Gays, You’re Not Black
To make up for slavery and Jim Crow, we abrogated constitutional provisions about freedom of association, freedom of contract and freedom of speech. We tossed out basic rules of fairness to allow (temporarily) affirmative action, set-asides and quotas. Behemoth departments were created in Washington to stamp out the last vestiges of discrimination on the basis of race. …
Unless you’re alleging race discrimination, take your lumps like a cis-gendered white man. You can be fired, not hired, turned away, rejected, called names, disciplined, looked askance at — and no one cares.
For at least a half-century now, every special pleader in America has made the following argument: Yeah, but what if we were Black?
This is supposed to be rhetorical kryptonite, capable of anathematizing “discrimination” against any group: atheists, women, gays, immigrants, illegal immigrants, the disabled, Muslims — basically anyone except a fully abled, cis-gendered, White male born in this country.
Oh my gosh! You’re right — we DO have to let girls try out for the Green Bay Packers!
OK, fine, we’ll hire more blind lifeguards.
Of course, Shadi Abdullah is welcome to be president of our campus Hillel group.
Naturally, the “What if they were Black?” argument came up ad nauseum at the Supreme Court last week during oral arguments over Colorado’s “anti-discrimination” law. According to Colorado, making two gay guys who are married to one another feel “unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable or undesirable” is the equivalent of separate water fountains for black people.
A web designer had petitioned the court, objecting to the law’s requirement that she design a website celebrating a gay marriage, in contravention of her religious beliefs. But if you’d heard only the questions from Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, you’d think the petitioner was refusing to design websites for Black people.
E.g.:
JUSTICE JACKSON: “[C]an I ask you a hypothetical … [What if] they want to have a sign next to the [shopping mall] Santa that says, ‘only white children.’ Why isn’t your argument that they should be able to do that?” [The hypothetical went on for hours, but that was the gist of it.]
These were a few of Justice Sotomayor’s questions:
— “What’s the difference between that and ‘I don’t believe black people and white people should get married’?”
— “Tell me how that’s different, by the way. What you’re basically saying is, in our Ollie’s Barbecue case, the company there said, ‘I’ll serve blacks but only on a takeout window, not inside my restaurant because that sends a message that I endorse integration ….’”
— “Well, when I sit down to eat a meal by a full chef who creates this beautiful picture on a plate, why can’t he say, ‘I make specialized meals for my clients. I will not serve a black person.’”
Here’s a cheat sheet that should help answer the justices’ questions:
Can I refuse to let black kids sit on Santa’s lap? — NO.
Can I refuse to serve black people at my restaurant? — NO.
Can I refuse to bake one of my wedding cakes for black people? — NO.
Can I refuse to write speeches for black people? — NO.
Can I refuse to perform marriage ceremonies for black people — NO.
Can I discriminate against black people for any reason, ever? — NO.
Displaying his own unique approach, Eric Olson, Colorado’s solicitor general, who was defending the law (popular name: “We Won the Right to Gay Marriage and Now We’re Shooting the Wounded”), made this pioneering argument: “What [a business] can’t do is say, ‘I reserve the right to refuse service, which means in practice I will not serve black people.’”
A good rule of thumb is that any claim of discrimination that requires a comparison to black people is sophistry.
No offense — I’m sure the rest of you have really moving tales of woe, full of pathos and suffering. But gays, atheists, disabled people, women (whatever the hell that is), immigrants, illegals, please try to remember: YOU’RE NOT BLACK.
It’s discrimination on the basis of race — and only discrimination on the basis of race — that is forbidden by our Constitution. Other forms of “discrimination” may be stupid (if so, the market will punish you) or blindingly logical (football teams allowing only healthy young men to try out, or religious groups limiting officeholders to practitioners of the religion).
Only one type of discrimination ever stirred up such mass revulsion in this country that we decided to amend our Constitution to prohibit it: race discrimination.
You’d think that at a moment when our entire national dialogue is fixated on the legacy of slavery, it wouldn’t be so difficult for people to grasp that black Americans’ unique history is not amenable to cut-and-paste victimhood.
To make up for slavery and Jim Crow, we abrogated constitutional provisions about freedom of association, freedom of contract and freedom of speech. We tossed out basic rules of fairness to allow (temporarily) affirmative action, set-asides and quotas. Behemoth departments were created in Washington to stamp out the last vestiges of discrimination on the basis of race.
By now, of course, the only discrimination involving black Americans is in their favor. But that doesn’t change the rule: NO DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF RACE.
As G.K. Chesterton said, “When you break the big laws, you do not get freedom, you do not even get anarchy. You get the small laws.”
That’s what “discrimination” law is today. Instead of one big law: “No Race Discrimination!” we have a million little laws about strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, rational basis test, public accommodations, bona fide occupational qualifications, and on and on and on. At the same time, we have open race discrimination against whites and Asians.
Unless you’re alleging race discrimination, take your lumps like a cis-gendered white man. You can be fired, not hired, turned away, rejected, called names, disciplined, looked askance at — and no one cares.
This simple rule allows us to live in what we call “freedom.” As the libertarians would say (if they were real libertarians), start your own website business, bakery, Hillel organization, professional football team, holiday, all-women’s eating club, etc. etc. etc.
Gays, you’re not black. (And you’re not Allan Bakke.) Gays’ median household income is about $115,000 — the highest of any group in America. It’s $45,000 for black people. To my gay readers, answer this honestly: When you move into a neighborhood, do home prices go up or down?
Blacks must be looking at gay rights activists in bewilderment, thinking: Why couldn’t we be oppressed like that?
For the rest of you, memorize this, recite it in the shower, write it on your hand: “Unless I’m being discriminated against on the basis of my race, I will stop being a pain in everyone’s ass.”
COPYRIGHT 2022 ANN COULTER
Or we could just have freedom of association and be done with all of it.
In my opinion, the Constitution protects the right to discriminate against anyone for any reason.
Ann is wearing out her welcome by resorting to her basic shit-lib arguments re Blacks!
Blacks! aren’t oppressed either, Ann. This counter-signaling bs hasn’t worked for the several decades you’ve tried it.
Stop.
Outside of Ann’s guilded circles…I don’t think gays are particularly wealthy either.
Ha! When talking to a gay person Resident Biden could plagiarize himself and say, “You’re not black.”
I know that you, dear Ann, are a woman with high testosterone. But that still doesn’t make you a trans woman or a lesbian.
Dear Ann, average is one thing and does not represent the totality of a group. And also that having money does not protect you from archaic right-wing irrationals anymore.
https://dailystormer.in/the-massacre-continues-anglin-trends-on-twitter-after-laying-down-the-law-of-sex/
Herr Wanglin believes that real “men” choose younger women to reproduce. But it could also be that he feared the sexual power of mature women who also challenge him intellectually?
I, for example, always wanted to compete with the older boys in the schoolyard. If one of their girls ends up in bed with me (instead of them), that must mean something!
It is significant that there is no questioning of himself as an attractive companion in life for women. Apparently still a “defense mechanism” against his “easy going” mother.
He owes us only one, indeed the decisive answer: Why the hell should any woman share her precious lifetime with him, because of his “precious genes”, or because of his positive attitude towards women in general?
Is it because of this that he found happiness sexually in the Philippines, preferring the easy-to-have ladies there to the hard-to-have ones here?
What article does the “precious genes” quotation come from? Thanks!
“Herr Wanglin believes that real “men” choose younger women to reproduce. But it could also be that he feared the sexual power of mature women who also challenge him intellectually?”
No one fears any woman. I have no idea if women are actually so deluded that they believe this or if they just say it as a coping mechanism but the average IQ of women is average. Men are roughly evenly split between below average and above average IQ.
A man who is below average IQ generally isn’t able to conceptualize consequences but is often smart enough to realize he isn’t very smart at all. They generally tend to become physically very fit and let their fists do the talking,which they become very good at doing because they aren’t capable of communicating any other way. Not to put too fine a point on it but an average teenage boy could beat a female MMA superstar into a coma with relative easy.
On the other side of the coin,a high IQ male is often several standard deviations above a woman of average intelligence. Because you probably ARE a woman of average intelligence,I’ll put it into very simple terms for you. A high IQ man’s (150-170 IQ) intellectual abilities compared to those of an average woman are similar to the gap between the average human and the average gibbon.
That’s not my opinion,this has been exhaustively proven.
You’re not intimidating. Having a conversation with you is basically like trying to have a conversation with a baby.
Also,what you’re trying to do by attempting to tout your imagined intellectual fearsomeness is equivalent to a dog trying to reproduce with a coconut. You’re going through the motions of something that works perfectly well in a certain context,i.e., when it’s a man doing it to a woman, but in this context, it comes across as ridiculous and a bit sad.
ABSOLUTELY NO MEN ARE ATTRACTED TO YOUR INTELLIGENCE. Men are not attracted to your money,your college degree, your status in society. WE DON’T CARE.
You know how you feel about random dudes sending you random d pics? Same thing here.
It’s icky and sad,not impressive.
Men care about what you look like. That’s it and that’s all it will ever be. If we’re going to have a relationship with you,fine,it’d be nice if you weren’t a complete retard.
No man sets out attempting to have a relationship with a woman,though. We don’t actually need to have a relationship with you and it is generally detrimental to us to pursue one.
“I, for example, always wanted to compete with the older boys in the schoolyard.”
I DID compete with the older boys in the schoolyard. I didn’t have a choice. They’d have ganged up on you and kicked your ass. You might have learned a valuable lesson from it,but most probably not. Probably,rather than developing the ability to compete on an even playing field,you’d have run to an authority figure,played the victim, and used a proxy to mess with them because that is what females do ultimately.
Even today,there is no actual competition on the level of my fists vs your fists, the pure sense of competition,between men and women. Not even my brain vs your brain. If women lose at anything,they falsely claim it wasn’t a straight game. Every time you ever won at anything in life it’s because society let you win.
“If one of their girls ends up in bed with me (instead of them), that must mean something!”
Yeah,it means you’re a degenerate.
“It is significant that there is no questioning of himself as an attractive companion in life for women. Apparently still a “defense mechanism” against his “easy going” mother.”
Pot meet kettle. In almost 5 decades on Earth,I’ve yet to meet a woman who was even capable of reflecting on whether or not she was a fit mate for anyone. They always just assume that they deserve and are OWED the very best of everything. I’ve also never met a woman who seems even remotely capable of taking responsibility for anything despite demanding to be put in leadership roles,where half of the job is being the one responsible if things go south. They just take the perks for themselves,instead of sharing the glory and the spoils around with their subordinates like a REAL leader would do and demand someone else take the fall when they fail,which a REAL leader WOULDN’T do.
“He owes us only one, indeed the decisive answer: Why the hell should any woman share her precious lifetime with him, because of his “precious genes”, or because of his positive attitude towards women in general?”
Again,no he doesn’t. You aren’t owed anything. There are billions of people on the planet who were born with a vagina. The fact that you have one doesn’t mean you are owed ANYTHING from ANYBODY.
Secondly,your lifetime isn’t “precious” either. You,on average, don’t do anything positive for anybody as a group.
Now,I know that you are going to claim the things that I am saying are part of an “attitude” that I have towards women. They are not. These are facts. I don’t have a strong feeling one way or the other towards these facts. If anything,I slightly wish the facts were the other way.
On average,despite there being MORE women than men on Earth,women consume more resources than men do and contribute far less than their share, which MEN are then forced to make up for in order to balance things.
Just by statistical probability,women should be slight net taxpayers and men slight net tax consumers based on the fact that there are more women than men and men make up the majority of suicides,serious injury and illnesses,drug addicts, and homeless but what we see is the opposite. Women,who actually have far less need of social services when they aren’t pregnant and the vast majority of women AREN’T pregnant at any given time, use the majority of the public funds while men use far less than their share.
You’re not precious. Factually,you’re a drain on society,you’re annoying,you’re of only average intelligence,and you spend the majority of your lives destroying what men have continuously sacrificed their lives to build. It’s only by the sheer tenacity and brilliance of the top 10% of men in both bravery and intelligence that we are able to hold society together AND allow women any freedom or semblance of equity whatsoever.
Finally,I have an answer to your question that you obviously haven’t considered.
Maybe Anglin,and perhaps a significant number of other men, don’t WANT you to share what you consider to be your “precious lifetime” with them. Maybe we don’t care what you do.
Now answer this question. Why should men share all of the things they’ve invented with you? Why should men share their precious electrical grid with you? Their precious medicine? Their precious rule of law? Their precious roads? Their precious abundance food model? Their precious clean drinking water? Their precious vehicles? Their precious domesticated animals? Their precious music,art,and literature?
Their precious computers? Their precious internet? Their precious telephones? Their precious airplanes?
Their precious pasteurization process?
Their precious concrete,glass,steel,iron,copper?
Their precious plastics?
Their precious textiles excluding woven grass or animal hair?
Do you really think access to a wet hole theoretically 23 days a month but in practice far fewer than that for most men is worth all of those things?
Men have allowed you to use these things out of the goodness of their hearts. We could have just as easily restricted access to all of them and kept it all for ourselves.
What would or could you have even done?
For that matter,the only reason you get to dole out access to the hole between your legs is because we say you can. We could take that too if we wanted to.
“Is it because of this that he found happiness sexually in the Philippines, preferring the easy-to-have ladies there to the hard-to-have ones here?”
They’re not “easy to have”,they’re just cheaper whores because their men couldn’t build them such a great economy.
Even if that were true,when there’s literally no difference in quality,who would choose a good that’s difficult to obtain over one that’s easy to obtain.
An idiot. Or a woman,apparently.
Dear Ann,
You know who’s at the top of the victimhood pyramid, and it’s not Blacks.
What happened to Kanye almost happened to you, that time you blurted out:
“How many fucking Jews do these people think there are in the United States?”
— (https://www.thedailybeast.com/ann-coulter-defends-f-king-jews-rant)
Fortunately for you, you didn’t cross the No-Amount-Of-Groveling-Will-Redeem-You line, and your groveling allowed you to retain your job as controlled opposition. Memorize this, recite it in the shower, write it on your hand:
“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”