Monday, March 03, 2014

They prohibit discrimination and don’t even bother to define it…

Freedom of speech, expression, and association brought slowly to a boil in San Antonio and a hundred other places…


Last September, 2013, San Antonio, Texas, promoted the accommodation of homosexual acts to its discrimination ordinance.

A key section of the ordinance reads as follows:

No appointed official or member of a board or commission shall engage in discrimination against any person, group of persons, or organization on the basis
of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status, age or disability, while acting in their official capacity while in
such public position.

The underlined section, “sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status”, was added to the City’s existing discrimination language.

A big deal was made of this added “sexual” and “gender” language in the media and among religious groups.  It is a big deal.  But the bigger deal is the mindset that established the original anti-discrimination language.

Here are the problems:

First, there is no definition of “discrimination” in the ordinance.  Apparently, discrimination can be anything the city declares it to be.  The problem of lack of definition is discussed more, below.

Second, while “race”, “color”, and “national origin” are legitimate topics of anti-discrimination because such individuals did not choose those identities, and there is nothing inherently evil, dangerous, or immoral in those identities, there is no such legitimacy to the several listed protected behaviors, namely “religion”, “sexual orientation”, and “gender identity.”

Here is a big problem with this ordinance and the hundreds that are just like it around the country.  Religion is a personal belief system.  People choose their belief system.  Not all religions promote peace, despite the ignorant politically correct propaganda. 

One religion in particular is as much “political ideology” as it is a religion:  Islam.  It is, in fact a supremacist and intolerant political ideology that is incompatible with the culture and laws of the United States.  It is not incompatible just because of the belief and actions of “a few radicals” but because its original doctrine and current practice are at odds with our form of government and culture.  The great majority of its leaders, even in the United States, promote establishment of Sharia law and Islamic domination of our government and culture, not to mention the terrorist jihad that is an often used tool in their politico-military toolbox.  And yes, Muslims are more involved in persecution of Christians, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists around the world than every other belief system combined.  And we are prohibited from associating Muslims with that fact without being charged with “discrimination.” 

A prohibition against speaking the truth about Islam is tantamount to a prohibition against speaking the truth about Nazi’s during World War II, or expressing opposition to those who are dumb enough to identify themselves as allies with serial killers. 

I could never be appointed to a Board or Commission of San Antonio or any other city that has a similar ordinance.  Why?  Because I distinguish Islam from other religions.  I recognize its origins, its history, its leadership, its doctrines, and the beliefs and behaviors of its followers.  I dare to present the facts about Islam.  Consequently, I would be guilty of  discriminating against Islam, the organization.

This ordinance, and the hundreds like it, stifle the truth about evil and threats to our nation and freedoms.

Protecting what has been historically and universally declared to be immoral behaviors (homosexual acts and gay marriage) is just another chapter in this continuing erosion of freedom of speech, expression, and association.

These ordinance trample on the freedom of expression of Christians by declaring talk about what is moral and what is not to be “discrimination”, again without any definition of what discrimination really is.

So, what is discrimination?

Here are a number of definitions from several sources:


dis·crim·i·na·tion, noun \dis-ˌkri-mə-ˈnā-shən\

: the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people  Staff report Ordinance, complete with staff slide show.  But where is the definition of discrimination?

: the ability to recognize the difference between things that are of good quality and those that are not

: the ability to understand that one thing is different from another thing

Full Definition of DISCRIMINATION

1. a :  the act of discriminating

    b :  the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently

2. :  the quality or power of finely distinguishing

3. a :  the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually

    b :  prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment<racial discrimination>

dis·crim·i·na·tion, [dih-skrim-uh-ney-shuhn] , noun

1. an act or instance of discriminating, or of making a distinction.

2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing basedon the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit:racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

3. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with greatdiscrimination.

4. Archaic. something that serves to differentiate.

dis·crim·i·na·tion (dĭ-skrĭm′ə-nā′shən), n.

1. The act of discriminating.

2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.

3. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners.

dis·crim′i·na′tion·al adj.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

discrimination (dɪˌskrɪmɪˈneɪʃən),

1. (Sociology) unfair treatment of a person, racial group, minority, etc; action based on prejudice

2. subtle appreciation in matters of taste

3. the ability to see fine distinctions and differences

4. (Electronics) electronics the selection of a signal having a particular frequency, amplitude, phase, etc, effected by the elimination of other signals by means of a discriminator

disˌcrimiˈnational adj

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

dis•crim•i•na•tion (dɪˌskrɪm əˈneɪ ʃən), n.

1. an act or instance of discriminating.

2. action or policies based on prejudice or partiality: racial discrimination.

3. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment.

What is it, then?  Is it the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people?  When a group of people are known to believe in and promote violent acts, intolerance, supremacism, and practices incompatible with our form of government and culture, are we prohibited from treating these people or such organizations differently?  Differently say, from those we know as being productive, compatible, loyal, truthful, and desiring to promote the best interests of our nation and community?  This ordinance says “no”, we cannot distinguish between people or organizations with these distinct differences.

Or perhaps discrimination is the ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment, as in distinguishing good from evil, best from mediocre, safe from dangerous, tolerant from intolerant, team player from rebel, and every other point of distinction that makes great organizations and productive nations.  Sorry.  That’s likely not what the framers of these discriminatory, free speech-robbing ordinances had in mind.

What additional formally taboo behaviors and cherished freedoms will be added to the list of prohibited acts of discrimination?  The establishment and incremental cancerous growth of such ordinances does indeed remind me of the frog in a pot slowly brought to a boil.  The proponents say “hey, what is there to worry about with this additional provision – we already have an ordinance that prohibits this, that and the other – what’s one more category of “discrimination?”  What’s one more nail in the coffin of our freedom of speech and expression?

Here are several original documents  relevant to this discussion:

The City of San Antonio’s propaganda piece saying “nothing to see here folks, just another minor provision being added:

The City of San Antonio’s staff report presenting adoption of their comprehensive anti-discrimination (anti-free speech) ordinance: 

The City of San Antonio’s comprehensive anti-discrimination (anti-free speech) ordinance adopted in September 2013, complete with staff slide show: 

Here is another source describing the problems with this type of ordinance:

No comments: