Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has cravenly vetoed SB1062, which would have prevented homosexuals from attacking people like, say, a Knights of Columbus Hall that didn’t want to host the nuptials of two women, or a wedding photographer who didn’t want to take part in a male/male wedding. SB1062’s title was “Religious Freedom Restoration Act.” The description of its intent: “Strengthens protections in Arizona law to defend against religious discrimination.” And that’s what Brewer vetoed.
Mark Steyn has a good column about Brewer’s capitulation, in which he mentions suspicions that Brewer vetoed the bill because of fears by Arizona businesses (=donors) about boycotts, and because she didn’t want to be known as “Jan Crow.” [If I Knew You Were Suing, I`d`ve Baked a Cake, by Mark Steyn, SteynOnline, February 27, 2014]
Of course, Brewer’s betrayal didn’t stop the hate against her even for a minute—Michelle Malkin’s Twitter curating site Twitchy has a roundup, of which this is a sample, from Daily Beast columnist Sally Kohn [Email her] chosen because it’s not as obscene as most of them:
Just because Jan Brewer did good thing and vetoed #AZ1062 doesn`t mean she`s not still a vicious anti-gay, anti-immigrant extremist
— Sally Kohn (@sallykohn) February 27, 2014
Freedom of association means that people get to decide who they do business with. The famous “Lunch Counter Law” was designed to override the principle, because of the exceptional plight of American blacks, only with “public accommodations” in mind. The late Robert Bork discussed this in The New Republic before the Civil Rights Act was passed:
“The legislature would inform a substantial body of the citizenry that in order to continue to carry on the trades in which they are established they must deal with and serve persons with whom they do not wish to associate. In part the willingness to overlook that loss of freedom arises from the feeling that it is irrational to choose associates on the basis of racial characteristics. Behind that judgment, however, lies an unexpressed natural-law view that some personal preferences are rational, that others are irrational, and that a majority may impose upon a minority its scale of preferences.”
“Civil Rights—A Challenge,” New Republic, [PDF] August 31, 1963
Bork doesn’t mean here a racial majority, but a political majority—the kind that passes these laws.
But nowadays, of course, a combination of judicial activism, Leftist agitation, and elite influence means that it’s a minority imposing its will on a majority.
In fact, as a person of mildly dissident views, I find that large, well-financed organizations are urging people to discriminate against me.
Leftist enforcers increasingly urge the firing of conservative writers who dissent on either immigration or race, and they have achieved an increasing number of these firings. (See my The Curse Of Stein And THE DAILY CALLER’s Neil Munro, January 14, 2013.)
“Anti-racist” zealots have gotten hotels to close themselves to American Renaissance conferences, and the SPLC (or $PLC as we like to call them—more about that in a moment) has had Jared Taylor’s name removed from the list of professional translators of Japanese on a State Department website—see Jared Taylor: The SPLC Wants To Starve My Family (Among Others).
And now the SPLC is trying to put VDARE.com out of business by trying to prevent us from selling books—a pretty clear violation of the principles of free speech. It said recently:
“PayPal, a wholly owned subsidiary of eBay, serves as the main financial tool for transferring money to American hate groups, and it earns fees on every transaction that vary in size according to a variety of factors. Research conducted by the Intelligence Report finds that at least 69 of the hate groups listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) rely on PayPal to help finance their activities.”
Financing Hate, Intelligence Report, By Heidi Beirich, Spring 2014”
Of course, PayPal, which is almost a monopoly, serves as the “main financial tool” for almost everyone doing business on the Internet.
The appalling Beirich [Email her] included this illustration:
With this text below it:
… helps sell hate literature like John Derbyshire’s From the Dissident Right. It also pays commissions to hate sites like VDARE when followers shop at the online retailer via a VDARE portal.
“Hate literature,” of course, is a category that exists only in the mind of the $PLC and just means political ideas it dislikes. (The $PLC doesn’t even pretend that we advocate violence or any illegality). It points its magic wand at certain groups, says “Hate Groups!” and then goes to CPAC or Rich Lowry at National Review and says: “Why do you have this hate-group fellow at your organization?” It’s pure voodoo.
But the idea that $PLC, of all organizations on earth, should complain about our funding is beyond a joke. Our fundraising appeals generally involve the low tens of thousands, our annual budget the low hundreds of thousands. [You can increase that as much as you like by donating here.]
This continues to grow. Total assets for the year ended October 31st 2010 rose 13.25% to $250.77 million—Net Assets (e.g. after deducting all payables) rose 14.39% to $228.7 Million.
The $PLC has never been wealthier.
What the $PLC portentously calls its “Endowment Fund” also reached a record, up $27.3 Million to $216.2 million.
All right, it’s in the low hundreds of millions, but it’s still three orders of magnitude greater than anything we ever see. And it explains how much damage the $PLC does, even after Morris Dees’ salary.
Cleburne has repeatedly analyzed the $PLC’s financials—see also here and here. (He’s currently two years behind—urge him to get on with it here). In fact, these analyses are probably the reason for the $PLC’s decision to target us. It’s not just that Conservatism Inc. types can use these figures, invariably without attribution (e.g. The Southern Poverty Law Center’s Ridiculous ‘Hate Group’ List, by Robert Spencer, FrontPageMag, February 26, 2014. )
Much worse, from the $PLC’s point of view: Cleburne’s figures can also be used by competing Leftist fundraisers—from, for example, the Anti-Defamation League or People For The American Way—to argue to big Liberal donors that the $PLC has so much cash on hand that it doesn’t need more money.
Another quote from Robert Bork’s article:
“The principle of such legislation is that if I find your behavior ugly by my standards, moral or aesthetic, and if you prove stubborn about adopting my view of the situation, I am justified in having the state coerce you into more righteous paths. That is itself a principle of unsurpassed ugliness.”
Of course, Bork was right.
But what the $PLC doing is even uglier. Why should businesses all over America to be required to cater—literally—to gay marriage receptions, while other businesses are apparently to be required to discriminate against the Dissident Right?
Because Cultural Marxism is totalitarian. And in America today, it’s winning.
James Fulford [Email him] is a writer and editor for VDARE.com.