Every once in awhile, someone says it better than I ever could. In the ongoing restroom debate, Mahan sums it up nicely.
Mahan said... Let me see if I understand this question/issue correctly, then:
Legislation is proposed that will force private property owners to allow persons who suffer from Crohn's to use their restroom. This legislation is opposed as government interference in an area where it really shouldn't go (no pun intended). The opposition is a matter of conscience (as shown in the original post). The idea that legislation involving a medical condition might be opposed calls down the fury of the self-appointed guardians of the moral high ground to berate those who oppose this bill, who have already indicated that they can't see anyone not allowing a sufferer to NOT use their restroom.
So far, so good. Par for the course. Now, the question arises, how can this sin be redeemed? Aha! The penitent should donate monies! However, there arises a problem; after all is said and done, the Self-Appointed Guardian of The Moral High Ground (SAGTMHG) has apparently chosen a charity that is also a lobbying group. This does not appear to be charity to members of the penitent, so no monies are forthcoming. The SAGTMHG pours forth its scorn and retreats to the safety of the MHG, secure in the knowledge of its own virtue.
Does that sound about right?
May 04, 2007 5:33 PM
Labels: restroom law