Yeah... that's Sally Kohn's defense for public accommodation laws.
One gets the impression that @sallykohn hasn’t thought about government a great deal. http://t.co/xKwzTuazXK pic.twitter.com/0wbmEFm5Ok
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) April 6, 2015
*sighs* Look, when you say "there oughta be a law" well... that means you want armed men to take people away who flaunt said law. If that makes you uncomfortable then maybe the law your advocating for isn't a wise idea?
And to use Sally Kohn's example... is she aware of what would happen if someone refused to buckle up in the officer's presence? And then tried to drive away? Or even got out of the car and walked off? The cop won't just shrug and let you rabbit off.
Or maybe you act all peaceful, take the ticket, smile and buckle up. And then you don't pay it. And then you ignore the summons to court. What does Sally Kohn think happens next?
And that rational is a really, really bad way to defend a law because....
By @sallykohn’s rationale, anti-sodomy laws are fine because you don’t have to have sex, and laws criminalizing homosexuality are fine too.
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) April 6, 2015
Look, you want to defend public accommodation laws, or maybe argue for expanding them because, while they've got flaws, they're's some loopholes that make them worse. Go ahead. You can make a good argument for that. One can even make arguments against conscious exceptions.
But really don't argue that laws aren't important because they're not really enforced.
Via Ace, who links to another bit of dumb. (See its' the Right Wing's fault that Rolling Stone got rolled and went all in on a story that turned out to be false.)
No comments:
Post a Comment