Posted on 01/20/2017 4:23:32 AM PST by markomalley
On Friday, January 20 at 12 oclock noon, Donald J. Trump will become the 45th president of the United States. Rarely in modern times has a presidential succession generated such polarized division, though I can imagine that the advent of Thomas Jefferson in 1801, Andrew Jackson in 1829, and especially Abraham Lincoln in 1861 might rival the national atmosphere today. The situations are, of course, so comparable. Thomas Jefferson led the first peaceful handover of power in the new Republic to the opposition party. Abraham Lincoln faced a Republic on the threshold of Civil War. Perhaps the closest approximation to todays situation was Andrew Jacksons election: he, too, represented the basket of deplorables of his day and was probably as outspoken as the new president. I really dont wonder what Old Hickory might have done, however, if opponents told him he was illegitimate because he wouldnt let boys use the girls room. (I guess back then they had single, transgender outhouses.)
What most interests me, however, in the dissenters who keep filling the news everyday with their announcements they will boycott the inaugural festivities.
On January 13, the Washington Post was wracked by the question which undoubtedly caused most Americans to spend the long weekend in vigorous debate: Will designers choose to dress the new first lady? President-elect Donald Trump ran a campaign that framed immigrants, minorities, women, and Muslims as other, inspiring new waves of racism and violence. Whether to associate with [the president-elect] has become a moral question. [C]atering to his wife quickly became an ethical dilemma for designers. Would doing so signal tacit approval of her husbands scorched-earth tactics?
See, milliners who collect five figure fees for cutting some cloth are allowed to have pangs of conscience over whether, by dressing a mans wife, one is complicit in the politics of her husband. Nuns who have to pay for abortion-inducing drugs used by employees should just suck it up. Tom Ford can have qualms of conscience; Franciscans cant.
(Modeling agencies can apparently also get away with not forwarding a kids pictures because he has Downs Syndrome, a story you probably didnt hear. Can you imagine if this was some transgender kid turned down by an ad agency?)
Or consider the celebrities who have said they will not sing at the Inaugural. They claim their boycott ensures that we not normalize President Trump.
See, you can refuse to sing for Donald and Melania, and thats brave and courageous, a veritable act of patriotism. But if you refuse to sing for Adam and Steve, you are a bigot and a homophobe, who should at least be boycotted if not dragged before some administrative kangaroo court of a human rights commission that will impose fines aimed at driving you into compliance or out of business.
You can refuse to bake a cake for the inaugural ball and be lionized; you can refuse to bake a cake for pseudo-nuptials and be lambasted from sea to shining sea.
The lesson should be evident: theres one set of rules for the bags of deplorables who are clinging to religion, another for the beautiful people who, well, make their own rules.
I dont see any Justice Department or Human Rights Commission sending Sophia Theallet letters that she cannot refuse to provide services to the new first lady.
Lets be clear: I have no objection to Sophia Theallet or Tom Ford, Celine Dion or KISS or Andrea Bocelli or any of the other artists, singers, designers, or others who either have or been rumored to have refused their talents to the Trump inauguration. Its their professional talent and they should decide whether they will use or not in support of a particular event.
But why can a Celine Dion refuse but a Jack Philipps cant? Jack Philipps is the Colorado baker who doesnt want to make wedding cakes for homosexual marriages. Let them eat cake, as long as its not to the accompaniment of My Heart Will Go On.
Singing at a wedding seems to have the same relationship to an event as baking a cake. The anti-conscience side contends its mere provision of a service that does not signify any approval of the event. Well, if thats the case, we ought to see a gaggle of private jets taking off from New York and Hollywood with flight plans for Reagan National to get crooners, cloth-cutters, and cake bakers to the inaugural.
But if, as these dissidents now seem to have discovered, their presence signifies approval, then why does the same principle not apply in the case of the butcher, the baker, and the picture-taker at same-sex weddings?
Taking part in the inaugural, after all, is arguably participation for America, not necessarily for Donald Trump. January 20, 2017 is the 58th time a human being received the highest executive power in the United States, peacefully and legally. Managing to do that for 217 consecutive years is something of an achievement in world history. A nation has a right to celebrate that.
Participation in a same-sex marriage, however, inherently means approving the notion that marriage has nothing to do with sexual differentiation, a notion alien to most of human history and still rejected by a significant part of the world (including fellow Americans) today.
Why cant stars invoke the Springsteen Principle? Asked about performing in East Germany in 1988 before the Wall came down, the Boss was quoted as saying he was there for rock-and-roll, not the German Democratic Republic. Cant he be there for America, not the Donald?
I could, of course, list all sorts of other double standards. Why must pro-life demonstrators be shunted off from the entrance of an abortuary, in order not to disturb women, but Americas celebration of democratic transition has to showcase plenty of in-your-face protestors? The point is simple: there are two sets of rules. Whats good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander.
There are those who have said that the Trump inaugural committee has had problems with lining up an A-list of celebrities to perform and so has resorted to a make America great again list of whomever it can get. Thats not necessarily bad: there is precedent, when the beautiful people didnt want to show up at the kings banquet, for inviting the hoi-polloi from the crossroads, highways, and byways. I even have some suggestions: how about Jack Phillips for cake, Baronnelle Stutzmann on flowers, Elaine Huguenin for photography and, if the chief justice is unavailable, Kim Davis to administer the oath?
In fairness, Bocelli (a personal friend of Trump) initially accepted and then backed out, BECAUSE HE WAS GETTING DEATH THREATS FROM DERANGED LIBERALS.
If libtards didn’t have double standards they would have no standards at all! If they weren’t hypocrites they wouldn’t be libtards.
Bravo!
Protest is patriotic again, dontcha know.
Bravo!
They were manipulated by assumed peer pressure and a ton of fear ginned up by media, then ratcheted up through a panicked game of telephone, where the horrors of a Trump presidency were magnified to the point of darkest fantasy. The wealthiest hired street pawns to rain hell on the cities, especially, of course, DC & NYC. They were tasked with escalating fear and instituting a reign of terror.
The instigators erroneously thought this would create enough chaos that people would beg for mercy and then the PTB could swoop in and soothe the situation with a re-institution of top-down tyranny for which we would thank them, being our saviors and all.
I hope everyone sees that standing your ground, refusing intimidation, immediately correcting the libels, slanders, shrieks and lies actually works. Meeting temper tantrums with strength (Bikers for Trump), threats with measured action (some MSM employees will lose their access in favor of motivated citizen journalists and investigators who actually have talent beyond a cute turn of phrase designed to elicit a head-pat from their owners), and delusion (”I’ll be forced to birth my rapist’s baby!”)with reality (”No, you’ll just have to actually bring charges or accept consequences of your own actions and pay for it yourself.”)WORKS.
It is far from over, but not acceding to outright bullies is the best future course. They can continue to behave like demented, demonic tools and we can continue to not be moved.
Maybe some of them will grow out of it in another 8 years. I guarantee life will go on without them, even if they don’t. To use their own vernacular:
“Freedom, bitches!”
There are those who have said that the Trump inaugural committee has had problems with lining up an A-list of celebrities to perform and so has resorted to a make America great again list of whomever it can get. Thats not necessarily bad: there is precedent, when the beautiful people didnt want to show up at the kings banquet, for inviting the hoi-polloi from the crossroads, highways, and byways. I even have some suggestions: how about Jack Phillips for cake, Baronnelle Stutzmann on flowers, Elaine Huguenin for photography and, if the chief justice is unavailable, Kim Davis to administer the oath?
Can you imagine the meltdown--especially if down with overt explanation, letting the left completely meltdown? Kim Davis administering the oath . . . just wow. This would require the George Carstanza Eating Popcorn gif . . .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.