Tuesday, June 07, 2005

In the vein of TShirt Hell

After exposure to the pleasant and genteel folks at T Shirt Hell (no link, they don't need to be encouraged. First Amendment rights are not the same as a requirement that others spread your speech for you) I postulate a t-shirt that reads

I support gay marriage even if the "chicks" aren't hot

In other thoughts...

- Cheers to the Ninth Circuit for agreeing to rehear the Harrah's makeup discrimination case- see All Deliberate Speed on Jesperson v. Harrah's Casino, or this legally thorough and thoroughly legal summary at KM&M, LLP. Being able to require an employee to wear a uniform makes good sense. Similarly, cleanliness, politeness, and professionalism are BFOQs (bona fide occupational qualifications) - by which I mean, I don't have a problem if you fire someone for lacking those. But makeup? Why? Because it's offensive to not know if the person you are speaking to is male (fully human, to be respected, might beat you up) vs. female (can be ordered around, flirted with, condescended to at will)? Is that the right rationale? That's what Title VII is all about, eliminating _meaningless_ stereotypes which harm good employees.
I wouldn't want to be forced to wear makeup at work unless I was an actor or performer, and I don't see why anyone else should have to do so either. "Clean" is gender-neutral. Lipstick, foundation, rouge, eyeliner, etc. etc. is a burden not comparable to that required by a man to keep himself presentable. Unless you believe everything you see on Queer Eye. And maybe not even then.


Can anyone really explain how Lawrence v. Texas can be narrowed so as to allow prohibition of casual multiple marriage? Not allowing bigamy under state laws, nor forcing states to create and regulate multiple marriage. I just mean, what's the difference between two consenting adults, and more than that?

Finally: I had already forgotten that Sen. Rick Santorum probably did not, in fact, say the things that an AP reporter quoted him as saying; after all, she quoted Arlen Specter out of context in a way guaranteed to make his accession to power on the Judiciary Committee more precarious. (edited to remove the slur on the good Senator's name; Dan Savage and spreading santorum dot com have already taken full revenge, even if he said and meant it). Nevertheless, some people demonstrably agree with the comments Mr. Santorum may or may not have even said. If any of them reads this, here's my comment: If you can't distinguish between two consenting adults vs.

- one adult and one incapacitated adult (unconscious, hospitalized, PVS, whatever)
- one adult and one child
- one adult and one animal
- one adult and inanimate objects (bananas, cool whip, other inoffensive stuff)

... then I don't want you watching my child, my dog, or my property. [edited for politeness sake]
A phrase which, in retrospect, I won't apply here but find endlessly amusing: Jesus would be ashamed of you. To see what I'm talking about, consult 1 John 4 (and thanks to slacktivist for doing all the heavy lifting, reading, thinking).


At 10:59 AM, June 17, 2005, Blogger CM said...

The multiple-marriage thing... I don't know. On one hand, my leave-the-people-alone instinct says that if multiple people want to hitch their fortunes together, why not let them do it? On the other, I doubt this would work in a practical sense and would cause unstable and potentially abusive relationships (like polygamy in Utah), which would be bad for society. But then I reject that argument about gay marriage.

Personally, I would say multiple marriage should be allowed -- I'm already so far to the left on social issues, why not go a little farther? Let 'em all get married.

At 5:16 PM, June 17, 2005, Blogger Eh Nonymous said...

Thanks for writing. Unstable and potentially abusive relationships are not a problem. Abusive relationships are a problem, and are not confined to the Greater Metropolitan Salt Lake City area, or Utah in general. Fully informed _adults_ should be allowed to organize their affairs in ways that _increase_ the stability of the family, enable greater financial and social protection for offspring, etc. I don't imagine the police, department of child services, or other folks will stop taking an interest in child abuse or spousal abuse when it happens just because there's five moms, two dads, etc.

Of course, if there was a local practice of taking child brides (Utah, I'm back to looking at you again... also Nevada, California, and neighboring states) in multiple marriage by a single man who then failed to support them, or worse, enslaved them- why, I'd support state laws outlawing aspects of the practice, criminalizing his actions, jailing him, branding or whipping or castrating him, etc.

So it's not a matter of left or right. It's a matter of whose morality you're willing to impose on the country. For me, it's pretty easy: mine. :)

At 5:40 PM, November 22, 2005, Anonymous permanent makeup said...

Well done on a nice blog Eh Nonymous. I was looking for information on how to apply makeup and came across your post In the vein of TShirt Hell - not precisely what I was looking for related to how to apply makeup but an interesting read all the same!

At 3:45 AM, November 28, 2005, Anonymous how to apply makeup said...

Well done on a nice blog Eh Nonymous. I was searching for information on how to apply makeup and ran across your post In the vein of TShirt Hell - not exactly what I was looking for related to how to apply makeup but a very interesting read all the same!

At 5:53 PM, December 27, 2005, Anonymous eye makeup tips said...

Well done on a nice blog Eh Nonymous. I was searching for information on beauty tips and ran across your post In the vein of TShirt Hell - not exactly what I was looking for related to beauty tips but a very interesting read all the same!


Post a Comment

<< Home