Is Being Offended Worse Than Being Offensive?

When did it become a bad thing to be offended at something? When something is offensive, shouldn't the reasonable, rational, logical reaction be to be offended? Yet we read, all over the Internet, blogs and comments mocking people who are offended and denigrating the very idea of being offended at something. People who point out offensiveness are belittled as "butthurt" or vilified as promoting "political correctness". Should the default position for our society be "I'll say anything that I want and screw you if you don't like it"? How about we recognize that there is a difference between "I don't like or agree with what you say" and "What you're saying is hurtful and offensive"? An example of some things that I don't agree with:

• Christianity (or the religion or philosophy of your choice) is the only true way
• Socialized medicine would be bad for our country
• Midwestern culture and values are the best way of life
• Being a Nebraska Cornhuskers football fan

I disagree with all of the above, but I don't find them offensive in any way. They're just opinions. I'm not going to publicly attack you for being a member of a religious group, or espousing conservative political views or praising a regional way of life or being a sports fan. Examples of things that I find offensive:

• "You're an evil immoral person if you don't believe the way I do"
• "Jews, Blacks (or Whites for that matter, pick your group) are inferior or unworthy of civil rights"
• Use of racial or ethnic slurs
• Use of symbolism that represents racist ideas or philosophies

I find these things offensive. I believe that these kind of beliefs and points of view have no place in public discourse. I in no way advocate for people being restricted from expressing their offensive opinions, but those who promote offensive ideas should expect others not only to be offended, but to express their offense out loud. Some people will respond to expressions of offense by becoming even more offensive, ranting about how they don't care what anyone else thinks, but some will reconsider their words and see things from the other guy's point of view. 

Being offended at offensive words and actions is the correct response. 

Pointing out how expressing offensive opinions hurt real people is entirely appropriate. 

If you rail about how worthless Food Stamp recipients are I'm going to let you know that I was once a Food Stamp recipient

If you pontificate about how all morality is based on the Bible and those who don't follow it are morally bankrupt I'm going to tell you that I'm not a Christian

If you wax self-righteous about how all the illegal immigrants are criminals I might bring up the unsavory aspects of the arrival on these shores of at least one of my ancestors

I'm going to ask you to think

Do you want to see fewer people being offended? Stop being so damn offensive

Protected Classes

This isn't an opinion piece, just informational. Nothing to get excited about! 

Often you here the term "protected class" misused, even by people who should know better. You might hear a business owner shy away from disciplining a member of a racial minority because he (or she) is "in a protected class", as if minorities had rights and protections that the majority didn't have. You also hear this "protected class" language applied to women as well as religious minorities.

In United States Federal anti-discrimination law, a protected class is a characteristic of a person which cannot be used as a basis for discrimination. In other words, "class" does not refer to a group of people at all. An example of a characteristic might be "hair color". Every person has hair color (at least those who have hair!). If hair color was a protected class, it would be illegal to discriminate based on the color of someone's hair. 

One real example of a protected class is "race". Everyone has the characteristic of belonging to a certain race (setting aside for legal purposes the non-scientific basis and of race and it's perpetuation as a social contruct). Discrimination therefore is illegal if it is based on a person's race; not that people of certain race have special protections that members of other races do not have. The same goes for the other protected classes, some of which are: color, religion, national origin, age (over 40), gender, pregnancy, and citizenship status. 

When is it Okay to Refuse to Serve Someone Based on Your Religious Beliefs?

Is it okay for a religious person to refuse to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding if they object to same-sex marriage on religious grounds? If it's not, then is it okay for a person to refuse to bake a cake for a religious group that wants "God Hates Fags" written on the cake? I think that no matter which way you go, you're setting a bad precedent, because you can't write laws that favor one group or point of view over another. Because if you're going to compel a conservative religious person to bake a cake for a same-sex marriage, which they believe is a sin, then by the same legal logic you will have to force a gay, or gay-supportive, baker to make a cake that promotes an anti-gay message. It would be difficult to craft a law that makes it illegal for the religious person to deny service to whomever they choose while allowing non-religious people to similarly discriminate.

One argument that I hear fairly often is: "Why would I want to do business with someone who looks down on me?" Frankly, as a consumer, I should have that choice. I can decide that I don't want to do business with Barbie's Biblical Bakery if I hear that they take stands that I find abhorrent, but it's another thing altogether if I show up to order my cake and they decide not to serve me because of their religious beliefs. As a consumer, I should be able to go into any place of business and not be confronted by bigotry against my lifestyle, sexuality, religion (or lack of it), race or anything else. Now, I'm not talking about overt displays of religious belief. I have no problem with a Christian business indicating that they are a business run by Christians, even though there is a good chance that by advertising this, they believe that I am destined for Hell, as long as they keep their opinions to themselves and treat me as any other customer.

I don't know if this can be done legally, but here's what I think would be equitable: make it illegal to refuse to serve someone because they are gay, or refuse to supply a product or service because it will be used in a same-sex wedding. In other words, add "sexual orientation" as a protected class regarding discrimination. If a religious merchant who is against same-sex marriage on religious grounds is asked to participate in a same-sex marriage (e.g. officiant, deejay) or to produce messages (i.e. on a cake) that are clearly designed to offend, or that foment hatred, then they may demur. There have been some conservative Christian groups who have been targeting bakeries run by gays, asking them to bake cakes with anti-gay messages on them (some overt, some more subtle) - clearly being provocative. I have seen accusations that gay rights groups are targeting Christian bakeries in like manner, but haven't seen anything in legitimate media.

Since making this kind of discrimination illegal is either unlikely or will have unpleasant consequenses, let's not rule out the time-honored strategy of the boycott. A local bakery refused to do business with you because of their religious convictions? And it's not illegal? Fine; boycott the heck out of them; shame them on public media; picket their business. Make it plain that you (and anyone who joins you) find their practices to be morally and ethically wrong, despite their legality.

There is more than one way to fight injustice

Take the Confederate Battle Flag Down Because It's Offensive?

A strawman argument occurs when, instead of taking on an opponent's actual argument, one attacks a position that was not in reality advanced by one's opponent, but makes an easier target. By disproving a position that has not really been advanced, the illusion has been given that one's opponent's argument has been successfully refuted. This is a common logical fallacy in politics and other public discourse.

One of the strawman arguments put forth by supporters of the Confederate Flag (technically the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, but hereafter referred to simply as "The Confederate Flag") is that (1) opponents of the flag want it banned because (2) it is offensive. This is incorrect on both counts. In general, those who oppose the use of the Confederate Flag do not want to ban its sale or private use. While reserving the right to characterize those who glorify it as glorifying racism and treason, they are seeking to stop its use in official government capacities. In other words, "Cooter" can still sell his Confederate Flag memorabilia and individuals throughout the country can still parade either their ignorance of its symbolism or their outright racism, but that official, that is, government, use and approval of this flag must stop. The second part of this is that the objections stem from Confederate Flag opponents simply being offended. Many of the Flag partisans reply that they are offended by the rainbow flag. This isn't about beong offended. This is about the appropriateness of giving official government sanction to an image that originated in an armed insurrection against the United States that had its roots in the desire for human beings to own other human beings.