it says the employer does not discriminate based on color, creed, sex, et cetera ad nauseum.

There are so many things wrong here it will take a couple of your minutes to unpack it all.  So, grab a cuppa java and ride along.

First of all, this lawsuit and resulting decision by the court is a Statist's wet dream.  The fact that all these social sub-groups keep coming to the government, hats in hand, begging for their "rights" to be acknowledged is wrong on so many levels.

It is a complete repudiation of centuries of established Enlightenment philosophy.  Governments do not issue rights, they are a function of Nature and are as much a part of every human being as DNA and breathing.  It is not government's job to hand out rights, it is its job to protect them - or at least that was the idea back when Descarte, Kant, Locke, and Jefferson were pondering this topic.

In addition, laws are meant to apply equally to all people - or at least all citizens - without regard to any other factor or difference.  That these sad little minds on both sides of the argument felt the need to clarify whether existing laws applied to them means the concept of equal protection under the law has been completely wiped out of living memory.

I must admit that I have never understood the LGBT "movement".  It used to be that who or what one had sex with was a matter of personal privacy.  These poor, empty people are so devoid of any sense of achievement in their lives that the only distinguishing aspect of their public personas is their choice of bedmate.

Imagine being so lacking in personal achievement that you must make an issue out of your sex life.  They have no academic excellence, no social or philosophical distinctions, no meaningful contributions to the greater good, and frankly no children, that they must spend their entire lives making an issue out of their primary biological functions.  What next?  Equal rights for those who use toilets?

Frankly, I don't give a damn who or what they sleep with, as long as its consensual (meaning at least that all parties are over the age of majority and are fully informed) and I don't have to watch or participate if I so choose.  There would certainly never be a reason for me to be concerned about their sex lives if they didn't force all of us to acknowledge that they have one.  Hell, even the most ardent feminists and SJWs occasionally get bedded.

If I had an employee who was hanging rainbow flags all over the office and being truly obnoxious about their sexual orientation, I would fire them for disrupting the business environment.  The workplace is for work, the bedroom is for sexual gymnastics, and never the twain should cross.  Other than that, I only care about their job performance.

At its most benign level, this supposed "landmark" case showcases the degradation of the Western education system, which has failed to instill one of the most basic tenets of Western law - that we are all equal under the law regardless of any other consideration - and that rights are not handed out by government, but are inherited at the moment of conception (see previous articles on abortion and murder).

It is equally depressing to see that Western society has broken down into competing groups scrambling for government favors based on whatever criteria come to hand - such as with whom one chooses to exercise basic biological functions.  In a truly free and liberal society, such distinctions are meaningless.

In this case, both the court and the plaintiffs have degraded civilization just that little bit more, not because they won inclusion under the law, but because they believed they had to get permission from government to do so.

Ignorance on the part of the plaintiffs in this case is hardly excusable, but I place a greater burden of blame on the court, which did not clearly state that the Western legal tradition - at least since the Magna Carta - already protected all individuals equally as a foundational principle.

Yes, there are major societal issues at stake here, but at the level of the individual I feel sorry for the empty, meaningless lives whose sole claim to distinction is their orgasm.

Next time, we'll take on the completely absurd notion of "hate crime".  Stay tuned.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Feel free to leave your own view of The Far Side.