Tuesday the NASDAQ unveiled their most recent demands to promote their idea of fairness and diversity in a press statement about their campaign to delist companies they determine do not meet the goals of the 49-year-old stock exchange, opening up companies for scrutiny and ongoing monitoring of their employee’s gender and sexual preferences.
Because gender and sexual preference are fluid, according to the radical far left, questions arise over what diversity monitoring panels will do when evaluating companies and their employees. Will people have to register and have permanent records to be evaluated? How can they be permanent if it is all fluid? How often will people have to be monitored? What will happen to Americans who are not a minority identity? Are they allowed to change genders, race, and sexuality? Will they be devalued?
Is this corporate dominance in Capitalism, that invades privacy and actually shifts previous messaging on these topics, the utopia that the far left wanted when they began to unravel American civil liberties?
The lengthy press statement does not address any of these questions.
“The Nasdaq Stock Market, also known as Nasdaq or NASDAQ, is an American stock exchange at One Liberty Plaza in New York City. It is ranked second on the list of stock exchanges by market capitalization of shares traded, behind the New York Stock Exchange,” their WIKI page reads.
Today, @Nasdaq announces a proposal filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to adopt new listing rules related to board diversity and disclosure.
According to their press release, the NSADAQ explained their global position for monitoring the gender and sexual preferences of employees as:
“(GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Nasdaq (Nasdaq: NDAQ) today filed a proposal with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to adopt new listing rules related to board diversity and disclosure. If approved by the SEC, the new listing rules would require all companies listed on Nasdaq’s U.S. exchange to publicly disclose consistent, transparent diversity statistics regarding their board of directors. Additionally, the rules would require most Nasdaq-listed companies to have, or explain why they do not have, at least two diverse directors, including one who self-identifies as female and one who self-identifies as either an underrepresented minority1 or LGBTQ+. Foreign companies and smaller reporting companies would have additional flexibility in satisfying this requirement with two female directors.
The goal of the proposal is to provide stakeholders with a better understanding of the company’s current board composition and enhance investor confidence that all listed companies are considering diversity in the context of selecting directors, either by including at least two diverse directors on their boards or by explaining their rationale for not meeting that objective. As part of rationale for the new requirements, Nasdaq’s proposal presents an analysis of over two dozen studies that found an association between diverse boards and better financial performance and corporate governance.
Under the proposal, all Nasdaq-listed companies will be required to publicly disclose board-level diversity statistics through Nasdaq’s proposed disclosure framework within one year of the SEC’s approval of the listing rule. The timeframe to meet the minimum board composition expectations set forth in the proposal will be based on a company’s listing tier. Specifically, all companies will be expected to have one diverse director within two years of the SEC’s approval of the listing rule. Companies listed on the Nasdaq Global Select Market and Nasdaq Global Market will be expected to have two diverse directors within four years of the SEC’s approval of the listing rule. Companies listed on the Nasdaq Capital Market will be expected to have two diverse directors within five years of the SEC’s approval. For companies that are not in a position to meet the board composition objectives within the required timeframes, they will not be subject to delisting if they provide a public explanation of their reasons for not meeting the objectives.
“Nasdaq’s purpose is to champion inclusive growth and prosperity to power stronger economies,” said Adena Friedman, President and CEO, Nasdaq. “Our goal with this proposal is to provide a transparent framework for Nasdaq-listed companies to present their board composition and diversity philosophy effectively to all stakeholders; we believe this listing rule is one step in a broader journey to achieve inclusive representation across corporate America.”
Nasdaq will also introduce a partnership with Equilar, the leading provider of corporate leadership data solutions, to aid Nasdaq-listed companies with board composition planning challenges. Through the EquilarBoardEdge platform, hosting nearly one million profiles and the Equilar Diversity Network, and by leveraging existing services through the Nasdaq Center for Board Excellence, the partnership will enable Nasdaq-listed companies that have not yet met the proposed diversity objectives to access a larger community of highly-qualified, diverse, board-ready candidates to amplify director search efforts.
“This proposal and partnership gives companies an opportunity to make progress toward increasing representation of women, underrepresented minorities and the LGBTQ+ community on their boards,” said Nelson Griggs, President of Nasdaq Stock Exchange. “Corporate diversity, at all levels, opens up a clear path to innovation and growth. We are inspired by the support from our issuers and the financial community with this effort and look forward to working together with companies of all sizes to create stronger and more inclusive boards.”
Through this proposal and other corporate initiatives, Nasdaq seeks to make a positive impact in the global community by leveraging the scale of its operations and client network. In September, Nasdaq announced the launch of its Purpose Initiative, designed to champion inclusive growth and prosperity for all stakeholders. This effort will include the relaunched Nasdaq Foundation and initiatives through the company’s employee volunteerism and philanthropic programs and the Nasdaq Entrepreneurial Center.
Stakeholder Endorsements:
“Successful companies must cultivate diversity to fuel innovation and to thrive in today’s era of ongoing environmental, social and economic change. The technology industry is committed to promoting inclusivity at all levels to ensure that our economy remains robust and innovative. We support Nasdaq’s proposal to advance diversity throughout corporate America.” – Linda Moore, President & CEO, TechNet
“By pushing its listed companies to address racial and gender equity in corporate boards, Nasdaq is heeding the call of the moment. Incremental change and window-dressing isn’t going to cut it anymore as consumers, stakeholders and the government increasingly hold corporate America’s feet to the fire. Nasdaq’s efforts to prod and push its listed companies is a welcomed and necessary first step. With increased representation of people of color, women and LGBTQ people on corporate boards, corporations will have to take actionable steps to ensure underrepresented communities have a seat at the table.” – Anthony Romero, executive director, American Civil Liberties Union
“Diversity of experience, gender, race, knowledge, and perspective means that a company is more capable of seeing the full picture, assessing risk and overcoming challenges with forward-looking, innovative solutions.” – Michael Splinter, Chairman, Nasdaq
“When we embrace diversity, we are better equipped to serve our clients, employees, partners, communities and shareholders.” – Charlene Begley, Director, Nasdaq
“Nasdaq’s diversity proposal marks a transformative moment in a larger movement toward greater representation of women and people of color in the boardroom and beyond.” – Alfred Zollar, Director, Nasdaq
1 – An “underrepresented minority” is an individual who self-identifies in one or more of the following groups: Black or African American, Hispanic or Latinx, Asian, Native American or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander or Two or More Races or Ethnicities.
About Nasdaq:
Nasdaq (Nasdaq: NDAQ) is a global technology company serving the capital markets and other industries. Our diverse offering of data, analytics, software and services enables clients to optimize and execute their business vision with confidence. To learn more about the company, technology solutions and career opportunities, visit us on LinkedIn, on Twitter @Nasdaq, or at www.nasdaq.com.
One opponent of the plan wrote on Twitter, in reaction to the announcement, “You justify your quota on “multiple studies” showing that “greater diversity…is associated with improved corporate governance and financial performance.” Then why do companies need Nasdaq to mandate the makeup of their boards?”
Another reaction read,”
Hey @Nasdaq delist a company, FAFO as I will be the first one to sue you into a class action of any fund, stock, index that I might own! Also, delisting for woke values instead of delisting CCP companies that don’t adhere to GAAP?! Nahhh bro. Bring it.”
“This totally creeps me out. We really do need to think about breaking down these too-large and overreaching businesses,” a woman wrote.
And if Americans ever wondered what Communism and Tyranny really felt like and what Cultural Marxism was really about- now we now. And now we see who will support it and why. “It is all about the Benjamins”, right?
Where western law has historically punished people’s behavior, progressive groups have been waging an effort for law to punish people’s words.
Norway’s parliament voted on Tuesday, November 10th to outlaw both private and public hate speech against transgender and bisexual people.
Gay and lesbian people have been protected from hate speech under Norway’s penal code since 1981.
This most recent law is an expansion of that penal code. It changes the code’s language from “homosexual orientation” to “sexual orientation”, and adds “gender, gender identity, or expression”, so as to include transgender and bisexual people in its scope.
If found guilty of private hate speech, an individual will face a fine or up to a year in jail.
If found guilty of public hate speech, the offender can face up to three years in jail.
According to Norway’s penal code, speech is considered “public” if it “is made in a way that makes it likely to reach a sizable number of persons.”
Additionally, a judge has the authority to add extra prison time for a violent crime if it’s determined that the victim was targeted specifically because of their sexual identity.
Free speech advocates throughout the West are concerned that the proliferation of hate speech laws in western society are impinging on constitutionally-protected free speech rights.
How, then, are they to reconcile the punishment of private “hate speech” with their own Constitution’s declaration that “everyone shall be free to speak his mind on any…subject whatsoever”?
Free speech advocates do not protest these laws because they want to practice hate speech, but out of concern that “hate speech” is too broadly defined, and will lead to a State-enforced ideology.
In other words, they recognize that allowance for hate speech is necessary in a truly free society.
I’ll leave some more philosophical insight on the “perniciousness” of hate speech laws to Canadian clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson:
The City of Portland will be purging its founding documents of all gender-specific pronouns so as to be more “inclusive.”
Mayor Ted Wheeler, who was recently re-elected, announced via Twitter that the city would be removing feminine and masculine terms from its City Charter in an effort to “make our documents more inclusive of all gender identities.”
The language of the documents that guide the City should reflect our community. Today, Council authorized the City Auditor to remove feminine and masculine terms from the City Charter. This important step will help make our documents more inclusive of all gender identities.
According to the ordinance, “the deletion of masculine and feminine terms from the Charter” was approved by the Council and the City Attorney and will be effected by the City Auditor.
“His” and “her”, “he” and “she”, “himself” and “herself”, and “him” will all be cut from the charter and substituted by gender neutral words.
According to The Oregonian, there are over five dozen gender pronouns that will need to be re-worked in the document.
Reference to “police women” or “police matrons” will also be struck from the document.
“The intent is to be more inclusive in our language,” said Amanda Lamb, chief deputy with the City Auditor’s office. “The charter doesn’t need a gendered signifier when referring to a person.”
Portland is not the first city (or state) to begin changing its documents or enacting policies to be more inclusive of sexual orientations and gender identities that break the historical mold of male/female.
“Both Philadelphia and Tulsa, Oklahoma, nixed gendered language from their city charters this year, according to Fox News. In 2017, Oregon became the first state in the nation to allow residents to select a third sex option, X, on driver’s licenses as opposed to the typical M or F, representing male or female, Fox reported.”
In an exchange with the National Review, Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI) refused to call for an apology from presidential candidate Joe Biden for using the same offensive term she confronted Judge Amy Coney Barrett for using during confirmation hearings last week.
During Senate confirmation hearings for Judge Barrett, Hirono called the Supreme Court nominee’s use of the term “sexual preference” “offensive and outdated”. She said that term is “used by anti-LGBTQ activists to suggest that sexual orientation is a choice.”
“It is not,” Senator Hirono declared while questioning President Trump’s Supreme Court Justice nominee.
As has been pointed out by many since then, former Vice President Joe Biden used the term “sexual preference” as recently as this past May.
Barrett apologized for her comments. “I certainly didn’t mean and, you know, would never mean to use a term that would cause any offense in the LBGTQ community,” she told Hirono. “So if I did, I greatly apologize for that.”
And when Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) addressed the term as well, Judge Barrett again apologized and clarified her original meaning: “In using that word I did not mean to imply that it is not an immutable characteristic or that it’s solely a preference. I fully respect the rights of the LGBTQ community. Obergefell was an important precedent of the court.”
In the days following, the political left has largely embraced Senator Hirono’s interpretation of “sexual preference”, despite the fact that the term was regularly used by the mass media and political candidates alike. That is, until Judge Barrett used the term.
No one on the political left, however, has asked Biden about his comments in May, nor have they requested an apology.
John McCormack, a Washington correspondent for the National Review, was able to ask Hirono directly about whether Joe Biden should apologize for using the term “sexual preference” during this year’s political campaign.
National Review: Senator, last week at the hearing you mentioned that you thought it was ‘off pensive and outdated’ when Amy Barrett used the (term) ‘sexual preference.’ It turns out that Joe Biden said it in May. Ruth Bader Ginsburg said it in 2017. Some of your colleagues on the Judiciary Committee said it maybe in 2010, 2012. Do you stand by that criticism?
Hirono: Well, of course.
NR: Do you think Joe Biden should apologize for saying that in May?
Hirono: Well, look, it’s a lesson learned for all of us. But when you’re going on the Supreme Court and you’ve been a judge, as one of my judge friends said, you should know what these words mean.
NR: Should Joe Biden apologize, too, like Amy Coney Barrett did?
Hirono: Joe Biden is not up for the Supreme Court.
NR: He’s up for the presidency. So, he shouldn’t apologize?
Hirono: People will decide.
NR: You don’t want to call on him to apologize?
Hirono: Oh, stop it. The world is in flames.
In his piece on the above exchange with Senator Hirono, McCormack also pointed out to major media outlets and public figures who have used the term “sexual preference” with no issue:
“The Huffington Post and The Atlantic have printed “sexual preference” instead of “sexual orientation” in the last six years. A gay-rights advocate used the term in a September 25, 2020, interview with the gay-rights magazine The Advocate. No one condemned or criticized any of the media outlets or Democratic politicians who used the term in the past decade.”
In a new documentary that premiered this week, Pope Francis made a controversial endorsement of civil unions laws for homosexual couples.
“Homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family,” Francis said in the documentary. “They’re children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out, or made miserable because of it.”
“What we have to create is a civil union law,” he continued. That way they are legally covered.”
His comments have made waves in religious circles, and there is much disagreement about whether or not Francis’ comments undermine the Catholic Church’s position on homosexuality. While they do not change the Catholic doctrine that marriage is strictly defined as the union between one man and one woman, many are saying they mark a shift in the Vatican’s language.
Reverend James Martin, a Catholic priest who has been at the forefront of reconciliation between the Church and the LGBTQ community, called Francis’s comments “a major step forward in the church’s support for LGBT people.”
Similarly, in an interview with NPR, Father Bryan Massingale, an openly gay Catholic priest, celebrated the pope’s comments about “family rights”: “I was actually very excited and even jubilant I have to say. I was very, very pleased to hear the Pope make this kind of endorsement of civil unions for gay and lesbian persons.”
The Catholic News Agency, on the other hand, called the remarks “a shift from the perspectives of his predecessors”, namely Popes Benedict XVI and John Paul II, who guided the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith that states:
“…respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society.”
Matt Frad, an Australian Catholic author whose podcast “Pints with Aquinas” receives hundreds of thousands of downloads every month, spoke on behalf of traditional Catholics in a Youtube video addressing the Pope’s comments:
“We think he says things that are massively unhelpful and then doesn’t clarify them,” Frad said. “When you get ambiguous claims at best, which then are never clarified, it’s frustrating, especially as we seek to make Christ’s last commandment our first priority.”
“Maybe a libertarian case can be made for civil unions among homosexuals,” Frad continued, “but when you say stuff like this, the way the world hears you is, ‘Homosexual acts are not disordered and the Catholic Church has changed its opinion on this.'”
“Francesco” is a documentary showcasing the life of Pope Francis and the global political and social issues that the Vatican has faced under his leadership. The director, Evgeny Afineevsky, secured exclusive interviews with Pope Francis for the production of the film.
It premiered at the Rome Film Festival on Wednesday and was awarded the “Kineo Movie for Humanity Award” on Thursday in the Vatican Gardens.
“Francesco” is scheduled to premiere in the United States on October 25th at the Savannah Film Festival.
Wikipedia recently banned its editors from including any messages of support for traditional marriage in their userboxes, but will still allow messages of support for same-sex marriage.
Wikipedia is staffed by volunteers who write and edit Wikipedia articles. Each volunteer has the opportunity to communicate information about themselves via a “user box”. Some editors have used that box as an opportunity to proclaim their support for traditional marriage.
But other users recently raised the userboxes with pro-traditional marriage messages as an issue to Wikipedia, leading to a dialogue among editors and Wikipedia.
In the discussion, the sides were drawn between those on the “keep” side (those who advocated keeping the userboxes with pro-traditional marriage messages) and those on the “delete” side (those who argued userboxes with pro-traditional marriage messages should be deleted).
Orgonebox voted “Delete” : “Divisive, hateful bilge that has no business here.”
StarM voted “Delete”: “Wikipedia is no place for advocacy toward bigotry.”
Lev!vich voted “Delete”: “imagine if it was anti-interracial marriage. Some things, just no.”
Lev!vich further went on to argue that pro-traditional marriage messages suggest “that marriage between gay people is not marriage, and this is discrimination based on sexual preference, a type of discrimination that I personally disagree with, but more importantly that the entire anglosphere has outlawed. That’s evidence of the userbox being divisive…”
“…these userboxes add nothing of value to the encyclopedia, but risk doing harm (by alienating editors), and therefore they are bad for the project and should be deleted,” Lev!vich wrote.
“Keep” advocates rebutted that deleting these userboxes and banning outspoken support of pro-traditional marriage would undermine Wikipedia’s policy on neutrality, especially since userboxes with pro-homosexual marriage messages would not be affected.
Dps04 voted “Keep”: “Given Wikipedia has not completely outlawed any userboxes which broadly relate to discourse in politics and social issues (there is even a Wikipedia page listing such userboxes), it follows that a blanket ban against one side of the debate of a controversial issue flies in the face of Wikipedia’s mission as a free and open encyclopedia.”
Zoozaz1 voted “Keep”: “Having an opinion, clearly, does not mean you are spouting propaganda simply because another editor disagrees with that opinion; by that logic one could call every userbox propaganda.”
Zoozaz1’s full argument is worth the read:
While I sympathize with not having these userboxes on Wikipedia, I disagree that there is a strong grounding in policy for it.
I’m not quite sure how one can personally attack a family structure; yes, people may feel offended (and they have good reason to be) but you are not personally attacking anyone; you are attacking an institution that some people are committed to and feel strongly about.
While I can’t dispute that this is inflammatory and divisive, so is every single political userbox. That rule seems to apply based only on the preferences of the people who comprise the vast majority of Wikipedia, Western educated men (not everyone in Wikipedia is that, of course, and I haven’t checked anyone’s user page specifically) not on what the other side might find divisive. Huge amounts of the world view gay marriage as inflammatory and divisive; why not delete userboxes supporting gay marriage? The point is that this is an arbitrary and useless critereon that clearly was not intended for a blanket deletion of what would extend to quite literally anything.
Having an opinion, clearly, does not mean you are spouting propaganda simply because another editor disagrees with that opinion; by that logic one could call every userbox propaganda. And there is no evidence that it is religious advocacy, nor is there any mention of religion in the userboxes. “An opinion piece is an article… that mainly reflects the author’s opinion about a subject.” One sentence does not comprise an article.
The debate concluded on September 24th in favor of “Delete.”
“The result of the discussion was: DELETE,” wrote Wikipedia’s English language administrator Sandstein. “Consensus is quite clear, both numerically and in terms of strength of argument, that these templates for display on Wikipedia user pages – which broadly speaking express opposition to same-sex marriage – violate the guideline on user box content restrictions because they are ‘inflammatory or divisive’ and ‘propaganda (or) advocacy’, as prohibited by that guideline.”
The Christian Institute reported that the site administrator, “Ad Orientem”, resigned following this decision, warning that it was “clearly inconsistent” with Wikipedia’s commitment to neutrality.
Ad Orientem is quoted as saying that the vote to delete the pro-traditional marriage messages represents “an ugly tendency to condemn the views of others as outside the bounds of acceptable thought, never minding those views are held by the vast majority of people globally and the followers of most of the world’s major religious faiths.”
Long-time Seattle radio host Dori Monson has been suspended from his radio programs after he made comments about Washington State’s transgender laws that have offended various progressive groups.
The controversial comments were made via Twitter while Monson was live-streaming the Washington gubernatorial debate on Wednesday. The tweet has since been deleted, but screenshots have been widely spread around social media:
Monson’s tweet read: “Inslee: we follow science in WA. The state where I could go to Olympia tomorrow and change my birth cert to say I was a girl on 10/2/61 HAHAHAHAHA.”
Monson has been hosting a political talk show on KIRO Radio since 1995, and the pre- and post-game shows for the Seattle Seahawks since 2002. Both KIRO and the Seattle Seahawks suspended him following Wednesday’s tweet.
Before his suspension, Monson apologized to his audience during his Thursday show. He said that making fun of transgender people hadn’t even crossed his mind when he made the comment. His intention, he said, had been to poke fun at Governor Jay Inslee and the laws of the state that he disagrees with.
“Cancel culture across the country has been validated far too many times. And I don’t have any control over that. I only have control over what’s in my heart. And so, they’re saying, ‘You’re laughing at transgender people.’ No, I was laughing at Jay Inslee saying we are a science-based state. But, I heard a couple people I care about deeply, and I personally called them this morning and I said, ‘I’m sorry. That was not where I was going. That was not my intent on that.’ And I’ll tell you the same thing: If you were hurt by that, I’m sorry. Not where I was going, not my intent, but I’m sorry. Unequivocally, no qualifications.”
You can listen to his entire apology by clicking here. It begins around the 9-minute mark.
On Saturday, the Seattle Out & Proud Foundation demanded Monson’s immediate termination if he does not offer a sincere apology and “meaningful actions that show empathy and a willingness to understand the trans community.”
“…while free speech is a right afforded to all in our society,” the statement reads, “it does go both ways; Mr. Monson is free to make members of the LGBTQIA+ community the butt of his jokes, just as the community is free to call for him to be removed.”
KIRO-FM and the Seattle Seahawks have declined to comment thus far on the matter.
“So – if Dori goes, who is next?” asked Q13 host Brandi Kruse in a Facebook post earlier today. “Where does the mob focus its attention? On another KIRO Radio host? On anyone who dissents from the prevailing political ideology of the market?”
Kruse came to Monson’s defense in her post, which is well worth the full read: about:blankFacebook URL
Embedded content from facebook.com can’t be previewed in the editor.
Monson has not been back on the radio or hosted any of his regular programs since Thursday.
Last week, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 2218 into law, a bill that allocates a portion of the state’s budget toward grants for transgender treatments and surgeries for adults and children.
The bill establishes what is called The Transgender Wellness and Equity Fund. “The Fund will assist organizations serving people that identify as transgender, gender nonconforming, or intersex (TGI), and help create or fund TGI-specific housing programs and partnerships with hospitals, health care clinics and other medical providers to provide TGI-focused health care,” said the bill’s author, Assemblymember Miguel Santiago (D – Los Angeles).
“This is a critical measure for our transgender community and I thank Governor Newsom for his steadfast leadership in signing AB 2218,” said Santiago. “California’s TGI community has long faced obstacles in receiving safe, nondiscriminatory, comprehensive care, and COVID-19 has exacerbated these existing health care disparities. This bill will help create programs where TGI-identified people can receive safe, competent, and inclusive health care and other social services.”
In a press release, Governor Newsom praised California for having “some of the strongest pro LGBTQ+ laws in the nation”, and called the new bill “an additional step forward” in the state’s “march toward equality.”
The bill states that 218,400 people identify as transgender in California, and that 27% of youth aged 12 to 17 are “viewed as gender nonconforming by their peers.” It also highlights the high rates of suicide and physical, mental, and emotional disabilities in the transgender population.
The bill establishes a fund in the State Treasury to rectify the problems experienced by the transgender community and to provide “TGI-competent health care.”
But before being signed, the bill faced fierce pushback from voters, religious leaders, and even doctors, and transgender people who have undergone sex change treatments.
Dr. Quentin Van Meter was one of those who raised concerns about the bill and testified against it. In his testimony (which can be viewed here), he pointed to testimonies of children who continued to experience mental health issues even after undergoing sex-change therapies. He called the use of treatments on children a “carousel” that is, “in the end, a circular hell”.
Many have pointed to the fact that the sex-change treatments that the bill would fund have a high likelihood of causing infertility in children too young to make such future-altering decisions.
While supporters of the legislation decried its critics for inciting fear unnecessarily, the California Family Council has pointed out that medical centers currently administering sex-change treatments to children openly admit in their consent forms that provided medications are used for blocking puberty and that the treatments “will likely lead to infertility.” (See the consent forms provided by the Center for Transyouth Health and Development).
Laura Perry, a woman who formerly identified as a transgender man and who traveled to California for a double mastectomy, was also among those testifying against the bill. “I really thought it was going to fix the problem,” she said of her mastectomy experience. “…I remember being devastated after a few weeks when I realized that my surgery hadn’t made me a man.”
Senate Republican Leader Shannon Grove (R – Bakersfield) also spoke out against the bill: “The government should not be in the business of incentivizing doctors to rush young children to make a decision that is life-altering and irreversible before they’ve even reached emotional and physical maturity.”
A Chicago restaurant owned and operated by a family of immigrants from Cuba and Mexico was forced to close in June because, despite proclaiming that racism is evil, they would not align themselves with the pro-LGBTQ, pro-abortion, anti-police agenda of the Black Lives Matter movement.
The Riesco family had owned and operated Nini’s Deli in downtown Chicago for a decade. It had become a Yelp Top 50 Restaurant in the country rated at 5 stars. Not only was the restaurant enjoying great success, but so was Juan Riesco – son of the owners and heir to the business along with his brother, Jose.
Juan had been in partnerships with brands like Nike and Adidas in his personal business, Chicago Native, and he was seen as a successful rising entrepreneur.
After the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis while being arrested by police, pressure mounted for the Riesco family to throw their support behind the Black Lives Matter movement as a statement of support to the community. Community members pointed at the business’s silence on social media, and people began asking Nini’s for a statement on recent events.
On Wednesday, June 3rd, Nini’s released their statement via their Instagram account (which has now been shut down):
Nini’s Deli believes that all people were created in the image of God. We do not promote or agree with racism and hatred of any kind. In light of the current events, we want to let our city and nation know that we mourn with you. We pray for justice for George Floyd’s family, friends, and the entire community that is hurting. We believe that all black lives matter and we know that only God can bring about the justice that is deserved.
The statement continued with an apology for not saying anything sooner:
As a Christian, we stand against all injustice and will always serve our communities with love, grace, and integrity, no matter your race, gender, or background. We apologize for not making this statement earlier. We want to serve you, Chicago.
They were immediately criticized for not saying “Black Lives Matter” explicitly (despite saying “We believe all black lives matter” in their post). Community members demanded that the business align itself with the Black Lives Matter movement.
Nini’s Deli and the Riesco family quickly lost support from community members, partners, and businesses in the days that followed.
Protesters began marching and gathering outside of Nini’s. Police officers monitored the events. Jose Riesco set up a speaker to preach the Gospel – a controversial move that offended many protesters because of his outspoken views on homosexuality and abortion. Protesters painted Nini’s pink wall black, complete with the Black Lives Matter fist.
You can read the entire timeline of events, including snapshots of Tweets and Instagram posts, by clicking here.
Ultimately, the Riesco family was forced to close Nini’s Deli permanently.
This is oppression by mob rule. Anyone who opposes the mob will be harassed to comply until the guilty party bows to the mob’s wishes. If the guilty party refuses, the mob punishes them using whatever means they can. The mob is the judge and the jury. No diversity of thought is allowed here.
Even if you disagree with the restaurant owners, is it the mob’s right to take away a family’s business from them?
According to Faithwire, the Riesco family has left Chicago and Juan and Jose now plan to dedicate their lives to ministry.
“…my circumstances have changed,” said Juan, “but my identity in whom I trust hasn’t.”
