Lies, Damn Lies, and Race Based Crime Statistics

Posted on

If you’ve been following the news at all you’re familiar with the tragedies that have occurred in Ferguson Missouri with the death of Michael Brown and in New York City with the death of Eric Garner. People who are trying to argue that both of these deaths were justified often rely on crime data they are interpreting to make the claim that black people are inherently more violent and therefor deserve this kind of treatment from the police. I’m going to focus on the statistics that were shown on an episode of The O’Reilly Factor when he was discussing these tragedies. There is substantially more to all of these issues, but better people than I are tackling the broader topics at hand. My aim here is to ready you to combat these statistics when you see them used.

The goal with this slide is obviously to show that black people commit more murders than they should based upon their percentage of the population. The idea that we have to take everything in the context of population percentage is important and will be brought up again later, but for right now let’s focus on the idea that blacks commit more murders than whites do.

In order to count in the ‘committed murder’ category it logically follows that you need to be arrested and convicted, but we know that arrest and conviction rates aren’t the same for different races. We know that people do drugs at nearly identical rates.


We should then expect no difference in the number of drug convictions if our justice system had no racial bias. That’s not what we see at all though. A report in 2007 showed that black people made up 3.7 times more drug arrests than white people did when we control for population percentage. Here’s that in graph form.


This same bias in our system also extends to sentencing. In 2005 the US supreme court ruled in US v Booker that judges didn’t have to stick to mandatory sentencing guidelines. That courts were given sentencing discretion, and told that the guidelines were just guidelines and not mandatory. Two years after that decision sentences for blacks became 15.2% longer than sentences for whites convicted of the same crime. By 2011 that number had risen to 19.5%. Over the same period of time it was found that blacks are 25% less likely than whites to receive a sentence below the minimum sentencing guideline.[2] There is no need to adjust for population here, if a black person and a white person are convicted of the exact same crime, the black person will on average receive a harsher sentence.

The whole concept of mandatory minimum sentencing has racist roots in and of itself. If you’re interested in learning more I recommend looking up the history of how we treat crack and cocaine crimes differently in this country despite them being pharmacologically identical drugs. Even though as a whole, drug use is identical across race, some specific drugs are used more by different races. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that the drug more associated with use in the black community had much stricter penalties and a lower threshold for conviction.

In order for me to think blacks commit a disproportionate number of murders, I’d have to believe that the process that arrives at the arrest and conviction is fair in terms of race. We can see based upon drug arrest rates and overall sentencing rates that just isn’t the case. When the system on which the numbers are created is racist and incorrect, that’s the label we also must apply to the numbers themselves.

Moving on to the next set of statistics from The O’Reilly Factor.

The idea that we’re honestly meant to compare early 60s America with now is laughable.

This was the norm 50 years ago.

This was an era in which the poll tax still existed to keep black people from voting, black churches were being bombed, and certain states still had laws on the books saying it was illegal for a black person and a white person to marry. Have things gotten better since then? Yeah, it wouldn’t really have taken much. Anyone honestly trying to compare these two eras of American history is completely ignorant(possibly by choice) of what race relations were like at that point.

The second and third bullet points seem to be trying to make the point that more white people die via cop in this country, so black people shouldn’t complain. This slide seems to have already forgotten the third bullet point on the other slide. Whites outnumber blacks in this country 5 to 1, yet are killed by police at a rate of 2.6 to 1. The numbers don’t indicate whether that means white people are killed less often than they should be, that blacks are killed more often than they should be, or both, but whichever is the answer it certainly is a mark in favor of the idea that race is a factor when cops decide to pull the trigger. The refutation of those bullet points was on the screen literally five seconds previously yet somehow it gets lost.

There are plenty of other racist statistics and narratives being driven after the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner. A lot deserves to be written especially about racist hiring practices forcing minorities to make money any way they can. That maybe fighting a war on poverty instead of on poor people would bring about real change. Those are all posts for another day though. I’ve seen the statistics I’ve refuted here used as gospel in several places around the internet lately, and I hope I’ve given you the tools necessary to nip this particularly brand of ignorance wherever it buds.

As always, questions, comments, and criticisms are welcome. Answers are guaranteed.



I Believe That We Will Win…People (and Ann Coulter) Over From Hyperbole

Posted on

Over the course of the World Cup the United States has found itself going through a wide range of emotions that includes actually caring about soccer. Now that the US has made a memorable exit, will the nation continue to pay attention to the world’s beautiful game? Will we give it a red card or has it scored a mighty equalizer in our hearts? The question of soccer’s popularity has been written about for decades in imaginative, coherent, and interesting ways, but we’ll also look at Ann Coulter’s perspective.

Some quick numbers for perspective on the US’s world cup ratings: the US-Portugal match was the highest with 18.2 million viewers(largely because it was on a Sunday evening), ESPN has reported a 44% jump in viewers over the 2010 world cup, and overall is averaging four million views over the 56 broadcasts of world cup matches.[1] The super bowl this year had 108.7 million, the NBA championship averaged 17.7 million per game, the World Series averaged 14.9 million per game, and the Stanley cup averaged 5.8 million per game.[2]

A direct comparison doesn’t really work because we can look at things like the 32 million views of Usain Bolt’s 100 meter dash in the Olympics and realize that is a special event that takes place every four years and doesn’t translate into track becoming six times as popular as hockey in the US. Major League Soccer in the US has had slowly shrinking TV ratings since 1996 with small spikes after world cups with the trend returning to normal within a year.[3] World Cup ratings haven’t translated into MLS ratings in the past, and there isn’t anything really to indicate this cycle will be different.

Quite a bit has been made of a recent ESPN poll which has MLS tying MLB in popularity among 12-17 year olds.[4] These results are being interpreted as further proof that the oncoming tide of soccer popularity is irresistible. The first problem with that is that poll didn’t measure viewership it measured what you’re a fan of and it turned out that many of the 12-17 year olds had never watched soccer, they just liked the FIFA video game. This isn’t the first time people have looked at youth popularity and extrapolated guaranteed adult growth down the road.

Chuck Klosterman has an excellent essay in Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs about why the popularity of kids playing soccer(we even have the term soccer mom) has never translated into adulthood. His theory is that kids feel pressured to pick a sport and that soccer is the safest to play for kids who don’t like sports. It doesn’t have the individual pressure moments that come with baseball and basketball. He states that it is the outcasts who choose to play soccer and that, “Outcasts may grow up to be novelists and filmmakers and computer tycoons, but they will never be the athletic ruling class.”

I want to be clear, I’d love to see soccer become more popular in this country. I’d love many sports to become more popular in this country: curling, handball, rugby, water polo, jai-alai, and others. There are amazing sports in the world and to limit ourselves to the big four in this country is culturally anemic. I just see a lot of people stating that soccer has hit a tipping point with this world cup and I’m not necessarily convinced. At a bare minimum the popularity of the World Cup is increasing and I would never imply of the people watching the world cup that, “100% R unatheletic [sic] journalists,” or that a possible increase in soccer popularity is, “a sign of the nation’s moral decay.”

Both of those quotes are from columnist and professional agitator Ann Coulter. Her column on June 25th was published between the US’s Portugal and Germany matches. It can only be called journalism in the most generous definition of the word and although I’d normally consider her columns to be well outside my overton window, I can’t resist the overlap of sports and politics so pardon my as I put on rubber gloves to handle the material involved in the rest of this article. Many of the arguments she puts forward are pretty common arguments against soccer, so it is worth a rebuttal. I will not link to her article directly because I’m not interested in her getting more Google hits, I will be block quoting pieces of her article, but if you search ‘Ann Coulter soccer’ you can find the whole thing.

I’ve held off on writing about soccer for a decade — or about the length of the average soccer game — so as not to offend anyone. But enough is enough. Any growing interest in soccer can only be a sign of the nation’s moral decay.

She doesn’t say whether she thinks soccer is too long or too short. Judging by the rest of the article hammering the fact she thinks soccer is boring, I’m assuming she means soccer is too long. If that’s the case, the average NFL game is three hours, six minutes, and 58 seconds. The US’s matches against Ghana, Portugal, and Germany barely brushed two thirds of that.

(1) Individual achievement is not a big factor in soccer. In a real sport, players fumble passes, throw bricks and drop fly balls — all in front of a crowd. When baseball players strike out, they’re standing alone at the plate. But there’s also individual glory in home runs, touchdowns and slam-dunks.

This is particularly hilarious considering the US-Belgium match in which US keeper Tim Howard broke a record for saves that had stood in the World Cup for over 50 years. The wikipedia page for the US was briefly altered so that Tim Howard was listed as the Secretary of Defense. There were also the multiple storylines about how the US would have a better chance if our injured star Jozy Altidore played. Individual achievement played as big a factor on Tuesday as it does any given Sunday.

(2) Liberal moms like soccer because it’s a sport in which athletic talent finds so little expression that girls can play with boys.

If you want to argue soccer is boring, alright there is no accounting for taste, but to claim soccer takes no athletic talent is just bizarre. The average soccer player runs between 7.5-9 miles per game. Compare that to 2.72 miles for basketball, 1.25 miles for wide receivers in football, or half a mile for baseball.[5]

(3) No other “sport” ends in as many scoreless ties as soccer. If Michael Jackson had treated his chronic insomnia with a tape of Argentina vs. Brazil instead of Propofol, he’d still be alive, although bored. Even in football, by which I mean football, there are very few scoreless ties.

Suicide jokes go great in sports pieces, but she digresses. In football the 1985 Chicago Bears are considered one of(if not the) greatest team of all time. They are known for their defense. Arena football also has higher scores than the NFL. In fact there has never been a shutout in the history of the Arena Football League, yet somehow the NFL is still more popular despite being lower scoring. Bowling also has higher numbers than any NFL or Arena game ever has, but Ann Coulter’s grip on number’s connection with reality is proven in her next point,

(4) The prospect of either personal humiliation or major injury is required to count as a sport. Most sports are sublimated warfare. Baseball and basketball present a constant threat of personal disgrace. In hockey, there are three or four fights a game.

Plenty of people dismiss Ann Coulter because of her purposefully inflammatory language. I don’t see any reason to do that when she can be dismissed on a purely factual basis. Last year the NHL had .38 fights per game. In fact 70.24% of NHL games had exactly zero fights in them.[6] It’s easy to make an argument when you simply inflate the real numbers by over 1,000%

(5) You can’t use your hands in soccer. (Thus eliminating the danger of having to catch a fly ball.) What sets man apart from the lesser beasts, besides a soul, is that we have opposable thumbs. Our hands can hold things. Here’s a great idea: Let’s create a game where you’re not allowed to use them!

We are not the only species with opposable thumbs, but is the argument here really that soccer has rules therefor it shouldn’t be counted as a sport? Yes, sports have restrictions that seem arbitrary and unique to the scenario of that sport and they don’t make any statements regarding the evolutionary fitness of humans.

(6) I resent the force-fed aspect of soccer. The same people trying to push soccer on Americans are the ones demanding that we love HBO’s “Girls,” light-rail, Beyonce and Hillary Clinton. The number of New York Times articles claiming soccer is “catching on” is exceeded only by the ones pretending women’s basketball is fascinating. I note that we don’t have to be endlessly told how exciting football is.

This is a fair argument for you personally not enjoying something. I’m certain we’ve all had the experience of a dozen people telling us we absolutely have to check something out and it gets to the point we’re already annoyed at whatever the thing was before we ever experience it. It is not a fair argument for why that same thing is an indication of a country’s moral decay. We also have an entire NFL network to tell us 24/7 how exciting football is, and ESPN keeps NFL Today running even through the off season.

(7) It’s foreign. In fact, that’s the precise reason the Times is constantly hectoring Americans to love soccer. One group of sports fans with whom soccer is not “catching on” at all, is African-Americans. They remain distinctly unimpressed by the fact that the French like it.

Many people try to hide their xenophobia, it’s refreshing to see it openly on display like this in the same way touching a jalapeno and then touching your eye is refreshing. She doesn’t provide any source for her claim about it not being popular among African Americans, and that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I’ve also searched extensively for a racial breakdown of fans of MLS and all I can find is that The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sports gives MLS an A+ for racial diversity among players and league office employees.[7] Warning PDF.

(8) Soccer is like the metric system, which liberals also adore because it’s European. Naturally, the metric system emerged from the French Revolution, during the brief intervals when they weren’t committing mass murder by guillotine.

Liberals get angry and tell us that the metric system is more “rational” than the measurements everyone understands. This is ridiculous. An inch is the width of a man’s thumb, a foot the length of his foot, a yard the length of his belt. That’s easy to visualize. How do you visualize 147.2 centimeters?

The only link made between soccer and the metric system is that it’s European. I’m only including the second part of this quote because I found this tangent so odd. It fits the xenophobia from the previous paragraph quite nicely but it has absolutely nothing to do with soccer. She was thrilled with her own delusions about the sport of Hockey a couple paragraphs ago despite it also originating in Europe.[8]

(9) Soccer is not “catching on.” Headlines this week proclaimed “Record U.S. ratings for World Cup,” and we had to hear — again — about the “growing popularity of soccer in the United States.”

If more “Americans” are watching soccer today, it’s only because of the demographic switch effected by Teddy Kennedy’s 1965 immigration law. I promise you: No American whose great-grandfather was born here is watching soccer. One can only hope that, in addition to learning English, these new Americans will drop their soccer fetish with time.

I started this piece by providing several arguments for why soccer might not be catching on, did you notice how none of my points involved 60s immigration laws? My family can trace it’s heritage back to the mayflower on one side and the civil war on the other. I had multiple great-grandfathers born here and I watch soccer. I will also take a soccer fetish over a stirring up controversy for the sole purpose of keeping yourself relevant fetish any day.

As certain as I am that Ann Coulter is divisive to serve her own needs, I am equally so that the national spirit and togetherness brought on by the US team in the World Cup was a great thing to experience. We knew we didn’t have much of a shot. The coach said so himself and even I rated us as least likely to get out of our group. We went for it though. We competed. We believed. Even if MLS doesn’t spike in popularity, I’m perfectly comfortable with a country that unites for one month every four years behind a squad of underdogs. We may have to relearn what an offsides call is each time, but does that sound so bad?


You keep using the word Evolution; I don’t think it means what you think it means.

Posted on Updated on

I’ve been stuck in a review rut for a while, but just like what happened back in my Penis Cake[1] post, I heard something so mind numbingly wrong, it required a response. Today we’ll be taking a look at evolution through the eyes of creationist Darek Isaacs. He was recently featured on a segment of the show Creationism Today and he was attempting to answer the question, “If evolution were true, then how shall we live?” I’ll be transcribing pieces of it, but if you’d like to watch the two minute segment, you can find it here.[2]

‘How shall we live’ is an excellent question to ask and I’m always glad to see someone considering things from a worldview they consider to be counter to their own. Before I go to much further I’m going to make it crystal clear that I DON’T believe evolution and a belief in god are mutually exclusive. Many people find room for both in their lives. Darek Isaacs doesn’t, but many people do and this post is in no way meant to criticize that philosophical position. I’m sorry Mr. Isaacs, I interrupted you.

“If we were a product of evolution, of survival of the fittest, if there is no god, and we’re just here by random chaotic force, and we’re just molecules in motion if you will, how would that impact our lives?”

Interrupting you again. Evolution isn’t random. You may be thinking of the process of DNA recombination which does indeed have some elements of chance but even that chance isn’t random. We have plenty of species in the world who reproduce asexually, so don’t benefit from the DNA recombination that humans do. It turns out that the random recombination in sexual reproduction allows for a much more flexible genome and a species better able to adapt. This means we came to randomness not by randomness. To add to that just because DNA recombination can be random doesn’t mean the forces of natural selection are random, and to ignore natural selection is to ignore the actual engine behind evolution. Often people call evolution random as a nice shorthand though so they don’t have to type out the entire paragraph I just did each time they use the word, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt this time.

“I found out that once I studied it, and I studied Darwin, I studied Dawkins, Hitchens, E.O. Wilson, some of the purveyors of evolutionary thought.”

Not going to quibble about how some of the names you just mentioned certainly don’t consider themselves experts in evolution. I’m just going to be glad that once again you’re reading things from a different perspective. Reading sources that don’t fit exactly what you believe is how I stumbled upon this piece that I’m quoting. I’m certain you won’t stomp on my cheerfulness with your next sentence in a manner reminiscent of what a wildebeast migration does to a delicate savannah flower.

“And they led me to a very, very dark place. Because you have to start asking questions: Well, if evolution is true, and it’s just all about the male propagating their DNA, we had to ask hard questions, like, is rape wrong?”

Ok, I’m going to stop you again. The only way evolution leads you to that question is so you can look at that question, think to yourself, “That’s a stupid fucking question,” and then move on to ask a real question. From that sentence alone I can actually entirely disregard your previous statement that you studied evolution because if you had you’d know evolution isn’t about one sex’s DNA. Evolution doesn’t care about males more than females, females more than males, or either sex over creatures without sexes.

I’m going to interrupt myself here to point out that evolution doesn’t actually care about anything. It isn’t in any way a recommendation for how things ought to be. It is simply our best description of how things came to be the way they currently are. One more word from the segment before I get to his ‘hard question’

“Marriage would be, in an evolutionary worldview, marriage would be the anathema. Because it’s one man married to one woman for life, but according to the evolutionary worldview, if that male is strong enough and he had wonderful genes, he should propagate his DNA as much as possible so that the species can progress”

This passage nicely emphasizes not only something many people get wrong about evolution, but also why so many people who don’t understand evolution feel really intelligent for putting forward theories like this. It’s easy to play armchair biologist and come up with something that makes sense in your head for a certain physical trait or behavior to increase humanity’s survivability therefor evolution must work in such a way.

Temple Grandin does an excellent write up in her books Animals Make Us Human and Animals in Translation of a case study that shows why you can’t single out traits when looking at how a species might work. In the early 90s there was a massive increase in roosters raping hens on industrial chicken farms. The problem was never entirely pinned down, but the leading theory is that in breeding for increased breast size among the roosters, the roosters became physically unable to perform their mating displays. When the hens didn’t see any mating display, they didn’t become sexually active towards the rooster and as a result the incidence of roosters raping hens skyrocketed. You can’t look at any single trait in a vacuum when it comes to evolution.

The questions of ‘is rape wrong’ and ‘is marriage anathema to evolution’ both fall into the same trap of ignoring the phenomena of group selection. When you get multiple people working together towards the same purpose you often end up with better results than when you have just one person. There are plenty of cases in nature in which individuals don’t breed, but they still work towards the betterment of the species. You can see this in plenty of insects, ants and bees, where there is only one queen who breeds, but the whole hive still works together because everyone is related, so they’re still helping their genetics even by not directly creating offspring.

In humans this is called the gay uncle hypothesis[3]. More people nurturing children leads to an increased likelihood of those children surviving. Having limits to how many children can be produced, like having some members of the group interested in sexual relationships that can’t bare children, helps to keep the number manageable.

Marriage increases the likelihood of more people being around to raise a child and rape decreases the likelihood of more people being around to raise a child. If male monkey A rapes female monkeys, but doesn’t stick around to help raise the children, and male monkey B forms a long lasting pair bond with one female monkey and their children survive at a rate greater than monkey A’s then monkey B’s strategy is more successful even if he creates a smaller total of offspring if more of his offspring survive to adulthood. It doesn’t just matter how many children you have. Those children have to live long enough to pass on their genes as well or you might as well just be literally jerking off.

Are there species that rape and don’t use long term pair bonding? Absolutely, and that can work in other species in which the children can be independent at a much younger age. Humans put a lot of energy into each child and that’s why our species does better using methods that increase the number of caregivers per child like embracing pair bonding and shunning rape.

To sum up: evolution doesn’t care about male DNA as somehow special, it doesn’t encourage a group species like humans to do a thing that breaks up the family unit like rape each other, trying to judge any single trait by itself is a terrible idea, and how about people who haven’t actually studied biology stop trying to make claims about what it does and does not say.

As a final note, I’m not certain a biblical creationist should be trying to cast stones regarding ethical objections to rape considering Deuteronomy 22:28-29, “If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days”

As always, questions, comments, and criticisms are welcome. Answers are guaranteed.


Penis Cake?

Posted on Updated on

Inner Dialogue Voice 1: Are you really going to put your readers through 900 words of a homophobic alarmist rant before getting to the punchline?

Inner Dialogue Voice 2: It’s important to understand the counterarguments to your beliefs if you’re going to affect change, also penis cake.

IDV1: Penis cake?

IDV2: Penis cake.


This is not a letter from some fringe person. Judson Phillips is the president and founder of Tea Party Nation, the group that organized the 2010 National Tea Party convention keynoted by Sarah Palin. If the name sounds familiar to Minnesotans it could be because Judson Phillips and the Tea Party Nation made several statements about Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison being unfit for office in part because he is Muslim. What follows is Judson Phillips’s full statements following Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s veto of SB1062. I will be cutting in with my polite-ish thoughts.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has vetoed SB1062, The Religious Freedom Restoration Act in Arizona. No one has ever accused Governor Brewer of being the most courageous Republican around. Come to think of it, the word courageous and Jan Brewer have probably never been uttered in the same sentence.

Esquire magazine entitled their piece about Governor Brewer’s veto “A Profile in Courage” but do go on.

The left and the homosexual lobby in America went into overdrive to kill this bill. Conservatives rallied for this bill and Governor Brewer opted for cowardice instead of courage.

Conservatives were against this bill too. Arizona Republican Senator Jon McCain tweeted, “I hope Governor Brewer will veto SB 1062.” No ambiguity there. Opposition to this bill was bipartisan.

Why is this bill so important and what did it mean for not only Arizona but America?

The issue can be boiled down to one word: Freedom.

A free man or woman controls their labor. A slave has no control over their labor. A free man or woman decides who they will work for and under what conditions. The slave cannot.

The left and the homosexual lobby are both pushing slavery using the Orwellian concepts of “tolerance” and “inclusiveness.”

There are an estimated 30 million people in slavery today. Source. The definition of slavery used to get that number included people being used for forced labor, child prostitution, child soldiers, and forced marriages. It doesn’t include anything addressed by this bill. I also addressed this point in my previous post, but it bears repeating. If you enter into the food service industry(sticking with the wedding cake analogy) you already have thousands of regulations in place to ensure you keep a minimum level of sanitation for the sake of public health. Unless you also are prepared to call restaurant health inspectors slave owners, give the rhetoric a rest.

The law began as a response to a case in neighboring New Mexico. There, the state of New Mexico allowed a lawsuit against a Christian photographer who declined to photograph a homosexual commitment ceremony. There have been similar cases with bakers in Oregon and Colorado.

The Arizona legislature acted to preempt that happening in Arizona.

As long as sexual orientation remains absent from the protected class list in Arizona, it can’t happen. There is nothing to preempt. This bill didn’t change anything in regards to how LGBT people could be treated. For additional entertainment, I’d also recommend watching this interview in which one of the people who voted for the bill tries to justify to Anderson Cooper why it really could happen in Arizona.

Immediately the left and the homosexual lobby went into high dudgeon. Arizona’s SB1062 must be defeated because Americans really are no longer free and must be forced to serve the great liberal state, regardless of their beliefs.

The storm rose against Arizona and Jan Brewer proved she was no Ronald Reagan. She has an honored place in the ranks of the French Republicans. Corporations and business interests, many of whom support far left wing causes, like Apple demanded this bill be vetoed. Apple gives 96% of its political giving to Democrats. Why a Republican listens to a word from Apple or lifts a finger to help them is beyond comprehension. The NFL threatened to pull the Super Bowl from Arizona in 2015.

Someone with courage would have called their bluff. Arizona has Jan Brewer.

Three things.

1. Ronald Reagan opposed a bill when he was governor of California that would have banned homosexuals from working in the public school system.

2. You want the free market to decide everything, but then get upset when the governor listens to the free market? Apple, Delta, Verizon, and the NFL all weighed in against this bill and that represents a serious portion of jobs and income for the state. Don’t tell me we should allow money to be the ultimate decider of morality and then get defensive when the money goes against you. It reveals you’re using the free market as an excuse to cover up your inner desire to justify your bigotry.

3. Arizona has tried to call the NFL’s bluff before. The 1993 superbowl was set to be played in Tempe but got moved to Pasadena after voters in Arizona refused to recognize MLK day as a state holiday. The NFL didn’t bluff then, and it wasn’t bluffing now, especially with the NFL getting ready to draft Michael Sam.

The left came up with bizarre and insane arguments against SB1062. They tried to equate sexual preference with race. Unfortunately few will stand up against that grossly inaccurate analogy.

Remember when I said at the start of this that it’s important to understand counterarguments? The idea the sexual orientation is not a choice must be emphasized. Either that or the fact that your religion is a choice must be emphasized. Either that or both should be emphasized because both are true. Once that myth dies, so does much of the justification often used to support these things.

The left believes that it has the right to dictate what religious beliefs are allowed.

They need to be reminded what our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution say. Our rights are given to us by a higher power than the government and cannot be taken away.

Just like how you wanted to dictate whether being a Muslim was allowed in Congress? If I may quote that constitution you wanted me to read, “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

The left loves to come up with absurd hypotheticals to scream that there must be compliance with their fascism, so how about a couple from our side.

Should a devout baker be required to create a cake for a homosexual wedding that has a giant phallic symbol on it or should a baker be required to create pastries for a homosexual wedding in the shape of genitallia?[SIC] Or should a photographer be required to photograph a homosexual wedding where the participants decide they want to be nude or engage in sexual behavior? Would they force a Jewish photographer to work a Klan or Nazi event? How about forcing a Muslim caterer to work a pork barbeque dinner?

SB1062 was never about discrimination. It was about the left imposing its will on Americans who disagree.

The most common victims of the left wing homosexual assault on freedom have been Christian bakers and photographers. These are not uncommon skills. In even the most rural areas you can find them.

Penis cake? Penis cake. Nice misspelling of genitalia as well, but that’s beside the point. I am glad he at least admits they are absurd hypotheticals, but I’ve heard them in other places too, so they require debunking. If you are a baker who has never baked a penis cake, and a gay couple comes in asking for one, you don’t have to bake it because it might require equipment you don’t have. I’m unfamiliar with availability of penis cake molds on the open market these days. If you are a baker who regularly bakes penis cakes for catholic priest parties, and a gay couple comes in asking for one, you do have to bake it because you’re denying the gay couple a service you already offer based upon who they are. If a Muslim caterer doesn’t already have pork on their menu, they can’t be sued to add it. If a photographer doesn’t shoot straight orgies, they can’t be sued for refusing to shoot a gay orgy. This isn’t about LGBT people asking for special treatment; this is about LGBT people asking for the same treatment.

The Jewish photographer working a Klan or Nazi event is different because neither of those are protected classes. To the best of my knowledge neither of those organizations is a race, color, national origin/ancestry, sex, religion/creed, physical/mental disability(maybe that one). This means that a business is indeed allowed to deny service to either of those groups if they wish.

Does anyone really believe these cases of Christian bakers or photographers being sued over their refusal to provide services. Over the last couple of years, a number of articles have been published in professional photography magazines about how to cater to homosexual weddings. For many photographers, this is a growth industry.

If a photographer or baker doesn’t want to take a particular job, liberty says they have the right to decide how their labor is used. Slavery is when the state tells them their labor will be used whether they like it or not.

I’m honestly confused by that first paragraph. He seems to be debunking his own argument. I think he’s saying that the free market is allowing non christian photographers to prosper therefor we shouldn’t mind the couple photographers who want to strictly obey their religious doctrine, but that’s not how business works. See all of my previous rebuttals.

If a baker doesn’t want to wash their hands between handling raw eggs and already baked products, liberty says they have a right to decide how their labor is used.

SB1062 is a bigger story than simply the story of a cowardly governor who has no core beliefs.

SB1062 is the story of liberalism at work in America.

Liberalism is the paranoid belief that leftists have that somewhere, someone may be thinking for themselves. It is the tyrannical belief that no deviation in belief is allowed from the decreed orthodoxy.

It is the antithesis of liberty.

It is tyranny on the march.

They’re nice buzzwords, but when that’s all you have left it is time to leave the policy making to those of us with substance behind our beliefs.

Does it seem obvious to most of us why SB1062 was an awful idea? Absolutely. Is similar legislation being brought up in Georgia and Pennsylvania as we speak? Sadly yes. I hope this post has helped clarify what the arguments in favor of these bills are and why they are hollow at best and bigoted at worse. This being an election year, candidates are trying to score moral victory points with this sort of legislation, so I predict we’ll be hearing these stories all year. When it’s all behind us though, I’ll be the first to order a penis cake.

As always, questions, comments, and concerns are welcome. Answers are guaranteed.