Phil Robertson and Anti-Discrimination: A Case Study in Putting the Shoe on the Other Foot

This is a guest post written by Nathaniel Simmons
____________________________________________

Though it may not be popular, I think it will be helpful to start this post with a confession. I believe A&E has should have the right to fire Phil Robertson. I don’t fault them for that decision at all. But we should also learn a lesson from them: anti-discrimination laws are a shoe that doesn’t fit when they’re on the other foot.

A Quick Review 
In case you aren’t familiar with the story, Phil is the father of the Robertson family and one of the stars in the hit reality TV show called “Duck Dynasty.” The show is wildly popular in part for the zany antics of the Robertson family and in part because of the family values that characterize the show.

Phil recently got into some trouble over some remarks regarding homosexuality made during an interview with GQ magazine. A local newspaper in New Orleans summarized his most offensive remarks in the following paragraph.

"Everything is blurred on what's right and what's wrong... Sin becomes fine."  

"Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men," he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: "Don't be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers -- they won't inherit the kingdom of God. Don't deceive yourself. It's not right." (His comments about preferring heterosexuality over homosexuality, based on respective male and female anatomy, were pretty graphic.) 

The A&E network quickly responded to distance themselves from Phil’s comments. In a press release they stated,

We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty. His personal views in no way reflect those of A&E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. (Quote taken from Al Mohler)

So, to make this long story short, A&E has fired, or at least temporarily suspended, Phil Robertson for clearly and publicly stating his religious and moral views concerning homosexuality.

Can they Do This? 
It seems to me that this could be the fodder for a rather tricky legal debate. Many people will suggest that this is a free speech issue and appeal to the First Amendment, however I think the First Amendment is only tangentially related. The real sticking point will be the anti-discrimination laws that began with Title VII of the Civil Rights act in 1964 and is still being debated with acts such as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which essentially extends the protections of the Civil Rights Act to Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, and Transgender (LGBT) people.

The reason that these laws appear to be relevant is because Phil Robertson is clearly being fired for expressing his religious views. As A&E made clear in their statement, they are supporters of the LGBT community and they believe that the religious convictions that he shared are offensive to that community. This is the reason they have fired him. However, anti-discrimination laws (EEO) make it illegal to take retributive action on someone because of his or her religious views.

The Shoe On the Other Foot 
I see a heaping dose of irony in this whole situation. The LGBT community has championed these anti-discrimination laws, particularly in the face of small businesses that refuse to participate in homosexual weddings. One recent example is the Colorado baker, Jack Phillips, who refused to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple because it violated his religious convictions. The Civil Rights Commission brought suit and a Colorado judge, Robert Spencer, found that Phillips was in violation of anti-discrimination laws. Phillips was put under a court order to bake the cake or face up to 12 months of jail time.

However, now A&E wants to discriminate against Robertson for the same reason Phillips wanted to discriminate against the homosexual couple. Phillips felt a responsibility to distance himself from a homosexual wedding, so he refused to produce a wedding cake that would promote, celebrate, and involve him with something he felt was immoral. Similarly, A&E feels the responsibility to distance themselves from someone who is religiously opposed to homosexuality. They do not want to produce a show that would promote, celebrate, or otherwise involve them with Phil Robertson's ideas. It’s the same shoe, it’s just on a different foot.

The Way Forward 
I am thankful for the progress that came with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I think it was morally reprehensible to refuse a person dinner because of the color of their skin. However, I believe that today we are seeing that the Act, in its current form, is untenable. It is wrong to force a baker to be involved in something he believes is immoral, even if he is wrong. It’s would be just as wrong to require a company that is decidedly pro LGBT to produce and promote ideas that are contrary to their message.

Tolerance is a virtue. But tolerance isn’t accomplished by legally requiring everyone to promote the other side's ideas. Give the Colorado baker the freedom to bake cakes that don’t violate his conscience and give A&E the freedom to produce and promote shows and actors who don’t violate their conscience. Let’s trust progress to come through the conversation, not through forcing everyone to wear the same shoe.

______________________________
Sources and Suggested Reading:

Joe Carter, "Duck Dynasty Star Fired Over Remarks on Homosexuality," The Gospel Coalition, December, 2013.

Ken Kewklowski, "Baker Faces Prison for Refusing to Bake Same Sex Wedding Cake,"  Breitbart, December 2013.

Drew Magary, “What the Duck?,” GQ, January 2014.

Al Mohler, "You Have Been Warned: The Duck Dynasty Controversy", albertmohler.com December 2013.

Russell Moore, "Duck Dynasty?," Moore to the Point, December 2013.

James Poniewozik, “Why Phil Robertson Got Suspended from Duck Dynasty,” TIME, Wednesday, December 18, 2014.

Chris Christie = Republican Savior?

Nathaniel and I have created something of a Monday night tradition. I pretend all day that I am going to swing by the grocery store on the way home and pick up ingredients for dinner. I'll even send multiple texts to Nathaniel asking if he has any particular preference or desire. All in an attempt to convince myself, or maybe guilt myself, into actually going to Harris Teeter and buying pasta sauce and spaghetti.

However, none of these tactics have worked for the past three weeks and instead I come home and fling myself onto the bed and Nathaniel asks, "Where are we going for dinner?" It's a charade, and we both know it.

This week we went to Red Bowl to enjoy some sushi (made with cooked shrimp, for anyone concerned about the health of the baby.) We were seated in the bar area where there are many, many TV's. There were two news stories on the television and our conversation vacillated between Chris Christie's broader GOP appeal and whether Richie Incognito is a villain or victim (riveting, I know).

During our dinner, Nathaniel asked me if I thought that Chris Christie was going to be the savior of the Republican party. I thought for a minute and then I gave this answer:

Maybe.

Chris Christie has a huge personality that somehow bridges the gap between demographics that traditionally vote liberal and those that traditionally vote more conservative. His polling numbers in the wake of his recent re-election victory are truly impressive:


Christie beat his female opponent, Barbara Buono, 60% to 39%. He bested her by 16 points with women, by 20 points with independents and by 30 points with moderates. He won the majority of voters who make less than $50,000/year and voters who make more than $100,000/year.

Additionally, Christie made an impressive showing with other demographics that traditionally favor democratic candidates heavily. Christie raked in:

• 49% of 18-29 year olds
• 30% of people who identified themselves as liberals
• 50% of Latinos
• 20% of African-Americans

These numbers are absolutely crazy!! No Republican presidential candidate has ever won even 40% of the Latino vote in an election. Since 1980, no Democratic candidate has received less than 83% of the African-American vote, and Democrats typically carry more like 90% of the African-American vote.

So Nathaniel's question is a good one:

"Is Chris Christie the savior of the Republican party?"

Again, I'll say "maybe."

Chris Christie surely has the force of personality to unite an odd coalition of individuals behind him. He projects an aura of independence from the "establishment" and I think that this is the root of his broad appeal. He has also been able to jettison some of the negative baggage that many Republicans in office deal with.  My hesitation with Christie, however, is due in large part to what I see as a lack of ideology.

Ideology is important to me. I want to vote for a candidate who supports or opposes legislation based on principle rather than what is popular with voters. I think most people would agree with me here. 

Additionally, I want to vote for a candidate who makes decisions based on well-thought out and reasonable arguments. I don't want a candidate or a leader who makes decisions based on gut-instinct.

Chris Christie has not demonstrated that he functions from a clear ideological framework. His mantra and his apparent winsomeness appears to revolve around his ability to size up a situation and act decisively. That may work as a governor, but Washington, D.C. is something different and I am skeptical of his ability to effectively lead when nothing is leading him except his intuition.

Christie and Gay Marriage

Christie's stance on gay marriage provides an excellent example of a man who doesn't seem to know what he thinks or what he wants to do. Christie is Catholic and he has stated that he does not think that homosexuals have a Constitutional right to marriage. Instead, he supports a civil union. He also vetoed a bill from the New Jersey State Legislature that would approve gay marriage. Both of these actions would reasonably lead a person to believe that he takes a rather conservative stance towards homosexual marriage.

However, he has also stated that sexuality is something a person is born with and is not a sin. Furthermore, he recently signed legislation into effect in New Jersey that bans gay-conversion therapy. Both of these actions indicate a more liberal approach to gay marriage and gay rights in general.

Christie says that there is no contradiction in his stance, but I disagree. What is it that motivates Christie to act? What is it that guides his decision-making process? It's clearly not a close adherence to the teachings of the Catholic Church. It's also not a truly conservative or liberal ideology either. I don't know that I would even call it a moderate position because he has taken strong stances against homosexual rights and and then for homosexual rights. Additionally, Christie has been accused of pandering to the conservative right in order to boost his prospects for his inevitable 2016 campaign even though Steven Goldstein, the chairman of Garden State Equality, said "Frankly, I don’t think Chris Christie has an antigay bone in his body."

Am I ultimately commenting on Christie's apparent indecision regarding homosexual rights? I'm not. The purpose here is to demonstrate my point that Chris Christie doesn't appear to make decisions based upon a well-thought out ideological system. Instead, he acts out of necessity and with an in-the-moment attitude. Does his indecision and sometimes contradictions make me want to support his candidacy for the White House? Not really. I want to know not just what a candidate is going to do now, in the current situation, but I want to be able to confidently guess how he will respond to events in the future. Chris Christie doesn't provide me with that ability.

But who knows? Maybe Christie has a brilliant ideology that he has yet to fully articulate. If he can articulate his political ideology in the same clear and concise way that Mitt Romney did during the first presidential debate last year, I'll be listening.

Sources and Suggested Reading

Exit Polls: Christie and McAuliffe Took Different Paths to Victory- CNN 
New York Times Exit Polls: 1980-2008- New York Times
On Gay Issues, Gov. Christie Says There's No Ambiguity- NJ.com
Christie Keeps His Promise to Veto Gay Marriage Bill- New York Times
Can Chris Christie be the Republican Bill Clinton?- Politico

Economics and Vintage AT&T

Is it weird to consider a Forbes article a "tear-jerker?" It's just that when you read so many articles online, and I read a lot of them, and you find that article after article presents only the idealistic, best-case scenario of the Affordable Care Act, you tend to get a bit annoyed. Then you read an article that not only references Friedrich von Hayek but also critiques the whole ideology behind the ACA, and it becomes just too much for a pregnant woman to handle. It's like stepping back into the 80's and 90's and watching AT&T long-distance commercials all over again. Waterworks.

Let's Go Back To The Beginning

It being Veteran's Day, I had a free day from school and I devoted my morning to catching up on news and what-nots (which may or may not have included a thorough inquiry into the pros and cons of the City Select baby stroller). I clicked over to Forbes to read an editorial and in the sidebar I spied an article titled, "The Obamacare Rollout Debacle Is A Hayekian 'Teaching Moment'."

Immediately there were key words that grabbed my attention: Obamacare, Debacle, Hayekian. What could this mean? I needed to know.

The article first discusses why focusing solely on the problems associated with healthcare.gov is misleading. The problems with the website can be solved, eventually, but focusing too much on that issue masks the underlying and more troubling aspects of the roll-out. From there the author references the man, the myth, the legend, Friedrich von Hayek, a 20th century economist who, were he still alive, would despise our current system of economics.

Hayek believed that the economy is far too complex for anyone to truly understand. We can't know why people spend or save the way that they do. We can't predict how the economy will respond to one incident or another and because of this lack of knowledge, the economy should be left alone. That Hayek had sincere issues with the Federal Reserve, should then go without saying (but I did anyway.) Any bubble, any bust, is typically due to us meddling in the economy in the first place.

The author of the Forbes article suggests that the issues with Obamacare stem from the fact that the government tried to understand what motivates the healthcare industry, and he suggests that they failed miserably.

It's certainly worth a read and if you are reading this and asking yourself "Friedrich von Who?," I'll post a brief educational video that will enlighten you.

Happy Veteran's Day!!

Adam Smith Video (Similar economic theory to Hayek)

Hayek Raps! (I think this is actually more instructive, but a bit longer. My students loved it...kind of).

Further Reading for Your Veterans Day

The Obamacare Rollout Debacle Is A Hayekian 'Teaching Moment'- Forbes
Obamacare Will Be Repealed Well In Advanced of the 2014 Elections- Forbes
Poll: Most Back $9 Minimum Wage- Politico
Report Fuels Warren 2016 Prospects- Politico
Is Hayek Saying Something Smith Did Not?

And just for fun...

The Courage of His Convictions

CONFESSION: I cried in class today. 

Vivian Malone

"Humiliating" is probably too tame of a word to use when describing the experience. My students
shifted uncomfortably in their seats as I pressed forward with the story of how George Wallace blocked two African-American students from entering the University of Alabama. Everyone avoided making eye contact with me as I told them that President Kennedy sent in the National Guard to escort Vivian Malone and James Hood past the Governor, past the police, and into the school. I was choked up, I couldn't help it!


We were honestly all relieved when the story was over.

Today's lesson discussed the bully pulpit, the power of the president to speak directly to Americans. This phrase was first coined by Theodore Roosevelt when he discovered that the president has a unique ability to speak to the American people. He realized that when the president speaks, people listen.  We tune in to hear President Obama speak on the Syrian crisis. We tune in to hear how President Bush is going to respond to the attacks on 9-11. We make sure to listen when President Clinton addresses the nation regarding the Oklahoma City bombings. We listen, and we listen to the president far more than we listen to any other person in Washington.

In order to emphasize this power, I showed my students the speech that President Kennedy gave in response to the aforementioned incident at the University of Alabama. I have shown this video to my students for two years, and even after my ninth viewing, I still find it incredibly moving.

President Kennedy delivered one powerful indictment after the other, each one accusing Americans of blatant hypocrisy and cowardice. One particularly moving excerpt reads:

If an American, because his skin is dark, cannot eat lunch in a restaurant open to the public, if he can not send his children to the best public school available, if he cannot vote for the public officials who represent him, if, in short, he cannot enjoy the full and free life which all of us want, then who among us would be content to have the color of his skin changed and stand in his place? [Emphasis mine]

As I watched Kennedy's speech today and as I lectured my students regarding the unique power of the president to influence the minds and attitudes of Americans, I wondered to myself when we will have a president who is courageous enough to use his bully pulpit to plead for the rights of America's forgotten generation. President Kennedy didn't give his address at the end of the battle. President Kennedy gave his address in the days and months following some of the most aggressive and assertive acts of discrimination in the 20th century. He acted in a manner that displayed the courage of his convictions and demonstrated boldness because he believed so firmly in the rightness of his cause.

When will we have a president who shows that much courage?

There were an estimated 1,212,400 abortions in the United States in 2011.

An estimated 22% of all U.S. pregnancies end in abortion.

In 2011, North Carolina had approximately 26,192 abortions performed state-wide.

In 2010, there were approximately 3,302 abortions performed in Wake County.

According to World-O-Meters, there have been 35,635,026 abortions performed in 2013.

I want a president who uses his unique power and position to plead for the lives of the unborn in the United States. I want a president who is willing to endure the angry words and accusations that will certainly come because of his stance protecting the lives of the unborn. I want a president, a governor, a congressman/woman, a senator who uses their unique position to ardently defend the rights of children whose lives are cut short by abortion.

Kennedy said, "We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as old as the Scriptures and is as clear as the American Constitution." Kennedy was right in 1963 and his sentiment is just as poignant today.

Sources:

Transcript of Kennedy's Civil Rights Address- PBS
World-O-Meter Abortion Statistics
Abortion Statistics- Guttmacher Institute
Graham to Introduce Abortion Bill- Politico

Health Insurance or a Sugar Daddy?

Full Disclosure: I am 100% opposed to the Affordable Care Act, but that does not mean that I am opposed to major healthcare reform.

I am writing this post fully acknowledging that our health care and health insurance industries are majorly flawed and that they are in need of drastic reform.  It's tragic that quality healthcare and health insurance is by and large a luxury of the middle and upper classes and that healthcare has become so unaffordable that uninsured, working class families can't even afford to take their children to routine doctor's visits or have a broken arm treated without risking their financial stability and livelihood. It's a grave problem and the problem needs a solution.

However, I think that the solution that has been proposed is not just problematic, but wholly wrong-headed and will prove to be detrimental to our entire healthcare system in the United States. I believe that it is completely possible to point out flaws and offer critiques of a system while also sympathizing, and empathizing, with those whose lives are complicated and sometimes destroyed by the deficiencies of our current system.

On to the discussion:

My problems with the Affordable Care Act are legion, but I am not going to discuss most of them here. Suffice it to say that I think that there are several parts of this law which are setting dangerous precedents for the future. One of the more troubling precedents is the way the U.S. government has placed regulations on private industry in such a way that undermines the entire business structure of that industry.

Let me explain:

The health insurance industry is an industry whose business model works because of risk. In this business relationship between the customer and the insurance company, one side is an optimist and the other is a pessimist.

I buy health insurance when I am healthy and I am betting that one day I am going to be sick. If catastrophe or sudden illness befalls me or my family, I want to know that I will have help when it matters. The insurance company is also betting on my health, but they are assuming that I will live a long, relatively healthy life.

Why does the insurance company pay for my unexpected surgery, because they entered into an agreement with me betting that I would never get sick. 

This is the way the industry works. Both sides are risking something: I may pay premiums for years and never need the insurance coverage that I have paid for, but I may also become deathly ill immediately after I sign up for coverage and the insurance company may have to pay out far more than I'll ever pay into the system with my premiums. Risk. It's what makes the insurance world go round.

Enter the Affordable Care Act:

One of the most touted aspects of the ACA is the requirement that insurance companies accept patients with pre-existing conditions. As we just saw, this new requirement undermines the structure upon which the insurance industry is built. There is no risk at all involved in the arrangement if a patient can sign up for health insurance after they've been diagnosed with a serious illness. You're not asking for insurance at that point, you're asking for a sugar daddy to pay your bills. The only reason insurance works is because insurers bet that you won't get in a car crash, that you won't die prematurely, that you won't be diagnosed with a serious illness, and for most of us, those events don't happen. However, we happily (I'm being generous) keep paying premiums and those premiums are paying for those insured who have had the diagnosis we all fear.

There is no risk involved from the customer's vantage point if they can apply for auto insurance and pay a premium only after they have rear-ended a garbage truck. They have not paid into the system. They never accepted any risk. Instead, they are expecting the insurance company to pay out for a new car. Again, that's not insurance, that's a sugar daddy.

This problem is further compounded by the regulation that forbids insurance companies to charge patients with pre-existing conditions higher premiums than they do for individuals who are and have been healthy. Insurance companies are businesses that are out to make a profit. In order for them to take on this new financial burden, insurance premiums must go up, and they must go up substantially.

Final Thoughts:

First, this requirement in no way solves the fundamental problem of health care and health insurance: that it is too expensive for average and low income families to afford. Instead, the requirement that insurance companies accept previously uninsured individuals with pre-existing conditions while not charging them higher premiums, will only drive up the cost of insurance for all.

Secondly, I believe that we have set a dangerous precedent. We have allowed the government to pass a law that fundamentally undermines the business structure of a private industry. There is no precedent for this type of action. If the government wants to argue that the health insurance industry provides a necessary service and therefore needs to fall under more stringent government regulation, that's one thing. Public utilities are subject to heavy government regulation that limits the rate of profit those companies can earn in order to control costs, but that is not what has happened here. Instead, the government has regulated the health insurance industry in such a way that it undermines its basic ability to derive a profit and provide a product at a reasonable rate.

Finally, our previous healthcare system failed many people. It failed people who were sick and laid off from their jobs, thereby losing their employer provided health insurance. It failed people who were low-income who couldn't afford to take their child to the doctor, much less afford a $500/month insurance premium. I am not functioning under the illusion that all uninsured people with pre-existing conditions chose to be uninsured. However, I am suggesting that there must be a way to provide for these individuals without potentially dismantling a private industry. I've linked to a United Liberty article below. I don't believe that it has all of the answers, but I do believe that it is an important start.

Sources and Further Reading:

Millennials are Opting Out of Obamacare Because Its Not Insurance- Forbes
Does Obamacare Reduce Costs for People With Pre-Existing Conditions?- Voices of San Diego
Replacing Obamacare: Republican Answers to Pre-Existing Conditions- United Liberty
Fixing Pre-Existing Conditions Without Obamacare- Ohio Liberty Coalition

Charles Taylor, The ICC, and Why Syria Still Matters

From 1997-2002, Sierra Leone was engaged in a brutal civil war. 50,000 people died during the 11-year conflict, but that statistic is not why Sierra Leone is remembered. 

On March 23, 1991, The Revolutionary United Front (RUF), supported by Liberian President Charles Taylor, attempted to overthrow Sierra Leone's established government. Throughout the ensuing conflict, there were widespread reports that the RUF recruited child soldiers, drugged their soldiers, and encouraged their soldiers to embark on a campaign designed to terrorize the citizens of Sierra Leone. This campaign of terror included rape, mutilation (known as "short sleeves" for amputations above the elbow or "long sleeves" for amputations above the wrist), and beheading. On April 26, 2012, Charles Taylor was found guilty of 11 counts of war crimes and aiding and abetting acts of terror. He was sentenced to 50 years in prison.

Last Thursday, (September 26) Charles Taylor lost his final appeal at the International Criminal Court

Charles Taylor

(ICC). Mr. Taylor's attorneys argued that a 50 year sentence for "aiding and abetting" was extreme. They argued that legal precedent differentiates between the person(s) who actually committed the crime and the individuals who lent support to the perpetrators. His attorneys argue that Mr. Taylor was not personally responsible for the atrocities committed in Sierra Leone. Instead, he aided in the crimes inadvertently. Mr. Taylor provided supplies to the RUF that included vehicles and other supplies that are generally used in an non-offensive and non-criminal way. His attorneys suggest that he should not be held accountable for how the RUF chose to utilize his support.

The ICC disagreed and their ruling has important implications for the United States' role abroad. Instead of supporting Mr. Taylor's claims that "aiding and abetting" is an inferior crime, the ICC broadened the definition that term.

According to the Associated Press it is no longer required, "that to prove a leader has aided and abetted a crime, the assistance has to be specifically directed at committing a crime." Instead, if the aid provided was used for criminal purposes and if the lending country/individual understood that the aid was at risk for abuse, that leader can be tried and convicted for war crimes.

The Implications for Syria

Obviously this had broad implications for any country involving itself in the affairs and intrigues of other nations and it quite clearly has profound implications for the United States.

There is no "rebel faction" fighting in Syria. There are multiple rebel factions, some of whom are allied with Al Qaida. Americans may no longer be facing the immediate threat of our bombing the Syrians, but we are facing the reality that our government has now begun to arm certain rebel groups fighting against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. 

Will our resources be used appropriately? Have our national leaders considered the possibility that our well-intentioned aid could fall into the hands of rebels who desire to inflict terror upon the citizens of Syria? These are important questions, especially in light of Iran-Contra and the Fast and Furious scandal. Both the international community and the United States people are wary of U.S. involvement in foreign disputes and while the ICC does not have jurisdiction over the actions of U.S. leaders, a condemnation by an institution with the kind of prestige that the ICC carries, would do irreparable damage to our credibility abroad. Not to mention that, whether intentionally or inadvertently, if we arm soldiers who use our supplies for evil, there is a strong possibility that we are morally culpable for the crimes they perpetrate.

Sources:

U.S. Weapons Reaching Syrian Rebels
Liberia's Charles Taylor Loses Appeal Against War Crimes Conviction
Court Upholds 50 Years for Liberia's Taylor
Link to BBC World News Radio Report- 1st Story