The Silent Death Of A HERO

          The Houston Equal Rights Ordinance, also known as the HERO law, was voted down in Houston's 2015 election. Many are citing this as a loss for LGTB equal rights, but is it? Was this a victory for discrimination, hate groups, and others who project their personal beliefs on race, gender, sexual orientation, self-identification, etcetera onto everyone else around them? Or is this yet another example of people voluntarily giving away their freedoms, even if it is with the best of intentions. Take a moment to digest that, read this whole blog before reacting, and then discuss...


          First, a disclaimer. This blog and its author do not endorse discrimination in any way shape or form. We are all humans. And while we may look, act, sound, think, and feel differently about each other, it is impossible to know or truly judge a person based on stereotypes of those differences. The color of your skin alone does not affect your athletic ability, the gender of your mate does not impact your ability to parent a child, your eye color has no effect on your eyesight. Despite me saying, and truly meaning all of this, I am sure there are those who will be angered beyond belief at the points I will attempt to make below, and react in a less than civil manner with verbal attacks on my belief structure, and possibly my very own well being. Sounds like fun, so here we go!

What's good for the goose (or any other bird, we don't want to discriminate)...

          I highly doubt anyone sees the innate hypocrisy of forcing people to make the "right decision". If a church protests outside an abortion clinic, the pro-lifers complain that they are having someone else's beliefs forced upon them. But if a baker refuses to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, it is ok to pass laws forcing them to do so; and subsequently sue or jail them for defying those laws that force someone else's beliefs onto said baker. Why? Well, I already touched on it, the second scenario is socially acceptable because the end result is ethically and morally sound. We want a world free of discrimination. We want to live in a town, city, state, country, and planet free of all forms of discrimination... unless it's against those who discriminate, in which case two wrongs make a right. Again, does no one realize the hypocrisy, or do the ends simply justify the means?


          Another reason laws like this shouldn't be allowed, is how does one enforce them? How can you truly make the judgment that someone is basing their decision on their own hate-filled prejudice unless they directly say so? Back to the example of the baker, if that baker refused service to one couple one time, and refused to give a reason, then how can you prove discrimination? How many times must this act be repeated to form a reasonable guess at intent? And are other outside factors taken into account? If that baker refuses service to a same-sex mixed race couple who each hold different spiritual beliefs, do you have to test that exact scenario repeatedly, or do you test each variable separately? And what if no clear modus operandi can be determined? Where is the line?

Working outside the law,  responsibly

          I think the more important question here is, why do we need a governing body to make things right? So a baker openly discriminates against gays and lesbians, do you want to force that baker to make you a cake by law? While they hopefully do not resort to poisoning you, do you really think you'll be getting their best work? Or will you get the equivalent of an Easy Bake oven cake a third grader could make, just with a fancy name on the box? If you force an employer to hire you under threat of discrimination, do you think you'll ever have a peaceful working environment? Why get the law involved, when there is a much simpler tactic that generates better results? Deny them service, and cost them money. Sure, supporters of their cause may initially fund their lost revenue... but don't you truly believe there are more "good" people out there than "bad"? And charity will eventually run out. If there's no money coming in, the business won't be able to last for long.
          And this is America, the land of opportunity. If a shop or service refuses to do business with a certain "type" of person, that sounds like a great opportunity. Open your own rival service, accept ALL customers, and run the bigot out of business by stealing all their customers. There is no need for legal involvement, the free market is available to everyone to take advantage of and is more than capable of dispensing justice should the need arise. And if you can't do that, then boycott. Strike. Bury them in terrible online reviews in social media and other rating websites for that field. These are all acceptable methods of protest. Try to avoid to unacceptable methods, like property damage and causing physical harm to people who oppose who views. These actions SHOULD, and most likely will, cary legal ramifications. And at that point, you are on your own...

Post a Comment

* Please Don't Spam Here. All the Comments are Reviewed by Admin.
  1. I think you make some excellent points here, and I'm not sure you're going to get quite the outrage that you expected. It's a tricky issue though and, to be honest, my head hurts just thinking about it. I think we're just making slow progress and all the attention we have on rights is evidence of that.

Post a Comment

#buttons=(Accept !) #days=(20)

Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience.
Accept !