Islam Does Not Respect Or Tolerate Gays. Why Don't Gays Realize This?

Islam Has Successfully Convinced The World That It Is Like Any Other Religion. It Isn't

Hypocrisy Liberal Style

Liberals’ Double Standard 

on Bathrooms, Boycotts, 

and Religious Freedom

Ryan T. Anderson / @ryantand / April 11, 2016 / 338 comments

• 30.k

Bruce Springsteen and Bryan Adams get to follow their conscience, but the baker and florist don’t? (Photo: Mario Anzuoni/REUTERS/Newscom)

COMMENTARY BY

Ryan T. Anderson@ryantand

Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D., researches and writes about marriage and religious liberty as the William E. Simon senior research fellow in American Principles and Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation. He also focuses on justice and moral principles in economic thought, health care and education, and has expertise in bioethics and natural law theory. He's the author of the just-released book, Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Liberty." Read his research.

If it wasn’t for double standards, some 

liberals would have none at all. That 

seems to be the lesson from the past

few weeks, where liberals have

 displayed three distinct forms of hypocrisy.

Liberal governors and mayors signed 

travel bans to North Carolina and 

Mississippi, CEOs of major corporations

 pledged boycotts and relocations, 

and Bruce Springsteen and Bryan 

Adams have canceled scheduled

 concerts in those states.

>>> For More on This, See Ryan 

T. Anderson’s New Book, “Truth 

Overruled: The Future of Marriage 

and Religious Freedom.” 

At issue are a Mississippi law that 

narrowly and carefully protects the 

rights of religious charities, small

 businesses, and select public servants 

and a North Carolina law that reasonably

 protects privacy and safety in public 

restrooms, while leaving private

 institutions free to set their own 

bathroom policies. These laws, 

apparently, are now unacceptable 

to some voices on the left.

The Daily Signal is the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation.  We’ll respect your inbox and keep you informed.

But are they 

really? The hypocrisy in their opposition

 suggests otherwise.

1. Big Money and Big Business 
2. in Politics Are Bad, Unless 
3. They Support the Left?

Liberals decry the influence of big business

 and big money in politics. They denounce,

 as a direct threat to democracy, the ability

 of corporations to engage in issue 

advocacy. They argue that politicians 

must answer to the people, not the 

highest corporate bidder.

Or at least that’s what they used to say. 

Liberals are now cheering Apple, PayPal,

 Salesforce, and countless other giant 

corporations threatening legislators and

 governors with boycotts if they pass 

popular laws that the left disapproves of.

These corporate elites didn’t win an

 argument about good public policy. 

Instead, they threatened to boycott 

and transfer jobs out of states if the

 politicians didn’t do as they insisted.

This economic coercion is a form of 

cronyism—cultural cronyism. Big 

businesses use their outsized market 

share to pressure government to do their

 bidding at the expense of the will of the 

people and the common good. And,

 hypocritically, the left cheers it on.

2. Bruce Springsteen and Bryan 
3. Adams Get to Follow Their 
4. Consciences, but the Baker 
5. and Florist Don’t?

Many of us think that what these

 corporate giants are doing is bad for

 representative democracy and

 self-government. But they have a

 right to do it. And yet, they want to 

deny the rights of bakers, florists, 

photographers, adoption agencies,

 and marriage counselors who only 

want the same liberty to follow their

 conscience.

Big business is using its market freedom 

to deny small businesses and charities

their religious freedom. The hypocrisy 

is astounding.

Take the cases of Bruce Springsteen 

and Bryan Adams. They said their 

consciences require them to deny

 their artistic gifts and talents to citizens

 of states that have enacted policy they

 disagreed with. And, of course, they 

have that right.

Adams wrote: “I cannot in good 

conscience perform in a state where 

certain people are being denied their

 civil rights.”

He’s wrong about the laws—they 

don’t deny anyone civil rights. Instead, 

they protect civil rights. They protect

 religious freedom, which, as the liberal

 American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) 

once acknowledged, is a civil liberty.

So Springsteen and Adams are 

exercising their freedom of conscience

 by boycotting states that sought to

 protect the consciences of adoption

 agencies, religious schools, bakers,

 and florists. Do they not see the hypocrisy?

3. North Carolina and Mississippi 
4. Are Human Rights Violators, 
5. but Singapore and Cuba Are Great?

Finally, if these boycotts are really a 

matter of principle—and not just 

grandstanding—then why do so many 

of these same companies do business 

in foreign countries with terrible records

 on human rights in general, and for

 LGBT people in particular?

The governor of North Carolina, Pat

McCrory, pointed out this hypocrisy. 

After New York Governor Andrew

 Cuomo issued a travel ban for state 

employees to North Carolina, Gov. 

McCrory asked how it was consistent 

with Gov. Cuomo’s trip to Cuba—with 

state business leaders—to promote 

trade with that country.

Is Cuba better on human rights than

 North Carolina? Or is Cuomo being

 a bit hypocritical?

Others have pointed out the hypocrisy 

of PayPal. The CEO of PayPal announced

 that the company wouldn’t expand in 

North Carolina because of “PayPal’s 

deepest values and our strong belief

 that every person has the right to be 

treated equally, and with dignity and 

respect.”

Really?

Then PayPal might want to explain why

 its international headquarters are in

 Singapore, where people engaged in 

private consensual same-sex acts 

can face two years in jail. It might also 

want to explain why it announced in 

2012 that it would open offices in the 

United Arab Emirates (UAE). While 

North Carolina placed some 

commonsense limits on public 

bathrooms, the UAE reportedly jails 

gay and transgender people.

What’s Next?

The left knows it can’t win on the merits 

in the debate about religious freedom 

and bathroom privacy. These bills enjoy 

strong public support—that’s why elected 

representatives are voting to pass them.

 And it’s why corporate elites have to 

target governors to veto them.

Missouri is likely the next state to move

 a religious freedom bill, and we can 

expect the same cast of characters to 

come out in opposition. But this time,

 the left and big business are entering 

the debate with one big disadvantage—

they’ve been beaten. Gov. Phil Bryant

 of Mississippi and Gov. Pat McCrory 

of North Carolina have stood up to the 

bullies and shattered their aura of 

invincibility.

Do The Germans Really Believe Cartoons Can Stop Muslim Attacks Against Women? PC Fools!

German Cartoon Guide Teaching Migrants to Keep Hands Off Women, Not Beat Kids and Accept Gays Gets New Attention Following Group Rape Allegations

Jan. 24, 2016 10:07am Sharona Schwartz

4.3K

SHARES

A cartoon guide produced several months ago by a German public broadcaster aiming to teach migrants about basic Western etiquette has won new attention – and derision — following reports of group sexual assaults of German women by migrant men on New Year’s Eve in Germany.

The comic-strip like guide titled “Germany and Its People” was posted in October by Bayerischer Rundfunk, the public broadcaster in Bavaria. It included illustrated panels discouraging sexual harassment of women and the beating of children as it promoted the acceptance of gay couples.

Here are three of the illustrated panels in the broadcaster’s guide to German social etiquette which was translated into English and Arabic.

The caption read: “Women are to be respected, no matter what they wear. This also applies to German men.” (Screenshot: Bayerischer Rundfunk)

“In Germany, homosexuals are allowed to show their sexual preference in public.” (Screenshot: Bayerischer Rundfunk)

“Other parents’ children or one’s own children must not be hit. This is prohibited in Germany.” (Screenshot: Bayerischer Rundfunk)

Two particularly acerbic comments shared widely on Twitter mocking the public broadcaster’s effort were featured in a New York Times piece on the reaction of foreign journalists who were described as “baffled, amused and offended” by the illustrated guide.

Karl Sharro, a satirist and blogger, used the German guide as inspiration to create an illustrated guide condemning Western military engagement in the Middle East.

On the other side of the political spectrum, conservative Canadian journalist Ezra Levant blasted Germany for promoting cartoons rather than stemming the migration of Muslim men.

Levant wrote, “So get this. Instead of stopping the flow of single, Muslim men, local authorities are printing little posters with do’s and don’t’s for Muslim migrants.”

“Here’s a theory. Maybe these Muslim men know that it’s wrong to rape infidel women. But they don’t care. Maybe they do it because in their own value system, they don’t think its wrong,” Levant wrote at The Rebel Media, adding, “Oh, hey — let’s invite 50,000 of these young men to Canada. What could go wrong?”

Talk of the cartoon instruction guide followed reports last week on an illustrated sign hung at German swimming pools instructing asylum seekers on poolside etiquette.

A poster informs about pool rules in a public swimming pool in Munich, southern Germany, on January 12, 2016. The city of Bornheim near Bonn, western Germany, has decided to ban male asylum seekers from its public pool since women have complained about harassment by migrants. (Photo: Sven Hoppe/AFP/Getty Images)

The poster included a cartoon panel showing the backside of a blond woman in a bikini. An outstretched hand behind her was marked with the “no” red circle-backslash sign.

Some 1.1 million migrants arrived in Germany last year, prompting the German government to look for ways to stem the massive population move, including threatening to cut off aid to North African countries which don’t take back those whose asylum requests are rejected.

(H/T: Global News)