Fascist Google Has The Right To Be a Tyrant, But Bake That Cake, Bigot!

So Google fired the employee who wrote a ten-page memorandum about workplace diversity.

In a memo to employees, Google CEO Sundar Pichai said the employee who penned a controversial memo that claimed that women had biological issues that prevented them from being as successful as men in tech had violated its Code of Conduct, and that the post had crossed “the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.”

He added: “To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK.”

Okay. Note that Pichai didn’t say the memo-writer, identified by Bloomberg as James Demore, specifically claimed these traits make anyone “less suited.” He simply pointed out some things that “suggest” those conclusions, which the reader must draw. He wrote it by way of explanation of why there are less women in certain jobs.

Demore’s central point is that Google values viewpoint ideological lockstep over other forms of diversity. How you think, and your worldview, are more valuable to the company, which depends enormously on collaboration, than who you are.

In this, Demore is absolutely right. And Google has the perfect right to insist on this, as long as they don’t cross certain lines of religious discrimination. Demore’s own firing proves his own points. Disagree with fundamental go-along, get-alongs, and you find yourself on the wrong side of the Code of Conduct.

This is as it should be. Yonatan Zunger, a former Googler, wrote in response that he could not “in good conscience” assign an employee who wrote a memo like Demore’s to work with anyone in the group.

You have just created a textbook hostile workplace environment,” he wrote. He also said in a email, “Could you imagine having to work with someone who had just publicly questioned your basic competency to do your job?”

Google created its workplace, and by that statement, Zunger is correct. Nobody wants to work with a pariah who doesn’t get with the program.

Don’t get me wrong here: Google is being tyrannical to the point of fascist in its treatment of employees and viewpoint discrimination.

But Google has the right to be that way, for the sake of liberty, wouldn’t you agree?

Google is not the government (arguably, it rivals a government in the amount of data it has on you and me, down to the keystroke, or the temperature in my bedroom). Protections against viewpoint discrimination and free speech among hired employees don’t apply to every employer in America, or rather they shouldn’t.

Otherwise, we might have Christian organizations forced to hire atheists, or a major newsmagazine writing that “atheists aren’t the problem, Christian intolerance is the problem.” We might have Christian bakers forced to supply cakes to same-sex weddings against their consciences. We might have restaurants forced to hire those who don’t agree with the core principles guiding their business.

Because Google–and the left–claims a perfect right to police its own purity, but haughtily and pridefully the purity they seek is really poison that denies this right to everyone but themselves.

Welcome to the new work world. Choose a side.

Is It Blasphemy When Nobody Is Offended?

America should take a lesson from Ireland. The Irish are a funny lot, giving a hat-tip to Catholicism but their hearts to a different god. Even so, the Irish can show Americans what it’s like when a society abandons God yet gives legal protection to religious speech.

Stephen Fry, the English author, comedian and actor (“V for Vendetta“), got as close as anyone has ever been to being prosecuted under Ireland’s 2009 anti-defamation (blasphemy) law. He called the God of the Bible “a capricious, mean-minded, stupid god.”

The law makes illegal any speech that’s “grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters sacred to any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion.”

But there’s a catch: somebody has to care, and in Fry’s case, nobody (or not “a substantial number”) did.

The 2009 law replaced a genuine blasphemy law on the books until it was found unconstitutional in 1999. No crime for blasphemy has been directly prosecuted for over 100 years (although certain profanity and obscenity charges might have applied). If Fry were actually prosecuted, he would have faced a fine of up to €25,000 ($27,181).

After initial inquiries, officers decided that not enough people had been outraged by Mr Fry’s remarks to warrant further investigation, according to the Irish Independent.

A source told the paper: “This man was simply a witness and not an injured party. Gardaí (Irish police) were unable to find a substantial number of outraged people.

How could this be? The Irish are a God-fearing, Catholic people, right? I mean, abortion is illegal in Ireland, except for the life of the mother. The church exerts enormous influence over social and political matters, and of course, there was the decades-long “troubles.” All that fighting with Protestants over Northern Ireland, and the Catholics can’t even get enough people to care about God to prosecute a real blasphemer.

That’s because Ireland’s religion is not about God, and hasn’t been for years.

Though we still practise them, these Catholic milestones are no longer about being embraced into the bosom of Christ (that was the point, yeah? I didn’t pay much attention), but are now just a fun day out with the family, an excuse to get dressed up, and, if we’re honest, a way to squeeze your extended family for all they’re worth. That’s fairly harmless, right? We’ve done away with the worst aspects of Irish Catholicism – we’re educated now, we’re liberal, we are progressive – and we’ve kept the easy bits, the rituals that are so ingrained in our culture that it would be more effort to abolish them than we can be bothered with.

How is all that a lesson for America? Two words: Donald Trump.

Trump was elected president largely by the votes of self-identified evangelicals. Many of them go to church, at least a few times a year. They might even have a Bible in their homes, that gets opened when a baby is dedicated, or a teen is baptized, or when a preacher visits for a meal. But American religion among most of Trump’s “evangelicals” is like Ireland’s Catholics. It’s hollow, ritualized, and dead as a doornail.

Is it any wonder that Trump’s recent executive order purporting to offer religious liberty is in reality so weak that even the ACLU won’t bother to challenge it in court? Is it any wonder that most of Trump’s base isn’t outraged or even concerned?

If America had a law like Ireland’s, and Fry said what he said on American television (worse things have been said on American television, thanks to the First Amendment), I think the result would largely be the same. It’s not really blasphemy if nobody is offended.

Of course, this exposes the agenda of those on the political left in the U.S. They don’t need protection from Christians, because nobody cares if they blaspheme. Instead, they want to eliminate the minority of believing, dedicated evangelical Christians by criminalizing Biblical speech and acts of conscience.

Given enough time, it might work to the point where America is just like Ireland, where the actual faithful minority is small to the point of vanishing. That’s really what the left wants. It’s not enough for self-identified Christians to not care. As Erick has long predicted, we who cling to faith will be made to care.

Here endeth the lesson.

Made To Care: Bullied To Death For Refusing Gay Advances?

The tragic story of University of Texas Arlington student Thomas Klocke carries with it the same undertones found in the UVA fake rape narrative and other progressive tropes. The assumption here is straight males cannot tell the truth, and their word against any other accuser is not to be trusted.

In Klocke’s case, it was his word against his homosexual accuser’s. The accuser told a UTA official–with whom he had a warm relationship–that Klocke typed a gay slur in his browser search bar during a class. Klocke’s story is that the accuser, whose name he didn’t even know until the incident occurred, made unwelcome advances toward him.

Long story short: despite a complete lack of corroborating or even circumstantial evidence, UTA’s associate director of academic integrity (I don’t even know what that title means) Daniel Moore sent Klocke a letter on May 25, 2016 (just weeks after the incident) stating that Klocke had been found responsible for harassment. Then Klocke was placed on disciplinary probation for the remainder of his time at UTA, which would be kept on his permanent disciplinary record.

As it turns out, Klocke’s time at UTA was short. Days later, he committed suicide.

Now Klocke’s father is suing UTA for not following its own Title IX procedures. Kenneth Chalken, the father’s attorney, told Watchdog.org:

“When a college violates the legal rights of a student accused of misconduct, and its own rules for addressing such a complaint, the accused student can suffer life altering consequences,” he said in an email. “The important case of Klocke v. University of Texas at Arlington illustrates just how quickly and arbitrarily a college can act, leading to the most tragic outcome from the unimaginable stress and pain that an unfairly treated, accused student can suffer.  It also serves to underscore why reforms in the campus disciplinary process are so necessary, as recently recommended by the American College of Trial Lawyers, and why accountability through the judicial process may help to promote those reforms.”

The university responded with a bland statement offering “deepest condolences” and referring to the fact that the case is now in federal court, preventing further comment. The statement did maintain that “the university followed its policies and procedures.”

Based on what I read at Watchdog, that’s a specious claim. Depositions and meeting notes indicate that UTA conducted no official Title IX investigation. The complaint itself was written by Associate Vice President of Student Affairs Heather Snow, whom Klocke’s accuser sometimes referred to using her first name. Snow didn’t go through the school’s Title IX coordinator, but took over the “investigation” (as it were) herself, recruiting Moore to help pursue the matter.

At best, their effort was ham-handed. At worst it was horrific bullying. These five paragraphs paint a picture of “you’re guilty until proven innocent, and no we won’t give you a hearing.”

Moore also never told Klocke that he would not be allowed a hearing. He was never informed that Snow – who was not an impartial party – was running the show, even helping Moore determine a punishment.

Klocke was charged with violating Title IX based solely on the accusation. He was charged with two violations: physical abuse or threat thereof and a non-specific violation of the school’s anti-harassment policy. It should be noted that the accuser never claimed Klocke was physical or threatened physical harm.

By charging Klocke in this manner, UTA further violated its own policies, which state that charges are supposed to come after an investigation and hearing, and after the accused has had a chance to present witnesses in his defense.

The accuser’s report, written in whole or part by Snow, was described as “a statement of evidence” against Klocke. Klocke was not provided a list of witnesses, even though Moore’s summons letter said he would do so.

Moore’s letter informed Klocke that he could be expelled over the accusation, though UTA policy states that accused students facing such punishment have the right to a hearing (which Klocke was denied.)

If this were a case handled by an actual law enforcement agency, the investigators and prosecutors would be fired for incompetence. The prosecuting attorney would be recommended for charges and possible disbarment for an egregious violation of an accused’s rights. In fact, the entire case would have been dismissed before any action was taken.

This is yet another example of progressive ideals gone wildly wrong, with anyone possessing authority believing they can be the avatar of justice against perceived homophobia. And the underlying assumption is “of course the straight male is a homophobe.”

College students, co-workers, political comrades and friends had better watch what they say, email and text to their homosexual contacts. In this toxic environment, the word of a straight male is always suspect against the word of an accusing homosexual, or a woman, or really any victim-status minority.

You will be made to care, and tragically, Thomas Klocke’s care was too much for him to carry. I hope a federal jury finds UTA at fault and awards a billion dollars to Klocke’s family.

How Many Rapes is 0.058% of the GDP Worth?

Lies, damned lies and statistics

This morning, the AP published its “study” of the economic impact of North Carolina’s HB2, the “Bathroom Bill.”

In the 7 hours since that tweet and subsequent blog post, the story has been shared and trumpeted across the country as proof positive that, “See! It’s indisputable now that passing these bills is going to CRIPPLE your states!”

There’s just one problem. Math.

If you want proof that journalism is dead, compare the number of news outlets reporting these numbers as debate-ending with those who actually tell you what they mean.

Let’s Run the Numbers…

AP reports that the 12 year economic impact will be a loss of $3.76 Billion. Let’s compare that to the North Carolina Gross Domestic Product, the size of its entire economy, which was $495 Billion in 2015 (according to the BEA). From 2013-2015 North Carolina’s GDP growth rate made it the 11th fastest growing state economy in the union. However, for our calculations, we’ll only assume a 1% growth rate, which is anemic at best, to make our numbers extra-conservative.

Over the same 12 years that the AP looks at, the total GDP for North Carolina would be $6.468 Trillion ($6,468.08 Billion). So we divide the amount lost by the projected total GDP amount to determine the percentage impact that the Bathroom Bill would have over the timeline that the AP has projected:

$3.76 Billion / $6,468.08 Billion = 0.00058. To convert to a percentage you move the decimal two places to the right and we find that the percentage economic impact is 0.058% of the state’s economy over 12 years. That’s less than 6 hundredths of one percent!

Pardon me, but 6 hundredths of one percent doesn’t seem like the sky is falling to me. The volume and dogmatism behind the left’s proclamation of these numbers fully displays the idiocy behind their claims of, “significant economic impact,” and shows extreme contempt for American intelligence.

A few weeks ago, Texas State Senators were questioning a representative of the Texas Association of Business regarding similar claims about the impact of a Texas Bathroom Bill (SB.6). It was an exciting exchange that fully displayed the partisan hackery that these studies and their proponents engage in and the way that they use misleading numbers to prop-up their case.

Watch the exchange in full. You’ll enjoy it:

PayPal Numbers & Hypocrisy

Based on AP’s numbers, $2.2 Billion of the full $3.76 Billion impact of the law are a result of PayPal limiting their expansion in North Carolina. That accounts for just over 3 hundredths of one percent impact on NC over the next 12 years.

While PayPal may make a grand show of their disdain for the Tar Heel State, they are absolute hypocrites. As former Gov. McCrory said, “They’re doing business and have headquarters in Singapore, where you can get arrested for chewing gum in public.” In the same interview, Megan Kelly pointed out that PayPal does business in Saudi Arabia, where being openly gay carries a death sentence.

The most charitable interpretation of their actions would lead to a belief that PayPal very selectively upholds their “values.” But the truth is that they have incredible disdain for the LGBT community and their political supporters. They’ve put a price-tag on these “values” and as long as you are worth enough money to them, they’re perfectly willing to do business with people who actually kill members of that community. But if they can use a PR engine to exploit the LGBT community’s emotions, they will.

But Aren’t Bathroom Bills Draconian?

No policy change happens in a vacuum. The Bathroom Bill came about because the City of Charlotte adopted a heavy-handed ordinance that required all public businesses to allow anyone to use the communal restroom of their choice. No consideration was given to the belief or safety concerns of the business owners who were forced to live by that ordinance.

The North Carolina bill was a very even-handed approach to resolving the issue and protecting individual rights, as well as safety. It even went so far as to allow people who have undergone gender assignment surgery and changed their gender on their birth certificate to use the bathroom of their choice. And it allowed each business owner to make their own decisions, while only mandating the policy of government facilities. Cities can adopt their policies for their employees.

The Resurgent’s own Dustin Siggins wrote a fantastic comparison of the Charlotte ordinance and the NC Bathroom Bill which you can read in full here.

LGBT Confusion

Many, if not most, articles written on the subject say that these kinds of bathroom bills are an assault on LGBT rights (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender). The imprecision of that term is ridiculous. The bill would only apply to individuals who consider themselves Transgender and would furthermore only apply to their ability to use communal bathroom facilities in government buildings. They could however use single use, “single occupancy bathroom[s] or controlled use of faculty facilities upon request.”

Furthermore, upon gender re-assignment and subsequent birth certificate change, they would be able to use the bathroom reserved for their newly-assigned gender.

The Left is Lying to You

Leftists thought that they could wow us with the economic impact numbers of their boycotts but the ineffectual nature of those actions is leaving them high and dry. Even in bogus “studies” that have tried to show inflated numbers, the impact is laughably low. They’ve tried to call opponents bigots, even when numerous options were given to accommodate each side.

The lies won’t stop soon but conservatives should continue to show what this debate is about: protection for the most vulnerable among us. I weigh the 6 hundredths of 1% economic impact with the potential for injury or assault to young men and women. Those concerns don’t come from bigotry towards “Transgender” individuals but rather from pedophiles and sexual criminals who exploit the laws for deviant ends.

How many rapes or assaults does it take to outweigh 6 hundredths of 1% economic impact?


If You Go to Church, You Need to Read This and Pass It On to Your Pastor

Whether you want to admit it or not, religious liberty is becoming more and more of a concern in the United States and few churches are prepared to deal with the issue. On top of that, more and more Christians are indistinguishable from the world at large instead of being a light in the world.

I want to pass on a new Bible study series from my friends at the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. The series is on religious liberty and divided into six lessons covering various aspects of religious liberty. It is designed to equip churches with the knowledge they need on the issue — it is a knowledge often lacking in the modern church.

If you are involved in Bible studies at your church or looking to start one, go here now. You need this knowledge.

California Law Seeks to Punish Other States For Allowing Religious Groups to Exist

The left’s ongoing war against religion has escalated to a new and absurd level. California now has a law that prohibits state funded travel to states it believes discriminate against the BLT&G community. The latest target is Kansas. Why? Well, Kansas has a law that allows religious groups to exist on college campuses. Since a Christian group would want a Christian in charge of it and an Islamic group would want a Muslim in charge of it, California has determined that would potentially discriminate against the BLT&G community.

Kansas is on the travel prohibition list because of a 2016 law that enabled college campus religious groups to require that members adhere to their religious beliefs and standards. That law was crafted partially in response to a controversy in California that occurred when a Christian student group lost recognition on California State University campuses for failure to comply with an “all comers” non-discrimination policy in 2014.

In other words, leftwing nut jobs from California will not be able to use California tax dollars to go into other states that refuse to be bigots toward religious groups. Sounds like a win-win to me, but it also shows the left will not stop until religions in America are forced to abandon adherence to their beliefs.

‘Baby It’s Cold Outside’ Gets Feminist Harpy Makeover

The Huffington Post is ecstatic over a new version of the Christmas classic, “Baby It’s Cold Outside,” created by a singer-songwriter couple who found the original song “aggressive and inappropriate.”

Apparently, Lydia Liza and Josiah Lemanski found themselves tortured by the unrevealed fate of what they imagine is the date-rape victim described in the tune. “You never figure out if she gets to go home,” worries Lydia to CNN. So they made up new, consent form-approved lyrics, complete with phrases like “You reserve the right to say no,” and hipster favorite Pomegranate La Croix sparkling water replacing that suspicious drink.

Since the dawn of time, men have been trying to convince women to get it on, and women have made them jump through hoops to get there. This basic, politically-incorrect male-female dynamic seems to be lost on millions of my fellow Millennials, so allow me to relieve Lydia, Josiah, and their fellow feminists of their anxieties about the lady’s well-being.

The man and the woman in the song had sex, and they both enjoyed it.

(For my next trick, I’ll explain to you why Jimmy Stewart does a double-take when he sees the bed in his new married home in “It’s A Wonderful Life.”)

Every year, campus feminists and their hysterical media counterparts reiterate their concerns about the song’s “problematic” nature. One feminist columnist could barely stand to listen to the lyrics; “even typing those four, slimy words forced me to take seven showers,” she wrote. Though the critiques range from the laughable to unhinged, all of them focus around the idea that the man in the song is convincing his unwilling partner to stick around, and perhaps drugging her – “say, what’s in this drink?” – to do so.

These staggering misinterpretations of the courtship dance between a man and a woman can only sound reasonable in a culture that insists that there are no differences between male and female sexuality, sex differences in general are a societal construct, and traditional masculine and feminine behaviors are problems to overcome through indoctrination.

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, most women enjoy being the object of male pursuit. Most men enjoy pursuing women more when that pursuit has at least the veneer of a challenge. That this even has to be spelled out shows how confused relations between men and women have become in the modern era.

If the 1960s were about sexual “liberation,” the 2000s have been about trying to put that genie back in the bottle through an ever-expanding notion of consent. If the only legitimate reason to condemn sexual activity is lack of consent, it stands to reason that the concept of consent will have to be stretched to cover territory previously governed by archaic notions like fidelity, morality, and loyalty. Enter the affirmative consent contract, because contracts are such well-known aphrodisiacs.

The world wrought by the contradictions and fantasies of modern feminism, besides being ruinous to many young men, is just so d*mned unsexy. No wonder women having casual sex aren’t even getting orgasms out of the deal, and women today report being more unhappy than they did under the dark days of The Patriarchy. Their partners, boyfriends, and husbands (throuple partners?) are asking “may I?” before every step of the deed.

In the new version of the song, when Lydia croons that she really “can’t stay,” Josiah responds with “Baby, I’m fine with that.” Ladies, let me give you a piece of advice. If you’re dating a man who responds to your flirtations with resigned acquiescence, walk out that door and don’t bother coming back, no matter how cold it is outside.

Ben Smith Goes into Damage Control Over BuzzFeed’s Bigoted Attack on Christians. But His Defense Is Bullcrap.

As Gabriella noted earlier today, BuzzFeed is running an attack against Chip and Joanna Gaines, two orthodox Christian evangelical believers who dare to have a show on HGTV.

Ben Smith, the Editor of BuzzFeed, is trying to defend the attack on Chip and Joanna Gaines by claiming the piece is not about them, but about HGTV.


Here is the headline of the article:

Chip And Joanna Gaines’ Church Is Firmly Against Same-Sex Marriage

That references a Bible believing Christian church. It never mentions HGTV.

What about the subtitle. That reads:

Their pastor considers homosexuality to be a “sin” caused by abuse — whether the Fixer Upper couple agrees is unclear.

That references the couples’ pastor and the couple. It never mentions HGTV. In fact, it makes the story expressly about the couple, not HGTV.

So let’s review the story. The first paragraph opens this way:

Chip and Joanna Gaines’ series Fixer Upper is one of the most popular shows on HGTV. The couple…

That makes the first paragraph about the couple, only referencing HGTV to describe the couple is worth covering because they have a popular TV show on HGTV.

What about the second paragraph? It begins

They have built a small empire, and they are not done yet.

Again, that’s about the couple, not HGTV. Third paragraph? It begins

They are also, as they detail in The Magnolia Story, devout Christians — Joanna has spoken of and written about her conversations with God.

Oh, so now not only is it not about HGTV, it focuses on the couple’s faith and then goes into their church’s beliefs, which are shared by thousands of mainstream churches across the country. You get the sense of where this is headed by the opening of the fourth paragraph.

So are the Gaineses against same-sex marriage? So are the Gaineses against same-sex marriage? And would they ever feature a same-sex couple on the show, as have HGTV’s House Hunters and Property Brothers? ever feature a same-sex couple on the show, as have HGTV’s House Hunters and Property Brothers?

Wait. I thought Ben Smith says this is about HGTV. That paragraph starts again about the Gaineses and then asks if they, not HGTV would have a gay couple on the show.

Maybe the next paragraph will make this about HGTV and not the couple. Let’s see. The next paragraph begins

Fixer Upper has fans of all stripes: Christians, feminists, and LGBT viewers have all found something to love in the Gaineses. So in the absence of a response from them or their representatives, it’s worth looking at the severe, unmoving position Seibert and Antioch take on same-sex marriage.

That’s the full paragraph.

If the story is about HGTV, why not look at the copious examples of HGTV putting homosexuals on HGTV. The network is inarguably inclusive. If the story is about HGTV, why look at the “severe, unmoving position” of orthodox Christianity.

And that’s where we get to the bigotry of Buzzfeed.

Christianity views homosexuality as a sin. Buzzfeed is attacking a couple and their church for daring to hold, or presuming to hold in the case of the couple, mainstream, tradition Christian views on sin.

Buzzfeed’s story is designed to harass Christians, a Christian church, and a Christian couple and demand a specific view point on their show by making the implication that the viewpoint is not allowed on the show.

When called out on it by many, many people, Ben Smith engaged in damage control that does not hold up when reviewing the article. The article was not about HGTV. It was about a couple and their church.

The article is blatant bigotry against Bible believing Christians.

That Ben Smith is so tone deaf as to defend it and spin it into something it is not is just another example of the tone deaf left after the election, which lost a massive number of Democrats convinced their party had become more interested in bathrooms than job creation.

In this case, Ben Smith and Buzzfeed are perfectly happy to cost a couple their job because they dare to hold views Buzzfeed finds offensive.

As we say around here, you will be made to care.

Get Erick’s Daily Email

* indicates required