The EU

Google says the EU requires a notice of cookie use (by Google) and says they have posted a notice. I don't see it. If cookies bother you, go elsewhere. If the EU bothers you, emigrate. If you live outside the EU, don't go there.
Showing posts with label Morality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Morality. Show all posts

Thursday, January 21, 2021

Compromised Leaders


For John, BLUFVoting is a compromising action.  Not eveyone we vote for has the same moral standards we aspire to.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




Here is the sub-headline:

I agree with those who argued last year that the primary responsibility for effective Catholic witness in public life rests with lay Catholics. Lay Catholics are to be salt and light in society, including politics.

From The Pilot, by Professor George Weigel, 20 January 2021.

Here is the lede plus three:

"For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female:  for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:27-28).

Catholics who take this apostolic teaching seriously will understand that our first obligation toward our brother in Christ, President Joseph R. Biden, Jr., is to be in Christian solidarity with him through prayer.  We pray for his health, strength, and courage.  We pray that he be granted the gift Solomon asked of God: wisdom in governance.  We pray for his deepening conversion to Christ.  Solidarity in prayer is the first duty of American Catholics toward the new president today.  That is bedrock Catholicism.

There is no doubt, however, that the inauguration of President Biden, the second baptized Catholic to attain the presidency of the United States, creates an inflection point for Catholicism in America, as we strive to be a communion of disciples in mission.

Were he to follow through on campaign promises to bring the Little Sisters of the Poor to heel over the provision of contraceptives, some of them abortifacients, to their employees; were he to support federal funding of abortion, at home and internationally through U.S. foreign aid; were his administration to promote the practices of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide; if, through his Department of Health and Human Services, he were to hollow out religious freedom by repealing the federal regulations that now protect the conscience rights of Catholic doctors, nurses, and other health-care workers -- then Mr. Biden would have demonstrated, as president, that he is not in full communion with the Catholic Church, because he would have deliberately facilitated what the Gospel and the Church teach are grave moral evils and injustices.

That is one very long sentence, but it hangs together.  The rule of thumb I learned was 20 words, unless you are an excellent writer, a writer in the same class as Shakespeare or Milton.

In the end, he notes how the President, and other Catholics, support actions that deviate from Catholic moral teachings.  Then he puts it upon lay persons to uphold those moral standards.

Regards  —  Cliff

Wednesday, January 13, 2021

COVID Vaccine and Morality


For John, BLUFThere has been some question as to the morality of the COVID-19 Vaccine due to the use of cell lines from aborted fetuses in development.  Not an unreasonable question.  Here is an answer.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




Here is the sub-headline:

In Pope Approved Letter, Explains What Would or Could Be Moral Acceptability & Why

From Zenit, by Reporters Deborah Castellano Lubov, 21 December, 2020, at 12:49.

Here is the article:

The Vatican has published a note about the morality of COVID-19 vaccines.

The Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in the Dec. 21 ‘note on the morality of using some anti-Covid-19 vaccines’ recognized “the question of the use of vaccines, in general, is often at the center of controversy in the forum of public opinion.” Pope Francis examined it and ordered its publication during his Dec. 17 audience with Cardinal Ladaria, CDF Prefect, the note reads.

In the note whose full text can be read in English below and was provided in three languages, the CDF notes that “in recent months, this Congregation has received several requests for guidance regarding the use of vaccines against the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid-19, which, in the course of research and production, employed cell lines drawn from tissue obtained from two abortions that occurred in the last century.”

The CDF’s prefect and secretary observed “diverse and sometimes conflicting pronouncements” in the mass media by bishops, Catholic associations, and experts have raised questions about the morality of the use of these vaccines.

The Vatican officials first drew readers’ attention to an “already important pronouncement” of the Pontifical Academy for Life (PAL) on this issue, entitled “Moral reflections on vaccines prepared from cells derived from aborted human fetuses” (5 June 2005). They also reminded that the CDF expressed itself on the matter with the Instruction Dignitas Personae (September 8, 2008, cf. nn. 34 and 35), and in 2017, PAL returned to the topic with a Note.

“These documents already offer some general directive criteria,” it noted.

Now that first vaccines are being distributed…

Because the first vaccines against Covid-19 are already available for distribution and administration in various countries, the CDF expressed its wish to offer some indications for clarification of this matter.

“We do not intend to judge the safety and efficacy of these vaccines, although ethically relevant and necessary, as this evaluation is the responsibility of biomedical researchers and drug agencies.

Only Objective Is to Consider Moral Aspects

“Here, our objective is only to consider the moral aspects,” it clarified, “of the use of the vaccines against Covid-19 that have been developed from cell lines derived from tissues obtained from two fetuses that were not spontaneously aborted.”

As the CDF’s Instruction Dignitas Personae stated in 2008, in cases where cells from aborted fetuses are employed to create cell lines for use in scientific research, “there exist differing degrees of responsibility”[1] of cooperation in evil.

For example, “in organizations where cell lines of illicit origin are being utilized, the responsibility of those who make the decision to use them is not the same as that of those who have no voice in such a decision”.[2]

Conditions for Morally Acceptable Receipt

“In this sense, when ethically irreproachable Covid-19 vaccines are not available,” the note stated, “it is morally acceptable to receive Covid-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from aborted fetuses in their research and production process.”

The CDF explained that examples of being ‘not available,’ would for instance be “where vaccines without ethical problems are not made available to physicians and patients, or where their distribution is more difficult due to special storage and transport conditions, or when various types of vaccines are distributed in the same country but health authorities do not allow citizens to choose the vaccine with which to be inoculated.”

Fundamental Reason for Considering Their Use as ‘Morally Licit’

” The fundamental reason for considering the use of these vaccines morally licit is that the kind of cooperation in evil (passive material cooperation) in the procured abortion from which these cell lines originate is, on the part of those making use of the resulting vaccines, remote.”

The CDF stated that the “moral duty to avoid such passive material cooperation is not obligatory if there is a grave danger,” such as “the otherwise uncontainable spread of a serious pathological agent[3]–in this case, the pandemic spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid-19. It must therefore be considered that, in such a case, all vaccinations recognized as clinically safe and effective can be used in good conscience with the certain knowledge that the use of such vaccines does not constitute formal cooperation with the abortion from which the cells used in production of the vaccines derive.”

No Direct Nor Indirect Practice of Abortion

“It should be emphasized, however, that the morally licit use of these types of vaccines, in the particular conditions that make it so, does not in itself constitute a legitimation, even indirect, of the practice of abortion, and necessarily assumes the opposition to this practice by those who make use of these vaccines.”

“In fact,” the next point states, “the licit use of such vaccines does not and should not in any way imply that there is a moral endorsement of the use of cell lines proceeding from aborted fetuses.[4]”

The Vatican explicitly says both pharmaceutical companies and governmental health agencies “are therefore encouraged to produce, approve, distribute and offer ethically acceptable vaccines that do not create problems of conscience for either health care providers or the people to be vaccinated.”

“At the same time, practical reason makes evident that vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary.”

In any case, from the ethical point of view, it continues, the morality of vaccination depends not only on the duty to protect one’s own health, but also on the duty to pursue the common good.

“In the absence of other means to stop or even prevent the epidemic,” it points out, “the common good may recommend vaccination, especially to protect the weakest and most exposed. Those who, however, for reasons of conscience, refuse vaccines produced with cell lines from aborted fetuses, must do their utmost to avoid, by other prophylactic means and appropriate behavior, becoming vehicles for the transmission of the infectious agent.”

Specifically, the CDF says they “must avoid” any risk to the health of those who cannot be vaccinated for medical or other reasons, and who are the most vulnerable.

The note also reminds the “moral imperative for the pharmaceutical industry, governments and international organizations to ensure that vaccines, which are effective and safe from a medical point of view, as well as ethically acceptable, are also accessible to the poorest countries in a manner that is not costly for them.”

Otherwise, it warns, the lack of access to vaccines would become another sign of discrimination and injustice that condemns poor countries to continue living in health, economic and social poverty.

Here is the Vatican-provided text of the CDF’s note:

***

Note on the morality of using some anti-Covid-19 vaccines

The question of the use of vaccines, in general, is often at the center of controversy in the forum of public opinion. In recent months, this Congregation has received several requests for guidance regarding the use of vaccines against the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid-19, which, in the course of research and production, employed cell lines drawn from tissue obtained from two abortions that occurred in the last century. At the same time, diverse and sometimes conflicting pronouncements in the mass media by bishops, Catholic associations, and experts have raised questions about the morality of the use of these vaccines.

There is already an important pronouncement of the Pontifical Academy for Life on this issue, entitled “Moral reflections on vaccines prepared from cells derived from aborted human fetuses” (5 June 2005). Further, this Congregation expressed itself on the matter with the Instruction Dignitas Personae (September 8, 2008, cf. nn. 34 and 35). In 2017, the Pontifical Academy for Life returned to the topic with a Note. These documents already offer some general directive criteria.

Since the first vaccines against Covid-19 are already available for distribution and administration in various countries, this Congregation desires to offer some indications for clarification of this matter. We do not intend to judge the safety and efficacy of these vaccines, although ethically relevant and necessary, as this evaluation is the responsibility of biomedical researchers and drug agencies. Here, our objective is only to consider the moral aspects of the use of the vaccines against Covid-19 that have been developed from cell lines derived from tissues obtained from two fetuses that were not spontaneously aborted.

1. As the Instruction Dignitas Personae states, in cases where cells from aborted fetuses are employed to create cell lines for use in scientific research, “there exist differing degrees of responsibility”[1] of cooperation in evil. For example, “in organizations where cell lines of illicit origin are being utilized, the responsibility of those who make the decision to use them is not the same as that of those who have no voice in such a decision”.[2]

2. In this sense, when ethically irreproachable Covid-19 vaccines are not available (e.g. in countries where vaccines without ethical problems are not made available to physicians and patients, or where their distribution is more difficult due to special storage and transport conditions, or when various types of vaccines are distributed in the same country but health authorities do not allow citizens to choose the vaccine with which to be inoculated) it is morally acceptable to receive Covid-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from aborted fetuses in their research and production process.

3. The fundamental reason for considering the use of these vaccines morally licit is that the kind of cooperation in evil (passive material cooperation) in the procured abortion from which these cell lines originate is, on the part of those making use of the resulting vaccines, remote. The moral duty to avoid such passive material cooperation is not obligatory if there is a grave danger, such as the otherwise uncontainable spread of a serious pathological agent[3]–in this case, the pandemic spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid-19. It must therefore be considered that, in such a case, all vaccinations recognized as clinically safe and effective can be used in good conscience with the certain knowledge that the use of such vaccines does not constitute formal cooperation with the abortion from which the cells used in production of the vaccines derive. It should be emphasized, however, that the morally licit use of these types of vaccines, in the particular conditions that make it so, does not in itself constitute a legitimation, even indirect, of the practice of abortion, and necessarily assumes the opposition to this practice by those who make use of these vaccines.

4. In fact, the licit use of such vaccines does not and should not in any way imply that there is a moral endorsement of the use of cell lines proceeding from aborted fetuses.[4] Both pharmaceutical companies and governmental health agencies are therefore encouraged to produce, approve, distribute and offer ethically acceptable vaccines that do not create problems of conscience for either health care providers or the people to be vaccinated.

5. At the same time, practical reason makes evident that vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary. In any case, from the ethical point of view, the morality of vaccination depends not only on the duty to protect one’s own health, but also on the duty to pursue the common good. In the absence of other means to stop or even prevent the epidemic, the common good may recommend vaccination, especially to protect the weakest and most exposed. Those who, however, for reasons of conscience, refuse vaccines produced with cell lines from aborted fetuses, must do their utmost to avoid, by other prophylactic means and appropriate behavior, becoming vehicles for the transmission of the infectious agent. In particular, they must avoid any risk to the health of those who cannot be vaccinated for medical or other reasons, and who are the most vulnerable.

6. Finally, there is also a moral imperative for the pharmaceutical industry, governments and international organizations to ensure that vaccines, which are effective and safe from a medical point of view, as well as ethically acceptable, are also accessible to the poorest countries in a manner that is not costly for them. The lack of access to vaccines, otherwise, would become another sign of discrimination and injustice that condemns poor countries to continue living in health, economic and social poverty.[5]

The Sovereign Pontiff Francis, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on 17 December 2020, examined the present Note and ordered its publication.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on 21 December 2020, Liturgical Memorial of Saint Peter Canisius.

Luis F. Card. Ladaria, S.I.           + S.E. Mons. Giacomo Morandi
PrefectTitular Archbishop of Cerveteri
Secretary

________________________

[1] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae (8th December 2008), n. 35; AAS (100), 884.

[2] Ibid, 885.

[3] Cfr. Pontifical Academy for Life, “Moral reflections on vaccines prepared from cells derived from aborted human foetuses”, 5th June 2005.

[4] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruct. Dignitas Personae, n. 35: “When the illicit action is endorsed by the laws which regulate healthcare and scientific research, it is necessary to distance oneself from the evil aspects of that system in order not to give the impression of a certain toleration or tacit acceptance of actions which are gravely unjust. Any appearance of acceptance would in fact contribute to the growing indifference to, if not the approval of, such actions in certain medical and political circles”,

[5] Cfr. Francis, Address to the members of the “Banco Farmaceutico” foundation, 19 September 2020.

Hat tip to Memeorandum.

Hat tip to Ann Althouse.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Sunday, December 13, 2020

Men Making Choices


For John, BLUFMen are making individually rational choices, but those choices are culturally bad.  We are acting like the Japanese or a number of other societies.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




From The Huffingtn Post, by Dr Helen Smith, 20 August 2013.

Here is the lede plus one:

It seems that fewer and fewer people in general are getting married these days, and even fewer men seem interested.  Men no longer see marriage as being as important as they did even 15 years ago.  “According to Pew Research Center, the share of women ages eighteen to thirty-four that say having a successful marriage is one of the most important things in their lives rose nine percentage points since 1997—from 28 percent to 37%.  For men, the opposite occurred.  The share voicing this opinion dropped, from 35 percent to 29 percent.” Why?

In the course of researching my new book, Men On Strike:§nbsp; Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream - And Why It Matters, I talked with men all over America about why they’re avoiding marriage.  It turns out that the problem isn’t that men are immature, or lazy.  Instead, they’re responding rationally to the incentives in today’s society.  Here are some of the answers I found.

These are the reasons listed:
  1. You’ll lose respect.
  2. You’ll lose out on sex.
  3. You’ll lose friends.
  4. You’ll lose space.
  5. You could lose your kids, and your money.
  6. You’ll lose in court.
  7. You’ll lose your freedom.
  8. Single life is better than ever.
This was 2013 and it isn't any different today.  While it may be a better society for those living it today, it is not a better society for the long term.  Out of wedlock birth rates alone tell us this.

Brookings Institution tells us:

Since 1970, out-of-wedlock birth rates have soared. In 1965, 24 percent of black infants and 3.1 percent of white infants were born to single mothers. By 1990 the rates had risen to 64 percent for black infants, 18 percent for whites.
This is not sustainable.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Thursday, January 31, 2019

Tear Down Those Walls?


For John, BLUFWhat is the Wall fight about?  The 2020 Race.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




From The Washington Examiner, by Columnist Byron York, 29 January 2019.

Here is the lede plus two:

A House-Senate conference committee is beginning work on a package of border security policies that, it is hoped, can win the support of both Democrats and Republicans.  The final product is certain to include several measures that already have full, bipartisan approval:  more immigration judges, more technology to detect illegal drugs at ports of entry, more humanitarian aid for migrants in custody, etc.

The hang-up, of course, will be a border barrier.  President Trump insists on money — his demand is $5.7 billion — that would build new steel-slat barriers along about 230 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border.  About 80 miles of that would replace current, dilapidated, inadequate fencing, while 150 or so miles would cover currently unfenced areas.

On the other side are Democrats led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has called a border wall "an immorality between nations" and denies evidence that a barrier would increase border security by decreasing the number of illegal crossings into the United States.

If we take the Speaker at her word, and in her utterance she may just be echoing President Ronald Reagan ("Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall), then she should be ensuring the bill has a couple billion dollars to tear down the boarder wall with Mexico, say starting with the 160 miles from the Pacific shore, south of San Diego, to Yuma, Arizona.  That would give us the opportunity to determine if we lose anything in terms of effectiveness without the wall.

It doesn't make sense to me, but Speaker Pelosi has all those staffers helping her.  But, if the wall is morally wrong, then it must come down.  On the other hand, this might just be about 2020, and the Democrats can't afford to give President Trump a win, any win, in light of the fight for 2020.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Monday, April 2, 2018

Mr Comey's Book Tour


For John, BLUFIf you are going to get into a fight with the President you had better not be counting on others to prove you correct.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




From The Hill, by Mr James Gagliano, 1 PRIL 2018.

Here is the lede plus four:

Announcements of scheduled appearances for the widely anticipated $850-to-attend book tour by fired FBI Director James Comey foreshadow a much-ballyhooed return to the public square.  Media outlets eagerly booked the former director, and his opus, “A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership,” briefly jumped to No. 1 on Amazon’s best-seller list.

But should Comey — a central witness in special counsel Robert Mueller probe — be making public his version of events which will certainly differ significantly with what President Trump, the central target in the special prosecutor’s probe, has repeatedly stated?

Comey was humiliatingly removed by the president last May and enjoyed a brief period of bipartisan sympathy for the disgraceful manner in which he was dispatched.  The FBI’s seventh director learned of his termination via televised news reports while appearing before an FBI audience in Los Angeles.  This is not the manner with which career public servants should ever be separated from service. Yet, with the current president, it has become de rigueur.

Initially taking the high road, remaining silent, professional and above the fray, Comey has now resorted to directly confronting the president at his own game.  He shed his original anonymous Twitter nom de plume, “Reinhold Niebuhr,” and directly waded in to criticize and taunt his tormentor.  In the immediate wake of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s firing and Trump’s Twitter gloating, Comey ominously warned, “Mr. President, the American people will hear my story very soon.  And they can judge for themselves who is honorable and who is not.”

And, just like that, Comey conceded the tiny sliver of moral high ground he precariously clung to and reduced his position as an advocate of the pursuit of facts into a narcissistic quest to sell books.  He unwittingly joined Trump in the pig-wallow that currently serves as civil discourse.

This is another view and you can read the whole thing quickly.

Frankly, I am think the Cardinal, Mr James Comey, is cruising for a bruising.

Hat tip to the Drudge Report.

Regards  —  Cliff

Thursday, March 22, 2018

Our Brother's Keeper


For John, BLUFThe thing is, we need to prevent this from falling into 1984.  We do need to be prepared to judge some actions as unacceptable.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




From The Washington Times, an Analysis/Opinion Piece by Reporter Everett Piper, way back on 11 March 2018.

Here is the lede plus four:

“The Lottery” is a classic short story written by Shirley Jackson in 1948. It’s the tale of a rural, farming community in America of about three hundred residents. The town seems normal by all accounts as it prepares for a traditional, harvest-time event known as The Lottery.

Each year the name of every family is written on a piece of paper and securely stored in a locked box. On the morning of the annual gathering, the heads of each household draw from the box until a paper slip with a black spot is extracted.  One of these clans is that of the “Hutchensons.”

Upon “winning” this first phase of the lottery, each member of the Hutchinson family joins the father to select another slip of paper out of another box until one member of that family — the mother, named Tessie — draws a piece of paper with the final black spot on it.

In spite of her cries, the townspeople, including her own husband and children, pick up rocks and stone her to death to ensure a more prosperous harvest.

For some 70 years, “The Lottery” has rightly been included in many literary anthologies for its shocking portrayal of the power of groupthink and the human inclination to accept evil.

The point of this item is that Pasadena City College English Professor Kay Haugaard has noted that over thirty years of teaching the student reactions have gone from shock to "who am I to judge".  To which you may respond, "who are you to judge?"  The thing is, this is how a nation falls into accepting the murdering of millions.  Think the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Red China and Cambodia.

Back before Columbus sailed the Ocean Blue, back before Hernán Cortés defeated the Aztec Triple Alliance, there was human sacrifice.  Would those student in Pasadena find that acceptable?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Friday, February 16, 2018

It is a New World Out There


For John, BLUFLong term relationships should lead to sexual intimacy, not drinks at the local bar.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




From Hot Air, by Allahpundit, posted on 13 February 2018.

I did see a suggestion, somewhere, that dating is not about sex, but about getting to know the other person.  The old fashioned term "Courting" sort of captures it.  From my dictionary, "be involved with romantically, typically with the intention of marrying".  Thus it is not about getting gratuitous sex.  It is about establishing a long term relationship.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Saturday, November 25, 2017

Human Nature Hasn't Changed


For John, BLUFI attribute the recent revelations of sexual misconduct, facilitated by unequal power relationships, to the election of President Trump.  Nothing to see here; just move along.



American Conservative Columnist Rod Dreher, gives us excerpts from Mr Peter Boyer's Weekly Stanard Article, "Linda Tripp: 'It's a Day Late, and It's a Dollar Short'", and an admonishment, "Read the whole thing.  It’s harsh … and it’s correct."

The lede Plus two:

Tripp has a quiet life in Northern Virginia horse country, avoiding the public attention that was so unwelcome in the late 1990s.  But the unending flow of headlines about the bad behavior of powerful men, she says, “is forcing me to relive a lot of it.”  She’s unconvinced by recent calls in the press for Clinton’s deeds to be reconsidered in a more critical light.  “They have nothing to lose, and this is now permissible,” she says.  “The fact that the Clintons are dead in the water gives [the media] tacit approval to act like human beings. . . .  It’s disingenuous.”

She finds it particularly galling to hear former Clinton defenders attributing their latter-day awakening to evolving social mores.  In a November 16 interview with the New York Times, New York senator Kirsten Gillibrand said that she now believes that Bill Clinton should have resigned because of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.  “Things have changed,” she said.

“What information do they have at their fingertips today that they didn’t have 20 years ago?” Tripp asks.  “What information has changed?”

Nothing has changed.  But at least they have awakened somewhat to the fact that people of all stripes exploit power differentials.  Now, if they can just be "woke" to Uncle Joe and Chairman Mao.

I offer one more paragraph from Mr Dreher's excerpts:

The record would seem to support Tripp’s assessment of the relationship.  Lewinsky’s grand jury appearance revealed that between November 1995 and March 1997, she met the president furtively in a hallway, a bathroom, and, once, while he talked on the phone with a member of Congress.  They had six sexual encounters before they shared any meaningful conversation.  “I asked him why he doesn’t ask me any questions about myself,” she said, “and . . . is this just about sex . . . or do you have some interest in trying to get to know me as a person?”
Sadly, for Ms Lewinshy, it was just about the sex.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Friday, April 15, 2016

Boycotts and More


For John, BLUFOf course the big corporations are doing it because they think in that direction is the money.  Nothing to see here; just move along.



Mr Ed Driscoll, writing at the Instapundit asks the reverse morality question, linking to this blog post at This Ain't Hell, "What gay-crusading corporations in North Carolina don’t get".

Before we start out, I believe those who will not bake cakes for homosexual wedding celebrations are failing to show mercy.  They are wrong, although I believe they are standing on their principles.  On the other hand, to paraphrase Groucho Marxs, why would a couple want a wedding cake from a small business that doesn't want to bake one for them.

So, here is the lede:

If you’re tired, like me, of being bulldozed by political correctness, especially when it applies to gays and the transgendered, then you just have to cheer for North Carolina Governor, Pat McCrory, for standing up to the corporate extortion against his state for passing commonsense legislation to deal with the issue of who can use what bathrooms.  Unlike Georgia’s Governor Nathan Deal, who caved in to the out-of-state pressure and betrayed his constituents, McCrory showed some spine and nicely told all the corporate extortionists where they could stick their threats of jobs and tax losses.
Is this just a case of my morality is better than your morality?  Here is how the original blog post ends:
Here’s my conundrum:  if it is immoral, even criminal or civilly liable for these mom-and-pop Christian businesses to deny services based on their fundamental beliefs, why is it not also immoral or legally actionable for large corporations to refuse their services to the citizens of those states where those who govern choose to pass legislation to protect the religious freedoms of their citizenry?

If I’m a huge professional football fan living in Atlanta and the NFL people remove my city from contention for a near-future Super Bowl because they feel my state is discriminating against the transgendered, am I not the victim of discriminatory business practices on the part of the NFL?  What about those organizations and corporations that cancel annual conferences and business meetings because of the actions of my state legislature?  Aren’t these big corporations refusing to do business with my state simply because they consider our practices immoral, just as those bakeries, florists, and photographers see gays as immoral?  Other than scale, I see little difference.

I hope we are not moving to a place where those who do not acknowledge the political (or moral) positions of those in power are punished.  That would not be good, but it has happened within the last 100 years, thankfully not in this nation, very much.

On the other hand, if you wish to send me to Coventry, that is OK with me, but not very charitable.  If you want to convert me to your views you will probably have to talk to me.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

  Basically, Groucho wrote to the Friar's Club of Beverly Hills, "Please accept my resignation.  I don't want to belong to any club that will accept people like me as a member."