Cannot the anti-sodomite baker just substitute salt for sugar in the frosting of the Gay Nuptial cake and then say oops and promptly offer a refund?

Targeted importing of homosexuals from an African country with ~7% HIV rate.

I guess we’ll have to use the official privilege-determining calculator.

These human rights laws are nominally to protect oppressed groups from being denied services and dignity, but in this case it’s pretty clear that the law is on the side of the oppressor. Aristocracy of Outrage indeed.

Speaking of which, I assume the title is modeled after Rand’s “Aristocracy of Pull”. The parallels are striking. Rand was quite the impressive thinker.

Two reasons.

1. Because law is a competitive and selective field. Not everyone who is argumentative and enjoys spinning what they imagine to be clever theological webs, and encouraged by their easily-impressed subculture to do so, is actually capable of being a successful attorney which means you have to be able to reliably beat very able and worthy opponents. You have to have the right stuff.

A great example of a kind of Potemkin-village or pastiche of imitation ‘Talmudism-for-the-dull’ is what you would see in Black protestant churches in the American South and Midwest.

I’ve seen it in person, and it’s … darkly enlightening. Their talented 10% can become respected preachers or politicians (difference?) for their own communities in their own churches, and they imagine themselves to be smart so long as they stay focused on their local experience of relative status, but they only very rarely are able to compete in the big leagues when they have to face off against the other groups’ 10%’ers.

This is one of the utilitarian tragedies of affirmative action, because you take an individual who could be feeling at those rewarding superior status points by being a respected professional in their own community – black lawyers and black doctors for blacks, etc. which is how it used to be done. But now you cream the community of its very best (leaving it even worse off than it was before), and you take those people and artificially elevate them to places where they sit at the very bottom of the pile, which is incredibly depressing and humiliating, and where they feel inferior and fail and drop-out.

Of course for every artificially elevated NAM there is an artificially demoted white or asian person, so the creaming effect is less effective, and their breeding communities benefit and continue to be able to produce higher quality kids than they otherwise would with a fully merit-based system.

2. Smart Muslim immigrants come into more objective and universal fields like science, medicine, computers, etc. where their foreign training can be applied to jobs abroad. That’s not possible with law, which is highly local and particularized. Second, law is a particularly insulated cartel and protected even from ‘native’ entry. Even as an American attorney barred in one state, it can be very difficult to move and set up shop in another state, and often requires taking another bar exam. Crossing an international border, say, into Canada, is even harder, even though the system is very similar. Finally, there are very few non-natives who are able to master the language to the degree necessary to be competitive.

So, a lot of Muslims aren’t that smart, and the smart ones tend to be recent immigrants who naturally favor skill-sets of global application. You will start to see a lot more muslim lawyers as the immigrant doctors and programmers and scientists have native-born kids. But I wouldn’t expect many of these kids to remain devout muslims, or hold it as anything more than a kind of self-identity and group affiliation but without any genuine piety or adherence to orthodoxy.

Judaism and Islam both have this annoying legalism in common. Jews tend to like working in law, why don’t Muslims? Not many lawyers out there that I know.