Okay, for my first Blog, I’d like someone to define the word “inclusive” (and its’ many derivatives). Why, I hear you asking? Well, in the last year there have been many news items about one group or organization excluding another group or organization in the name of “inclusion”.
The logic seems to be: “Your group doesn’t believe as ours does, therefore we’re severing ties with your group because we want to be welcoming and value inclusion” (I believe the last eight words are mandatory in any of these announcements).
Currently it’s groups that support gay rights and all its manifestations and the other is opposed to gay marriage (not even gay rights, per se, just gay marriage). But that’s right now; it could soon morph into people who eat meat, or don’t weed their gardens, or … anything. Once that ball gets rolling it’s almost impossible to stop.
So, the gay rights – inclusive – crowd announces their exclusion of people, businesses, and/or organizations in the name of “inclusion” (if that is not the very definition of irony I’d like to hear a better one).
Our latest examples are airport administrators denying Chick-fil-A franchises within airport terminals. These bans are at the San Antonio and Buffalo airports (https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/chick-fil-banned-second-airport-two-weeks-n991016).
What these airport administrators are saying is that we, the people, can’t make our own choices, so they’ll choose for us – and moralize for us. Or, probably more accurately, they realize that most people could care less and will do business with whom they see fit – even if the business doesn’t comport with the “correct” views on things.
In a truly free society we’d be able to vote with our dollars. Don’t like what a business stands for? DON’T GO THERE! Bakery doesn’t support gay marriage – go elsewhere. It’s not my business to tell a business owner what to believe in, support, or oppose. It is my business to shop or not shop there if I don’t want to support them.
Gay marriage, regardless of what airport administrators think, is not an issue for government to solve – or even get involved with, really. It’s not within the purview of government to tell consenting adults what they can or cannot do with their lives. If two men – or six men, for that matter – want to marry each other, the government should grant licenses and figure out the tax ramifications, then leave them alone.
Individuals can either support or oppose those men’s choices. People can even stand on a street corner and hail them or decry them. And each side should respect the other sides opinion. What you believe in is irrelevant to me, but I will defend your right to believe as you do – and you should defend my right to believe as I do.
Reasoned debate is the answer; not political correctness or making certain viewpoints illegal.
It’s choice, people. You may not like my choices or viewpoints on things, but unless I’m somehow affecting your life, it’s none of your business.
You get on with your life, I’ll get on with mine. If I agree with you, great. If I don’t, guess what: that’s great too! And that, my friends, is inclusion.
Please give an example of what you’ve been hearing