Monday, October 25, 2010

The New Math

Two interesting and, I think, interconnected stories from this past week. First, from WRAL/WBTV Charlotte...

"A lesbian couple say they were forced to leave a mall in Raleigh because they were spotted kissing in public.

Caitlin Breedlove says she and her girlfriend had finished eating lunch and were sitting on a bench, WRAL reported.

They had their arms around each other and had kissed briefly on the cheek when a security guard approached them, she told WRAL.

The guard told them that "being affectionate" was "inappropriate" and asked them to leave, WRAL reported.

Breedlove told WRAL that the guard added, "No one wants to see that at Cameron Village."

Breedlove, who is the co-director of Southerners on New Ground, says she asked the security guard if they would be asked to leave if the two were a man and a woman and that the guard replied "no."

The officer had not received other complaints about them, Breedlove told WRAL."

A representative has since met with and apologized to the couple, stating...

"We welcomed the opportunity to sit down with the women and offer our sincere regrets over last week's incident."

Who doesn't love a happy ending? Nobody should be able to impose their morality on another person or persons. That's just not American. Sensitivity training all 'round.

Then this, from Fox News...

"A civil rights case has been filed against a woman in Grand Rapids, Mich., who posted an advertisement at her church last July seeking a Christian roommate."

The ad "expresses an illegal preference for a Christian roommate, thus excluding people of other faiths,” according to the complaint filed by the Fair Housing Center of West Michigan.

"It's a violation to make,print or publish a discriminatory statement," Executive Director Nancy Haynes told Fox News. "There are no exemptions to that."

Haynes said the unnamed 31-year-old woman’s case was turned over to the Michigan Department of Civil Rights. Depending on the outcome of the case, she said, the woman could face several hundreds of dollars in fines and “fair housing training so it doesn’t happen again.”

That'll learn 'er! "Fair housing training." That's Newspeak, if you were wondering.

You know, on a hunch, I decided to check out some craigslist ads from the great state of Michigan, just to see what i could see. Certainly the diligence and influence of the Fair Housing Center would be most noticeable on what is arguably the biggest medium of rental advertising in metropolitan areas across the country...

Ok, HERE is one that's titled "Section 8 Preferred." I have a job...does that discriminate against me?

HERE is another that insists that one "MUST" (their capitals) be gay friendly. Also, "business professional preferred." Welders need not apply.

Hold your hats. HERE'S one that is titled "Single Black Female Seeking Same" to share an apt.
This ad was posted on Oct. 8th, 2010. The ad is still active. In Michigan. Strangely enough, it's says right there on the craigsilst housing listings menu that "stating a discriminatory preference in a housing post is illegal," and the Fair Housing Center's website states that...

"Fair Housing is the right of individuals to obtain the housing of their choice (ie: rent an apartment, buy a home, obtain a mortgage, purchase homeowners insurance etc.), free from discrimination based on race, color, religion, gender, national origin, mental or physical disability, familial status, marital status, age, sexual preference, and legal and verifiable source of income. These rights are assured by Federal, State and local fair housing laws."

Apparently the Fair Housing Center's influence only reaches as far as church bulletin boards. Hey, it's a start! I'd say the fine people at the Michigan Department of Civil Rights have their work cut out for them.

So how are these two stories related? I suppose it is the inconsistency in which our culture doles out it's outrage. The security guard was wrong. The tool that took it upon themselves to file a complaint about the "Christian Roommate" ad was wrong. And yet here we are; two similar stories, two very different outcomes, because you can bet the farm that the "Christian Roommate" woman will not be receiving an apology.


  1. Regarding the roomate apartment share, I see nothing wrong with wanting a certain type of roomate. If this fair housing rule were strictly enforced then I would have to accept a man as a roomate. When it comes to your personal home, you should be able to choose the co-habitant.

    The security guard was wrong. Though, a man and woman kissing on a mall bench would make some uncomfortable too. Myself, as an admitted voyeur, would not be shocked!

  2. The inequity boggles the mind. The recent NPR incident is another example of the vastly different playing fields between conservatives and liberals.

  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

  5. AJ,

    Once again, we see the tired old logical fallacy of a “moral equivalence” argument.

    There is a giant difference between a private security guard making an indefensible request and government authorities -- through force of law -- imposing a substantial fine and reindoctrination “training”.

    Was the guard imprudent in his actions? Apparently, his employer thinks so -- so do I. As you note, a representative of the owner has already issued a public apology for an indefensible action.

    But, even if the owner had defended the decision of the security guard, we are dealing here with a private citizen with limited authority to enforce the standards desired by a private property owner who -- right or wrong -- has the right to enforce any standard he or she damn well pleases on his or her private property. Anybody who finds these standards reprehensible is free not to patronize the owner of that property.

    Apples and oranges my friend (sorry, had to get that one in).

  6. Charlene - thank you for seeing the bigger picture.

    cube - Thank you for seeing the bigger picture and yes, the NPR incident is a good example.

    SBVOR - I actually agree with your notion that these two examples, when juxtaposed, should not be held in equivalence. Anyone would agree that a security guard in a private mall and a governmental agency should not be held in the same stead.

    My point was more along the lines of the inequity in which morality is doled out in reference to different groups. Let's say, for example, the lesbian couple was approached by a police officer in a public place, and said officer acted in the same manner as the mall security guard. Who would be held in the wrong, The lesbian couple or the police officer/representative of a government agency? on what side would the outcry fall? It is my contention that the officer would be issuing the apology.

    Therein lies my defense of the "Christian Roommate" woman. Where is the outcry, the pressure to issue an apology? Were she to have posted a note on the church board asking for a "lesbian" roommate, or a "black" roommate, I believe the governmental agency in question would never had stepped in to impose fines and, as you so deftly put it, reindoctrination “training”, as I demonstrated with the ads from craigslist that have remained untouched and unmentioned.

    What makes this moral inequity so insidious is that it has pervaded not only the media, but governmental agencies such as this.

    Apples and Oranges - very good.

  7. AJ,

    Don't kill the messenger, attack the Congress.

    My understanding is that the government agency acted in accordance with (indefensible) Federal law. It's another example of the Nanny State run amuck.

    We can't blame the agency for doing their job. The only solution is to elect representatives who -- rather than expanding the nanny state, will work to reverse the insanities which are already on the books.

  8. Problem is, the agency is NOT doing their job or, at least, they are doing it selectively.

    The law's crap, no doubt, but I don't think it is a function of the Congress. It is a function of the the "Political-Correctness" that has latched itself on to every aspect of daily life and government, subsequently creating a "disclaimer" society. Well, for certain groups anyway.

  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

  10. AJ,

    1) Are you telling me that the proper way for this agency to do their job would be to also fine and re-indoctrinate a Muslim, a homosexual, or even a woman for seeking a similar roommate? Surely, you are not that crazy.

    Yes, this agency is (deliberately and by design) selectively enforcing the law -- just as the Civil Rights Commission is (deliberately and by design) selectively enforcing the law.

    But, as I alluded to above, the root of the problem is not biased enforcement, but the law itself.

    2) I seriously doubt you are familiar with The Origins of Political Correctness (aka Cultural Marxism). These facts are incontestable and readily verifiable.

    3) One party is advancing Cultural Marxism and another is resisting it. Take a wild guess which is which.

  11. @SBVOR "One party is advancing Cultural Marxism and another is resisting it. Take a wild guess which is which." Hell, I have no clue. I'm still trying to figure out who is thel luckless apple and who's the annoying orange. ;-)

    AJ, tried not to make you blush!

  12. @Sinville,

    So long as you remain willfully clueless, do the rest of us a big favor -- DON'T VOTE!

  13. @SBVOR I'm one of those legal immigrants and I have never voted. My oldest became a citizen this summer and intends to vote tomorrow-straight democrat. Should I put put sand in her jeep engine, or just cut the brakes?

  14. I thought about it overnight, and hell, she owes us for grad school or as we like to call it that shopping trip she took in Europe. So it looks like we will just let her vote.

    I'm pretty sure she will pick the cutest candidate. Did any of them pose nude for the centerfold of Cosmo?

  15. @Sinville,

    I would never advocate for interfering with the electoral process in any way -- that is the domain of Dims. We Conservatives fight to “True The Vote”.

    But, before she votes, you might encourage your precious bundle of debt accumulation to click here and explore what Obama and his Dims have done for her.

  16. About that Dim vote fraud...

    They seem to have stepped it up this year.