Money raised for bigots

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-02/more-than-260-000-raised-for-indiana-pizza-place-that-would-not-cater-gay-weddings

Although one has to give a hand to the camaraderie shown by bigots alike.  If it weren't a George Zimmerman raising well over a hundred thousand dollars, and likely at this potentially commanding more income draw than a former president for poor art, it seems being part of the persecuted mainstream likely wins accolade!

    Cruel neo liberalism, on the other hand, seems to shed itself of any hint of liability all the time.  At least being so much a defender of democratic principles seems more to the calling of potentially one's sacrificed calling to crucifixion.  Twitter poster, for example, offers the "Life of Brian".

    At least to sense where popular priorities on the matter of art or business exist here.

Don't Blame Christianity where is there a Church whose pulpit isn't government controlled?

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/4/dont-blame-christianity-for-your-homophobia.html

 Sadly if you live in Egypt you know what I am talking about because it is overt and more clearly given.  Keeping in mind, that over there to control extremism, and over here, to apparently enhance it!
   Although I would point out the general origins of sexual orientation discrimination has often, for instance, been attributed to select biblical passages at least in so far as 'religious' thinking.  On the other hand, this having been argued interpreted as different relative the likely interpretation and meaning that might have been implied then.  For instance, Sodomite may have actually referred little to people that engaged in specific sexual intercourse practices or having relation to sexual orientation practices, but instead were referring to a crooked and corrupt peoples engaged in any number of spiritual offenses, and likely much the same for ethical considerations. As to offense, I am referring here in the context of liars, murderers, thieves, and a litany of anything else applicable.  Using the term Sodomite, might have provoked some highly political screwed up church in Topeka to protest at the families of deceased soldiers, not because the adherents believed that a war were bad, or on the issue of overall moral strains running in this country, but instead because the soldiers were defending gays, or one should wonder, as American political strains of Christianity not only take on the guise of something not Christian, televangelism then having shored up the selection of religious faith itself.  If it weren't ordinary commonplace sins, anything of relating to the Ten Commandments, and then likely the messaging regarding extraordinary sin such as homosexuality.  Here extraordinary sins, rank seemingly at the highest of biblical offenses, although its quite difficult for one to understand exactly why?  :D   If the sins amounted to declines in supposedly fertility, it shouldn't be as much a problem that gays contribute to the added stresses and strains of a world population in general, or in this case, such sin seems to relate as much to any belief that might be given from criminally minded lunatics that others would define as a cult.  Irrational in many respects, but minding that in such a world, slavery were justified for all sorts of irrational beliefs.  More so it seems if something of religious law were conceived it were done much like the natural force and work of biological imperatives.  If given a population the inclination to self associate and discriminate should somehow be at times a warping and strong characteristic, but then in terms of human societies, such imperative becomes entirely archaic to the notion of existence or given by necessity.   Varied biological traits, for instance, make little difference in human populations, if it weren't directly effecting to sexual reproduction, and likely none of the survival stresses and strains would place so much demand on physical traits homogeneity, or in other words, the distinction of peoples being white, black, brown, yellow, purple, and so forth arose precisely when humans had evolved to be smart enough to manage their affairs intelligent enough so much that these weren't given to the strict dictum of nature, but ironically now less than useful psychological selectivity traits would be left behind only adding to the inclination of human populations in creating 'religious' notions reinforcing psychological trait characteristics because the inclinations of selectivity hadn't exactly passed even if physical traits were changing.
     Yes even proponents of slavery argued that inherent inferiority of a given race of people, and adding to this superiority of another race along similar lines, even if this were based upon much given ignorance.  While adding to this a religious component, which made slavery morally justifiable in such minds.  If there were anything of religion to be blamed, one should offer this weren't exactly religion, as an argument against religion for this sake, but an argument against a facet of humanity engaged as it were in the tradition of warping and distorting belief systems to conform to prevailing cultural notions, or especially where involving worldly power, the power of say residing in leaders, and ruling elites in saying what is or isn't.  Of course, it seems more unsettling to promote any religious notion which is unsettling to the operations of government here, and thus, more convenient to pick up on religious moral grounds that speak of convenience.  A popular religious strain, thus, promoting in such an American day, could sound after all like any other extremism found in the middle east, and ironically given so much time and public media access in saying otherwise.  On the other hand, when Christianity is given so much by the tele evangelism translated into big brother reality show that happenstance in previous time eras might have been a few shades off from Deliverance, one understandably questions what is the 'brand' of belief given by Americans.  Are they really so much believers like I, or is trying to understand such about as likely as trying to understand any other mess in the world.  By the way to the Phil Robertson's in the world, a belief that there is nothing wrong with homosexual peoples, could as well be logically equivalent to 'not having Jesus', to being an anything goes sort of psycho killer and so forth.  These right wing pseudo religious governmental nut jobs though have been saying this for decades about me (as far as I know I might have been the anti christ at birth to these folks), and apparently can't even bother to user their own court systems rightly.  Certainly they tried coding a long time ago, Bob Bibb and all but that were supposedly history?!   Of course, if it weren't for some evidently taking advantage a decade ago, sanitary so called 'religious' culture, a number of boys would be framed/scapegoated for crimes they hadn't committed, one placed on death row until exoneration some decades later having taken place.    It would appear the state of Arkansas never really issued a formal apology as of my last reading.  All the more in some perverted notion of religion for the sake of mankind, 'finding Jesus' should be a matter between life and death for worldly existence.  Hell bound hardliners find themselves obsessed it seems. 

Recent focus on hypocrisy for corporations doing business with those engaged in restricting the rights of gays

   Recent commentary, it would appear by so called 'freedom restricting' advocates actually reminded as of an age old problem and likely easy source for hypocrisy accusation, namely pointing out the often times muddled ethical stance given by businesses in their typified dealings.  As Tim Cook recently spoke out against the passage of laws in Indiana, 'discrimination rights' defenders on the right spoke out against Apples transnational practices in dealing with big human rights offenders on this very issue.  Of course, I recall the quandary given by IKEA in an given radio article piece on NPR so many months ago, in discussing the at times tension given matter having an open shop in Russia as the status of gay rights were in decline while IKEA were so much openly promoting to tolerance in their own work place.  Of course, in doing business, it always raises the question when is enough enough in doing business, or as likened to strategic change in foreign policy when does suffering others economically by not doing business actually work counter intuitively to the process of promoting social change.  On the other hand, the stick punishing approach to business says if you want opportunity then maybe considerations of change with respect to social policy promotes advocacy, while on the other hand, neither fully removing carrots seem promotes relation and exchange, and something certainly defining a natural inter dependencies exchange.  On the other hand, I don't know that, despite potential hypocrisy, that I fault Tim Cook as much either in speaking out as an advocate here against Indiana laws.  After all, Indiana is more so on Tim Cooks doorstep as is Indiana for us all whom call ourselves Americans, and at times feel passionate in speaking our piece or given to what ever activism that we compels us, and it seems while progress is made in advancing and asserting an ever changing awareness with respect to the nature of law and ethics in defining what must have seemed un imaginable decades prior defines a new world believed more strongly to the notions that each and everyone should have a fair opportunity at life, and be given fair opportunities in life to participate in a given marketplace.   Its hard to see that a 'freedom' again is so if it is restricting the rights of others...after all those 'killing' in the name of God might in some warped manner define their 'right' as 'freedom'.

    I can't prognosticate what the laws in Indiana might do in so far as its own business and economy in general, but likely I imagine relative to all other states in this country neither having defined such laws, and neither as of recent history having enacted or defining such laws, would likely any feel exactly comforted by the situation of 'freedom restricting' measures existing, or in other words, business in some ways I imagine may continue in the state of Indiana in so ways and decline I imagine in other ways.  I, for one, do feel less personally comfortable by the formalized existence of legal discrimination, one because it is more clearly defined and given legal shelter in so far as social practices are concerned, even if naturally legally unchallenged cases had emerged prior in any number of instances.  On the other hand, Indiana, like Kansas and any number of states, particularly in the South, appear to be a case of any number of states that one should imagine are less desirable by those only from the other states where social tolerances for people are greater not less so.  At least overtly when laws are in place and slated towards the application of discrimination, its hard to see this as a good sign.   Whether this were a growing generational cultural trend, or whether the state of Indiana signals something of a potential growing rift in the GOP in the future I imagine remains to be seen.  Although likely one should imagine this country isn't the same country relative to decades prior, at least revivalism to discrimination movements, anti immigration, and anything else that has managed to wind up in GOP present populism trend may actually end hurting the party in the long run, if not with potentially some generation of younger voter but also those having felt even more so alienated by its hijacking for the hoodwink culture wars.  Sure Indiana is not alone by itself but maybe only another step likely towards a newly defined civil rights stand off in the future. 

Knee jerk politicking and bad laws

Today's politically constructed social "religious" laws are likely the forgotten and abandoned of tomorrow.

Such laws not even, one should imagine, having the tenure of the discriminating/hate laws passed in a previous century, but given by every opportunity to take something in exchange by way of passage, any of these laws appear to be mostly reserved for the ignorance of one but not often more than one party.  

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_evolution_hearings

On February 13, 2007, the Board voted 6 to 4 to reject the amended science standards enacted in 2005. The definition of science was once again returned to "the search for natural explanations for what is observed in the universe."^[79]

Important since the legacy of a board's passage lasted approximately 2 years before being rescinded.  Much of this coming from the concerted efforts of groups or organizations, perhaps, neither indigenous to the state of Kansas that managed to lobby an effort but apparently were neither able to sustain what arguably were nothing more than a once risen populist movement that went as quickly as it entered onto a given stage.  

Outside of anti gay laws, anti immigration, and gun laws are pretty much at the current fore front of the GOP's radar it would seem at times.  Any number of knee jerk anti immigration laws passed in the south, appear in any number of cases terminal for any number of reasons, but must arguably because they are poorly written and not sustainable and entirely for political expediency.  Amazing that people as quickly forget the hood wink of 'three strikes and you are out'...what happened to all the backing politicians on that one?

But love and faith one should hope are not exclusive, exclusionary, and only self permitting?

Blindly given that one group of peoples practicing sodomy, happenstance, actually choose a target that never actually practiced in one's life time the act of sodomy but is so much the excuse of bigoted laws!

It seems that one lives in a strange world composed of people that turn blind eyes to their golden children but never miss the opportunity in creating the devil in what must seem the devil to them!

In history this goes something to tune stamp out the sins of the upper classes in the lower ones!

http://www.theguardian.com/education/commentisfree/2015/mar/23/philosophy-white-men-university-courses#comment-49450919

I wish this article provided more with respect to what in many peoples minds should be an offering given to ease.

In a layman's surface approach to this topic, it seems the evolution of philosophy could be rife at times with a given self reaction and speculation with respect to civilizations past.  The center of philosophical thoughts point to the inherent biases and predispositions of those civilizations, perhaps, in some way, if it is such that thoughts are not oriented at times in some highly abstracted manner.  I feel at unease, for instance, speaking of the process by which thoughts are abstracted in the characteristic way that this follows some bias of gender or race, as though the circle had the orientation of a male, if it were hard in seeing something clearly phallic by design, for example, and having played a central role in the formation of some philosophical thinking.  While in modern science, studies have been offered indicating predisposition of cultural/gender biases in so far as the gravity of gender in playing a role shaping predominant occupations found later in life, if it is not only by way of cultural reinforcements, problematic to this picture, it seems one might ask if not something even more inherent or intrinsic by nature which is genetics.  Not all, for instance, have desire to think in certain ways, although I eschew outright the notion in proclaiming exactly what is responsible and who are intrinsically given to certain occupation.  Hopefully more so in this age and any future age, only whatever biases against a woman, for instance, or an individual of any race are only less so.  Personally I see great wealth in tapping the synergy of a broader population of peoples, irrespective of race and gender.

    In relating this problem, it seems also asking if a notion of self similarity and social conformity defines pre occupation in thoughts, in mind.  For instance, considering the mindset and culture given to likelihoods of pondering over a course of abstractions that seem less outright meaningful in a given everyday context to some in another world, gives rise to the self evidence role of environment shaping mindset.  If to examine race and gender on the basis of philosophy alone, I think potentially misses the nature and role of any given contribution.  Nonetheless, it is also another complex matter on the valuations appropriated by any group or body of individuals deciding what contributions need be passed to any future generation in a given civilization(s), and yes predominantly given by a body largely, one might suppose, composed of white men.

    Despite incentives that may be given in preference to providing advantage, for instance, women in a given workplace, it seems over coming gender gaps are still problematic in certain occupational spheres. More so I wonder if confronted the rigors of social reinforcement are not founded at some earlier age here, in so far as gender and racial biases.  Then it seems if one wanted to raise more women to be scientists, philosophers, mathematicians, for instance, I wonder if our culture needs to start at earlier ages.  I wonder if focus on later academics are a bit misguided?   In other words, I think that better outreach should be occurring all along.  Although I wonder as to the nature of how philosophy is defined in accepting any given philosophical works, it seems another ambiguity is left in the article here, namely, in referencing the lack of contribution, whether definitions are less restricted in defining what is of importance to a given branch.   "Modern Philosophy" for instance with a Google News search has yielded articles focused on Emeril Lagasse from my vantage.  Of course, while it seems the subject matter of Lagasse is more on cooking, or if having fallen into an epicurean subset of philosophy, or at least more pointedly those seeking pleasure pursuits in defining meaningful existence.  It seems parsing what is important, and not having been merely reformulated as restating another philosophy serving some role in passing to future generations a teaching on the matter of philosophy.  No objections to Lagasse here either.  

An affront to the notion of freedom

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/03/25/us/ap-us-xgr-religious-objections.html

I say this only because in the past, this same political social movement wouldn't characteristically hide behind the language of a belief system, for instance, deciding that discrimination against some one of different sexual orientation because they had 'chosen' a given existence, but happenstance, in the age old racist/discriminatory view, such differences were so intrinsic as to define someone as being subhuman or not fully human.  Of course, in the modern legal view of things, these views are easily challenged, put down, thrown out of courts, at least for a given modern view having embraced all manner of sciences, philosophy, and legal reasoning alone, it would seem guidance to better thought were not so much to greater ignorance.

It could be well reasoned that the phenomenological nature of sexuality is neither given in so clear cut binary ways as has been argued by many in the sciences, and what should be clear cut intrinsic human behavior defined by environment versus genetics is not a given, or at least in airing to the side of legal conservation, one at least argues the point that in such an age, of course, it is possible, that one's genetics may strongly play a role in describing, yes, sexual desires.  It is, of course, the same role of genetics, that describe why some children despite best parents to break carbohydrate fixations, manage to find their children gravitating yet to such carbohydrates, or at least why, irrespective of parent's having certain predominant characteristics, find an odd duck of an offspring in the mix.  Of course, conveniently in all other spheres of life, it seems more quickly one might find others embracing the notion, that yes, maybe I shouldn't be punished for the sin of consuming too many carbohydrates, or at least potentially I were born with more strongly predominant genetic characteristics that had one gravitating to certain preferences in life relative to others, and when so predominant, moving against the grain were essentially moving against the grain of one's biology.  Obviously, and then there is much unstated about what preferences in life one shouldn't versus should have, and so much more potentially the freedom providing one's respect for the freedom of others, and such freedom in essence is given by the right to self existence.

Certainly if it is that the matter of behaviors of another inhibit or violate the freedoms of others, it seems legal tolerance should wane.  Thus potentially violent genetic predispositions may neither be considered beyond the scope of legal tolerance in so far as personal actions.  On the other hand, that a free democracy would tolerate the control and stricture on every day choice and preference of its own citizens, when such choices are neither given to impacting direct harm or clearly violating the rights of others is an anathema to free and democratic societies.

I hope in time our courts nationwide will only further bolster and affirm conservatively the rights of people irrespective of sexuality, its an affront stating that discriminating and restricting the rights of others should be a protected 'freedom'.