Leftist Targeting Calculus Explained

Baldilocks explains:

"Or geometry or algebra or whatever. From last year.

"In Chicago, Mayor Rahm Emanuel has told Chick-fil-A that the fast-food company is not welcome in his town because "Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values." In other words, because Chick-fil-A ownership believes in traditional marriage, it shouldn't bother opening up shop in Chicago.

But Emanuel is welcoming Louis Farrakhan, who is against same-sex marriage and who blasted President Obama two months ago for endorsing the practice.

Of course.

"Rahm Emanuel--like his Leftist siblings-in-arms at A&E--gets told who to denounce and who not to. (I would guess that, after a while, one would get a feel for whom to target.) Chik-fil-A? Duck Dynasty Stars? Fair game, no pun intended.

Nation of Islam? Fugedaboutit, especially if the potential denouncer is the mayor of Chicago; he knows who to slime and who not to. But even if we weren’t talking about Rahm Emanuel, the target is a double no-no for the Left: black and Muslim. The combination of the two politically protected groupings beats out the single group—homosexuals. In addition, all Muslim public figures are off limits. Therefore, Emanuel will continue to ignore Louis Farrakhan.

This isn’t difficult."

It's not evil if the Left does it; the Left has only Consequentialist morals: it is immoral only if it fails to acheive the objective.

ADDENDUM
From Brian Preston:

"As a self-made and confident multimillionaire who understand the purpose behind his fame, Phil Robertson doesn’t need Duck Dynasty or A&E. As one channel in a vast empire made mostly impervious to any particular show’s collapse due to channel bundling, A&E may not need Phil Robertson. But the courts may need to rule on where tolerance begins and ends. In recent rulings, courts have found that Christian photographers and cake bakers cannot turn down gay weddings for any reason. But A&E can suspend Robertson, effectively turning him down for doing business with the network. The photographers, cake bakers and A&E have weighed in on the culture wars — essentially on the same side, though they’re taking opposite positions on the issue at hand. The photographers, bakers and A&E assert the right to decline to do business with someone over their personal beliefs. I happen to believe that they all do have that right, but courts have ruled that the photographers and bakers do not.

Who is right?

Perhaps Phil Robertson should sue A&E. He has the money to hire the best legal representation available. Suing A&E would be clarifying. Courts have recently clouded the freedom of association, mandating that wedding cake bakers and photographers cannot choose whom they associate with. If they can’t, why can A&E? If A&E can, why can’t the bakers and photographers? Is tolerance just a one-way street now? And if it’s a one-way street, is it really tolerance at all?"