The Bitchspot Report Podcast #63

Bitchspot Report Youtube

Episode 63:  Not Discriminating is Actually Discriminating, Huh?

Don’t forget to check out Cephus’ blogs, Bitchspot and Cephus’ Corner!

While you’re at it, listen to Mike’s other podcasts, The Skeptic’s Guide to Conspiracy and Irreverent Skeptics!

Show Notes:

And Now The News:

AFA: Shops who display ‘We Don’t Discriminate’ stickers are bullying Christians.

Onward Christian soldier

Shocking number of Americans don’t believe the Big Bang theory.

When churches do the right thing.

The Main Event:  Gotta Keep It Separated!

We’ve been seeing a spate of “revenge” taken, primarily by the left but the right isn’t innocent either, where a business owner or a celebrity or just a regular person is denied services or licenses or other things because something they said, something totally unrelated, pissed people off.  Is this right?

Follow us on iTunes and give us a good rating!  We appreciate it!  You can watch to this episode on YouTube! Don’t forget to catch us on Stitcher Radio and tell your friends about us!

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to The Bitchspot Report Podcast #63

  1. Randy Raymond says:

    I’m generally pretty cool with your podcast, but I would just like to point out an apparent inconsistency in your commentary on the Sterling controversy.

    The NBA is a privately owned organization. It’s a BUSINESS. It is NOT a government run service. They have (and should have) the right to decide who runs the teams in their league. Given that a fairly large portion of the NBA’s business comes from African Americans both as spectators, buyers of advertised products and players; it was almost certainly a purely dollars and cents business decision to force Sterling out of the league. He undoubtedly signed a contract with the NBA that allows for the action they have taken; otherwise he would be filing a lawsuit now instead of complying with their demands. Would you have had the same sort of problem if the McDonald corporation had forced a very prominent franchise holder to sell his restaurant after he had very publicly made derogatory comments about McDonald’s customers?

    If you guys are truly the Free Market Capitalist conservatives you claim to be, then you can hardly object to the NBA making the market driven business decision that they have made.

    • Cephus says:

      We didn’t say anything about the NBA, we said that he ought to have the right to own the business, in this case, a sports team, if he wants to. The NBA is welcome to throw him and his team out of their roster if they want. If he wants to take the Clippers out of the NBA entirely, that ought to be his right, as owner of that particular business entity. There should be no force whatsoever that can require him to sell the team because the NBA doesn’t like what he says or what he believes. The same thing goes for Steve Green and Hobby Lobby. Just because people don’t like what Steve Green says or does doesn’t mean they ought to be able to force him to sell Hobby Lobby. The NBA is welcome to have whatever rules they want and if Sterling violates those rules, they can certainly decide not to allow Sterling’s team to play in the league so long as he is the owner. They cannot decide that his property is forfeit because they don’t like what he has to say. If he wants to take the Clippers out of the NBA entirely and go start his own league with his team, he ought to be welcome to do so.

      I’m not opposed to the NBA having whatever rules they want, I’m opposed to the NBA thinking they get to demand someone’s property be extracted from them because those rules were broken.

      • Randy Raymond says:

        I would be very surprised if the NBA would have any objection to him owning an non-NBA team. Whether he could make any money on such a team is another question, and is probably why he has not done it. Of course a non-NBA team could NOT be called the LA Clippers since the name is owned by the NBA.

        • Cephus says:

          Honestly, I don’t even know that the Sterling situation was a good example, it just came up because it was in the news at the time. It’s just the idea that someone can be offended by something you say and therefore, go after your job, your property, your friends and family, etc., things that have nothing whatsoever to do with what you said, just as a means of getting revenge on you. That seems to be very common in the liberal playbook.

          • Randy Raymond says:

            And my point was that it was almost certainly the case that the NBA did not do what it did to “get revenge” on Sterling. They were undoubtedly making a free market dollars and cents decision to protect profits. Sterling has, or should have, the almost unlimited right to say whatever he wants whenever he wants to say it without fear of GOVERNMENT sanction. That does not, however, mean that businesses or private individuals have to let anyone say whatever they want, wherever they want, whenever they want. The management of a retailer has a perfect right to kick you out of their premises if you start verbally abusing other customers or even swearing loudly, you have a right to ask someone to leave your dinner table if they start insulting your husband and so on.

            Freedom of speech is, for the most part, a limitation on GOVERNMENT power only. It has and should have little or nothing to do with private entities. Private entities should be free to restrict speech within their purview to the extent that they feel necessary, as long as there is some way to know what those restrictions are in advance (e.g. by contract, policy or common sense).

          • Cephus says:

            Oh, of course, that’s why I said that it was probably a bad example. This isn’t about free speech, it’s about attacking another person and punishing them for saying something you disagree with. There ought to be limits where people can disagree and not be physically or financially harmed because they dare to say something that others might not like. You’re entirely right with the dinner party example, but if someone insults your wife or husband, you don’t have a right to go outside and destroy the offending party’s car, or call their employer and cost them their job, just because you were personally offended by their opinion. If you don’t like what someone says, don’t listen, or better yet, stand up and refute them. Debate their ideas rationally. You don’t get to punch them in the nose or burn down their house because you’re offended.

            That’s what’s happening far too often though.

  2. Rick K. says:

    Concerning the “Churches Doing the Right Thing” segment:

    You questioned why anyone would need to bring guns to church, but the April/May issue of Tactical World has an 8-page article addressing why it’s essential that congregants come packing heat. Here’s the teaser from the table of contents:

    “The last place you expect trouble is a house of worship–but violence in these havens is up 600%…and professionals are quietly training to provide an armed, imbedded response. Here’s how they’re defending the faithful.”

    So my guess is these “professionals” use scare tactics to make church congregations feel they’re under severe threat, then, “provide an armed, imbedded response.”

    • Rick K. says:

      Oh, forgot to mention why I was reading that magazine… I’m preparing to start running Serenity/Firefly RPG next month, so I wanted to read up on the latest firearms and small unit tactics, so I can incorporate that into any armed confrontations that happen between the player characters and adversaries.

      • Cephus says:

        That’s cool, back when I was seriously into role playing, when I had time for such things, you’d be surprised at the weird books and magazines I’d pick up, just so I could steal shamelessly and put it into my campaign. 🙂

    • Cephus says:

      That’s exactly what I said during the show, there are far more church shootings than school shootings but nobody talks about that in the media. That’s before the “bring a gun to church” thing, which I can assume is only going to inflate those numbers. If you want to reduce those numbers, having no one bring a gun to church would be the way to do it, how can you have a shooting if nobody has a gun?

      Don’t ask me, it’s religion. It’s not supposed to make sense.

Leave a Reply