Non-discrimination and old widow ladies

["Joan Opyr" <auntiestablishment@hotmail.com>]

Doug Wilson wrote:
>Auntie Establishment is to be commended for being one of the few in >this 
>discussion that is actually interacting with what we say. Not >that praise 
>from us will be likely to make her day, but there it is >anyway.

Giving the devil her due?  I like that.

At the risk of losing my good conduct medal, I think what’s at issue 
here--and what others have complained about—-is a pattern in which a topic 
arises, the Dougs leap in and define (or perhaps curtail) it, and others 
object to that defining/curtailing.  They are then accused of not sticking 
to the point, as determined by the Dougs.  Putting words in your opponent’s 
mouth makes winning an argument very easy, but it isn’t dialog—-it’s talking 
to hear your head roar.

I’m thinking now of that frequent Doug refrain, "If you’d just admit XYZ, 
you’d feel much happier . . . "  Who would feel happier?  I don’t think it 
would be me.

Now, about Widow Schwartz, Lutheran—-in this particular transaction, she’s 
no different than Donald Trump, philanderer.  Both are landlords.  
Non-discrimination laws are concerned with public business transactions, not 
private religious beliefs.  This is where we separate church and state.  If 
Mrs. Schwartz genuinely believes in taint by tenancy, she can rent 
privately, without advertising, to whomever she deems morally acceptable.

I would offer her a word of warning, though.  Who’s to say that that nice 
straight couple she handpicked to occupy her doily-infested bedroom isn’t in 
there right this minute violating Genesis, Leviticus, and the Boys Scouts 
Handbook?  Mrs. Schwartz will never know.

Melting my medal to make an idol,
Auntie Establishment





_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx