Black conservative says 'society would be safer' if we discriminated MORE
"Discriminating was once an adjective of praise. No more. Sameness is praised these days
Candace Owens opened her Daily Wire podcast explaining why she thinks more discrimination would make society safer. 'I discriminate,' Owens, 33, said at the very beginning of her show on Monday. 'I just want to get that off my chest.'
'I openly discriminate against weirdos and freaks and I encourage you to do the same,' she told her listeners.
Owens, the right wing commentator and talk show host, singled out transgender people, saying: 'I definitely discriminate against men that paint their nails or wear dresses' during her opening monologue.
Owens said she would actively cross the road to avoid becoming too physically close to a transgender or non-binary person.
'You can wear your dress and you can paint your nails but I'd prefer you keeping 100 feet away from a playground and all of the feet away from my children and me,' she said.
'I actually think that society would be safer if we discriminated more what's happening now is insanity because they're telling us to accept everything to say, "oh its fine, he just has a fetish, he likes to wear panties"'.
Owens also revealed that she discriminates against obese people and said she wouldn't want musician Lizzo to be her trainer.
'I am going to discriminate against somebody that is that clinically obese saying that they're going to get me healthy,' she said.
In October, Owens made another mean comment about Lizzo, saying facetiously: 'We should have put a White Lives Matter T-shirt on Lizzo. Maybe we could have gotten a lot of attention about obesity and how it's actually killing black Americans.'
Owens expressed frustration at the left for turning the word discriminate into a 'dirty word' and that she thinks that discrimination is important for allowing us to make important decisions that keep us safe against dangerous people.
'When someone just gives you the heebie-jeebies, even if you can't quite put your finger on why, I think you need to lean into that, and I actually think that society would be safer if we discriminated more,' she said.
The Oxford Reference defines 'discriminate' as 'treating one or more members of a specified group unfairly as compared with other people.'
There are federal laws that prohibit discrimination based on a person's national origin, race, religion, disability and sex. among other things
************************************************
Former Southwest Airlines Flight Attendant Reinstated by Court After Firing Over Pro-Life Views
A federal judge has ordered Southwest Airlines to rehire a flight attendant and award her damages, back pay, and interest after she was fired in 2017 for stating her pro-life views on social media.
The ruling marks a victory for the religious freedom rights of Christians in the workplace at the same time that the U.S. Supreme Court wrestles with the issue in 303 Creative v. Elenis.
On Monday, U.S. District Judge Brantley Starr ordered that former Southwest flight attendant Charlene Carter be reinstated to the airline five years after the company terminated her for allegedly “harassing” Transport Workers Union President Audrey Stone in an email.
Carter also was awarded $810,000 in damages, back pay, and interest. She had originally been awarded a total of $5.1 million in damages by a jury at a federal district court in Dallas in July, but Starr reduced the award to “comply with federal limits on punitive damages that companies can be required to pay.”
The compensatory and punitive damages awarded to Carter were the maximum amount permitted under federal law.
The ordeal began in January 2017 when Carter became aware of the union’s support of the pro-abortion Women’s March that took place in Washington, D.C., that month. In a series of social media posts, Carter expressed her objection to using union dues to support the march because of her pro-life beliefs. Even though she had opted out of union membership four years earlier because of union-funded causes that conflicted with her Christian beliefs, she was still required to pay dues because of federal requirements.
Shortly after posting the pro-life messages, Carter sent an email to Stone that voiced support for a national right to work bill. Carter was subsequently called in to a meeting with Southwest management, who notified her of Stone’s “harassment” claim. Carter was dismissed a week later.
In his ruling, Starr wrote, “Bags fly free with Southwest. But free speech didn’t fly at all with Southwest in this case.”
Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation, which represented Carter in the case, underscored the violation of religious freedom committed by Southwest and union officials.
“Southwest and TWU union officials made Ms. Carter pay an unconscionable price just because she decided to speak out against the political activities of union officials in accordance with her deeply held religious beliefs,” Mix said in a statement. “This decision vindicates Ms. Carter’s rights—but it’s also a stark reminder of the retribution that union officials will mete out against employees who refuse to toe the union line.”
Arielle Del Turco, assistant director of the Center for Religious Liberty at the Family Research Council, expressed cautious optimism in reaction to Carter’s court victory.
“It’s sad that Southwest Airlines had to be told by a court that someone’s exercise of free speech is not an acceptable reason to fire them,” she told The Washington Stand. “The reality is that we live in a society that is increasingly intolerant of Christian perspectives. Carter’s win is a powerful declaration affirming First Amendment protections for those working in major corporations who don’t want to check their faith at the door.”
*****************************************************
Three Paths Forward for Trump and the GOP
CONRAD BLACK
In a column in American Greatness on December 10, Paul Gottfried built upon a piece of mine last week that effectively ascribed the disappointing results for the Republicans in the midterm elections jointly to an abhorrence of the climate of unlimited controversy and near chaos induced by President Trump’s presence at the forefront of events, and the inability of the Republicans up to now to respond effectively to the changes in voting and vote counting that were largely instituted in response to the Covid pandemic, and with some modification, have now been enacted durably in many states.
He makes the point that there is very little evidence that Mr. Trump’s presence as a potential ultimate beneficiary of Republican votes actually cost the Republicans anything in the midterm elections, and instead emphasizes in a very recondite manner the comparative and increasing failure of the Republicans to make an effective pitch to various voting blocs, including younger well-educated voters and unmarried women voters of practically all ethnic, age, economic, and education brackets.
The Democrats’ abortion stance, reduction of marijuana penalties, and attempt to forgive a trillion dollars of student loans certainly helped assure that 70 percent of university students would vote, 63 per cent of those for the Democrats. He makes a strong case that the deterioration of the Republican appeal to those voters more than compensates for the substantial progress of the Republicans with Hispanic American voters, and to a lesser degree, with African-Americans also.
He perceptively writes that “There is no indication that the electorate cares about Democratic scandals and failures. Republican attempts to call attention to such issues” (as the flood of illegal immigration, skyrocketing crime and inflation, and the long-term dubious international financial grifting of the Biden family), “or to the damaged brain of our new Pennsylvania senator or to Joe Biden’s obvious decrepitude, fall on deaf ears with these voters.”
He again perceptively argues that the Republicans are reticent about challenging questionable votes because they do not want to be accused of “election denial or suppressing minority votes. This hesitancy puts them at a disadvantage against a radical leftist party that shows no compunctions about cheating or election denial. The fact that Democratic Party organizers and politicians can engage in their legerdemain with unfailing media protection makes them even more brazen.” Mr. Gottfried argues, quite persuasively, that the Republicans should steel themselves to the deluge of righteous hypocrisy they would receive and attack all suspicious ballots as soon as they detect them.
Where I part company to some extent with Mr. Gottfried is his statement that “There is no convincing evidence the Trump support for a candidate was the decisive factor in any person’s defeat.” Strictly speaking, I do agree with that, but the prolonged defamation of Mr. Trump that seems to have been the principal motivation in the outrageous occupation of his home at Palm Beach by the FBI in August, rather than any nonsense about violating the Espionage Act, did not inspire anyone except the usual virulently anti-Trump half of the electorate to imagine that he was guilty of anything. Yet it did remind all of the voters, including his supporters, of the terribly contentious and abrasive nature of all American politics where Mr. Trump is a protagonist.
This fact is the only believable reason I can find for the shrinkage of Mr. Biden’s status in job-approval ratings to 10 percent negative from 20 percent negative. This seems to have been the principal reason for hurling the profoundly debased justice system onto the electoral scales, and it must be said that it was a well executed surgical strike, without which the Democrats would surely have lost more congressmen and would probably not have retained control of the Senate. And Mr. Gottfried appears to believe that most voters in America have now become so detached from any traditionally recognizable notion of respectable standards of civic conduct that they don’t care that the Justice Department is simply a tool of the dirty tricks division of the Democratic National Committee.
This indifference to spectacular and continuous lapses of ethical government and impartial justice, supported by the ethically bankrupt national political and social media, now swanning through a full frontal exposure in the unsurprising revelation of the shameful hypocrisy of Twitter in the last presidential election, is extremely dangerous. If true, the potential for an elevation of a regime even more malignant, if not more incompetent, (that would be a stratospheric hurdle to surmount), than the present one, would inevitably be realized eventually.
These are marginally conflicting intuitions rather than disputes of fact between Mr. Gottfried and me, but my impression is that most Americans are appalled by the corruption of the Justice Department and the intelligence agencies in their interventions in both the 2016 and 2020 elections. Yet, as I wrote, that concern and the fact that three-quarters of Americans think the country is going in the wrong direction, are compensated for by the extreme distaste that 10 to 20 percent of Americans have at any thought of a return of Mr. Trump as president, not out of extreme dislike of him, but of the controversy he brings with him.
If the Republican Party was so severely disadvantaged by the loss of support of voting blocs Mr. Gottfried cites, I don’t think that the gubernatorial results in Florida, Georgia, and even Texas would have been so robustly Republican as they were. There are three possible deliverances from the gloomy Republican future the Mr. Gottfried foresees. First, another well-qualified Republican than Mr. Trump is nominated in 2024 supporting Trump policies and runs with the former president’s support. Second, Mr. Trump continues in the good-humored and polite manner exhibited in his announcement that he was seeking renomination and runs as a “new Trump” as Richard Nixon in 1968 ran as a “new Nixon.”
Third, and this is a serious gamble, the Trump we know is nominated again and the Republican self-familiarization with the new voting and vote counting techniques, which must be accomplished in any event, suffices to put him across one last time. All conscientious and sensible people who wish America well, whatever their notions of spirituality, should start praying for one of these outcomes this Christmas season, and keep it up until next election day.
https://www.nysun.com/article/three-paths-forward-for-trump-and-the-gop
**************************************************New California Law Will Cripple Its $20 Billion Fast-Food Industry
California’s new fast-food law establishes a politically appointed council with unprecedented power to regulate the industry by setting worker wages, hours, and other working conditions. The law applies to any fast-food chain in California that has at least 100 stores nationwide sharing a common brand. This is not just government overreach on steroids. This bill essentially kills the franchisor-franchisee model within the industry and will almost certainly destroy thousands of jobs by driving up the cost of doing business and increasing the level of automation in the industry.
The new law couldn’t have come at a worse time. According to the most recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, employment in California’s fast-food industry remains nearly 20 percent below its pre-pandemic level (representing a loss of more than 75,000 jobs). Even more disturbing is that industry employment continued to decline even after the height of the pandemic, losing another 25,000 jobs between the spring of 2020 and the spring of 2021 (data for 2022 are unavailable).
The average fast-food restaurant is marginally profitable, with profit margins averaging between 6 and 9 percent in normal times, and franchisee capital requirements are large, sometimes requiring $2 million or more to get a franchise up and running. Most fast-food workers are young, and many work part time, which tends to lead to high turnover, as high as 143 percent annually. This means that over the course of a year, a workplace that begins the year with 100 employees will need to hire 143 workers over the course of that year to finish the year with 100 employees. Not surprisingly, 78 percent of fast-food restaurant operators indicate that recruiting and retaining workers is their top priority.
The bill passed both the 80-member State Assembly and the 40-member State Senate by only one vote in each chamber, despite the state’s having a 60–20 Democratic supermajority in the Assembly and a 31–9 supermajority in the Senate. No Republican lawmakers supported the bill.
The question that needs to be asked is why such an extreme law was passed and signed into law by California governor Gavin Newsom, whose finance department opposed the bill. The bill was marketed as being necessary to protect worker health and safety and fight employer wage theft. But there are of course existing laws at the federal and state level that protect worker safety and health, and California passed a new law last year that makes wage theft a criminal offense in California. Former Clinton administration labor secretary Robert Reich remarked that California is home to the “nation’s foremost set of laws to protect workers.”
California’s new fast-food law is not about protecting its workers. It is an under-the-radar attempt by politicians to increase unionization. Union fingerprints are all over this bill. Unionized businesses—those operating under a collective bargaining agreement—are exempt from the new law. Just like that. Like so many other recent California bills, the goal of this law is to increase the likelihood that a business will be unionized by raising the cost of not being unionized. The council will have substantial latitude to punish non-union businesses de facto, as the bill allows the council to set wages as high as $22 per hour, along with providing the right to dictate working hours and other conditions of employment. Suddenly, collective bargaining looks so much better than it did before the bill was signed into law, but only because the new law makes running a non-union business remarkably more expensive.
The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) was one of the strongest supporters of the bill. No surprise there. The SEIU has spent about $100 million since 2012 to raise the state’s minimum wage, which is another indirect way of increasing unionization. The SEIU will be the main beneficiary of the new law should restaurants cave and accept collective bargaining. Lorena Gonzalez, the chief officer of the California Federation of Labor, which is the umbrella organization of more than 1,200 labor unions within the state, was the original author of the bill when she was in the California State Assembly. Gonzalez believes that every workplace should be unionized and uses, shall we say, colorful language to characterize those who question the role of unions in today’s economy.
Private-sector unionization has been dropping for over 50 years. At one time, 40 percent of California workers belonged to a union. Today, less than 8 percent of private-sector workers in the state are unionized. There are two reasons why unionization rates have plummeted. One is that many of today’s workers wish to have the independence and flexibility to negotiate their own work arrangements rather than be subject to the terms of a collective bargaining, one-size-fits-all agreement. The other is that most US unions have an awful track record of representing the interests of their members. Major American unionized industries, including autos, steel, and rubber, have collapsed over time as chronic industrial conflict, including strikes and work slowdowns, resulted in American industries falling behind foreign producers, becoming uncompetitive, and losing hundreds of thousands of jobs in the process.
Job loss now looms large in the fast-food industry, an industry that is already transitioning from employees to machines. Robots and other forms of artificial intelligence are taking the place of workers in fast-food restaurants, and California’s new law will accelerate this process. Nala Robotics has introduced “The Wingman,” a robot that can bread, season, and perfectly fry chicken wings for $2,999 per month. It can also prepare other fried foods, including French fries and onion rings. Assuming a 10-hour restaurant operating day, “The Wingman” costs about $10 per hour to operate. Miso Robotics has developed “Flippy,” a robotic arm that can flip a burger or any other food that is cooked on a flat grill. Flippy, which cost Miso $50 million to create, rents for $3,500 per month, which includes on-site maintenance, or can be purchased for $30,000 per unit. Self-ordering kiosks, which sell for about $50,000, are taking the place of workers who take orders at the drive-through.
These devices are just the beginning. As AI technologies advance, even more sophisticated and cost-effective devices and software will appear and will take the place of any worker who cannot deliver a comparable profit to their employer.
California’s new law is in essence legislating away thousands of future jobs by preventing workers and employers from reaching employment agreements on their own terms. The law places failed union leadership above the interests of individuals who wish to work and business owners who wish to hire. And don’t be surprised if similar councils are formed in the future to organize workers in other industries. Unions are desperate for new recruits. After decades of losses, it appears that the only way that they can grow is by having legislators take away the freedoms that are crucial for individual prosperity and economic growth.
https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=14365&omhide=true&trk=title
****************************************My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See 
No comments:
Post a Comment