Nobody, Gay or Straight, Has the Right to a Wedding Cake

Rather than arguing over who can discriminate or why, look at what goods and services actually need government protection through public accommodation laws.

The market providesCredit: Gexydaf / Foter / CC BY-NC-NDLibertarians may have tried to debate non-libertarians about whether bakeries can be forced to make wedding cakes for gay couples or what Arizona was trying to accomplish with SB 1062, the vetoed legislation that would have expanded the ability for businesses and individuals to attempt to claim religion as an exemption from public accommodation laws.

The debate might have gone something like this:

Person: It’s wrong to discriminate against gay people.

Libertarian: Businesses have the right to choose whether they’ll provide their services to people.

Person: Does a bakery have the right to refuse to make a wedding cake for an interracial couple?

Libertarian: Of course.

Person: [side-eye]

Libertarian: Freedom of association!

Person: Civil Rights Act of 1964!

Libertarian: There are no positive rights. Forcing somebody to provide goods or services to you through government mandate is a type of slavery.

Person: No, slavery is when white people beat you with whips and make you work 20 hours a day and rape you! That’s slavery! Don’t you know history or are you some sort of racist?

And so it goes. The emotional response to America’s racist history (and the racist history itself) makes it a challenge to argue for the libertarian ideal of this manifestation of property rights. To a libertarian living in America in 2014 it seems absurd to think that if the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were to expire that segregation would somehow return like it never left. While there is certainly racism in America today and plenty of it, the collusion between bigoted government leaders and bigoted business leaders no longer exists at a level where this country could ever or would ever (or would want to) return to the days of the segregated lunch counter. And not just because lunch counters are largely irrelevant now.

But while there were a lot of ways slavery and segregation could have ended that would have been more aligned to libertarian values, we only have what actually happened. The concept of property rights in America was fundamentally altered in order to force an end to a widespread effort to prohibit minority races from accessing the same goods and services that whites enjoyed.

When the hardcore logic of the libertarian freedom philosophy collides with the larger emotion-based responses to real world discrimination, arguments sometimes go utterly nowhere. There isn’t a debate that can be had when the two sides don’t even agree on what words like slavery and freedom even mean. A couple of photographers or bakers refusing to accommodate gay weddings utterly pales in comparison to what has happened historically, so there’s an irony when supporters of Arizona’s legislation are accused of not knowing history. And nothing highlights the absurdity of the emotions behind the outrage than comparing the small number of discriminatory incidents that take place now to the Jim Crow South.

Attempting to create religion-based carve-outs for public accommodation rules and workplace discrimination laws is a suboptimal choice, because it argues that some people have greater freedom of association than others, if they have the right reasons, according to whatever a government body declares. Why should some folks be able to use some holy book as an excuse not to make somebody a cake rather than just having the free speech/free association right for whatever reason at all?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • anon||

    I hereby declare this article homophobic.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Add wedding cake to the Reason comment-bomb list.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    What do you guys think about deep dish wedding cakes?

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    They're like late-term abortions for illegal immigrants.

  • ||

    You must be selling gay wedding cakes to illegal immigrant abortion doctors.

  • plusafdotcom||

  • ||

    Only gay men who are circumcised have a right to wedding cake.

  • chmercier||

    It's also hobophobic as I'm sure this guy would say photographers and bakers could refuse to serve the homeless. How racist.

  • Tony||

    So discrimination against gay people in public accommodation pales in comparison to the reality of Jim Crow... but antidiscrimination laws are like slavery.

    Exactly which drugs to libertarians take for breakfast?

  • anon||

    See, I beat Tony to it, thereby robbing his bullshit of any impact it may or may not have had.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    It only has an impact on those too stupid to know they're being trolled.

  • ||

    Unfortunately, there seem to be a lot of stupid people who don't know that. Have they learned nothing from Tulpy-Poo?

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Do you think it's really been Cesar all along?

  • ||

    Do you think he was ever actually limited to just one? Not to mention that he had posted under "Rollo" for years. Like, five years. Do you really think there is any possible way there weren't many, many more? Including...more prominent ones?

  • ||

    I have here in my hand a list of 205 . . . a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State Episiarch as being members of the Communist Party sockpuppets of Tulpa and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department commenting. . . .

  • ||

    nice.

  • tarran||

    I don't think so...

    Tulpa is the sort of person who needs - and I mean like crying into his pillow masturbating furiously because it didn't happen level of need - people to acknowledge how smart he is.

    My guess is that all of Tulpa's socks appear in threads where his primary persona also participated.

  • ||

    Tulpa "left" H&R for weeks/months (except for the odd weekend/night), yet do you think he actually stopped sockpuppeting? That wouldn't comport with your theory.

  • SIV||

    Like when he argues with "Bo".

  • ||

    SIV and I see eye to eye on this one.

  • ||

    SIV and I see eye to eye on this one.

    OMIGOD

  • Zeb||

    I don't get the Bo thing. I see no reason not to believe that he is a perfectly honest and straightforward commenter with a slightly annoying personality and obsession with "SoCons".

  • SIV||

    Did you ever engage Tulpa in discussion/argument in these comments?
    (or just read his conversations with others)

    "Bo" is the exact same voice and uses the same "tactics".

  • Zeb||

    I disagree.

  • Brian||

    I assume so.

    I enjoy engaging. Nothing's more boring than constantly agreeing with everyone all the time.

    Still, there's no justification for creating sock puppets and being fake about it.

    I'm probably going to abandon engagement, because the same fallacious arguments are getting boring, and have been thoroughly debunked already. I can keep debunking them, but I can't make the irrational understand. And I'm starting to bore myself with it.

  • ||

    To me, engaging it is more for the benefit of the lurkers who aren't familiar with said debunkings. It looks bad if stupid shit is just left out there and no one exposes it for the crap that it is.

  • c5c5||

    Alan,

    I agree. I have learned much from lurking and reading the responses to non-sense.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    I'm probably going to abandon engagement, because the same fallacious arguments are getting boring, and have been thoroughly debunked already.

    This is my big problem with the Socks. They think relitigating the same points over and again is exciting, and it's not. It's stultifying.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Have you ever considered they might know they're being trolled, and just not care?

  • ||

    If you don't care, you're doing exactly what the sockpuppet wants. If you're ok with that, fine, I guess, but you look like a chump to me.

  • PBR Streetgang||

    Has anyone considered that there might only be 3-4 actual people in here and this is a COINTELPRO level circle jerk?

  • ||

    I know I'm not real.

  • Tonio||

    No, it provides lulz for the rest of us. So a big huzzah to anon for that.

  • Zeb||

    You know what is even more annoying than stupid troll/sockpuppet comments?

    Inserting 10 comments into every thread telling people not to respond to the troll/sockpuppet comments, that's what. You are doing just as much to shit up the thread as they are. After years of trying to be the troll police, maybe it's time to give it a rest.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Even worse than the troll police is complaining about the troll police.

    The only thing worse than complaining about the troll police is complaining about the people who complain about the troll police.

  • Zeb||

    Shit, now I'm going to be trapped in here forever.

  • tarran||

    So discrimination against gay people in public accommodation pales in comparison to the reality of Jim Crow... but antidiscrimination laws are like slavery

    Please tell me you graduated with honors from a public school! Because it would make your thorough incomprehension of what the grownups are writing even more delicious.

  • Tony||

    He said that's what libertarians think.

    Then he goes on to pretend that a theoretical lack of freedom to practice active bigotry in the marketplace is something worth public officials' attention.

    To your concern, public for high school, private for college, and always with honors.

  • Brian||

    Which college did you attend, and what did you study?

  • Swiss Servator, alles klar?||

    Matchbook Cover U, Pet Grooming and Walking.

  • ||

    Hollywood Upstairs Medical College, of course!

  • Tony||

    We don't like to say.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    "We"?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The Royal "we". You know, the editorial.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I'm not convinced. I think it's an admittance of sockpuppetry.

  • Brian||

    Tony:

    We don't like to say.

    OK, so you graduated with honors (i.e., in a relatively high percentile) of unspecified other students at an unspecified high school and college, studying an undisclosed topic.

    Impressive.

  • Sudden||

    Should a gay florist be required to provide his services for a wedding held at an Evangelical church that preaches homosexuality = TEH EVULZ?

  • ||

    Of course not. That's totally different, cuz I don't like those people.

  • Tony||

    I fully support their right to take the matter to the courts.

  • ||

    The rest of us fully support their right to decide for themselves, without permission from Top.Men.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    That's not a good enough analogy. These cases haven't been about people denying gay people birthday cakes. Try:

    Should a gay florist be required to provide his services for a fundraiser for Proposition 8?

  • 110 Lean||

    Should a devout Jew be forced to deliver a wedding cake on Saturday?

  • Bill Dalasio||

    This reminds me of a point I made. If you accept the public accommodation argument, why shouldn't the owners of the Stonewall have to rent out their bar to the Westboro Baptist Church during the middle of gay pride week?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Allegedly, it is the price to pay to be protected fro discrimination.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Then he goes on to pretend that a theoretical lack of freedom to practice active bigotry in the marketplace is something worth public officials' attention.

    That isn't at all what he said, though the spin is a nice touch.

    What he said was that forcing people to do work that one does not want to do, for whatever reason, is slavery. Which it is. If I make you provide some theoretical service that you offer to someone you'd rather not provide that service to, is that not a form of slavery?

    Your problem, besides the obvious attempt at spinning what was written, is that you equate slavery only with one particular form of slavery (American slavery as it was performed when slavery was legal), with whips and chains and barbarity, rather than simply slavery being forcing one to work in some capacity or another.

    So shut the fuck up.

  • Zeb||

    forcing people to do work that one does not want to do, for whatever reason, is slavery

    I pretty much agree, but it's a tough sell to a lot of people. If you agree with that, you have to acknowledge that prison and military conscription are also slavery.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    I would agree with that for military conscription.

  • Brian||

    Tony:

    pales in comparison to the reality of Jim Crow Laws... but antidiscrimination laws are like slavery.

    FIFY.

  • sarcasmic||

    You don't understand! Not having laws that criminalize discrimination is the same thing as having laws that mandate discrimination! Or something!

  • wwhorton||

    Exactement! Nothing exists outside of the state, citizen!

  • Brian||

    I thought the law was all the mattered. So, Jim Crow Laws represent democracy, or something, and are legitimate in nature.

    Except when they aren't.

    All that matters is the law, except when it doesn't.

    I can't keep track of it.

  • Tony||

    There are such things as bad laws. Nobody thinks otherwise.

    The special badness of Jim Crow laws is that they subvert democracy by forcing a minority into a disenfranchised underclass.

    Federal intervention to do away with systemic active bigotry is nobody's idea of a perfect solution to this specific social ill, but the perfect solution involves ignorant white southerners to stop being ignorant, and to date that has proven a rather Sisyphean endeavor.

  • WTF||

    Who's peekin' out from under his keyboard
    Calling us names to say we're unfair?
    Who's bending down to give O a blowjob?
    Everyone knows it's Tulpa.

  • ||

    Democracy isn't "subverted" when minorities are fucked over. That is the normal working state of democracy - fucking over minorities because the majority wants something else. That's the problem.

  • Tony||

    If you don't get an equal say in your society then it's not democracy. Being a political minority is different from being a racial minority. It's legitimate to lose in a democracy when you're the former, and the solution is to try harder. However, it is unjust if you're forced to try harder simply because of how you were born.

    You guys hate democracy because it doesn't give you everything you want. That's not the same thing.

  • ||

    You guys hate democracy because it doesn't give you everything you want provides shallow-minded power-mad soi-disant "enlightened" folk a twisted cover story for why enacting cruel and unjust policy is just a case of where it is "legitimate to lose... and the solution is to try harder".

    Someone would have made a super A-1 overseer.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    the perfect solution involves ignorant white southerners to stop being ignorant, and to date that has proven a rather Sisyphean endeavor.


    Aren't you a white southerner? You've got the ignorance down pat, anyways.

  • ||

    Please note that Jim Crows were LAWS that REQUIRED discrimination.

    Which is kind of, a little like having a law that says you can't be a cake-baker or a photographer unless you are willing to do things that violate your religious beliefs.

  • sarcasmic||

    Please note that Jim Crows were LAWS that REQUIRED discrimination.

    You forget that to Tony, not taking is giving and not giving is taking.

    By that same illogic, an absence of laws criminalizing discrimination is the same as having laws mandating discrimination.

    Or something.

  • Tony||

    They're more akin to laws that require states not to recognize gay marriage. They weren't imposed from a disconnected government on a mountaintop, they reflected the will of the majority of bigots who vote for the composition of that government. Bigots like to meddle.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Bigots like to meddle.

    And you're Exhibit 1 of that.

  • AB1979||

    When the state is given the power to determine who is served and how, you end up with the state using those powers in ways you might not like. Call it Jim Crow, call it discriminating against gays and lesbians, the state uses the same justification.

    And if a hate group walked into a minority-owned bakery I'm guessing you'd be happy to mandate they cater a celebration of Hitler's birthday or the founding of the Klan.

    Also, blaming continuing racism on the South alone shows how little you actually know. The headline grabbing bakery case is from New Mexico, hardly what anyone would consider "the South".

  • sarcasmic||

    And if a hate group walked into a minority-owned bakery I'm guessing you'd be happy to mandate they cater a celebration of Hitler's birthday or the founding of the Klan.

    No. That is using principles.

    For the left, only principals matter.

    Who is more important than what.

    So if a straight businessperson says "No" to a gay customer, that's just evil.

    But if a gay businessperson does the same to a straight customer (for example the gay hairdresser refusing to accommodate the straight AZ governor), that person is a hero.

    Principals trump principles.

  • AB1979||

    I'm stealing that phrase.

  • perlhaqr||

  • Homple||

    When the state gives a group the means to push people around, members of that group will use those means to push people around.

  • OneOut||

    Anyone well read on the subject also knows that intense racism came from North Eastern trade unions and wasn't limited to the South.

  • perlhaqr||

    No, the bakery case is from Oregon. The photography case (Elaine Photography) is the NM one.

    Oregon is definitely not "the South", though. :D

  • AB1979||

    I made the same argument over at The Atlantic that giving the state the power to determine the use of private property is what caused Jim Crow to last so long and so effectively.

    Needless to say that was not a popular sentiment.

    The liberal mantra of "State power was terrible, until they started using it for the things I liked," runs deep over there.

  • PaulW||

    The Atlantic used to be not so bad, I should check it out again.

    I sometimes try to stomach the Daily Beast since Nick writes for them, but I find it more and more difficult.

  • tarran||

    By the way, Tony, I have a request of you.

    It appears Lonewacko has started a wiki about Reason magazine.

    He has created a handful of pages, but it clearly requires more effort than one man can give, especially if he is busy keeping brown people from oogling the flowers of white womanhood.

    I, and I think I speak for several of us, would love to see you make some contributions to it.

    Would you be willing to add a few pages?

  • Rhywun||

    Haaaaaaahahaha! - I never saw that before. He has the only page, so lonely and crazy.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    I made an "edit" there about a month ago. He seems to have changed it back.

  • ||

    Oh, that looks awesome. This ought to be an amazing ride.

  • General Butt Naked||

    He's an asshole, but at least he's not wrong:

    These repellent crackpots spend their lives at Hit & Run, the Reason Foundation's libertarian propaganda site, sharing their daily frustrations with angry and paranoid gossipers, bitterly railing against a world that refuses to take them seriously, repeating the same stale memes and violence fantasies over and over again -- creating a cynical, sarcastic and nihilistic echo chamber of emotionally stunted, misanthropic, comically impotent narcissists.

    ...but, hey, at least we ain't wetbacks, eh, lonewacko?

  • ||

    ...a cynical, sarcastic and nihilistic echo chamber of emotionally stunted, misanthropic, comically impotent narcissists.

    Huh. That's actually kinda neat.

  • waffles||

    I thought so too.

  • R C Dean||

    If I saw a blog that advertised itself that way, I would totally check it out.

  • InfiniteRecursion||

    Sounds like my match.com bio..

  • Bardas Phocas||

    Have to admit - he pretty much hit on head with that.

  • Swiss Servator, alles klar?||

    "...a cynical, sarcastic and nihilistic echo chamber of emotionally stunted, misanthropic, comically impotent narcissists"

    I AM NOT COMICAL!!!!

  • OneOut||

    But you admit to impotence ?

  • ||

    My favorite part:

    Reason's tagline is "Free minds and free markets." That's why they employ secret moderators and snitches to censor dissenting opinions. This is why nobody takes Reason-brand™ libertarianism seriously.

    WARTSTASI

  • Brett L||

    This poor, poor person who was denied the ability to post on this internet site and went and posted on another internet site for free.

  • ||

    Also, note the similarity between the writing there and many of the heads of the HydraTroll.

  • Tonio||

    Damn, that's sad. Shorter LW: "They was mean to me." Yeah, like the internet hasn't heard that before. And invariably the person doing the whining is shown to be guilty of trolling, passive-aggressive behavior, etc.

  • ||

    I always enjoyed his description of this place over at his shitty site.

    Libertarian magazine run by Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie; former employer of Dave Weigel. Theirs is the Frat Boy, very Beltway-friendly variety of libertarianism. They or their affiliated Foundation have received money from the Koch family, and they're a key part of the "Kochtopus".

    I've repeatedly challenged their contributors over several years to defend their very strong support for illegal/massive immigration and in some cases literal open borders, and they've repeatedly refused. Instead, almost all of the hundreds of comments I left there were simply met with vile ad hominems, and I may take legal action against at least one commenter at that site. Neither their contributors nor those who comment there are capable of making a valid, logical argument for what they support; in fact, I appended the following to many of my comments there:

    P.S. In case anyone replies to this, their responses will almost assuredly be ad homs, thereby conceding my points and showing the childish, anti-intellectual nature of libertarians. Dozens of comments here have shown that the phrase "fascist libertarian" isn't an oxymoron.

    In almost all cases, that was followed by exactly what I predicted and nothing more.

    Fuck off, Lonewacko.

  • Swiss Servator, alles klar?||

    "I may take legal action against at least one commenter at that site."

    HAHAHAHAHAHA! If so, I would love to see his "counsel" on that one.

  • ||

    I'm fairly certain he's talking about me.

  • OneOut||

    People who publicly threaten lawsuits are invariably ignorant of the cost and time involved in a civil lawsuit. They all seem to think that some lawyer is just waiting to invest their time and money on contingency to make this guy's butt hurt go away.

  • ||

    I'm sure there's been a few in the history of the Republic but I'm not aware of a single attorney who would take a defamation case on contingency.

  • Jayburd||

    Perhaps some sort of E-restraining order?

  • Zeb||

    That is funny. I like how the only pages are about himself and nicole.

    Some things never change: " they have almost always simply conceded my points by launching into a series of ad hominem attacks, oftentimes of a vile nature". Brings me back to old times, before threaded commenting and Mary Stack and the vast conspiracy theories about trolls and sockpuppets.

  • OneOut||

    Tony IS Lonewacko !

  • wwhorton||

    Yes, laws limiting property rights by preventing business owners from doing business with a particular ethnicity are like laws that limit property rights by forcing business owners to do business with a particular sexual orientation. Not sure why this is difficult to understand.

  • Tony||

    But neither is quite like slavery, is it?

  • Brian||

    Tony:

    But neither is quite like slavery, is it?

    From the master of false equivalency.

    Earlier, didn't you say that government wealth transfer payments are equivalent to providing police protection because, law and "social"?

    So, aren't Jim Crow Laws equivalent to anti discrimination laws because... law and "social"?

  • Byte Me||

    Tony: Force is force. If you are being compelled, you are not free. Ergo, it is very much like slavery when the government mandates services between private entities.

  • ||

    Well, being forced to do something is more like slavery than being forbidden from doing it. There is that.

  • Tony||

    Nobody's being forced to do anything, they're being forbidden from discriminating based on race and sexual orientation.

    That has been a real, widespread social problem in this country, sad to say. The same can't be said for the "problem" of business owners not being able to freely associate.

    That's a made-up problem that's been used to justify Jim Crow conditions for a lot longer than the wedding cake thing has been in the news.

  • UnCivilServant||

    No, they're very clearly asking the courts to force the bakers to make a cake - ie provide their labor unwilling.

  • Tony||

    Just as sandwich shops were forced to serve blacks. Boo hoo. Maybe they shouldn't be bigots? The freedom the racists were asking to be defended is the exact freedom you're asking to be defended. And society and history long ago decided that such a freedom was less worthy of protection than the freedom of minorities to freely engage in their own societies.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    So, now you're saying it is slavery, but it's justified.

  • InfiniteRecursion||

    its okay to enslave people you don't like!
    /derp

  • UnCivilServant||

    Except you have that backwards again, the laws said no more than the sandwich shops did. And in both cases, there are plenty of other providers, and as such no need for force.

  • Jordan||

    freedom of minorities to freely engage in their own societies

    What about the freedom of minorities to control access to their own property?

  • OneOut||

    This is something I just can't get.

    If the bakers don't want the gay business they should just bake shitty cakes for gay customers.

    Problem solved.

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    Tony|3.6.14 @ 12:57PM|#

    Nobody's being forced to do anything,

    -----

    Tony|3.6.14 @ 1:05PM|#

    Just as sandwich shops were forced to serve blacks. Boo hoo.

    ---

    Classic

  • MJGreen||

    LOL. They're not being forced to do anything, they're just being forbidden from not doing it.

  • ||

    The funny thing is that all this would take is one act of civil disobedience.

    Suppose said Baker or Photographer refuses to obey the court. What then? Is he fined? Do the police come and eventually take him away?

    All you need is one photo of a person in handcuffs because he refused to do something he didn't believe in.
    And the the gay couple still doesn't get their cake, and you have a person in prison.

  • ||

    Probably not prosecuted as a criminal offense, but like the gay couple and the wedding cake would be pursued as a civil lawsuit. So the Baker wouldn't go to prison, honestly probably wouldn't even have to actually bake the cake, would just have to pay a giant civil judgment or go bankrupt. Which is pretty much what happened to Sweet Cakes by Melissa (the Oregon one) which closed up shop in 2013 and is now an at-home business.

  • R C Dean||

    Kinda reminds me of the "OCare doesn't force you to buy insurance, its just forbids you from not buying insurance."

  • Brian||

    Tony:

    That's a made-up problem that's been used to justify Jim Crow conditions laws

    FIFY.

    You just can't say Jim Crow laws, can you?

    Feel free to disregard inconvenient facts.

  • Tony||

    Laws, fine. I don't give a shit. I'm not the one who treats government as an alien presence completely disconnected from the will of voters.

    Aren't you guys usually the ones defending tyranny at the state and local level?

  • Brian||

    Tony:

    Aren't you guys usually the ones defending tyranny at the state and local level?

    Aren't you the one usually defending law because "democracy"?

  • Tony||

    Better in the hands of the people than in the hands of a tiny few who claim to know better than the people.

  • Brian||

    Tony:

    Better in the hands of the people than in the hands of a tiny few who claim to know better than the people.

    What government do you think you live under? And what better way to give rights to the hands of the people, than by limiting the extent that our selected few rulers decide how they will live their lives and make their economic decisions day in, day out?

    When concentrating more and more power in the hands of the few results in more power in the hands of the people, let me know. Otherwise, you're making my argument for me.

  • Tony||

    by limiting the extent that our selected few rulers decide how they will live their lives and make their economic decisions day in, day out?

    I want to concentrate power in the hands of more, not fewer. I say triple the size of Congress and the Supreme Court. I want to take a big democratic carving knife to our system of government so that the people are more accurately represented.

    When that happens, let's just see how much they favor all the constitutional amendments and new legislation it would take to limit the scope of collective action as much as you want.

  • ||

    Except you obviously do give a shit since you have such a hard time admitting that it was THE SAME FUCKING GOVERNMENT YOU SUPPORT forcing people BY LAW to discriminate.

  • Tony||

    I don't support the Alabama state government.

  • Joao||

    Would u really endeavor to use force of law to make a business owner provide a service to a situation that they want nothing to do with?

    Esp when you can just go down the street to the next provider?

    Do you have a conscience?

  • Tony||

    Yes, because you're using "situation they they want nothing to do with" as a euphemism for discriminating based on race or other similar characteristic. Put bluntly, if a white person has access to 2 businesses that cater to the public, then a black person should have the same. If you tolerate the discriminatory regime then you're saying black people have to work a little bit harder to participate in capitalism. And who the fuck are you to tell them that and then question my conscience?

  • Tony||

    Oh, and them blame them when they do worse at capitalism.

  • montana mike||

    WTF are you trying to say? Good god, you are a fucking moron.

  • Zeb||

    I'll agree that it's not like slavery. Slaves don't get paid. It's much more like Fascism, where the state determines how you do business and who you do it with. Though many argue fairly compellingly that that is pretty close to slavery too.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Slaves got paid with room and board. It was shitty pay yes, but they still got some level of compensation for their forced labor.

  • Zeb||

    I understand the idea and more or less agree, but if you start calling anything where a person has to do something they don't want to do "slavery", then the word loses a lot of its specific meaning. I suppose it's good when you want to make a point and surprise people a bit, but in general use, it would not be useful to use "slavery" that way.

  • R C Dean||

    What the Tony's of the world are ignorant of is that chattel slavery isn't the only form of slavery.

  • Zeb||

    OK, fair enough. But "slavery" unmodified is generally assumed to refer to chattel slavery, and for many people, African slaves in America specifically. So you lose a lot of people right away if you put it in those terms, however accurate they may be. And if you don't care what those people think, I won't argue with you.

  • ||

    How hard is it to say "People shouldn't be compelled to do things that go against their beliefs."

    Would it be SO VERY PAINFUL for you to allow Christian conservatives to not bake cakes for you?
    Really?

    Do you really feel so horribly discriminated against that you have to forcibly compell people to do tihngs they find morally objectionable ?

    How do you sleep at night? How do you look at yourself in the mirror?

  • ||

    Sockpuppets don't have bodies, or eyes to look into mirrors with, Hazel.

  • UnCivilServant||

    You don't put eyes on your sockpuppets! Barbarian!

  • JeffreyinSandySprings||

    dumbass- the government is not around to force you to like or "accomodate" anyone. Its up to the business owner to choose. Choice- thats the essence of freedom. Amazing how these "pro choice" types so anti choice about everything BUT abortion. The only entity that cannot discriminate under any circumstances is the government itself. However through racial and gender quotas in hiring and education and other programs it discriminates more than anyone else
    Feeling pretty stupid now Tony???

  • Joao||

    Well, discrimination isn't actually making someone do something against their will, as slavery does.

  • Pavlov's Cat||

    Exactly which drugs to libertarians take for breakfast?

    You're obviously a whore, so blow me or I'll sue you. (Just following Tony's logic.)

  • ||

    Interesting thought experiment - assuming prostitution were legal, like it is in parts of Nevada, would it be a violation for a hooker to refuse to have sex with a black man? Would it be a violation for a hooker to refuse to have sex with another woman? Would it be a violation for a gigolo to refuse to have sex with a gay man?

  • ||

    THEY ALL WANT CAKE.

  • WTF||

    "Tony" certainly does.

  • John||

    +8%

  • Rhywun||

    Perhaps public accommodation reform would be a better strategy for trying to preserve at least some level of freedom of association

    But HATE CRIME!

  • JeffreyinSandySprings||

    as soon as the government gets involved in this type of crap it turns into a massive mud puddle. Its best if they stick to arbitrating what they are constitutionally mandated to do (which this is not)

  • RFID||

    Why are people fighting for the right to give money to people who dont like them?

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Because FYTW

    No, seriously, they want to make these people suffer an indignity. that's their only goal.

  • Tony||

    They want not to have unequal access to the commerce of their society because of how they were born.

    I personally want it made clear that because someone has an imaginary friend that does not give them a special exemption to law and decency.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    commerce of their society

    All your commerce are belong to us

  • WTF||

    "Tony" believes he has the right to force others to provide him with goods and services against their will, rather than just give his business to those who would do so voluntarily. But he believes we are the fascists.

  • ||

    Sockpuppets "believe" whatever will get people to respond to them.

  • Tony||

    Since we're all comfortable living in fantasy worlds, let's pretend that nobody will serve you because of some aspect of how you were born. Is that a tolerable situation? Or at that point do we enact practical laws so that you're not completely excluded from society? Is the liberty of a business owner so absolute that you are required to fuck off and die in order to preserve it?

  • wwhorton||

    Speaking of fantasy worlds, even during the worst periods of segregation and Jim Crow black Americans were able to do business and engage in commerce. There was never a period in time, barring slavery (and even then there were exceptions) where the situation you describe existed.

    And, yet again, it bears reminding you that segregation and Jim Crow were products of laws enacted at the federal and state levels.

  • Brian||

    Tony:

    Or at that point do we enact practical laws so that you're not completely excluded from society? Is the liberty of a business owner so absolute that you are required to fuck off and die in order to preserve it?

    Let's pretend that one backward jackwagon who doesn't want to bake cakes for gays is now completely excluding those gays from society.

    This argument is disconnected from reality.

    I know it's fun to pretend that tolerance is a gift from the state, but it's not. These anti discrimination laws wouldn't even exist without widespread popularity, suggesting that gays are not excluded from society.

    Government always follows society in social change like this. It never leads.

  • Brian||

    Further, Tony, don't you always say that government regulates where free markets can't function, due to either market failure or some suboptimal condition that you define?

    Well, let's take that argument and apply it to the slave codes and Jim Crow laws.

    These were laws that assigned penalties and punishments against non slave owers who helped slaves, taught slaves to read and right, mandated legislative approval for freeing slaves, mandated compulsory service in catching slaves, and mandated discrimination and segregation against blacks, whether the whites agreed or not.

    By your argument, this implies that free markets couldn't sustain slavery and discrimination, since they required regulation by the state. And we all know that the state never regulates something that the market could take care of. After all, if the market could do it, why would the state regulate it in the first place?

    Congratulations, Tony: your arguments, taken to their logical conclusion, imply that slavery and discrimination require the state, and that free markets fail at it. Bravo.

  • David K||

    And notice how he never responds when taken down.

  • Homple||

    "Congratulations, Tony: your arguments, taken to their logical conclusion, imply that slavery and discrimination require the state, and that free markets fail at it. Bravo."

    Quite so.

  • Brian||

    Oh, I agree with the conclusion. I just don't use a fallacious argument to get there.

    If I disagreed, I would be guilty of the fallacy fallacy: just because an argument is fallacious, doesn't imply the conclusion must be wrong.

  • MuhROADS||

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • Kevin47||

    "Since we're all comfortable living in fantasy worlds, let's pretend that nobody will serve you because of some aspect of how you were born. Is that a tolerable situation? "

    I wouldn't tolerate it. I would take my business to those who would serve me. If there were no such businesses, I would find like-minded folks to organize and create an economy for such businesses, as opposed to asking government to make businesses do my bidding.

  • Dave's not here||

    Let's pretend that the sun won't come up tomorrow.

  • Brian||

    We should definitely legislate based on that possibility.

  • Swiss Servator, alles klar?||

    We could call it "Little Orphan Annie's Law"!

  • Mercutio||

    Is the liberty of a business owner so absolute that you are required to fuck off and die in order to preserve it?

    Yes.

  • Warren's Strapon||

    let's pretend that nobody will serve you because of some aspect of how you were born

    Yes, your argument is certainly much easier to make when you completely make shit up. You fucking fool.

  • Zeb||

    let's pretend that nobody will serve you because of some aspect of how you were born. Is that a tolerable situation? Or at that point do we enact practical laws so that you're not completely excluded from society?

    In that scenario, as a practical measure, maybe such a law would be useful. But that is not the case in teh US now. So if you want to talk about practical laws, let's wait until there is a practical need for them. No gay couple is forced to go without a wedding cake because of a lack of public accomodation laws.

    I think that's how it should have been handled for race too. Get rid of the legally mandated discrimination of Jim Crow and other racist institutions and let the market do its work. If in several years black people are still largely excluded, then maybe think about public accommodation rules. But why use force if you don't know you have to?

  • ||

    1. Yes, that is a tolerable situation. I am over 6'4" tall. I cannot drive a Mazda Miata because my legs are too long. Fortunately I have thousands of other choices for cars to drive.

    2. No. No one is excluded from society, and no one in the gay wedding cake debacle was excluded from society as there are probably tens of thousands of other cake bakers.

    3. No one would die from lack of a wedding cake. If you would like to amend the law so that police, firefighters, hospitals, and emergency workers cannot prohibit on the basis of race or sex I would see that as an acceptable compromise.

  • sarcasmic||

    You don't understand! When a business refuses to accommodate someone, they are initiating force! Saying "No" is an initiation of force!

  • Riven||

    Because not giving me what I want is depriving me of my God-given right to have cake at my wedding!

    I don't care if I could get a cake somewhere else. I want it heeeerrreee. /whine

  • Stephencj||

    @sarcasmic
    If saying "No" is an initiation of force, wouldn't that make rape self-defense?

  • Pavlov's Cat||

    Saying "No" is an initiation of force!

    Damn, a lot of women have violated my rights over the years!

  • wwhorton||

    How are we measuring decency these days, Big T? Or are we just leaving that to your judgment?

  • Tony||

    We could do a lot worse.

  • Pavlov's Cat||

    Wow. I think I just got a gut-level understanding of the feeling of blasphemy...
    That's a wild feeling for an atheist.

  • The Tingler||

    Tony

    Does the idea of private property hold any value to you at all? Does the right of free association have any value? I am new here.

  • Tony||

    Some, but neither are absolute. There are a hundred specific things you can't do on your own property and that you agree people shouldn't be able to do. Some people think discriminating when serving the public is one of those things.

  • So very tired||

    and that you agree people shouldn't be able to do.

    Nope.

  • Tony||

    So you think people should be able to rape and murder children on their own private property?

  • Jordan||

    2 == 100?

  • InfiniteRecursion||

    '==' you nerd.

  • MuhROADS||

    But that would be violating another's rights, your rights end where another's begin, therefore, that argument is invalid.

  • PaulW||

    I've tried pointing you to more sophisticated places like econlib, Tony, but here, try this one.

    Libertarianism for Dummies

  • PaulW||

    But it’s rather cheeky to accuse, with one breath, proponents of capitalism of being unduly focused on material goods, and with the next breath to insist that a major problem with capitalism is that some people get fewer material goods than do other people.

    I like that.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Paul, that was awesome. Now bookmarked to be drawn like a gun.

  • Tony||

    The entire thing under discussion is whether there should be a right to be free from discrimination.

    At least we've dispelled with the claim that owning property means you have absolute freedom to do with it as you please.

  • PaulW||

    Yes Tony, you have a right to be free from discrimination, you exercise that right by not associating with people who discriminate. You never have a right to force other people into acting how you would like them to, because that violates their rights.

    I still haven't seen a good answer to the question of whether the gay photographer/graphic designer should be forced photograph the Prop 8 rally and create a pro-prop 8 pamphlet.

    This is why we can't take you seriously, you have no logic, you base your government and your laws on feelz and disregard almost every right that we have in order to feel good about yourself.

  • Vizzini||

    You do NOT have the right to be free from discrimination. That is a positive right, which would compel me to give up my right of freedom.

    By saying you are free by not associating with them is to admit that you have already been discriminated against, so therefore you aren't free from the discrimination.

  • InfiniteRecursion||

    'Why don't you look for a job today?'
    -Tony's Mom

  • ||

    The only people who should be forced to not discriminate are agents of the state.

    If I don't like the Muslim barber, I don't go to him. How fucking hard is that?

  • ||

    Well, I think Christians should not have unequal access to the commerce of their society because of their beliefs.

  • Tony||

    If it's going to be defined that way and thus zero-sum then I hope the Christians lose. But I don't think it is the same. The freedom to participate in commerce is more important than the freedom to act on bigotry while serving customers.

  • So very tired||

    "the freedom to act on bigotry"

    Execpt they'd call it acting on their beleifes, and point to your calling it bigotry as a real example of bigotry.

  • Tony||

    Bigotry is a form of belief, and people are entitled under the 1st amendment to have it. They aren't necessarily entitled to make other people's lives harder by acting upon it.

  • Riven||

    By your definition, how are these gay couple who want to get married and force a business to do business with them also not bigoted? They are making the baker's life more difficult by acting upon their bigotry of thinking that everyone should serve them equally.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    You're making my life harder by not baking me a cake right now?

  • UnCivilServant||

    Freedom of assoication implies the freedom to not associate, something covered under the same amendment.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    So, Tony, can we assume you'd support mandating that the Stonewall rent itself out to the Westboro Baptist Church during the middle of gay pride week? Or is it a matter of without double standards, you'd have no standards at all?

  • Tony||

    Title II of the CRA includes religion as protected from discrimination in public accommodations, but religion is tricky and I just don't know how this falls. They wouldn't be discriminated against because of their religion but because of their hateful bigotry, which is not protected.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Wrong again. The hateful bigotry is part of their religion. Their entire mantra is "God hates fags".

  • R C Dean||

    "the freedom to act on bigotry"

    Is still freedom.

    As far as commerce goes, that requires two consenting parties.

    Someone declining to do business with you does not impair your freedom. Any more than someone declining to have sex with you impairs your freedom.

  • steedamike||

    BOOM

  • Tony||

    I get the argument, it's just not the one that wins.

  • ||

    Lol, it wins all the time. Nazis in Skoki. West Baptist Church. Get a clue, moron.

  • ||

    Not having someone make you a cake is not morally equivalent to being forced to make a cake.

    It would be morally equivalent if we required gay couples to purchase their cakes from Christians, but we're not.

  • ||

    Er I should say it would be zero-sum if we required gays to buy their cakes from Christians. The only way this is zero-sim is if Christians not being allowed to not back cakes for gay couples is balanced against gay couples not being allowed to not buy cakes from Christians.

  • JeffreyinSandySprings||

    you can think anything you like- the problem is when you get the govt to codify it into law.

  • Jordan||

    They want not to have unequal access to the commerce of their society because of how they were born.

    So tell me, why shouldn't business owners be allowed to force people to purchase their products and services? What if a black man wants to open a hardware store in a town populated by racists?

  • ||

    Can you want to make people suffer an indignity if you have none? Do you even understand it?

  • OneOut||

    I agree. Jihadists gay are all about forcing others to watch them in their ass less chaps. It is what they live for as jihadists.

    A bad cake will induce them go somewhere else next time.

  • ||

    Because they get to CONTROL them.

  • WTF||

    Because the left cannot tolerate dissent. They must force everyone into agreement with their agenda or see the dissenters punished. It's why Sandra Fluke chose to go to a private Catholic college and try to force them to provide her with 'free' birth control, rather than just go to a college that did provide it, or simply provide it herself.

  • sarcasmic||

    Because the left cannot tolerate dissent.

    Well, duh! That's what tolerance means! Tolerant people do not tolerate intolerance, and dissent is intolerant! Thus in the name of tolerance, dissent must not be tolerated!

  • WTF||

    This is what "Tony" really believes.

  • JeffreyinSandySprings||

    exactly.

  • wwhorton||

    "Tolerance" is just one platform of the leftist theology, all of which are only possible or even valid to the extent that they are enforced by the state. Ergo, dissenting ever so slightly from the platform is treason. There's no room for difference in Tony's Tolerant America.

  • tarran||

    Why are people fighting for the right to give money to people who dont like them?

    I'm more amazed that they are fighting for the right to force people who hate them to prepare food for them!

  • WTF||

    Well yeah, "don't fuck with the people who handle your food" is just common sense 101.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    "Hey, you stupid hillbilly jackass, bake me a fucking cake or I'll sue the shit out of you again, you fucking bigot!"

    It seems like suuuuch a good idea to 1) give money to people who hate you and 2) put things from people who hate you in your mouth.

  • ||

    put things from people who hate you in your mouth.

    Progressives have been doing this since January 2009.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I don't think Obama hates progressives. Doesn't care much about them, sure. But hate? No.

  • KDN||

    "In honor of your strange perversion I tried to make your cake taste like what I imagine tossing salad so be like. Which is to say that I pooped in it and added copious amounts of jelly. Enjoy!"

  • ||

    Tony's response to this...
    crickets

  • Riven||

    "put things from people who hate you in your mouth."

    I only like to do that on special occasions, myself.

  • Kevin47||

    They don't. The gay power groups are hand-selecting their targets so that they know this will never happen.

  • RFID||

    I feel the same way about wrongful termination lawsuits. How dumb would a private business have to be to hire someone who has sued in the past for wrongful termination?

  • Jon Lester||

    So many things in American life are accepted without question as matters of course, and people don't stop to consider that the stress they invite with these artificial and completely optional things could more easily be avoided. You don't have to go to the prom. You don't have to buy a class ring. You don't have to spend money you don't have on weddings and diamonds. Free your mind, and find a partner who does the same.

  • thom77||

    You need to view this, as all modern social issues, through the prism of 'social justice' in order to understand the liberal position at all.

    Nothing matters -- not the law, not the constitution, certainly not individual liberty -- if the cause of 'social justice' isn't being served. Beyond every institution and statute in existence, the reality is that the only thing of any interest is ensuring that the so-called 'privileged' have their rights limited and the so-called 'protected' classes are granted special rights. That's it. Period.

    White and Christian? Wealthy? You've had it too good for too long. Here, do what we say otherwise we'll ruin you. Don't like it? Too bad, this is how it is now.

  • Tony||

    If you're white, Christian, wealthy, heterosexual, and male, neither you nor any of your recent ancestors have had any experience with systemic discrimination. To someone who is not those things, that's pretty much winning the lottery of privilege. Nobody wants to take their freedom away. Just make it so that others have some sort of chance of living a life somewhat comparably privileged.

  • John||

    If you're white, Christian, wealthy, heterosexual, and male, neither you nor any of your recent ancestors have had any experience with systemic discrimination.

    And Tony has made it his life's mission to change that.

    To someone who is not those things, that's pretty much winning the lottery of privilege

    Therefore it is perfectly acceptable and in fact demanded that I hate you almost as much as I hate myself.

    Nobody wants to take their freedom away.

    We just want to ensure everyone else' freedom to be free of them. Got that. You are free to do what every you like, but you are not free to inflict your presence on the Volk, I mean proletariat, I mean the rest of us.

    Just make it so that others have some sort of chance of living a life somewhat comparably privileged.

    We just want "comparable" privilege. That means we want to make sure we treat you just as bad as we imagine your ancestors treated other people.

  • WTF||

    Wow, it's like "Tony" is a retarded parody of himself.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Apparently being straight and male has some impact on your ancestors.

  • Sudden||

    IF YOU ARE TEH STR8 AND TEH MALE GAZE IT IS UNPOSSIBUL DAT U EVAR HAD A LEZBEUHN IN UR FAMILEE TREE!1!!!1!!!

  • MuhROADS||

    Are we even sure this is still "Tony" and not some semi-sentient retard algorithm?

  • Swiss Servator, alles klar?||

    Has it spelled "just" as "jsut" or asked for beautiful bean footage to be rolled?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Heh.... Bean footage.

  • InfiniteRecursion||

    Tony is actually Nick Gillespie's alter ego.

  • Rhywun||

    Oh FFS, I am not all of those things but I think "systemic discrimination" is a bit much.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Really? Then I have some questions about my college applications. No code words, no dog whistles, just blatant discrimination.

    Fucking idiot.

  • thom77||

    So therefore the rights of free association and equal protection cease to exist. Got it. Some are more equal than others, and others are less equal than some. Sounds like just the kind of world we should strive for.

  • Kevin47||

    "If you're white, Christian, wealthy, heterosexual, and male, neither you nor any of your recent ancestors have had any experience with systemic discrimination."

    Except when I apply for jobs. So yeah, other than the means for providing for myself and my family, no discrimination at all.

  • Pavlov's Cat||

    Or for college.

  • David K||

    Please, Tony. If I, a white male, am denied entrance to college in favor of a minority with a lower GPA, SAT, etc., I have been discriminated against. How's that for systemic discrimination?

  • MJGreen||

    Just make it so that others have some sort of chance of living a life somewhat comparably privileged.

    By taking their freedom away.

  • Warren's Strapon||

    I'm an atheist. Where's my fucking cake?

  • Pavlov's Cat||

    Dit-fucking-to!

  • ||

    x3. We atheists are the most hated group in the country.

    http://www.scientificamerican......-distrust/

  • R C Dean||

    If you're white, Christian, wealthy, heterosexual, and male, neither you nor any of your recent ancestors have had any experience with systemic discrimination.

    Utter and complete bullshit. Many sectors of society (government and academia top the list) actively and overtly discriminate against white males.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    "If you're white, Christian, wealthy, heterosexual, and male, neither you nor any of your recent ancestors have had any experience with systemic discrimination."

    +1 Penal Laws

  • robc||

    The puritans came to American because of systemic discrimination.

  • paranoid android||

    If you're white, Christian, wealthy, heterosexual, and male, neither you nor any of your recent ancestors

    As a descendant of Irish immigrants, I would take exception to that.

  • Pavlov's Cat||

    Have a German surname during WWII.

  • Erasmus vs. Luther||

    My grandfather was born a serf in 1910 Russia during the Romanov Dynasty and lived under Soviet rule until 1926. He was well aware of the blessings of State force. By the way, I'm not a Christian, but my family is. Care to throw out another vapid, ignorant, dismissive comment?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    How are people of Irish descent privileged?

  • John||

    While this is a valid argument, it is an argument that is going to go right over people's heads. All making it will do is cause people to associate anyone who objects to public accommodation laws for homosexuals with the racists of the old South. IN short, making it plays right into the hands of the leftists like Tony who see gay marriage as a way to further marginalize and eventually criminalize their cultural enemies.

  • Tony||

    I do want to marginalize bigots and morons. I think that is a perfectly legitimate public concern.

  • tarran||

    You want to marginalize yourself?

    This explains much about the quality of your comments.

  • John||

    It usually boils down to extreme self hatred with people like Tony.

  • ||

    Dude, stop responding to Tulpa. You figured it out with shriek, how can you not figure this out? This one sounds more like Tulpa than any of the others, and it's not just jumping out at you?

  • John||

    Shreek is a sock puppet controlled by several no shit retards. Tony in contrast, I would believe is actually Tulpa or one of the regulars.

    Lately, they have really been getting slack. "Tony" has become a little too retarded and angry.

  • tarran||

    I don't think Tony is Tulpa's sock.

    Tony is a more prolific commenter than Tulpa is, and often appears in threads where Tulpa was completely absent.

    I think Tulpa's primary motivation has been self-aggrandizement, and Tony's comments don't do that.

    On the other hand, whoever is authoring Tony's comments is (are)probably not a progressive(s) - but someone pretending to be one to discredit the philosophy. Tony is just too stereotypically ignorant and oblivious.

  • ||

    At least you realize it's a sockpuppet. That being said, why respond to it? That's what it wants. ignoring it is the worst thing you can do to it. It absolutely hates that. Plus it's so damn easy.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Tarran- There was a reference to you kicking Gillespie in the nuts in another thread. It sounds like the West Coast reasonoids have had the exact same conversation as you guys.

  • ||

    Wait, what? I've been busy the morning - do you want in on my scheme tarran?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I believe I may have misattributed that this morning...

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Do you guys have a plan? I think we might beat you to it?

  • ||

    We could link up. Were you guys going to have cocktails? We need them for...um, bait.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Well, it was supposed to happen at the happy hour, but for, uh, some reason, hamilton forgot about it.

  • tarran||

  • sarcasmic||

    On the other hand, whoever is authoring Tony's comments is (are)probably not a progressive(s) - but someone pretending to be one to discredit the philosophy. Tony is just too stereotypically ignorant and oblivious.

    I don't know about that. My father thinks exactly the same as Tony. Exactly.

  • Sudden||

    Tony is just too stereotypically ignorant and oblivious

    To me, that was how I knew he was a real bona fide progressive.

  • Homple||

    I know approximately twenty people any of whom could be Tony.

  • PaulW||

    Most progressives think like Tony. They are all caricatures of themselves.

  • David K||

    I think he is the real deal. Yes, progressives really can be that fucking stupid.

  • sarcasmic||

    Yes, progressives really can be that fucking stupid.

    It's not so much stupidity as the fact that no amount of logic can penetrate a solid wall of emotion.

  • Sudden||

    I'm going to just pretend you are the actual David Koch and that you responded to and echoed the sentiment of a comment I made. This provides me great validation, as I can think of no greater honor than conversing with the man that is the demon the left hates so much and must be burned in effigy on a daily basis.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I had Adrian Peterson reply to an internet comment I made (while he was still reigning MVP).

  • Sudden||

    He probably wouldn't reply to my comment, because it would be "Jamaal Charles is better."

  • John||

    Yes Tony just like the communists just wanted to stop saboteurs.

    It is a real guilty pleasure to respond to you. I shouldn't do it. But your bigotry, hatred and complete lack of shame or self awareness is just awesome. Not good, but just awe inspiring. I know I should look away, but I just can't.

  • Tony||

    It's always so cute when the white resentment set appropriates liberal grievance language. It's almost like you are completely unaware of how ridiculous you sound.

    I believe in freedom of thought. But I believe the point is to get to thoughts worth having. Government shouldn't attempt to force bigots to have different thoughts, but it sure as hell doesn't have to promote active bigotry as a civil right.

  • John||

    Yes Tony, your victims are always really the aggressors. You really have gone full fascist lately. I think Episiarch may have a point that you can't be real.

  • Tony||

    Get back to me when you say something with content.

  • John||

    The truth always hurts Tony. You are a full on fascist, complete with blood enemies.

  • ||

    He want's you to comment with more substance John. Epi may be right and he IS tulpa.

  • wwhorton||

    "I'm not a bigot, it's all you white people who are the racists!!!"

  • Michael||

    Hey, Tony - I've been thinking about a way to commemorate my totally fucking awesome white male privilege somehow and decided that the best way to do so would be with a tattoo of a pair of SS lightning bolts. Can you recommend any Jewish tattooists that do fairly competent work?

  • WTF||

    Just don't get it on your back, or you'll end up with a tat of a dick.

  • David K||

    That made me blow soda out of my nose.

  • Pavlov's Cat||

    But I believe the point is to get to thoughts worth having.

    This from the moron who suggested an app to convert bitcoins to food stamps!

  • Homple||

    "I do want to marginalize bigots and morons".

    As long as I get to define "bigot" and "moron", that is

  • R C Dean||

    He actually has a very clever and devious way of doing it.

    He models bigotry and moronic attitudes in such an offensive way that he marginalizes himself, and by extension bigots and morons generally.

  • ||

    All making it will do is cause people to associate anyone who objects to public accommodation laws for homosexuals with the racists of the old South.

    That doesn't sound that different from what already happens, though.

  • John||

    Sad but probably true.

  • JeffreyinSandySprings||

    people have been brainwashed into thinking that discrimination is the greatest form of evil which of course its not. It is in fact a form of choice which is a basic human right.

  • ||

    It's double-speak of the highest order;

    Diversity through equality.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    I support the straight and gay baker's right for their cakes to be recognized by the state.

  • anon||

    I think the obvious solution here is to license all cake makers and make it illegal to bake cakes without a license. As part of the license requirements you must be gay to bake a cake and hate straight people. Failure to comply results in you being shipped off to Russia because obviously you're a homophobe.

  • ||

    I think shipping people to The Crimea is the hip thing right now.

  • Swiss Servator, alles klar?||

    With monocles, PBR and a beard?

  • ||

    I think high quality whiskey has taken the place of PBR, but yes. I might have to dig into my strategic monocle reserves to be appropriately outfitted for a trip to the Crimea.

  • Swiss Servator, alles klar?||

    Hmmm... what would the headgear be?

  • ||

    Top hats for events. I haven't decided for riding wear on my ivory palanquin carried by orphans. They're quite fast and I've already lost a few of my finest top hats.

  • ||

    Maybe the hat these guys are wearing? It seems so Crimea appropriate.

  • Swiss Servator, alles klar?||

    Oh, and "strategic monocle reserves"

    The cut of your jib, sir. I like it.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    We should just have government bakeries. When you get your license, pick a cake too.

  • anon||

    I sincerely think this is a great idea, if only because it would force people to reconsider involving the Government in pretty much anything.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    Especially when the cake must meet certain health guidelines, or in other words, tastes like shit.

    At least it won't be taking up freezer space for one year.

  • ||

    " if only because it would force people to reconsider involving the Government in pretty much anything."

    Never has before. Won't now.

  • waffles||

    Finally a quality idea. Common sense regulation we can all get behind.

  • ||

    Perhaps public accommodation reform would be a better strategy for trying to preserve at least some level of freedom of association for business owners.

    I am all for incrementalism, but only when it is a winning strategy.

    In this case, you cede all the principle on the issue and any reform is likely only temporary.

    In a few years we'd be right back at it, and likely lose that round.

  • Robert||

    Is there any winning strategy on this issue? Or should it just be given up as lost for the next, say 10,000 yrs.?

  • Pro Libertate||

    As the august William H. Cosby Jr., PhD, once opined, "Dad is great, gives us the chocolate cake!"

  • tarran||

    "Daddy made us eat chocolate cake!!!!!"

    One of his most funny skits.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I loved Bill Cosby: Himself even before I had kids. Now it's like a primer.

  • Almanian!||

    We used to listen to him in elementary school surreptitiously on the SRA record player. This is in the early 70's, mind you.

    My fave was when he hypnotized his brother Russell, and instructed him, "Russell, go upstairs and smack dad in the face." [dad was sleeping] *sound of Russell walking upstairs* *SMACK* "WHAT THE HELL'S WRONG WITH YOU, BOY??!" "Take you out - make another one looks just like you!"

    Epic fun...

  • Swiss Servator, alles klar?||

    The Mom flung shoe and "my name was Jesus Christ" still make me laugh.

  • Hash Brown||

    The civic religion all yer gods 'n' incense 'n' stuff.

  • Hash Brown||

    There was supposed to be a GREATER THAN sign between "religion" and "all."

  • Tonio||

    Yeah, HB, that doesn't work because angle brackets (aka GT, LT symbols) are the delimiters for HTML tags. The H&R website stips out those characters when they are not part of a valid html tag.

  • PRX||

    sounds like a bakery called "We Disapprove of Gays" could corner the gay wedding cake business.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Only the self-righteous, intolerant, overbearing subset. Most would simply go somewhere else.

  • lap83||

    Reverse psychology? I like it.

    Or you could do as most bridal vendors and simply have your revenge on bridezillas by charging an arm and a leg more for something because it has the "wedding" prefix.

  • Auric Demonocles||

  • Auric Demonocles||

  • ||

    Very nice.

  • lap83||

    That's funny and sad at the same time, because it actually happens. My mom knows a girl who tried to hide the fact that she was having a wedding so she could get a cheaper cake until it came out by accident when they had already ordered it. The vendor basically said, to her face, "Oh, you should have told us it was a wedding...now the price is three times what we told you before, for the same cake."

  • Tonio||

    Yeah, and that's totally legit. A hassle charge, if you will, for having to deal with bridezillas and (possibly worse) mothers of the brides. Also because the cake has to be absolutely, positively perfect and on-time.

  • UnCivilServant||

    This is our three tier fancy cake, and this is our three tier wedding cake. No, we can't deliver the fancy cake to a wedding. I know it's only half as much, but it meets the regulatory requirements for weddings.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but the recently vetoed bill was nothing more than show, as one already has the ability to refuse to serve homosexuals as they are not a protected class, no?

    I realize some states have made homosexuals a protected class, but I was under the impression that Arizona had not.

    So this is much ado about nothing, unless I'm missing something.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Correct (in the specific case of Arizona).

  • John||

    Yes. All the Arizona bill did was reaffirm the existing law, which Reason claims to support. I have yet to understand why Reason went ape shit about it.

  • Brett L||

    Either they didn't need to pass the law OR they did because the Feds have made sexual orientation a protected class. There is no case where this was a noble defense of rights by the Arizona legislature. On the gripping hand changing "government" to "state action" sure seems like they were worried that the Arizona state judiciary would find the same as New Mexico and the Feds that sexual orientation is a de facto if not de jure protected class. Whether or not people should be able to serve or not serve whoever they please, this seems like a strange hill to die on. Did they fight to the last man for business' right to not install handicap ramps and bathroom stalls, too?

  • John||

    Since when do Libertarians object to symbolic actions?

    If they had passed a bill reaffirming hte right to bear arms, would you have objected to it? Wouldn't that have been just as "pointless"?

    The only reason Reason had a fit was because, while they support the principle behind the law, Reason loathes and are embarrassed to be associated with the people who benefit from it. Consequently, they think such people should shut up and never draw any attention to themselves.

  • Brett L||

    Symbolic legislation seems to me to be the antithesis of libertarian thought, John. Maybe I'm alone here.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    That would suggest that the House passing a bill to repeal Obamacare is bad, since until the Democrats lose the Senate and White House it's just symbolic.

  • Brett L||

    Ah, but the goal of the legislation is not symbolic. John keeps saying that Arizona already has this law on the books, so what's the big deal. Drafting a law that says what the law already says -- not libertarian.

  • R C Dean||

    Drafting a law that says what the law already says -- not libertarian.

    There wasn't already a law on the books. What there was, was the omission of gaiety as a protected class. This law filled the gap, as it were, by affirming that gaiety is not be extended special class protections.

  • John||

    I think passing a bill reaffirming a good principle is just fine.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    The only reason Reason had a fit was because, while they support the principle behind the law,

    AGAIN, I defy you to show me where ANY reason writer has EVER supported protected classes.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    The principle behind the law which John was referring to there is anti-protected classes (or more accurately, pro freedom of association).

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    I guess I misread.

    Yesterday he was claiming that Reason supporting gay rights meant they also support protected classes.

  • John||

    No I wasn't. You missed my point in both cases.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    John|3.5.14 @ 10:59AM|#|–|filternamelinkcustom

    But Reason and at least a few of its readers, Tonio to name one, are totally fine with such laws. Reason will pretend otherwise. But the reality is they know gay marriage is going to result in that and it doesn't in any way effect their support. No one at Reason is saying "gay marriage only if everyone agrees not to have those laws". They are just saying "gay marriage now and damn, its a real shame about those laws".

    Tonio in contrast supports the laws no matter what and is in that sense more honest than Reason.
  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    This very article mentions that in some municipalities, there are "public accomodations" laws, so the bill had practical significance.

  • sarcasmic||

    The only way discrimination can hurt anyone other than the business engaging in the practice is to have legislation requiring all business to discriminate.

    This is because the people being discriminated against will go to the non-discriminating competition, and the discriminating business will lose money.

    And it only takes one competitor.

    So legislation is required to outlaw non-discriminating competition for discrimination to hurt anyone other than the ones doing it.

    Alas the left simply cannot comprehend this, which is no surprise being the inverse relationship between one's understanding of basic economic principles and the likelihood of their being a leftist.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    I wonder how often Tony has chosen not to enter a restaurant because of the high probability that children will be in it.

  • sarcasmic||

    How do you abortion not to enter a restaurant? That makes no sense.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    Damnit, you're right.

    And while we are at it, Tony must be pro-cake. I might be on the wrong side of this debate!

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Slow news day, more false flag.

  • MJGreen||

    Yeah, it's hard to believe any of these stories now. This sounds extra fake.

  • Floridian||

    When I was in Japan I was trying to buy takoyaki from this one Japanese gentleman. I had been there for a month so my Japanese was good enough to order food but not great. He refused to serve me, maybe because I was white, so I went to the vendor 3 feet from him and he happily took my money. Then nothing else happened.

  • Swiss Servator, alles klar?||

    I would be disappointed the second vendor didn't laugh out loud at the first one - unless he was just polite or such.

  • Floridian||

    I'm guessing polite. Even when I would get seated in the very back of a restaurant away from the other customers, the service was still good.

  • Almanian!||

    RAAAAAACI...marketplace at work. Excellent.

  • sarcasmic||

    Tony would have demanded the discriminating vendor be put in irons! I mean, he said "No" and that's an initiation of force!

  • Auric Demonocles||

    No, Tony would have demanded that Floridian give his money to the racist vendor.

  • Floridian||

    It would have been nice if he would have served me. He also had a foot long squid on a stick I wanted to try that the other guy did not have. I'm a sucker for grilled seafood.

  • ||

    "Foot long squid on a stick" would be a great band name or, alternately, porn flick title.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    In addition to things from people who hate me in my mouth, "foot long squid on a stick" is not something I am going to put in my mouth.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Grilled squid is good! Specially with super-spicy Thai seafood dipping sauce!

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    I always have a bottle of Mae Ploy on hand. With sushi/sashimi, I prefer it to soy sauce.

  • Floridian||

    I'm not familiar with Mae Ploy. Is it salty? I usually avoid soy sauce because I think it is too salty.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Mae Ploy is a brand of sweet chili sauce. Though, I was thinking more of the lemon juice, fish sauce, minced bird chili concoction that is often served with squid in Thailand.

  • Floridian||

    Mmm...sweet chili. I just are at a Vietnamese place with a delicious sweet chili. Also the seafood pancake was amazing.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    That sounds similar to Nuoc Cham. Haven't made it in a while. Goes great with Vietnamese game hen.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Yep, that sounds like the same stuff.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Mae Ploy is a common brand of sweet chili sauce. The other brand that is pretty common is Maggi.

  • Floridian||

    What!? You don't like calimari? Oh well, leaves more for me.

  • sarcasmic||

    I like calamari, but grilled squid doesn't sound that great. I'd try it though.

  • Floridian||

    It smelled heavenly and was lightly charred. That why I went to that guy. I was already hooked on takoyaki and thought I would try grilled squid. Never did get that squid. Probably will haunt me the rest of my days. Gawd I love food.

  • Almanian!||

    Actually ran into thie when we went to Florida in '83 on band tour. Stopped at a biker bar - they just looked at us. We got the message and walked across the street to another bar and had some pops there.

    AND NOTHING ELSE HAPPENED

  • sarcasmic||

    Why didn't you break-dance like Mister Herman?

  • lap83||

    Weddings, gay or straight, really bring out the latent dictator in some people. I bartended a lot of weddings in my early-mid 20s and I think a lot of the brides would have happily sued somebody for the perfect fairy tale wedding. Somehow it never occurred to them that the princess and the evil witch aren't the same person in fairy tales.

  • Paul.||

    s and I think a lot of the brides would have happily sued somebody for the perfect fairy tale wedding.

    I wonder why they didn't?

  • lap83||

    I'm not sure, maybe because usually there's no incentive for the wedding planner to suggest it

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    The wedding planner is a potential target, as is everybody else.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Word. I'm a J.P. on the side and I've done about 10 weddings, the majority of them for my friends, and by the end of it, even I was sick of their shit.

  • John||

    It is absurd. I think with some it is a form of displacement of their general anxiety over the marriage. In my limited experience, the more extravagant the wedding and tyrannical the bride and groom are about it, the shorter the marriage.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Well, I'd imagine the more secure and happy you are with your relationship, the less you care about one day (rather than the remaining rest of your life).

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I agree. My wife and I were married in her village, of which her house has a total of one room electrified. Guests present were our mothers, her uncle, the village headman/spirit-talker, and two women from the village who just want to gawk at the White lady.

    One of these days my wife and I will renew our vows and host a grand old party. We've already outlasted the marriages of two of my friends.

  • Sudden||

    Please tell me the ceremony included ayahuasca root

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    No. Just a chicken egg, garlic, and moonshined rice whisky.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Ooooh, I've read about this before.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    But before heading to the hospital, the husband tried to remove the egg using a pair of chopsticks and a spoon.

    HAHAHAHAHA!

  • General Butt Naked||

    You never played that game at the carnival?

  • lap83||

    That about sums it up. Anyone with an ounce of wisdom realizes the marriage and the relationships surrounding it are more important than some party commemorating it.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    J.P.? Jewish Priest?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Justice of the peace.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Heh, my maternal grandfather was a kohain, but that sort of thing passes paternally.

    Besides, I would guess the whole converting to Buddhism thing would cancel that out anyway.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    My father in law is insecure about not being a cohen. Well, he's insecure about a lot of things.

  • Brett L||

    Oh god. My wife is matron-of-honor for a bridezilla. It has pretty much destroyed their childhood friendship. My wife thinks of this woman as an acquaintance now. But, being a thoroughly decent woman is determined to play the part of a good friend through the wedding. Said woman threw a fit when we had a friend perform the marriage (the only non-immediate family member present) but didn't invite bridezilla. I, not being one to shy away from a good fight told her that if she made my wife cry again over OUR wedding, I was going to be very angry. And then I performed the ultimate act of love for my wife. I called her friend and apologized for "being rude".

  • John||

    The best Dear Prudence letters by a long shot are those involving weddings. Women are fucking nuts about those things.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I think a more ultimate act of love would be to refuse to apologize, take the heat from the wife and help her get away from this toxic relationship.

    /prudie

  • Brett L||

    Nah. Her friend has done all the heavy lifting on that front. At this point -- wedding is still, like 6 months off but the choices are pretty much all made -- my wife pretty much only talks to her when wedding business has to be transacted.

  • SIV||

    I called her friend and apologized for "being rude".

    Wapussssshhhh! Wapussssshhhh!

    Coulda been worse. Coulda been for "being hateful"

  • Almanian!||

    Let them eat cake. They ALL want cake. It'll be a cakewalk. They can have their cake and eat it, too. It's a piece of cake. Whoever's the "bride" will have his/her/its/whatever face caked with makeup.

    Here's a urinal cake - enjoy.

  • Paul.||

    We should work to get the government out of marriage, until then gay people should get all the fondant they want.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    I honestly had no idea what fondant was until a month before my wedding.

  • robc||

    Fondant is crap.

    My wedding cake next month will be buttercream, no fondant.

    I may be getting a marriage license, but we are using an unlicensed cake maker. She sells them from her home kitchen that isnt inspected even!!!

  • ||

    Properly-made buttercream is soft floaty smooth awesomeness.

  • robc||

    She made two sample cakes for us to try. They were amazing. If the real one is 90% as good as the samples, they will rock.

    She also told us not to save/freeze any. She will make us a free cake on our anniversary next year if we promise not to freeze any of the wedding cake.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    We did the freeze thing. It was disgusting.

  • ||

    She will make us a free cake on our anniversary next year if we promise not to freeze any of the wedding cake.

    A lot of bakeries seem to be doing this now. I don't know who started the freeze your cake for a year tradition, but it had to be recent (reliable refrigeration) and they should be beaten because cake sitting in a freezer for a year has no choice but to be vile.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Someone rich enough to own and early freezer and shallow enough to want to rub it in to their lessers.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    We had some award winning cake guy who had been on TV or something like that (he came with the hotel). I thought the desert served to the guests was way better. Chocolate raspberry something...

  • Brett L||

    We did the same. And it was... magic.

  • lap83||

    I don't really like buttercream or fondant. We had chocolate cake w/chocolate glaze frosting and assorted fruit pies.

  • Paul.||

    As a formerly married person, I can assure you there were a lot of things you didn't know until a month before your wedding.

  • Riven||

    Well that's unsettling.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    I think I knew more than the average groom.

    I lived with my wife for 6 years before we got married, so I was well aware that chicks can wreck the bathroom after burrito night.

  • Paul.||

    Ah, so you were aware of the Iron Law that states:

    Speed of bathroom drains is in inverse proportion to the number of women in the house.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Oh yeah. I own a pipe snake, and I keep Drano around.

  • R C Dean||

    That's because of all the goddam hair in the drains.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I thought it was a joke Paul was making until your reply.

    Also... Paul with a "."?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    And Playa with a period? It's spreading!

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    I told him that I thought it was a great idea, and he gave me his blessing.

  • UnCivilServant||

    What's the point?

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    It's a lifestyle choice.

  • Paul.||

    What's the point?

    I see what you did there.

  • Tonio||

    Uh-huh.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I think what's really going to be interesting when they sue ministers for not performing gay marraige ceremonies and they demand that the State refuses to recognize any straight marriage where the ceremony was performed by said ministers. And also, when they go after churches tax exempt status for preaching anything remotely anti-gay. I predict this will happen in the next 5-10 years if not sooner.

  • sarcasmic||

    Well, they've said they will never do any of those things, which means they probably will.

    Just like here in Maine when they got gays added to the list of special people you can't discriminate against, they poo-pooed people who said that would be used to legally challenge marriage laws. Before the ink was dry they were using it to legally challenge marriage laws.

  • AlmightyJB||

    "Well, they've said they will never do any of those things"

    They said that people who predicted these exact issues we are discussing now were paranoid homophobes for suggesting such a thing.

  • Tonio||

    Get back to me when that actually happens, sarc. Srsly.

  • sarcasmic||

    Get back to me when that actually happens, sarc. Srsly.

    Not too long ago people were saying the exact same thing about gay marriage.

    That tells me you're either dishonest or a sucker.

  • John||

    That is exactly what they are going to do. And when they do Reason will hmm and haw and say they are really sorry about that but what about gay marriage.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Well it's obvious gay rights will trump religous rights of Christians. But will Islamic rights bail the Christians out?

  • John||

    No. But it might turn them on the gays. The Muslims are brown and victims of colonialism. That puts them way ahead of the gays on the scale of victim hood.

    If there is ever a significant Muslim voting block in this country that is useful to the Left, the gays will be told the check their privilege and get back in the closet.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    I wonder why the Left has a lovefest for Islamists (not just Muslims in general), since Islamists are right wing as they come.

  • Paul.||

    But will Islamic rights bail the Christians out?

    No. This was tested back in the 90s on a university campus.

    Christian group was banned from meeting on campus, Islamic group was allowed. Christians sued, Campus officials claimed, and I quote: "The Christian group is religious, the Islamic group is cultural."

  • AlmightyJB||

    They do know how to play the semantics game.

  • John||

    They do to language what Steve Smith does to lone hikers.

  • AlmightyJB||

    It's also interesting that they chose the lawsuit of playing martyr. I think they lost a lot of emapthy and good will going that route. Think of all the candlelight vigils they could have held just bombarding social media everytime one of thse scenerios played out.

  • JeffreyinSandySprings||

    its already in the works. Its the policy of the Obama DOJ to eliminate dissent from the party line including Christian religious types.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    What are the odds that such suits would succeed?

  • JFree||

    Why are libertarians now arguing about freaking wedding cakes??? And people wonder why libertarians are completely freaking useless and irrelevant.

    Get government out of marriage itself - because marriage itself is a religious (ie legally - private) institution!!!

    It is quite obvious that 'gay marriage' proponents chose a different non-libertarian option to challenge governments takeover of marriage (ie - redefine marriage to include us and give us the government freebies/subsidies/approval that results).

    Libertarians actually have a chance to expand freedom here - and instead we are going to sit around like a bunch of mentally masturbating stoners and talk about wedding cakes?

  • John||

    There are no freebie or subsidies for marriage, unless you call two income couples getting ass raped by the IRS a "freebie"

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I'd be paying a lot less in taxes if I married someone with no income. That's not exactly a freebie or subsidy, but it's close.

  • John||

    But for every one of you, there are three and four people like me who probably pay twice the taxes they would normally because they are married.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    I'd be paying a lot less in taxes if I married someone with no income.

    You'll come out way ahead if you make them eat dog food and turn tricks too.

  • SIV||

    And recruit others. Kinda like Amway but without the commissions.

  • JFree||

    Sure. That's why United States v Windsor was about 'don't tax my dead spouse's assets because we're married and their assets are mine now'

    Followed by 'give me someone else's SS benefits' and the slew of other discriminatory stuff.

  • John||

    The only reason someone doesn't get all of their dead spouses SS benefits is because we don't consider it an asset and inheritable property.

    Tell you what, give me your email address and I will send you my 2014 tax bill. Feel free to pay it and I will pay yours. I wouldn't want to deny you all that "welfare I get".

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Get government out of marriage itself

    The majority of the commenters side with this. Try lurking more.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    Should we whistle for Epi to let us know if this is Tulpa?

  • JFree||

    The article is about wedding cakes. And most of the articles on the subject on this site have quite deliberately avoided tackling WHY marriage is not part of government's realm.

    I suspect that is because secular libertarians are so distrustful of socons and religion that they cannot imagine that religion is actually what provides the grounds for a LEGAL argument here. Rather than just another useless philosophical argument.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I suspect that is because secular libertarians are so distrustful of socons and religion that they cannot imagine that religion is actually what provides the grounds for a LEGAL argument here

    Except my religion's founder explicitly stated that marriage was a secular affair.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Marriage is about procreation, property and inheritance - more than 66% secular.

  • JFree||

    Nonsense. Procreation/property/inheritance have nothing to do with marriage itself. Those are merely the issues that arose in a common law court when someone died and someone else asserted a claim to property. 'Marriage' and 'legitimate heir' merely became the legal shortcut for a judge adjudicating that.

  • JeffreyinSandySprings||

    marriage was always an ecclesiastic concern and is within the purview of the authority of the church and its laws. This is the traditional separation of church and state. Remember that Henry VIII couldn't get a divorce - it was up to the church - that is why he founded the Church of England (which he became the pope of)Elizabeth II is the current head of the church.
    Governments do not have the authority to grant a marriage.
    Unfortunately our government has forgotten this and has waded once again into matters that it has no legal standing. Marriages are between the two people involved and whatever god they believe in.

    therefore, a church can grant a marriage but the government cannot and should not. If a church doesn't agree with gay marriage then it doesn't have to - if it does then it does.
    So yes marriages are by and large not secular by tradition although secular non government entities can grant them.

  • JFree||

    You are citing wikipedia as the basis for that?

    You are aware I assume that the reason 'marriage is civil' (ie NOT private) there is because - those countries were colonies of Europe (all of which had long before either established religion specifically re marriage or taken it over via laicite) and that is where their post-colonial legal system came from.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    You are citing wikipedia as the basis for that?

    No, I'm citing my own experience and understanding of my religious devotion as the basis. I just figured Wiki would be more interesting and useful to you than sutras in the original Pali or Sanskirt.

    You are aware I assume that the reason 'marriage is civil' (ie NOT private) there is because - those countries were colonies of Europe (all of which had long before either established religion specifically re marriage or taken it over via laicite) and that is where their post-colonial legal system came from.

    Absolute nonsense. Even baring the fact that the Buddhist view of marriage is 550 years older than Christianity itself, Japan and Thailand were never colonized by a European power, just as one example of the utter historical ignorance of your "assumption".

    Either admit that you think some religions are more "religion-y" than others or that your original statement is fallacious.

  • Swiss Servator, alles klar?||

    Is it religion or religion-religion?

    *ducks and runs from room*

  • JFree||

    No. I am actually looking forward to you citing ACTUAL Buddhist text in Pali or Sanskrit. Because you citing wiki tells me you aren't actually Buddhist at all. Unless Western poseur is a school of Buddhism.

    Further, Japan/Thailand both based their legal system on Western systems (Meiji Era adopted Napoleonic code - ie laicite) or religious/Western (Dharmasastra and British in Thailand).

    Further, 'civil' actually means something in law. It means PUBLIC and codified. Not private/personal. So you are arguing an absolutely anti-libertarian perspective - AND an anti-Buddhist perspective.

    IOW - you are full of it.

  • JeffreyinSandySprings||

    civil marriages are a contradiction in terms. Governments have no business in the personal lives of its citizens. It may arbitrate in the nullification of contracts(divorces and child custody) but doesn't have any right to sanction any contract - marriage, business or other.
    The real problem began because the government started granting incentives to married people thus discriminating against single people which should be illegal. If it treated all people the same then the gays wouldn't be worried about not getting the same advantages as straight married people. As far as getting married - thats the authority of the churches, synagogues ect.. to grant if they wish not the governments.

  • ||

    Actually this article is about Freedom of Association and how that applies in a variety of applications.

    That freedom has its own LEGAL argument.

  • JFree||

    I agree this is a separate issue. But are libertarians seriously heading down the path of arguing that corporations (a creation of the state) have 'freedom of association' that the state has no business in? The state CREATES corporations. Of course the state has the right to monitor its own creations.

    It is rather specious to argue 'free Frankenstein'. And I'm sure no one will try to parse sole proprietorships vs S corps here.

  • JeffreyinSandySprings||

    actually there is no argument- it is an established right enumerated in the Constitution. Anyone arguing against it has no comprehension of the Constitution and is arguing for something that does not exist. there is no right to be socially accepted, or not to be disliked or that someone must do business with you.

  • Sudden||

    Libertarians are all about the sanctity of the contract. A marriage is nothing but a contract, independent of whatever the underlying religious ceremony may attest to.

    Libertarians have every vested interest in seeing it enforced as any other contract, including that it be free to be entered into by any parties capable of providing informed consent and including that breach of said contract is enforced in a way that it penalizes the breacher of the contract instead of the one who lived up to his/her duties under the contract.

  • robc||

    This is why I have argued so hard against "no-fault" divorce laws.

    And every time I bring it up, this place just seems to go dead.

    Maybe its a "duh" thing, but I dont think so.

  • Sudden||

    I'm with you robc, that was essentially what I was getting at in the second part there.

  • JFree||

    A marriage is NOT a contract. It has been turned into a contract because the civil entity wanted to get rid of 'common law' and 'ecclesiastical courts' as the way of adjudicating marital disputes.

  • robc||

    How is it not a contract?

    Traditional wedding vows are nothing if not the entrance into a binding oral contract.

    The mistake you are making is in thinking it is necessarily between two people. Its between three, which is why ecclesiastical courts came into play, as the church was often the 3rd party in the contract.

  • JFree||

    Yes - church. For those who wanted that blessing, that blessing came with the rules/etc of the faith. But by definition, 'church' rules and an entire internal adjudication system pretty much qualifies as a 1st Amendment issue. For those who didn't care about that blessing, 'common law' adjudicated any disputes that arose (same as any other disputes between other people) with 'marriage' simply being a way to gather similar types of cases/precedent together. That doesn't make it an actual contract.

    And if you look at the actual wedding vows over time - there was no 'by the authority vested in me by the state of XXX I now pronounce you'. That vow was changed when the state inserted itself. With the unfortunate result that a few generations of regular people now believe that marriage authority originates with the state - rather than inside the human heart.

  • MJGreen||

    Sorry, what's the chance to expand freedom? I don't understand.

  • John||

    The point to be made about all of these laws is that they have a cost. Ensuring "access" to one is demanding someone else give it to them. We seem to have totally forgotten about the last part.

    I don't believe the argument, but there is a reasonable argument that the situation with blacks in this country in the 1950s was so bad and so demanding of action that the mass infringements on property rights and freedom of association that were took to remedy the situation were a price worth paying.

    Even if you believe that argument, it in no way applies here. Blacks were 12% of the population and denied entrance into virtually every institution in America or at least the higher escalations of the ones they could even get into. Gays in contrast are almost 2% of the population and are on the average better off and more educated than the average person. The number of people who actually want to deny their business to gays is very small. But the price of making them do so exactly the same in principle and in scale as what society decided to do for the blacks.

  • Paul.||

    The point to be made about all of these laws is that they have a cost. Ensuring "access" to one is demanding someone else give it to them.

    Yes, this is the age-old, and straightforward argument about rights vs. privileges. A privilege must be provided to you (and obviously provided by a willing or unwilling third party). A right doesn't. It merely need be recognized.

  • John||

    Excellent point.

  • Tony||

    What does "recognized" mean? Does it not mean protected by enforcement? This distinction is not as stark as you guys need it to be. All rights are, to some extent, government entitlements. Sorry.

  • ||

    Tell me how freedom of speech requires someone else to produce a tangible physical object for you to enjoy.

  • Tony||

    If you are punished for speech then you are entitled to avail yourself of an entire judicial process to rectify it. That is not free.

  • Brian||

    Tony:

    All rights are, to some extent, government entitlements.

    No, they're not.

    According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "rights structure the form of governments, the content of laws, and the shape of morality as it is currently perceived."[1]

    If rights are government entitlements, then this implies that government entitlements structure the form of governments, the content of laws, and shape morality. In the case of the forms of governments and the content of laws, it just devolves into a truism: government entitlements structure government entitlements. And it completely skips morality.

    Sorry, but if you believe in the concept of "bad laws", then rights must be distinct from government entitlements.

  • Tony||

    So what are they? Just claims, right?

    I have a right to your firstborn. There. Do I now have that right?

  • Brian||

    Tony:

    I have a right to your firstborn. There. Do I now have that right?

    Can you make a compelling argument for that?

    Or, how about this way: if you successfully persuaded the government to give you my first born, would any reasonable person think that you had a right to my first born? Or, rather, that you're just being a jerk, with state power to back you up?

  • Tony||

    Aren't you making my argument? Compelling? What's more compelling than God Said So. God said I get your firstborn.

    It's all very convenient when you guys are talking about the most "negative" of rights like speech, but you absolutely don't get to claim that government's role in, say, a right to property is simply to stay away.

    I'm not just saying that rights are only useful when they're enforced (which is true), I'm saying that rights are inventions of societies and only exist as entitlements to do or be free from doing certain things backed up by the threat of physical coercion of a government.

  • Brian||

    Tony:

    Aren't you making my argument? Compelling?

    No, because, if you think that rights are determined by compelling argumentation, then they are not determined by law or government. Because law and government are not necessarily derived from compelling argumentation. People frequently vote for rulers to enact laws where no compelling argument has been made. There's no standard of argumentation in the government, or the constitution.

    Tony:

    'm saying that rights are inventions of societies and only exist as entitlements to do or be free from doing certain things backed up by the threat of physical coercion of a government.

    Rights are abstract by definition. They don't "exist" in any material sense. They're ideas.

    People engage in action. Based on some concepts of rights, certain actions are consistent with those concepts, or they are not.

    A right doesn't begin to "exist" when the government declares it will enforce it, or not enforce it, or back it up with coercion, or whatever.

    Trying to skip debate about what rights are or are not compellingly supported by argumentation is your go to strategy for avoiding the conversation, as are your appeals to law and democracy. It's just a way of skipping the debate so you can support the status quo, except for all the ways you disagree with the status quo, in a completely self-contradictory fashion.

  • Tony||

    What debate? We agree that rights are at first abstractions. All I'm saying is enforcement is how they are made real. But as abstractions they are subject either to some quasi- (or not so quasi-) religious doctrine, or they are subject to a pragmatic scrutiny, just like every other idea. I prefer the latter, which involves getting the input of the affected (democracy) and intelligent assessment of why some rights should exist and others shouldn't.

    Do you think this project was completed sometime in the 18th century?

  • Brian||

    Tony:

    What debate?
    All I'm saying is enforcement is how they are made real.

    Sorry, but abstractions don't become real. Ever. You might as well say that the number 2 becomes real when you bring two apples close enough together. No, it doesn't. It stays abstract. People choosing to apply violence in certain ways doesn't make any abstract rights become real. It just applies violence.

    I prefer the latter, which involves getting the input of the affected (democracy) and intelligent assessment of why some rights should exist and others shouldn't.

    Fine, use all the information you can get your hands on. However, it's obvious that what comes out of government does not legitimize anything. People were talking about slavery being wrong about 2000 years before governments got around to it. Government never leads the discussion. It follows, and what comes out is frequently offensive, immoral, and self-contradictory. For example, why does my right to privacy protect abortion but not my right to use medical marijuana? Because... law.

    Law is an answer that's not really an answer. It's just given as a substitute for a real argument. And democracy is just throwing in an appeal to popularity on top. That's not how real arguments are made for or against any concept of rights or responsibilities.

  • JeffreyinSandySprings||

    note

  • BigT||

    the Declaration of incompetents:

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator Uncle Sam with certain unalienable Rights,blah blah blah..."

  • Tony||

    What do you do if it turns out there isn't an anthropomorphic magical being in the sky?

  • Harvard||

    Take a dirt nap. But.........

  • Brian Macker||

    They aren't "giving it to them" . You are using deceptive langiuage to equivocate between a sale and a freebee. They are purchasing the item, not getting it for free. f you are willing to sell to anyone, then you cannot discriminate on a arbitrary attribute. To do so implies you have checked all the sources of your inputs for the same arbirtary restrictions. These bigots not making sure all sources in the heirachy of supply are willing to sell to bigots.

  • sarcasmic||

    Speaking of gay weddings, two female coworkers of my wife are getting hitched soon. Alas I'll have to stay home since we don't have a sitter, and they've made it clear that it's not going to be a, what's the word, wholesome environment for children.

  • Paul.||

    All good weddings aren't a wholesome environment for children. Gay or straight.

  • Paul.||

    And by Gay or Straight, I mean the children.

  • sarcasmic||

    I guess I haven't been to any good weddings.

  • Paul.||

    Neither have I.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I've been to 2 or 3 good ones. That's the benefit of being in such a large family that we're averaging 1.5 per year for the past decade (and on an 11 year streak with at least 1).

  • Zeb||

    I've been to some really good ones. Which were probably not too bad for kids. At least those whose parent's don't drink.

  • JeffreyinSandySprings||

    whatever- how does this relate to the discussion?

  • Brett L||

    Oh man, this is too good to wait: Ezra Klein's lineup of heroes that will make Bezos sorry he didn't give Ezra a big pot of money and let him go play. (Pics below the diversity story.)

  • John||

    I am blocked but let me guess. It is fifty shades of white douche bag?

  • Brett L||

    Bingo. Special bonus of Sadbeard in a totally inappropriate ethnic costume. MattY definitely looks like a head trauma victim in that picture.

  • John||

    Remember when "but I have black friends" was considered just a common defense of the casual racist? Now "I have never even met or associated with a black person" is apparently the sign true sign of racial understanding and tolerance.

  • Brett L||

    Ezra's response to being called out:

    Hi Richard. There is [racial diversity], but certainly not enough. That said, this is the beginning of our hiring process, not the end. I’d love to know your suggestions for the top few young candidates of color we should be talking to. We’re particularly looking right now for science, health, foreign policy, and data journalists, though I’m interested in names beyond these topics, too.
  • John||

    That said, this is the beginning of our hiring process,

    Oh okay, Ezra, so the black folks have to wait until last to get hired.

    Yeah, that makes it a whole lot better.

  • Brett L||

    John|3.6.14 @ 1:43PM|#|–|filternamelinkcustom

    That said, this is the beginning of our hiring process,

    I read that comment as: We don't personally know any ethnic people, but we're trying really hard to network with someone who does, so that we can try to hire them.

  • John||

    Sure Brett. It means that and that Ezra will hire black people right after he gets done hiring his white friends.

    That doesn't sound very "diverse" to me.

  • Brett L||

    John,

    I think nobody here is surprised that this is a total jobs program for the Juice Box Mafia, and that they will somehow always manage to raise enough money to publicly and shamelessly lick the boots of the powerful and connected.

  • R C Dean||

    Next, he'll be boasting about how he hsa binders full of black people to hire from.

  • OneOut||

    " I’d love to know your suggestions for the top few young candidates of color we should be talking to. "

    What's up with the blatant age discrimination going on here.

    Aren't older people a protected class ?

  • OneOut||

    " I’d love to know your suggestions for the top few young candidates of color we should be talking to. "

    What's up with the blatant age discrimination going on here.

    Aren't older people a protected class ?

  • OneOut||

    " I’d love to know your suggestions for the top few young candidates of color we should be talking to. "

    What's up with the blatant age discrimination going on here.

    Aren't older people a protected class ?

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    What, no one to write about diversity either?

  • ||

    I bet you a couple of us could dress up in blackface and get him to hire us as diversity editors. I smell a buddy comedy!

  • John||

    I am in. And this is the 21st Century Warty. We don't need black face. That is what photoshop is for.

    And if anyone ever tries to point out that we really are white, we will just tell them that how dare they question our identity or try to enforce their racist standards on our shared experience.

  • Sudden||

    And if anyone ever tries to point out that we really are white, we will just tell them that how dare they question our identity or try to enforce their racist standards on our shared experience.

    This is brilliant, John. Even by my standards which are woefully high. Its a sort of new-age "The Emperor Has No Clothes." I'll begin casting decisions right away.

  • OneOut||

    If you can self identify on gender, why not self identify on race ?

  • Brett L||

    It could be like Girls, Warty. Only everybody plays the Lena Dunham character.

  • John||

    And check out the white priveldge in the choice of subjects

    We’re particularly looking right now for science, health, foreign policy, and data journalists

    That is nothing but racist mansplaining there. There is not single topic that appeals to womyn or people of color. It is all just a bunch of white male bourgeois crap is what that is.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Sowell frowns on this bullshit.

  • ||

    Needs moar critical race theory and womynz studyz.

  • JeffreyinSandySprings||

    yes both are a complete joke

  • Paul.||

    And yet, no one is creeped out that you hire a science reporter based on skin color. So, how are we not getting more racist?

  • JeffreyinSandySprings||

    we are not more or less "racist" we just express it in different ways.
    Btw
    Blacks are just as racist as whites
    Gays discriminate against straights just as much.

  • Brian||

    I’d love to know your suggestions for the top few young
    candidates of color
    we should be talking to.

    Can you say that?

    If I recall Ocean's 11 correctly, isn't referring to "people of color" the staged comment to set off Bernie Mac on Matt Damon?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    FIXED

    Now it's diverse as fuck!

  • Swiss Servator, alles klar?||

    A backpfeifengesicht gallery.

  • ||

    I like the big zit on his forehead in the top pic.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I'm beginning to suspect that people only have wedding ceremonies for the gifts and the drama. I honestly could never understand the drive to put yourself on display for everyone like this. It seems silly and unnecessary.

  • John||

    It is. But when you realize that, it is no surprise that gay men want them so badly. They could have avoided this whole issue if they had just said "of course you can have a wedding gay or straight".

  • prolefeed||

    I'd say most women want to be married for the (false/illusory) sense of security that gives them, and want a wedding ceremony to show others that they have achieved that (false/illusory) sense of security.

  • John||

    They want a wedding to lord that sense of security over their female friends.

  • Riven||

    So glad you said most. You almost offended my delicate sensibilities.

  • Paul.||

    I think that divorces should be put on display like this.

    You are cordially invited to celebrate the divorce of:

    Skylar Winston Dunburry

    and

    Tiffany McEnzie Thurgelheimer

    on Tuesday afternoon, June the second at Three O'Clock.

    Reception follows.

    Gifts to be left at the lawyers office in the front.

  • JeffreyinSandySprings||

    nope don't be jaded. Most people who get married do so because they honestly believe that they will spend the rest of their lives together.

  • Tim||

    Again with the gay cake posts? Even gay people must be getting sick of this.

  • ||

    Not the gay retards or the retarded gays.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Are there retarded gay people?

  • ||

    Jerri: Mr. Noblet wants me to snitch on a friend.

    Jellineck: Snitching doesn’t seem like you, Jerri.

    Jerri: Oh, it’s not what you think. It’s not like snitching on a real person. She's--

    Jellineck: Gay?

    Jerri: Retarded.

    Jellineck: Yes, most of them are.

    Jerri: Most who are what?

    Jellineck: Most gay people are retarded.

    Jerri: Does that mean Kimberly Timbers is gay?

    Jellineck: I don’t know. Hey! Make a pass at her and find out. She'd have to be retarded to turn you down.

  • ||

    Tony, if he were real.

  • prolefeed||

    Except this time, I think Scott Shackford nailed it, while the other ones on the Arizona law he seemed to be off his game.

  • Tim||

    If you were in the business of selling ridiculous, grandiose cakes don't you think that gay people would be a big part of your customer base?

  • Paul.||

    Well, I mean, well, if you specialize in wedding cakes, then until recently, no.

    It's also easier to discriminate against gay people for a wedding cake.

  • Riven||

    Out of curiosity, are there a lot of faith-based Christian bakeries? I can understand some businesses taking into account religiosity (Christian book store, for instance), but I've just never seen a Christian Bakery: Now with more "Bread."

  • robc||

    There are lots of faith-based Christian businesses that have nothing whatsoever to do with religious content.

    So, yes, is the answer to your question.

  • Paul.||

    I believe the issue is Christians happen to own bakeries. How many... oh, towing companies did you see back in the days of the yellow pages (BTA-- Before Twitter Era) which had the little christian fish symbol on their ad?

  • Riven||

    I confess I've never seen it, but the era of the Yellow Pages ended shortly after I started driving and would have needed to look.
    I'm from a wee town in Montana, so I guess you could say I'm a little less worldly about these types of things.

  • ||

    No, but I'm sure there's a lot of bakeries owned and run by people with devout religious faith. They just don't put "Christian Bakery" on their sign.

  • Paul.||

    They just don't put "Christian Bakery" on their sign.

    Well they should! So gay people know who to sue!

  • robc||

    It might not be on the outside sign, but there will be indications inside.

    Whether it be fish on the yellow page ad or in the store window or whatever.

  • Zeb||

    On a related matter, and purely out of curiosity, how many people actually sincerely believe that their religion forbids them to provide a cake for a gay wedding?

    Of course this has nothing to do with whether or not anyone should be forced by law to do business with anyone, but it seems rather laughable to me that anyone would claim that making a cake violates their religious beliefs even if they believe that gay marriage is an abomination.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    So discrimination against gay people in public accommodation pales in comparison to the reality of Jim Crow... but anti[-]discrimination laws are like slavery.


    "Be warned of Greeks bearing equivocations"

    Businesses are NOT public accommodations.

    Anti-discrimination laws violate individuals' right to engage in trade with whoever they choose, to the point of compelling a person to employ his or her efforts to serve a person with whom he or she had no previous written or spoken agreement, under duress. That's not different than slavery. The argument is logically sound, which is why those that don't want to accept it only retort with emotional appeals, not reason.

  • Tony||

    I can always count on you showing up to redefine things to fit into your fairyland world instead of the real one.

    Some businesses are, according to US law, considered public accommodations.

    Comparing compliance with the Civil Rights Act to slavery is bizarre. It's both grossly offensive and the quickest way to make your side lose in the court of public opinion.

    People do not have an absolute right to engage in trade with whomever they choose. That's been the case for many decades now. And I don't see the negative consequences that would vindicate your preferred balance of freedoms. All I see is a society more free of discrimination than came before.

  • OneOut||

    What you are actually seeing is discrimination that you approve of.

  • OldMexican||

    When the hardcore logic of the libertarian freedom philosophy collides with the larger emotion-based responses to real world discrimination, arguments sometimes go utterly nowhere.


    So what's the answer? Surrender to irrationality, to nonsense, to emotions?

    A couple of photographers or bakers refusing to accommodate gay weddings utterly pales in comparison to what has happened historically[...]


    Is that then the test for all individual rights? How well they dovetail with historical grievances?

  • TWylite||

    Was it Patrick Henry or Marie Antoinette who said "Give me cake or give me death!" ?

  • Riven||

    And here I thought it was Eddie Izzard...

  • JeffreyinSandySprings||

    Absolutely right. the only entity that absolutely cannot discriminate in any fashion is the government. Everyone else is free to choose how to run their lives and businesses. That is what freedom means. Problem is that the biggest discriminator in the country is the government. It discriminates on the basis of race gender and religion all the time in education contracting hiring ect....
    It may be morally wrong (according to some people's morality) to discriminate but it is a choice left up to private individuals and businesses.No one has the right to be "liked or accepted" by anyone.
    It is amazing how hard it is to get people to understand this very simple principle. The government and advocacy agencies have spent billions of dollars on endless campaigns to brainwash the American people into thinking that having certain opinions on race and gender are the worst crimes worthy of stiff criminal punishment and ostracization when personal conscious is a fundamental right protected in the first Amendment

  • JFree||

    Corporations are the creation of the state. They do not exist outside the state. All you are arguing is that the state has the obligation to create a discriminatory entity - and immunize it from discrimination claims - if the person creating that corporation wants to do so.

    Sorry bud. If you want to discriminate, there is absolutely no reason for the state to provide the advantages of incorporation to do so.

  • BigT||

    No, corporations are contractual agreements among people. [the state merely enforces contracts] People who are free to associate as they desire as individuals, and so should not be forced to give up that right when they enter into a corporate contract.

  • JFree||

    What planet are you on? Corporations are NOT mere contracts. They are a state-created entity. There may well be a contractual agreement among the owners/proprietors behind that decision to incorporate - but the whole point of the corporation itself is to veil everything in an entirely NEW entity.

  • JeffreyinSandySprings||

    A. Corporations are groups of people who form an agreement to produce goods and services. They are not the "creation of the state".
    B. Corporations don't exist outside of the state because there is nothing outside of the authority of the state. Tell me where in the world there is no government of some sort- it the framework of society. It arbitrates laws including contract law but is limited and cannot dictate morality to its citizens. read the bill of rights - It limits the power of Govt not individuals or private companies.

    In other words the fact that a corporation uses the government to arbitrate its contract doesn't give the government the right to determine how the corporation conducts it business.

  • Brian Macker||

    So you can buy wheat flour from a black man and then refuse to sell to another black? When did you give the opportunity to the black seller, or nonracists to refrain from selling to you. How can you buy a peice of land from a black then add a rider saying to never sell to a balck again. One would think that there was a reasonable expectaion that since you bpught from a black you'd be willing to sell to one.

  • montana mike||

    You can't be this stupid...oh, wait.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    "If we were to say that goods and services like wedding cakes or wedding photography are not public accommodations then the reasons for refusal wouldn’t matter and there would be no reason to have to develop special carve-outs for who could or could not discriminate."

    Uh, no, that's just proposing one carve-out instead of another. Instead of icky religious exemptions, there would be a narrowing of the definition of public accomodations.

    Either idea would improve the status quo. Why not support whatever has a chance of passing? Right now, the religious exemptions are the proposals with the most support, so why not support them?

  • Zeb||

    Icky religious exemptions are a terrible idea. Do you really want your religious freedom to depend on your ability to convince a court that your religious belief is sincere and legitimate? Religious freedom can only truly exist as part of general freedom that applies to everyone.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    The laws from which religious people seek exemptions tend to be laws which these people wouldn't want to exist at all. Religious pacifists would prefer there be no conscription laws. Faithful Catholics would prefer there be no laws mandating contraception. I imagine Rastas would prefer not to have any laws against marijuana. So that would be their first choice.

    But until we can get these bad laws repealed, why not at minimum enforce the First Amendment? There are no insuperable obstacles. They've managed to administer conscientious-objector exemptions from military service, that Rasta kid got a judicial exemption for his religious pot, etc.

  • Zeb||

    I think it is terrible precedent. But that precedent has already been set. As a practical matter, I'm not going to argue that a Catholic org has to provide birth control because everyone else does. But I am going to point out that special exemptions are a bad idea every time.

    The way I see it, if a law violates anyone's rights, then the whole thing has to go. And if one person has a right to an exemption from a law, then everyone does. I demand the same religious freedom as you have, even if I don't share your religion. Otherwise religious freedom is not a right but a privilege.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    I can only think of one example of a religious group which imposes burdens on others without wanting to shoulder the burdens themselves: the ultra-Orthodox in Israel, with their hawkish foreign policy and exemption from military service.

    The government confronts religious people with a demand: "Obey our conscription law/contraception mandate/weed ban! You aren't looking for special privileges, are you?" The dissenter replies, "I want you to repeal your stupid and oppressive law! But if you keep the law I'm not going to obey it. And the First Amendment/RFRA protects me!"

    The religious dissidents aren't the ones creating the problem. They don't want these laws for anyone. Should they be punished for exercising their religion while we wait for the rest of society to be more enlightened, or do we enforce the First Amendment?

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    And while granting that these laws are bad, they're extra special bad when applied to a conscientious objector who simply doesn't have the option of complying with the law, however grudgingly.

    The baker who doesn't want to serve gay weddings, or Baptist weddings, or whatever, but who shrugs and complies when threatened with fines, is comparatively better off than the baker whose conscience simply will not allow him to serve gays/baptists/whatever, and who is obliged by his beliefs to subject himself to whatever punishment the govt dishes out, as opposed to accomodating himself and saving his business until the law gets repealed.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    There's a practical angle to the argument. We're dealing, pretty much by definition, with people who aren't going to obey the law and whom the government will either punish or exempt. So is it in the public interest that the government incur the expense and waste of enforcing these penalties and taking the victims out of their productive work? The conscription law found a way to get conscientious objectors into alternative service where they did good work with the poor and mentally ill. A conscientious objection privilege for religious bakers will give the public (including the gay public when they're not getting gay-married) access to bread. They're not doing what the govt wants in any case, so why not have it so that they do something productive and useful?

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Ah, I see that you *aren't* saying the dissenter has to wait for repeal, sorry if I implied otherwise.

  • gary47290||

    Religion based carve outs put the state in the role of curial court. They are the worst solution. Do you really want government deciding whether your particular religious law is deserving an exception?

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Again, I don't want to have the sort of bad laws from which religious people need to be exempted in the first place. But if such laws *do* exist, no way would I surrender my First Amendment rights, or ask anyone else to do so.

  • BigT||

    Rastafarians are permitted to smoke dope.
    Pastafarians are permitted to eat pasta.

    But how does one accommodate a Rastafarian who has the munchies and wants spaghetti?

  • JeffreyinSandySprings||

    "Public Accommodation" is a completely artificial construct. It is an encroachment on the private lives of people and their businesses by the government in a way that is highly illegal.
    There is no such thing as Public Accommodation - just private businesses run by private individuals who have the right to freedom of religion and conscious enumerated in the Constitution's bill of rights.
    the only entity that cannot discriminate is the government - however it is the biggest discriminator of all - affirmative action, quotas ect...

  • ||

    Come on. Let's get to 500 comments, people.

  • gary47290||

    Picking and choosing which services are included in "public accommodation will put the government in the worse situation of picking "winners and losers". Your proposal is the same sort of fine tuning which led to Solyndra, and similar boondoggles.

    If we believe that discrimination, in general, is wrong, then the broad public accommodation law is the only sensible policy. If you wish to engage in public commerce, then you need to serve all customers on equal terms.

  • ||

    "If we believe that discrimination, in general, is wrong..."

    Let me stop you right there. Is it wrong for me to choose to buy apples from Market Basket instead of Kroger for any reason I choose? No, didn't think so. Come back again and try next time.

  • JFree||

    YOU choose to buy apples on your own - a personal decision of YOU. 'Market Basket' and 'Kroger' are corporate creations of the state. They don't exist outside of the state's decision to create them. So yeah - there are rules/restrictions that go along with that creation.

    If the owners of 'Market Basket' or 'Kroger' want to discriminate, then they can do business as themselves - individuals - with all the unlimited liability and inability to get financing and customers and such that goes along with that.

  • ||

    I believe we're getting a little off topic. This was about the ability of a baker to refuse baking a cake. The subject of limited liability corporations is a whole nother 500 comment thread.

  • JFree||

    The legal reality is that both the baker and the photographer were incorporated entities. Those incorporated entities were the 'people' who were sued for discrimination in court - not the individual baker or photographer.

    That is the REASON for incorporation. So that the corporation alone faces the penalty for an action - and the owner behind it doesn't.

    The bakery in Oregon that did this shut down its 'corporate' entity. And the baker is presumably going to continue doing business how she wants - out of her home as an individual - which is entirely her right. And if some gay activists start screwing around with her there, then I will be the first one to support her.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Having to sign government paperwork and ask government permission to form a small business is not remotely the same thing as "wouldn't exist without the government".

    Under that logic - all marriages are nothing more than creations of the state - and therefore it is their absolute right, through votes of the people, in how they define that which they created.

    Yeah - it really is that stupid....

    & no matter how many times you repeat it - it will always be that stupid.

  • JeffreyinSandySprings||

    the state didn't create Kroger or Market basket or any other corporation. Individuals did. There is nothing in their incorporation papers that have anything at all that eliminates their right to conduct their businesses as they like.

    Its amazing what people think they "know" which just isn't so!!!

  • JFree||

    Have you ever actually 'incorporated' anything? Let me assure you - the state creates it - and that is one thing that every owner makes sure is done right too.

    Because if you don't do it right - and get sued - you will lose EVERYTHING. Not merely your right to be petulant and self-righteous.

  • ||

    The state recognizes it, not creates it. Whether they should be arbitrarily granted all the limited liability assurances it gets from the state is a whole nother topic. That's an arrangement that should ideally be worked out between the people involved in the incorporation, the people lending to the corporation, etc.

  • Tony||

    Christ now incorporation is a natural right?

    Just make it easy on everyone. Everything the most wealthy and powerful interests want no matter how big the handout it requires is a natural right, and everything anyone else needs is a positive, illegitimate right.

  • ||

    "Everything the most wealthy and powerful interests want no matter how big the handout it requires is a natural right."

    No. In fact, if you actually read what I stated above, the handout is not a natural right.

    "Christ now incorporation is a natural right?"

    Yes, the ability to pool resources together voluntarily is a natural right. Unless you think it's immoral for you and a buddy to chip in for a pizza.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Have you ever actually 'incorporated' anything?

    Irrelevant - as one can read for themselves to find out how wrong you are. There is zero reason to incorporate just to prove you wrong.

  • JeffreyinSandySprings||

    the state didn't create Kroger or Market basket or any other corporation. Individuals did. There is nothing in their incorporation papers that have anything at all that eliminates their right to conduct their businesses as they like.

    Its amazing what people think they "know" which just isn't so!!!

  • BigT||

    we believe that discrimination, in general by the government, is wrong

    FIFY

  • JeffreyinSandySprings||

    it is. However discrimination by private individuals and corporations is protected by the constitution.

  • Zeb||

    If we believe that discrimination, in general, is wrong, then the broad public accommodation law is the only sensible policy.

    Who is "we"? I think that no public accomodation law at all is at least as sensible a policy. If "we" think discrimination is wrong, then the market will quickly sort things out so that few people who discriminate can stay in business. At the very least, try the least coercive option first.

  • Tony||

    We did.

  • ||

    No, you didn't.

  • Tony||

    We gave the free market a chance and it systematically excluded black people from participation. You guys make the feds out to be the villains? If Southern bigots had taken a little personal responsibility to not be such ignorant fucks, maybe the federal meddling wouldn't have been necessary. But it was, and there still are a lot of ignorant fucks.

  • ||

    "We gave the free market a chance."

    Citation needed.

    When confronted with the fact that someone discriminates against you and will not sell you a cake, the least coercive option is to buy a fucking cake from someone else, or make your own fucking cake. Participate in a little discrimination yourself. Don't do business with people you consider "ignorant bigots." Why you want to force them to receive money from you is a mystery to the rest of us.

  • tarran||

    We gave the free market a chance and it systematically excluded black people from participation.

    Once again, you are showing your utter ignorance Tonykins!

    In Plessy vs Ferguson, Plessy was supported by the railroad company which wanted to avoid the waste of keeping separate cars for whites and blacks and having to keep track of who had to go in what car!

    The free market punishes those who discriminate for no good reason. Which is why they went whining for laws to impose the same costs on everybody. And they were your ideological brethren: arguing that the free market was imposing a social harm that the majority wanted to be protected from.

    Tell me more about your public school, Tonykins: Did you take AP History perchance?

  • Tony||

    I thought it a better alternative to the John Birch seminar on the history of the coloreds problem.

  • JeffreyinSandySprings||

    so your solution is a command economy arbitrated by the whims of the central government. What planet are you from again. Have you been awake for the last five years and have not seen what happens when the government tries to micromanage the economy.

    Why exactly are you on this website if you do not believe in the rights of individuals and companies to run themselves as they choose.
    You seem like a socialist to me

  • OneOut||

    He has answered that question before.

    He likes to argue.

  • Brian||

    Tony:

    We gave the free market a chance and it systematically excluded black people from participation.

    That explains the slave codes and Jim Crow laws.

    It appears that slavers gave the free market a chance, but it looked like market failure: that is, the market wasn't supporting slavery and discrimination. So, they had to regulate it. To avoid the market failure.

    That's your reasoning in these situations, isn't it?

  • Tony||

    Forget slavers obviously not opposing such laws, slavers fought a losing war in order to preserve them, and now their intellectual descendants are reduced to half-assed bullshit about freedom of association nobody but them has bought since the 60s. That's a trajectory of victory for liberals to be sure, but damn if the racist fucks aren't dedicated.

  • ||

    "slavers fought a losing war in order to preserve them"

    If you read the post you're responding to, you will see that is exactly what he said. The market wasn't supporting slavery and discrimination, so they had to had to regulate it. Sounds more like you're they're intellectual descendant.

  • Edwin||

    Are you suggesting that libertarians are the philosophical descendants of southern pro-slavery people?

    That's one of the stupidest things you've said, if so

  • CE||

    We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.

    Unless there are fines and jail time involved.

  • Brian Macker||

    Do you reserve the right to have others deny you services because of your bigotry. Society has to apply some default conditons to transactions. t seems reasonable to apply defaut conditions which apply no arbiraty restrictions. if you want to appy such arbirtary restrictions then you should bear the costs of communicating them up the supply chain. Tell ypur suppliers ypu are a racist and don't want to buy from blacks, or anyone who employes them. Also require that they check their suppliers backwards to original sources making sure no blacks are involved. Now see how many suppliers are willing to do that work. I'm pretty sure it will be zero. There is no reason that the government, or any othe entity woukd want to enforce an anti-black restriction. the cost is too high.

  • Brian Macker||

    Why require chexking the entire supply chain? That's because any black selling something would surely add a rider that no purxhaser xould bypuy the good unless they would sell to a black man, or sell a product utilizing it as an input to a black man.

  • montana mike||

    Fuck nuts, when you learn to spell check back in.

  • ||

    You're arguing with the wrong people. If you want a racist business owner to conduct their business in this manner, tell them about it, not us.

  • Afterwords||

    I hope someone can answer this: I have seen many hateful screeds calling photographers, florists, and bakers that have refused to perform services for same-sex weddings "bigots." In fact, a recent article here on Reason.com used the term bigotry to refer to the choice to demur from provision of services for a gay wedding.
    When a priest, sufi, rabbi, or pastor refuses to officiate at a gay wedding, is that bigotry too? If not, then why is a religious observer who is not ordained unable to demur as well? If so, then how can those officiants claim to join two people in matrimony "by the power vested in them by the state"?

  • ||

    "When a priest, sufi, rabbi, or pastor refuses to officiate at a gay wedding, is that bigotry too?"

    Answer will vary by commenter.

    "If not, then why is a religious observer who is not ordained unable to demur as well?"

    Noone argues that they should not be able to.

    "If so, then how can those officiants claim to join two people in matrimony 'by the power vested in them by the state'?"

    I thought we were saying they refused to officiate, as is their right. In any event, joining two people in matrimony is not a power vested by the state but a choice by one's own volition.

  • JeffreyinSandySprings||

    they might be bigots - but they have the right to be bigots. that is the point. If you don't like them patronize someone you agree with

  • Tony||

    Yes they're bigots. Bigotry does not require shouting through a megaphone. Saying your God deems gay people existing a sin is bigotry, no matter how sweet you are about it.

  • Brian Macker||

    Yes, religions can be bopigoted, or have bigoted dogma. Are you surprised by that. Open the bible and you will find it full of bigotry.

  • chmercier||

    Well, bigotry depends on who agrees with what. Ideological bigotry against people who freely associate is okay. Bigotry against anyone else for any reason ever is very bad. In fact, I would say priests, sufis, rabbis (ESPECIALLY RABBIS) are all racists.

  • XM||

    Many small businesses already violate the Civil Rights Act. Unless the store in Koreatown or Westminster is part of a legit chain, you will rarely see a white or black workers there. Asians in front, Latinos in the back. They obviously can't openly reject certain groups, but given the choice, they would not do business with gays, porn shops, Satan worshippers, or Japanese who deny WW2 atrocities.

    Koreans used to run job ads like "Korean females wanted" but were warned that might get them in trouble. So now their ads will read "Korean speakers preferred". The objective is the same.

    Many ethnic groups define past injustices or discrimination through their own lens. For Asians, that probably involves Japan's war crimes or some communist regimes. The left can reflexively shout "Jim Crow is back" but many of their voting bloc preferred to be balkanized and associate among themselves.

  • Joao||

    Many thanks in tackling this emotional debate.

    A couple of other thoughts:

    1. Race and sexuality are not the same. Racism is hate against a race, whereas, homophobia (or simple declining service) is hate against an act or actions.

    2. Those declining to serve anyone (exercising freedom of association) are not doing so against the other party, but rather to keep themselves from that association. They just don't want to be part of it.

    Clumsy wording, but that's the logic/"legal" explanations I have arrived at.

  • Edwin||

    Tony is literally outright ignoring that the author implicitly concedes that the Civil Rights Act was necessary. It's kinda part of the premise of the whole article, and Tony is acting like it isn't there and commenting/bitching in that framework.

    Tony, you're fucking clownshoes. Is this how you debate? Because you'll always lose.

  • Tony||

    It's not the first time I'm more in line with the argument of the article than everyone else commenting.

  • Paper Wasp||

    JFC, if a baker expresses hatred for your kind, why would you want a cake from them anyway? "Why yes, I would love to risk serving our family and guests a cake made with dog shit or whatever other foulness or toxin you think we deserve. Here, take summa my money for your trouble!"

  • steve baker||

    If two people claim to be a gay couple, why would you believe them?

    How would they prove it?

  • Tony||

    The same way straight people prove it, by engaging in anal sex right in front of you.

  • Brian Macker||

    Nobody has a right to arbitrarily deny someone else the purchase of a product or service. The services and products they purchased to enable their sale do not have such restrictions. if those seller knew that arbirtaty restrictions would be applied then it is quite possible they would not have sold to the person adding additional arbitrary restrictions. For example a black person may have sold some of the ingredients for a cake to the person making it. That baker then restricting blacks from buing would be inconsistent with the ingredients seller's desires. the only way to make this consistent would be for the rasist/homophobe to tell those he purcases from the he is going to discriminate. Those providers need to then inform their suppliers that they too will be discriminating. Such a system seems unworkable.

    I'm not sure how libertarians can justify buying some land fro a Native American and the turning around and adding a deed restriction saying "no dirty Indians can buy this land". It seems to me that someone who doesn't want to sell to "dirty half breeds and Indians" on the selling side, to be consistent, should also refrain from buying from them.

    If libertarians are going to support such then they need to be consistent. I don't see how that is possible.

  • Brian Macker||

    On an Ipad so many typos but you get the idea.

  • montana mike||

    Learn to spell, idiot. It's arbitrary, not arbitary.

  • ||

    "I'm not sure how libertarians can justify buying some land fro a Native American and the turning around and adding a deed restriction saying "no dirty Indians can buy this land". It seems to me that someone who doesn't want to sell to "dirty half breeds and Indians" on the selling side, to be consistent, should also refrain from buying from them."

    That is their choice. It doesn't involve you. The Indian doesn't have to sell his land, nor does anyone else who owns land.

    "Nobody has a right to arbitrarily deny someone else the purchase of a product or service. "

    By that logic, if I ask you if I can buy your house, you have to sell it to me.

  • chmercier||

    Legal positivist here. My question is how will we know what laws to follow if they aren't prescribed to us?

    I mean, without seatbelt laws, we'd all be dead. Therefore, if it weren't illegal to not serve gay folks, that community could never find service. The Civil Rights Act had to be made so that the hoi polloi could figure out that black people were scientifically able to drink at the same fountains and stuff, which finlly made slavery illegal in Amerikka.

    Now, here we have Amerikkka again, but it's gay people and the teathuglicans want to bring cake out of and back into the bedroom. Big surprise.

    SO I think this veto is awesome and they should make more laws that say it's illegal to not serve anyone for any reason because of racism and homophobia.

  • montana mike||

    Whoosh, this whole thread has gone over your head...did you even read the post, probably not. Moron.

  • OneOut||

    hoi polloi does not require a "the" in front of it.

    Other than that your post is..... confusing.

  • ||

    "I mean, without seatbelt laws, we'd all be dead. Therefore, if it weren't illegal to not serve gay folks, that community could never find service."

    Citation needed.

  • Vizzini||

    I'm a cab driver. I'm scared to go into poor neighborhoods. Fear for my life and stuff like that.

    Is that ok? I don't think it's racist or homophobic so I should be fine, right?

  • asadjan||

    my buddy's aunt makes $74 an hour on the computer . She has been out of a job for six months but last month her check was $12405 just working on the computer for a few hours. visit homepage............. http://www.mumjob.com

  • CentristClassicalLiberal||

    All ideology and no pragmatism.

    Sincerely,

    A former Rothbardian who still opposes the existence of unions and a minimum wage law and supports ENDA

    Piss on dogmatists.

  • ||

    Hate to break it to you, but ideology is what grounds our conclusions about the appropriate use of force in society. Otherwise, you may as well join the central planners because you think government should do whatever you deem to be best.

  • CentristClassicalLiberal||

    Sorry but I like federal food labeling laws and large areas of salt marsh that can't be turned into subdivisions.

    I hate to break it to you but if you don't believe civilians should have nukes or that property owners should have the right to shoot a retarded person who steps one inch onto their unmarked property then you might as well join the central planners.

    See how all-or-nothing you sound?

  • ||

    Sorry but I like free cake and ice cream for everyone. See how authoritarian you sound?

  • CentristClassicalLiberal||

    I never said I wanted free cake and ice cream for everyone.

    There are no non-ideological arguments against federal food labeling laws or the government protecting at least some salt marsh (very important if you like sea food) from land developers. Reform the laws? Definitely, but not do away with them. I bet you're against worker's comp too.

  • ||

    "I never said I wanted free cake and ice cream for everyone."

    Noone said you did. Clearly you didn't understand the point. Your argument is that government power is only limited to the whims of "what you like." Thus if you say there should be federal food labeling laws because "I like it," then I have an equally valid argument when I say there should be free cake and ice cream for everyone because "I like that."

    "I bet you're against worker's comp too."
    Only if it's involuntary.

  • ||

    Also, all of your above concerns are addressed by property rights and consumer choice. If consumers want food labeling, they'll pay for it voluntarily. If consumers prefer more seafood over more land development, then the market will sort that out. Everyone else doesn't have to be a slave to the whims of what you want or like.

  • CentristClassicalLiberal||

    all of your above concerns are addressed by property rights

    Pie in the fucking sky. I'm from Florida.

    Your argument is that government power is only limited to the whims of "what you like."

    No it isn't. For example I hate Dubstep too death. Not only does it sound nothing like bassless fart noises Skrillex ruined my favorite variant of the undercut, but I don't think it should be outlawed and I don't think Sonny Moore should be tied up and shot for what he does even though I like the thought.

    If consumers prefer more seafood over more land development, then the market will sort that out.

    Holy shit you are ignorant. Again i'm from Florida. The gulf coast. Fish populations all over the world are dwindling. The price of whatever you or anyone who dislikes sea food will go sky high.

    And voluntary worker's comp? LOfuckingL. Sure some with hearts will provide for their employees when they genuinely can't work but come on. Many, and I mean many, if not most, would not.

    Again I don't believe unions or a minimum wage law should exist and i'm pro-NAFTA and I believe in free-market healthcare (that does not mean people should be allowed to perform surgeries in their garages nor does it mean that hospitals can do whatever they want in regards to sanitation, and no not everyone can afford a lawyer to sue, especially if they're dead) but you're the anarcho-capitalist version of a Chomskyite, like I once was.

    Wake the fuck up kid.

  • CentristClassicalLiberal||

    and enjoy the Coca-Cola with cocaine in it!

  • ||

    "No it isn't. For example I hate Dubstep too death. Not only does it sound nothing like bassless fart noises Skrillex ruined my favorite variant of the undercut, but I don't think it should be outlawed"

    Still ignores the fact that you're only reasoning behind food label laws, etc. is "I like it."

    "Fish populations all over the world are dwindling. The price of whatever you or anyone who dislikes sea food will go sky high.
    And voluntary worker's comp? LOfuckingL."

    Noone said you weren't gonna have to pay for seafood or worker's comp. The value of said goods and services (i.e. the amount of other goods and services you are willing to forgo for them) is determined by you, the consumer. Scarcity's a bitch, but it's a reality. Markets best deal with the problem by allowing you to decide for yourself how much you value certain goods and services compared to other goods and services. If the price of seafood in Florida is "sky high," then that's what it is.

  • ||

    "and enjoy the Coca-Cola with cocaine in it!"

    Only if I want to.

  • CentristClassicalLiberal||

    Still ignores the fact that you're only reasoning behind food label laws, etc. is "I like it."

    I just said i'm against outlawing dubstep and executing Sonny Moore even though I like the thought of it. It's called pragmatism, or cost-benefit analysis, or sanity.

    To say that the marketplace is the answer to everything is as crazy as to say that the government is. Of course someone's going to have to pay for worker's comp, worker's comp laws require it and of course people are going to have to pay for seafood because socialism doesn't work, but unlike outdated technology when an animal species goes it goes, and don't talk to me about scientific anarchy and allowing some mad scientist to bring the dinosaurs or giant mosquitos back so they can knock over and detonate one of the nuclear weapons that you nutjobs allowed him to produce and sell.

    Don't lecture me about capitalism and freedom of choice. You were probably at recess or taking a pop quiz when I was reading Mises and Rothbard, and i'll stick with Mises.

    and the point was that you wouldn't know if there was cocaine in that knock-off Coke bottle without some government involvement in the private sector.

    Free-market capitalism =/= anarchy

  • BLEEDINELL||

    There's going to be boatloads of "altered" chocolate frosting being made.

  • Vizzini||

    "No shirt, no shoes, no service"

    Dinner jacket and/or tie required at certain restaurants.

    How are these not discriminations?

  • Kenneth_NC||

    As it happens my unique dietary and metabolic requirements include at least one piece of wedding cake every three days.

  • Kenneth_NC||

    (To the extent that some people may consider this an important point of debate it's a shame it couldn't hinge on a more delicious variety of cake.)

  • Jayburd||

    My buddy's aunt makes $74/hr. baking cakes for fudgepackers and lesbos. She has been out of a job for six months but due to an increase in gay marriage, her last check was for $12,974.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement