SOGI: It’s repealed, but it’s not over.

The final tally is in. Springfield citizens voted to repeal the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity ordinance. I am glad to see this result. Many people are already saying it is because Springfield citizens hate gay people. Their tolerance has become very intolerant of opposing viewpoints.

I’m not against people in the LGBT community. I may not agree with their lifestyle, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have the right to get married or anything else I can legally do. Even with that view, I do not believe the SOGI ordinance should exist. Not because I hate the people it would apply to, but because I believe in the opposite approach.

For one, I believe same-sex marriage laws are unnecessary. Not because I think same-sex couples should not be able to get married, but because I believe ALL marriage laws are unnecessary. Marriage is a religious act. By enacting same-sex marriage laws you discriminate against those who believe in other arrangements, such as polygamy. As far as government is concerned, “marriage” should be a contract between two or more people. Government should have zero involvement unless there is a dispute, which would be handled in the same manner as any other contract.

The second thing is that anti-discrimination laws should not even exist because the private business owners should be allowed to make that decision. Some will argue that by opening your business to the public you then become a public business, but that is not true. If it were, no business should pay taxes just as a public (governmental) organization does not pay taxes. A private business can be privately owned while being open to the public. Now, back to the anti-discrimination laws, they shouldn’t exist. Private businesses should be allowed to implement their own policies, even if they discriminate against others, because we have a system called a free market. If people disagree with a businesses discriminating against a group, they don’t have to do business with them and can take their money elsewhere. While it is possible that “white only” or “straight only” businesses may do well, it is likely that discrimination free businesses would do just as well or better. If a city or region fully supports such businesses then those who discriminate will likely cease to exist. A former coworker of mine would say “that’s the cost of doing business.”

Those who claim to not be discriminating are often doing just that. We already have the Constitutionally protected freedom of religion (not freedom *from* religion), so those who choose to not participate in certain acts because of their religion are allowed to do so. It’s not because they hate people. In many cases, the businesses are more than willing to provide services to those they disagree with, but are not willing to “endorse” the act that is the base of the disagreement. The act of forcing them to perform services against their religion is, in fact, discriminating against them because of their religion.

Lastly, I recently saw an article where Rick Santorum asked if a gay print shop owner should be required to print banners for Westboro Baptist Church saying “God Hates Fags”. It is an interesting question given the current climate. No, they should not. The problem is that this, as Santorum said, “is a two-way street.” If a Christian bakery is forced to participate in a same-sex wedding by baking a cake acknowledging that marriage then a gay print shop owner should also be required to print banners that say “God Hates Fags”. It’s not one or the other.

I do not expect this to be over. There will be court battles for years to come, but that would have happened even if the ordinance had remained. I also foresee supporters of SOGI continuing to attack those who are against the ordinance and will never attempt to understand the reasons why people might be against it unless it supports their narrative that they hate gay people.

Ref:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/04/05/rick-santorum-should-the-govt-force-a-gay-print-shop-owner-to-make-god-hates-fs-signs-for-westboro-baptist-church/

MO puts its foot down against federal overreach

I’m glad to see someone in Missouri finally doing something about the federal government overreach. Unfortunately, the Republican majority in Missouri is comprised of a bunch of idiots.

For those who don’t know, State Rep. Mike Moon introduced a bill that would basically stop any agency in Missouri from enforcing federal laws unless they are approved by the state legislature. This means any federal law would need to be reviewed by the legislature, debated, voted upon, and approved by the Governor. This obviously would not stop federal agents from enforcing federal laws within the state, but it does stop state and local agencies from using their funding to enforce laws that haven’t been approved.

This is likely to stir up other problems, such as loss of federal funding for a variety of programs and projects, but I don’t see that as a bad thing. Citizens in different states should not be funding projects and programs here in Missouri. By losing federal funding and forcing those within the state to fully fund local projects people will begin to see where their money is going and, therefore, can more easily hold those in power accountable.

This also begins to put a price on the enforcement of federal laws because costs cannot be pawned off on local agencies and hidden from view. Right now all we really know is that state agency X received Y amount as part of a program. Does that mean the local agency utilized that money in the best way possible? No. Is it possible that the local costs of the program exceeded the funding they received? Yes, but we don’t know.

I doubt this will ever receive any real momentum, but I believe that if states started creating this kind of law and following them that we could begin to reign in those who continue to exceed their constitutional powers.

h/t Tenth Amendment Center

Can’t teach an old dog new tricks

I was looking for someone on SpringfieldMugshots.com when I came across someone else I knew. I know her history goes back further, but lets review what she has been charged with.

1) Careless and imprudent driving
2) Careless and imprudent driving
3) Stealing / When value of property or services is $500 or more but less than $25,000
4) Not listed
5) Probation violation – Felony
6) Probation violation – Felony
7) Probation violation – Felony
8) Probation violation
9) Stealing / When value of property or services is $500 or more but less than $25,000

Now, I ask, with a history like hers why do they keep letting her out? Were three felony probation violations not enough of a clue that she wouldn’t stop doing whatever she was doing?

Maine is on the right track with illegal immigration.

According to an article from Top Right News, Maine Governor Paul LePage has decided to cut funds to cities that give aid to illegal immigrants. I mostly agree with this decision, especially given the number of cities that have decided to ignore state and federal laws that they refuse to follow. I have a couple of problems with this whole thing though.

For one, we all know how local governments will handle this. Instead of fixing the problem, they’ll continue to fund the activities of those who are here illegally and cut funding for the activities they should actually be funding. The second issue is that I don’t believe states should be funding cities just as I don’t believe the federal governments should be funding local and state governments. A government should be supported by its constituents, not by everyone else. For example, citizens of Springfield should be funding projects within Springfield instead of all Missourians doing so. It makes no sense for others to pay for our projects.

If the latter of the two were fixed, I believe we’d have fewer issues with the former because they’d purely be supporting their activities with their own money. Once the citizens can see how much of their own money is used to support illegal activities, they’d demand changes in their governments.

I’m sorry, only female firefighters are allowed to save me.

Let’s close our eyes and imagine you are asleep. Suddenly, your smoke alarm begins to sound. You awake to dark smoke and drop to the floor. You try to find your way out but become trapped. You hear sirens and begin to yell for help. Within seconds someone in a mask and firefighter gear crawls towards you. What do you do next? Do you 1) crawl out of the house with them or 2) ask them if they are male or female?

Springfield Fire Department is now going out of their way to recruit women firefighters. Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with women firefighters. Most of them could probably send me to the hospital with one punch, but this is ridiculous. I don’t care what representation of male vs female there is in the fire department. I want someone who can do the job. I don’t want a more qualified male candidate to be turned down because adding a less qualified female would bring up the ratio. The same goes for white vs black or fat vs skinny or old vs young. I just want the job done correctly as quickly as possible.

All of this gender non-discrimination crap in Springfield is really getting on my nerves.

Springfield Fire Dept. Launches Effort To Hire More Women