Free Markets Can Fight Bigotry

An Oregon bakery that made national headlines for refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding shut its doors last weekend. The initial reports were not clear as to why they shut down, though it was obviously connected to the outcry and the investigation by the state as to whether they had violated public accommodations laws.

The couple who owned the bakery, Melissa and Aaron Klein, have now spoken out to the Christian Broadcast Network about their decision:

 

According to the announcer, the wedding cake part of their bakery business suffered a “major loss” that is not explained. Aaron Klein claims gay activists have been very “militant” and used “mean-spirited, mafia-style tactics” to shut them down. Again, this is not explained, but it sounds more like good, old-fashioned public pressure not to do business with them. If there were any actual “mafia-style” threats of violence, one would hope they’d say so and inform the authorities.

So the next time somebody asks how to deal with bigotry and discrimination in the marketplace without the intervention of the government, show them this.

(Hat tip to blogger Joe.My.God)

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.

  • Paul.||

    We're not talking about going after fatty or sugary foods, we're talking about tobacco here... we're talking about Cancer!

  • Pro Libertate||

    Wait, didn't they get nailed by the government? How is this a free market example?

  • Paul.||

    They got nailed by the government-- which got them into the news. ONce in the news, PFlag spread the info around and the market took over. You see, government is required to help 'nudge' the market in the correct direction.

    How you don't see that is beyond me.

  • Paul.||

    BTW, that was... sarcasm. Definitely don't want to get on the bad side of someone who speaks latin.

  • AlexInCT||

    That's to make sure they don't summon up some demons on ya right?

  • some guy||

    The government is still investigating whether they violated public accomodations laws. That investigation certainly brought more publicity to the situation, but so far they haven't been hit with any official action, to my knowledge.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Oh. Maybe I'm mixing this up with something else, but I thought there was some sort of ruling already.

  • RBS||

    Yeah, weren't they sued?

  • Scott S.||

    That's the gay wedding photography case in New Mexico.

  • ||

    This. Two separate cases.

    There was an outcry in OR and some "we'll look into its" but nothing official as of yet.

    In NM there was a full blown lawsuit.

  • Irish||

    The bakery is under investigation by the state’s Bureau of Labor and Industries to determine whether the shop’s refusal to provide service violates the state’s public accommodations non-discrimination laws, which include sexual orientation.

    From Reason's other article. Do you really think the state's investigation had no impact on their decision to shut down? They actually chose to move their bakery in home rather than totally shut down. It seems to me that the primary reason you would move your bakery in home is so that you no longer have to deal with public accommodation laws since you are no longer running a public establishment. If you run a business out of a home, I don't think those accommodation laws apply to you in the same way.

    For this reason, it seems pretty likely that the shutdown of the actual bakery was the result of the state's accommodation laws and not boycotting or public pressure.

  • Scott S.||

    Shutting the bakery doesn't end the investigation, though, nor absolve them of any possible fines. They told CBN that their wedding cake sales took a big hit. The source of information here is the couple itself.

  • some guy||

    Do you really think the state's investigation had no impact on their decision to shut down?

    I originally said that it certainly brought more publicity to the situation. It probably brought more publicity than the "accusers" could have brought otherwise.

  • Paul.||

    Ruled agin 'em if I recall correctly.

  • Irish||

    Wait. This company didn't shut down just from public pressure. They shut down while being hounded by the state. More importantly, you make bizarre assumptions that you haven't backed up at all.

    According to the announcer, the wedding cake part of their bakery business suffered a “major loss” that is not explained. Aaron Klein claims gay activists have been very “militant” and used “mean-spirited, mafia-style tactics” to shut them down. Again, this is not explained, but it sounds more like good, old-fashioned public pressure not to do business with them. If there were any actual “mafia-style” threats of violence, one would hope they’d say so and inform the authorities.

    It isn't explained, so you just assume that it's normal public pressure. You then say that 'one would hope' there would have been investigations if there were actual threats of violence, which strikes me as being a statement for which there is virtually no evidence.

    You basically just assume that this was all the result of boycotting, which would of course be acceptable, but actually this occurred while the state was going after them and they were accusing their opponents of mafia tactics.

  • some guy||

    Similarly there is no evidence given that anyone else committed a crime againt the bakery. The fact that the bakers are providing no such evidence means we must assume no such crimes took place for now.

  • Irish||

    I agree. I'm just saying that he is clearly grasping at straws when trying to claim that the shutdown of a bakery under state investigation is the result of the market.

  • Scott S.||

    The couple themselves put the blame on the market.

  • Finrod||

    No, they put the blame on the jack-booted tactics of the LGBT crowd. That and the death threats.

  • plusafdotcom||

    Got links or documentation on THAT one?!
    Death threats is NOT one of the "traditional" LGBT "tactics," y'know...

  • Tonio||

    You are right; there is no evidence.

    However, having said that it doesn't pass the sniff test.

  • robc||

    I dont think right conclusions are being drawn.

    They shutdown due to some combo of proper public pressure AND government investigation.

    Would the former have been enough to shut them down? Maybe. Or maybe not.

  • Finrod||

    Death threats are 'proper public pressure'?

    What a strange world you live in.

  • robc||

    I was counting those.

  • robc||

    wasnt

    sigh

  • Applederry||

    So the next time somebody asks how to deal with bigotry and discrimination in the marketplace without the intervention of the government, show them this.

    Except that the government absolutely is involved. The couple that was denied service didn't go to the news media or run a Facebook campaign or whatever, they went and filed a complaint with Oregon's labor department. Sure, they probably would have lost at least some business just from their denial of service, but you're a fool if you think the government investigating and sending accusing letters wasn't also a significant effect on their business.

  • tarran||

    Just as every surgeon should be stabbed before they're allowed to wield the scalpel, every journalist should be sued by the government before they are allowed to write about court cases.

  • John||

    +1000

  • ||

    Just as every surgeon should be stabbed before they're allowed to wield the scalpel

    Does that seem right to you?

  • John||

    It does actually. The idea is that it is very easy to take the effects of something lightly when they are not happening to you. A surgeon who does a hundred surgeries a year but has never been under the knife himself, quite easily forgets how traumatic the experience is for each of his patients.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    If you include shooting a cop's dog before he can go on patrol, I'm in.

  • The Original Jason||

    How about skip the dog and let a cop try his gun/taser/truncheon on himself first?

  • Floridian||

    I saw a video of cops tasering themselves once. Evidently it was part of the training so they would understand what it is like before using it on people. I guess it doesn't work.

  • plusafdotcom||

    ... or it does...

  • tarran||

    You're gonna help me. 'Cause every second you're with me is a chance to turn the tables, get the better of me. Maybe you'll find your moment. Maybe I'll slip. Or, you refuse to help me, I shoot your brain out, and I go upstairs and spend some time violating the little mechanic I got trussed up in the engine room. I take no pleasure in the thought, but she will die, weeping, if you cross me.

  • Brett L||

    Jubal Early sounds like a RAH character name. He would have been the 2nd best recurring character in Firefly.

  • tarran||

    That episode is easily my favorite.

  • some guy||

    Well... Here I am.

  • some guy||

    Second best after whom?

  • tarran||

    Saffron, baby!

  • some guy||

    I figured as much. I found Saffron to be annoying what with the constant attempts to play people. It got tiresome during her second appearance. Jubal was badass. I would have liked to have seen more of Mingo and Fanty too.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I saw the episodes but forgot most of the names. I thought Jubal Early was a Confederate general?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    OK, I looked it up - I says to myself, "I bet it's that insane black bounty hunter." I was right! What kind of black guy is named after a Confederate general?

  • robc||

    Hmmm...consensus?

  • ||

    So the next time somebody asks how to deal with bigotry and discrimination in the marketplace without the intervention of the government, show them this.

    The PC crowd would much prefer if the bakery owners still hated gays to death but were forced to make them cakes and smile while doing it. It gives them something to feel all outragey about.

  • John||

    Sure they can fight bigotry and a lot of other things too. I think Libertarians will come to rue the day that they endorsed the idea that it is appropriate and desirable for people to let their political views rule their economic decisions.

    I am not saying that the government should step in to stop this. People are free not to shop where they want. But, we should not be encouraging them to make that decision based on politics. Where does this end? Basically, if it is the right thing to do to run these people out of business, than it is right for any minority view to face the same sanction. How are you guys going to feel when some atheist gets run out of business in some small town in Texas because the local Christians refused to do business with him? Or if the popular tide on guns ever turns and anyone who is a gun owner or advocate for gun rights faces economic ruin as gun controllers conduct a boycott?

    Libertarians need to work for not just limiting the scope of government but for limiting the scope of politics in general. The more political of a society we are, the less free of a society we are. Don't buy into this totalitarian liberal bullshit that says all politics is personal. Its not. Don't let your politics infect your economic decisions.

  • Alice Bowie||

    If you "don't let your politics infect economic decisions" than the FREE market will not stomp BIGOTRY, as the aticle suggests

  • John||

    It might not. And that is the point. The point of a free society is for people to be free to be as they wish. And that means they are free to be things like bigots. You can't have a free society if only those who adhere to the approved views can own a business.

    Your problem is that you think that bigots should not be allowed to exist. That is fine and all. But once we say bigots can't own business, there are going to be a lot of other people that the mob says can't own one either. I would rather these people keep their business than have my ability to own a business be subjects to the political dictates of the mob.

  • Alice Bowie||

    If you think of the Montgomery Bus Company example, the boycotting (politics infecting economic decisions) was effective.

    However, blacks could not boycott the all-white dinner. Only whites could.

    I guess the question is what is that changed?

    A the heart of the people (everyone)
    B the heart of the people in government

    To me, it looks like it's B. As most of the white south was very happy with Jim Crow and other policies.

  • DJF||

    Montgomery Bus Company was integrated by the courts not the boycott

  • Alice Bowie||

  • The Original Jason||

    You'd also be free to go out of business because of your bigotry.

  • KPres||

    Yes it will you ignorant cunt. Discrimination against your customer base is economic suicide, even assuming consumers making rational, apolitical purchasing decisions. Jesus, even Tony could grasp something like that (I think).

  • Alice Bowie||

    Not really. The All-white dinners in the South ran just fine.

  • KPres||

    Jesus Christ you're stupid. Segregation was codified by law. You didn't even know that, did you?

  • DJF||

    And all white diners were intergrated by the law.

    We went from the government preventing certain people being together to the government forcing people together.

  • Alice Bowie||

    that's actually what happened DJF. You are 100% correct.

    And that's my point. The people in charge (The government) either changed or the existing people changed their minds.

  • KPres||

    The point, nimrods, is that nobody was allowed to gain a competitive edge by opening their doors to all comers.

  • Juice||

    There were plenty of diners/businesses that had signs that read, "Everyone is welcome" and things like that.

  • KPres||

    """"We went from the government preventing certain people being together to the government forcing people together."""

    Thanks for the history lesson. Hasn't been too effective, has it?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.....-_2011.PNG

    If they'd just let the market operate, the only income gap would be between the wealthy tolerant on one side and the poor racists on the other. Just as it should be.

  • tarran||

    the FREE market will not stomp BIGOTRY, as the aticle suggests

    Yep, which is why during the Jim Crow era, there was no need for all those laws that were passed forbidding white people from treating black customers like white customers and why many of the cases where the Supreme Court upheld those laws were not brought by businessmen who were fed up with the additional costs and loss of custom from the state mandated bigotry.

  • Alice Bowie||

    The Government is not a bunch of Aliens from Mars. The Government is people.

    People's opinions and hearts did open up. At least those in the government.

    Originally, they upheld Jim Crow. Later on, they outlawed it. Perhaps a different group of people or a the same people chaning their minds.

    My point is the general population of whites were disappointed this the 1970s Government taking away jim crow even though the 1940s supreme court upheld it.

  • some guy||

    Government is typically a lagging indicator on the morals and ethics of a group of people.

  • John Thacker||

    The Government is the majority of people. Which can suggest that when the majority is badly wrong, you want a weak Government. (And vice versa.)

    When white people were super racist, it's no wonder that Frederick Douglass would be libertarian and be part of the Just Leave Me Alone caucus.

  • tarran||

    My point is the general population of whites were disappointed this the 1970s Government taking away jim crow even though the 1940s supreme court upheld it.

    No your point was:

    If you "don't let your politics infect economic decisions" than the FREE market will not stomp BIGOTRY, as the aticle suggests

    Except that a group of whites did want to do business with blacks in ways that the majority of whites didn't like, and they got stomped for it. How does bigotry end? By people giving up bigotry piecemeal, either for moral reasons or because it costs too much. And the free market provided non-bigots with lower costs and a larger customer base, allowing them to earn higher profits. Which is why the bigots went crying to the legislatures to get laws passed preventing other people from evading costs and reaping the rewards of non-bigotry.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    The Government is people.

    Government is 50%+1 of the people (who vote).

    The 50%-1 may be stuck with the outcome, but that doesn't mean they agree.

  • Tony||

    Yet no one has been able to articulate why the 50%-1 should get their way instead.

  • Irish||

    No one argues they should get their way. We argue that there are certain issues about which neither should get there way. There should be certain issues off limits to the government so that neither the majority nor the minority is oppressed.

    Just because you're mindlessly in favor of mob rule doesn't excuse the fact that you've hung out here for years without even learning what our arguments are.

  • Tony||

    We argue that there are certain issues about which neither should get there way. There should be certain issues off limits to the government so that neither the majority nor the minority is oppressed.

    Which is completely indistinguishable from tyranny. Specifically, tyranny of you. Are any of these off-limits policies things you vehemently disagree with? Yeah, didn't think so. Little wannabe despots, all of you.

    I believe absolutely nothing should be kept away from the will of the people, since it is their government. Some things, specifically minority rights, ought to have higher institutional hurdles in order to undo, but there is no policy so sacred that people ought to be permanently forbidden from altering it.

  • Irish||

    Yes, Tony. We're tyrannizing people by not taking their rights away.

    Are any of these off-limits policies things you vehemently disagree with? Yeah, didn't think so. Little wannabe despots, all of you.

    Actually yes. I would love for you to stop talking, yet I am too in favor of free speech to want the government to force you to be quiet. See how the protection of rights works, Tony? Also, you don't know what a despot is. A despot is someone who issues capricious law in order to maintain power for himself. I am in favor of specific laws and legal protections that no one can break. That makes me literally the opposite of a despot.

    I believe absolutely nothing should be kept away from the will of the people, since it is their government.

    Earlier you told me that I was wrong when I said that you think the majority should do whatever they want. Here you are admitting it.

    Some things, specifically minority rights, ought to have higher institutional hurdles in order to undo, but there is no policy so sacred that people ought to be permanently forbidden from altering it.

    In other words, any minority right should be subject to removal provided enough people are in favor of it. Your dream society is a lynch mob, Tony.

  • Tony||

    In other words, any minority right should be subject to removal provided enough people are in favor of it.

    What higher authority gets to tell 90% of the people they can't do something? If there are enough votes to undo minority protections, then that's a symptom of a larger problem. You're just appealing to a deity-like entity as the source of truth and goodness in law. Otherwise, who gets to decide which laws should be immutable? Let me guess, you nominate yourself.

  • Irish||

    Let me guess, you nominate yourself.

    Your glib little insults aren't going to make me angry, Tony. If you want to have a rational discussion, fine, but if you want to behave like a petulant child then why don't you go post at some left-wing site? They're used to petulant childishness on HuffPo and the Daily Kos.

    What higher authority gets to tell 90% of the people they can't do something?

    If 90% of the people decide to murder all the gays, would that be okay? If your answer is no, then how do you reach that answer? My answer is simple. Individuality is the greatest driver of innovation, both artistic and material. It is the greatest driver of intellectual innovation and the greatest driver of scientific innovation. Free societies produce all that is beautiful in the world, and unfree societies produce violence, oppression, and intellectual subjugation.

    I don't have to appeal to a deity. I can appeal to the evidence by looking at the ascendance of the Western world beginning with the enlightenment. You can whine and stamp your feet and call me a despot due to your inability to argue rationally, but that won't change the facts.

    I am arguing in favor of a free society of free people working and striving to make something beautiful of their lives. You are arguing in favor of reactionary ideology that seeks to blot out all of gains of the enlightenment and return humanity to mob run serfdom.

  • Tony||

    If 90% of the people decide to murder all the gays, would that be okay?

    Not in my opinion, but it's rather important to point out--what's going to stop them? A piece of paper that says they can't? We must appreciate that general social acceptance of principles is a necessary precondition for their enforcement. If there are enough votes to repeal the Bill of Rights, we have a bigger problem on our hands than anything we're talking about. I never said democracy was easy for stupid bigots.

    You are arguing in favor of reactionary ideology that seeks to blot out all of gains of the enlightenment and return humanity to mob run serfdom.

    This is almost beautiful in its Orwellian wrongness. The quickest way modern society goes to mob-run serfdom is to implement what you call a free market plus limited government. You're just not thinking things through. Fetishism of the individual is not entirely without merit, but you're articulating a mythology, not reality. The biggest driver of innovation in the history of the world has actually been the ability to direct large amounts of resources toward innovation. And it's always a team effort. Ayn Rand Romanticism doesn't sell with me. Neither do false dichotomies that define laissez-faire policy as "freedom" and mixed economies of the sort where all the happiest and freest people live as "unfreedom."

  • Erik Jay||

    You are a very shoddy thinker, you try too damned hard, you're really not nearly as bright as you think you ... and most of us have heard your kind of silly drivel for years. Please learn some goddam humility, first of all. Then go away. You bring nothing new, interesting, or worthy of discussion. Yawn city, bub.

  • Erik Jay||

    You are a very shoddy thinker, you try too damned hard, you're really not nearly as bright as you think you ... and most of us have heard your kind of silly drivel for years. Please learn some goddam humility, first of all. Then go away. You bring nothing new, interesting, or worthy of discussion. Yawn city, bub.

  • ||

    Irish, for you. I'd invite Tony to read it but that cock in his ear is causing vertigo I hear.

    http://www.newcriterion.com/ar.....ciety-7680

  • ||

    "Little wannabe despots, all of you."

    Despicable me.

  • some guy||

    No one here is saying that the 50%-1 should get their way. We're saying no one should be coerced into some action, no matter what the vote happens to be.

  • KPres||

    Neither the 51% nor the 49% get their way. All are making massive concessions to their party. That's why democracy sucks as a method of social organization. Better to let people choose for themselves on a micro level.

  • Tony||

    And if a group of people wants to do something collectively? Pool resources in order to accomplish something larger than they can do individually? How do they make decisions?

    The libertarian guy in the corner gets to dictate everything is what it sounds like.

  • KPres||

    """And if a group of people wants to do something collectively?"""

    Then let them do so. And let it be democratic within that pool of voluntary association. The italicized part is important, though, because we're not talking about a voluntary collective, we're talking about government...collectivism under threat of violence.

  • Tony||

    Then let them do so. And let it be democratic within that pool of voluntary association. The italicized part is important, though, because we're not talking about a voluntary collective, we're talking about government...collectivism under threat of violence.

    So what if 300 million people want to do something collectively? You can't really operate without a government of some form, and certainly not without coercion. Or is there a maximum number of people that are allowed to act collectively? And who enforces that rule?

  • ||

    "and certainly not without coercion."

    I'm keeping this for my Tony collage.

  • tarran||

    Yet no one has been able to articulate why the 50%-1 should get their way instead.

    Yeah, fuck those gays in Texas for wanting to engage in Sodomy. And those black and white people who wanted to marry each other in Virginia. Why should they get to have their way?

  • Tony||

    Your examples are clear-cut cases of minority rights. We are all in agreement about those.

    Now explain who should get their way on a vote to name a park after one guy vs. another.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Umm... no - you are not in agreement with minority rights as stated mere minutes ago by the smartest person you know:

    I believe absolutely nothing should be kept away from the will of the people, since it is their government. Some things, specifically minority rights, ought to have higher institutional hurdles in order to undo, but there is no policy so sacred that people ought to be permanently forbidden from altering it.

  • Tony||

    So the constitution should not be a democratic compact, but a sacred text? Sorry, I just have to disagree. I don't believe in magic, and I don't trust documents people claim are magic.

  • ||

    Now explain who should get their way on a vote to name a park after one guy vs. another.

    Naming rights should belong to the owner.

    Oh wait, I forgot, you oppose private property. Silly me.

  • Juice||

    Government is 50%+1 of the people (who vote).

    Not really.

    The 50%-1 may be stuck with the outcome, but that doesn't mean they agree.

    No, "the rest of us" who either lost the election or didn't vote at all usually make up the majority.

  • Tony||

    No, "the rest of us" who either lost the election or didn't vote at all usually make up the majority.

    So vote.

  • KPres||

    """The Government is not a bunch of Aliens from Mars. The Government is people."""

    Really? So are free markets. What the fuck is your point? Our point is that the two institutions have wildly different behavior, and that markets already punish discrimination, and do so in a rational way.

  • Tony||

    Except when they don't.

  • some guy||

    Governments also punish discrimination, except when they don't. What's your point?

  • Tony||

    Governments often lead the charge. There was a critical mass of popular support and more than a little courage on the part of politicians to get the South to stop oppressing an entire race.

    I expect many issues are like this: the "market" or private society in liberal areas does fine by itself in advancing the causes of civilization and decency, with the places that are slower-to-the-draw areas tending to be need being helped along a little.

  • Tony||

    Woah I think I had a seizure typing that last sentence.

  • The Original Jason||

    Governments often lead the charge. There was a critical mass of popular support and more than a little courage on the part of politicians to get the South to stop oppressing an entire race.

    Umm... you don't see the self contradiction in that paragraph?

  • KPres||

    """Governments often lead the charge."""

    Never. Government swoops in at the height of movements, passes a law, then takes all the credit. But all it usually does is fuel the opposition. That's what happened with civil rights, working hours, child labor, etc. And soon to be gay rights. Hell, look at the backlash you're seeing to this situation. You're an idiot if you think this is good for your agenda.

  • Tony||

    The good thing about there being an actual law against, say, child labor, is that the "backlash" doesn't involve putting children in sweatshops. Because they can't.

  • KPres||

    Yeah, better that they beg on the streets, because that's what happened. All that child labor laws did was deprive poor people of a source of income, making them worse off. It's not like anybody sent their kids to work who didn't need the money. Thing is, child labor was disappearing anyway, thanks to the massive increase in the general standard of living. It would have been better to let nature take it's course. We'd still have no child labor problems today, and you wouldn't have made a lot of people's lives harder in the process.

  • Tony||

    Bring back child labor! Rand Paul 2016.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Governments often lead the charge.

    lol - government hasn't even led the charge on your pet desires such as gay marriage (DOMA?), much less on things such as racial integration (Plessy v Ferg?), Japanese interment, etc, etc, etc...

    As others have already stated and reality proves - the government only does the moral thing long after the vast majority of society agrees.

    It's obvious why if you... well, if anyone who honestly wants to contemplate it... major changes scares politicians as there is always more downside than upside and their main goal is re-election.... therefore... I digress...

    Continuing - US history amply demonstrates, no government institution is immune to this process by which they come to the moral decision long after the population got there - we've seen it with SCOTUS, FCC, integration of armed forces, etc, etc, etc.

    Not to mention more recent history which proves the current President isn't immune to this either (gay marriage).

    Reminds me of a while back in time when everyone picked on pro-athletes for being poor role models - I always thought - why would any one use a pro-athlete as a role model in the first place?

    & then you go and make all those people appear as genius selectors of role models by picking the absolute worst role model of all - the government.

  • KPres||

    They did in this case. Or rather, they would have had the government not stepped in and forced them to serve the gay couple.

  • Tony||

    How are you guys going to feel when some atheist gets run out of business in some small town in Texas because the local Christians refused to do business with him?

    If anyone were dumb enough to make an issue of his atheism while trying to sell something in Texas, I expect he would be lucky to get away merely with a failed business.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    How so?

  • Tony||

    It's Texas.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    I'm an atheist who lives in Texas. Back when I did contract work, I told people I would work on Sunday because I don't believe in God but not on Saturday because I do believe in Texas football. I got laughs and enough money for retirement.

  • Tony||

    I'm sorry.

  • Brett L||

    The Football Gods have obviously removed their favor from Mack Brown. He should be sacrificed in DKR Memorial Stadium to appease them.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    He got lazy with recruiting, which was strength. And, yeah, he's screwed the pooch. He let Davis hobble him for years now it looks like he's going to let Diaz pull him under.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Yes, you are.

  • KPres||

    Bad example. Football is probably more sacred in Texas than religion.

  • Irish||

    Tony, you don't seem to know anything about the rest of the world. You are a raving narcissist who apparently believes that anyone who doesn't live in a left-wing city must be an evil, Bible thumping racist.

    I've been to Texas. I am an atheist. People knew I was an atheist. No one cared.

  • some guy||

    Atheist! Atheist! We've got an Atheist here!

    See? No one cares.

    Nice hat.

  • Tony||

    I've been to Texas too. Only against my will, of course.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Ironically, Tony resides in Oklahoma. Ponder that.

  • Finrod||

    I lived in Oklahoma once, but fortunately I was able to escape after 15 months.

  • Tony||

    Yeah think how much Texas has to suck for me to prefer Oklahfuckinghoma.

    I'm just joking around Night Elf. I think it's a latent football thing.

  • ||

    I've lived in Texas and been an out atheist too.

    Ever heard of Austin?

  • ||

    Austin is where the chrome Longhorns on the back of cars outnumber the chrome Jesus fish by 20:1. The ratio is reversed elsewhere in Texas.

  • John||

    So your response Tony is that you are okay with atheists being told to keep their views quiet if they want to be in business. I don't look at it that way. I would rather people not care about the metaphysical opinions of the guy who makes their wedding cake or does their dry cleaning.

  • Tony||

    Well, I would rather my cat were a little friendlier.

  • Irish||

    John, you're talking about PRIVATE opinions when this is a totally different issue. These people didn't want to sell cakes to a gay couple. They're the ones who made their business political. If you make your business political and people don't want to do business with you, it's your fault for politicizing your business in the first place.

    Your theoretical baking atheist is a bad analogy. A better analogy would be an atheist that refuses to sell cakes to Christians. That guy would have turned his own business into a political statement, and if other people don't like that political statement, then it's his fault.

  • John||

    There is no difference. Your ability to think and believe something is contingent upon your ability to act on that belief. Saying "well you can think anything you want but you can't act on it" is not freedom. If someone is not free to refuse to serve a gay marriage, they are not free to object to the institution in any meaningful way.

  • Irish||

    There is a clear difference. You're complaining about people making politics a part of everything. Well, if a business owner chooses not to serve gays, blacks, or Christians, THEY are the ones who brought politics into a non-political situation.

    Why do you only seem to go after the consumers for bringing politics into a personal issue? In this situation, the business owners brought politics into the issue, and I can't understand why you're only going after the boycotters when the business owners are actually more guilty of politicizing an apolitical issue.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Irish - somehow, someway, I only hear about these sorts of things when its the "consumers" who broadcast it everywhere. I never get press releases from Phil's Bakery about their service policies.

  • Finrod||

    It's not politics to them, it's religion. One of those two items is protected by the First Amendment.

  • Irish||

    How is it religion not to bake a cake for a gay person? Point me to the provision in the Christian Bible in any way related to cake baking.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    You can't reach specific positions based on general propositions?

    If they believe the Bible condemns homosexuality -- a position not without support in the Bible -- then why couldn't refusal to be involved in the celebration of a homosexual wedding be based on that condemnation even if the specifics aren't in the Bible?

  • Calidissident||

    I don't think that really matters in this discussion (which we all agree is a moral, not legal, debate, correct?). Religion or politics, if you inject that into your business, I don't really see why it's so horrible for other people to account for that in making their own economic decisions. I don't give a shit that the CEO of Chick Fil A is against gay marriage, but if Chick Fil A started refusing to serve gay people (yeah, I know that's not something you can automatically know just by looking, bear with me for the sake of argument), I would boycott them, and I don't see why I should be the one criticized for infusing personal beliefs into business.

  • Finrod||

    It doesn't matter whether you or I can find it or not: it's what they believe. Denying them that is denying the very existence of freedom of religion.

  • Calidissident||

    Finrod, Irish isn't saying that these people should be required to bake cakes or go out of business. He's arguing against John's criticism of consumers who would refuse to buy from them because of their policy.

  • Boisfeuras||

    How is it religion not to bake a cake for a gay person? Point me to the provision in the Christian Bible in any way related to cake baking.

    The first line of the article says they did not want to bake a cake for a gay wedding. There are numerous examples in the Bible clearly proscribing homosexual behavior. And religion is their stated reason for the refusal:

    "Klein tells me he has nothing against homosexuals -- but because of their religious faith, the family simply cannot take part in gay wedding events."

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    I second John here. I really, really don't want my entire life to be bogged down in the political.

  • tarran||

    But you don't have to.

    The beautiful thing about the market is that it allows you to forego doing business with people you don't like and allows you to do business with people you do like.

    If politics is irrelevant to you, then more power to you. It it is important to you, you bear the costs associated with only working with a smaller group of prospective trading partners.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    You're right in one sense and wrong in another. Whether I like it or not, I am an avid consumer of media, news, etc., and when tempests-in-teapots like this occur, they engender this kind of discussion society-wide.

    Now I have to explain why I'm going through the Chik-Fil-A drivethrough to random assholes on the Internet.

  • Libertymike||

    You know that I would never ask you to explain why you are going through the Chik-Fil-A drivethrough.

    Besides, I may be an asshole, but not a random one.

  • Calidissident||

    NK, I agree with you, but that's not exactly what John's saying though. He's holding consumers and business owners to a double standard when it comes to infusing beliefs into business. As I said above, I don't care about the personal beliefs of Chick Fil A's CEO, but if they started refusing to serve gay people (and again, I realize it would be an impossible policy to enforce in such a business, but I'm using this as an example for the sake of argument), I would boycott them, and I don't think I'm the one injecting personal beliefs into business in that situation. Likewise, I don't really care if the owner of a business is a white guy who personally hates black people, or a black guy who personally hates white people. But if that white guy refused to serve black people (if it were legal), I would boycott his business (as a white guy, I obviously wouldn't have to boycott the black guy's business if he refused to serve whites)

  • Michael S. Langston||

    The difference is in degree - the store owners weren't making their political/religious opinions known except in very limited cases whereby their actions proved their opinions.

    The soon-to-be-wedded individual (or couple) went to the government and media.

    IE - one party, whether moral or ethical, declined service to another party in a direct way.

    The other party, instead of acting like a normal adult, decided their anger must be heard by all others and the government must punish the evil doers.

    Disclaimer: Not sure I completely agree with John here, though I do see less political actions in public as likely being a public good... but I do see his point and don't believe the analogy you're using is apt.

  • Calidissident||

    John's post wasn't just about this case, nor was mine. I'm not defending the plaintiffs and I'm not saying government action is appropriate in this situation.

    And if the owners are this firm in their beliefs that they let them affect their business practices, then they shouldn't have a problem with people knowing that

  • ||

    Tony!

    Psh.

  • Zeb||

    We have discussed this at length already, so I'll try not to get too into it. But I woudl like to make one comment.
    I think that there is an important distinction between the views of a business owner and their actions to be made here. If a baker is privately homophobic or racist, yet provides a good product at a good price to any comer, I would probably give them my business if I was in the market for some baked goods. But if they refuse to provide a service to a gay or interracial couple, I would think rather differently about them. If they are going to let their politics determine how they do business, then I think it is reasonable for other people to let their politics determine whether or not they want to do business with them. That's why I think that boycotting Chick Fil-a was stupid, but boycotting people like this is not. Mr. Fil-A opposes gay marriage, but he'll sell chicken sandwiches to anyone who walks in. These people used their business to make a political statement.

  • Tony||

    Boycotting Chick fil-A was a fine and time-honored way of delivering a message. What was truly gross was Christians using chicken sandwiches as a proxy for their bigotry.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Again.

  • Finrod||

    When does he ever?

  • Zeb||

    And I think that people should deliver whatever message they want to if it is in a non-violent way. I just happen to think that it is a fool's errand to try to get every business owner to think the right way about everything. If they are willing to treat all customers with the same respect, that's good enough for me.

  • John||

    You really are a self parody Tony. You are totally incapable of comprehending that these tactics could ever be used against you. Fuck you. If you want to boycotte chick fila as a political statement, then you better expect people on the other side to go eat there as a political statement too.

    Basically you think no one who disagrees with you should be allowed to have a voice. Sometimes I think you are just a neurotic and uninformed liberal. But then sometimes you show yourself to have really appalling views.

  • Tony||

    Did I say Christians shouldn't be allowed to eat at Chick fil-A? Stop it with the straw men. It's getting really fucking tiresome and it's making you look like an idiot.

    I said the gay supporters' behavior was laudable and the Christians' behavior was gross. Because it was.

  • John||

    I said the gay supporters' behavior was laudable and the Christians' behavior was gross. Because it was.

    SO your side speaking is great. The other side doing the same thing is gross.

  • Tony||

    Well the content of the message is what's relevant, but in that case, yes.

  • Finrod||

    Tony, you couldn't be more of a self-parody if you tried.

  • Tony||

    You don't think it's hateful in a truly bizarre way for people to buy chicken sandwiches in order to advertize their homophobia?

  • Finrod||

    I think it's hateful for you to post your idiocy here thus lowering the quality of conversation. So why is my definition of 'hateful' any less valid than yours?

  • Tony||

    There's a detectable level of quality to the conversations here?

  • KPres||

    Not in the threads you pop up in.

  • Tony||

    The threads I don't pop up in very much resemble circle jerk sessions in which everyone finishes earlier than they'd hoped.

  • ||

    Not every site can achieve the rollicking diversity of opinion of, say, DU or Kos. Sorry bro.

  • Irish||

    Boycotting Chick fil-A was a fine and time-honored way of delivering a message. What was truly gross was Christians using chicken sandwiches as a proxy for their bigotry.

    No. What was truly gross was politicians actually attempting to block the building of new Chick fil-As in total contravention of their first amendment rights.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    That's too abstract for him. Way, way, too fucking abstract.

  • ||

    Whenever we're in the States we make it a point to eat at Chick-fil-A. Now all the more so because it pisses self-righteous leftists off.

  • Juice||

    But Chik fil a is gross.

  • ||

    Like there's a difference. Gays using chicken sandwiches as an outlet for their bigotry against conservative Christians. Christians conservatives using chicken sandwiches as an outlet for their bigotry against gays. Same fucking difference.

  • Irish||

    John, your personal feelings always impact your economic decisions. How I feel about a company impacts whether I want to shop there.

    I agree that people are too obsessed with making everything political, but arguing that your personal beliefs shouldn't impact your shopping habits is impossible. They always will.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I don't think people should search out politically-compatible businesses, but when it's forced on their attention that the business owner disagrees with them on some real important matter, they should at least consider switching businesses. Again, this doesn't mean catechizing every baker about their definition of marriage, but if you are really attached to your own definition (one way or the other) and you think the marriage issue is vital, then at least consider voting with your wallet.

    "How are you guys going to feel when some atheist gets run out of business in some small town in Texas because the local Christians refused to do business with him?"

    Well, I would have assumed that if such things could happen, it would have happened already. And if it *did* happen, I would presume that the atheist would have moved to Austin or New York or something, like all the other infidels.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Funny how you recognize the way peer pressure can make it hard for a group of adult bakers to take a stand for their religious beliefs even in the absence of direct coercion, but can't seem to understand why seven year old don't would be leery of being openly non-conformist at school.

  • John||

    It is not peer pressure dipshit. I don't care if everyone tells him he is wrong. It is boycotting the guy out of business.

    You are just criminally stupid. You can't seem to grasp argument by analogy.

  • plusafdotcom||

    John, I think it's not so much "politics" ruling folks' decisions as much as "personal opinions of all kinds."

    If the atheist in a conservative religious neighborhood loses business because they advertised their beliefs, it's still their own "marketing mistake" and the free market would certainly move (locally) to shun or boycott them.

    So they would need to look at things like why did they open the shop THERE and why did they make a fuss over their atheistic beliefs.

    I don't think it's politics, it's just personal beliefs. Similar to why I don't shop at Chick Filet or Hobby Lobby. Their beliefs have been made public by they, themselves, and I've reacted based on MY beliefs.

    Apparently, neither one has suffered much, financially, as a result of my beliefs or actions.

    But on my personal website, I don't hide MY beliefs or opinions at all. Maybe that's why sales have been slow...

    :)

  • ||

    Nobody wants to read about this boring bullshit. Not when there are cats wearing tiny paper hats in this world.

  • John||

    Man that cat in the nurse hat in the first picture is going to make his human pay for that little stunt. Talk about a look of pure vengeance.

  • Brett L||

    I think that's the "calmly considering which shoes to vomit in" look.

  • Zeb||

    When are cats not doing that?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Strangely, I taught my daughter how to fold paper hats last night. And we have cats.

  • JD the elder||

    According to what I'd heard, there were actual threats of violence. How plausible, I dunno. I'll see if there's any kind of documentation I can find.

  • John||

    There probably was. It seems anyone and everyone gets a death threat these days. Now how credible those were, who knows.

    It is all fun and games when we get to other people we don't like. But when the mob turns and starts going after us, not so much.

  • Scott S.||

    If you find anything, shoot me an e-mail. I had tried to look at their Facebook page, referenced in the earlier coverage, but it seemed to be gone or not public anymore.

  • KPres||

    Yeah, death threats. Not really sure that's a market based tactics.

    Here's the market-based solution:

    Buy from somebody else. The tolerant bakery gains economic power, and the discriminatory bakery loses economic power, and each in proper proportion to benefit/damage brought on the consumer who was discriminated against. Any other kind of retribution, even a general boycott, is piling on and is just wrong.

  • Zeb||

    DO you think that there is any action a business owner could take, short of actual criminal behavior, that would justify organizing a boycott against them?

  • KPres||

    Nothing is absolute, but the burden of proof is on the boycotters to show some kind of market failure.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    No - if you disagree on some fundamental issue, then consider voting with your wallet.

    The Chik Fil-A reverse-boycott is an example.

    But no-one has to do this if it's inconvenient or annoying.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    What exactly is the difference between "buying from somebody else" and "boycotting"?

  • KPres||

    I mean buy from somebody else as in the person discriminated against moves on to the next producer. I don't mean other, uninvolved parties buying elsewhere to make a statement. And I'm arguing that the lost business is punishment sufficient to fit the crime.

  • Juice||

    More people involved.

  • JD the elder||

    From http://www.theblaze.com/storie.....ats-anger/ :

    In May, the bakers told TheBlaze that they were inundated with hateful messages.

    From proclamations that Aaron should be shot to one apparent threat that he be raped, the hate and angst being thrown the Klein family’s way is certainly serious in nature. Some have even wished for the couple’s five children to be stricken with illness. Earlier this summer, Aaron and Melissa shared a number of these e-mails with TheBlaze.

    The Blaze doesn't actually quote any of the most violent ones, though. In any case, it looks like some of the pressure on the Kleins went a little beyond regular old free-market choices.

    I'm always conflicted about boycotts, because I think there's a fine line between "If you exhibit behavior X, I am going to choose not to do business with you" and "You should be shut down for not having the correct political views."

  • Tak Kak||

    I thought the market approach was to out-compete them, not to nag and harangue people not to do business.

    It might be a completely Kosher libertarian approach, but that doesn't mean it's worth pointing out.

  • Zeb||

    Well, that depends on how broad of a view you take on what constitutes the market.

  • Tak Kak||

    Yes, contra Robert Nozick, I don't think that all activity outside of the state should be considered capitalist or market activity.

    Still, even granting shunning as market activity, shunning someone because they have different opinions really isn't something I'd tout.

  • ||

    As others are pointing out, the state definitely played a role in the bakery's demise. The injustice of being denied the opportunity to buy a cake from one bakery really doesn't seem that outrageous in the grand scheme of things.

    Markets alleviate the cost of bigotry by providing choices. There will always be bakeries that will happily take money from gay people.

  • John||

    This is not analogous to Jim Crow. If no bakery anywhere would serve these people or if the government had a law that said only one bakery on the bad side of town could make a gay wedding cake, this would be like Jim Crow. Instead, there are no doubt dozens of bakeries in the Portland area who would have gladly taken these people's money. There was one that wouldn't. I am not seeing it as a very good idea to harass that one heretic business into bankruptcy no matter how lousy their views may be.

  • John Thacker||

    Right, it's not the same thing as, say, black people needing a hotel room in a small town in the South and there's only one motel. Shelter is important.

  • John||

    And Jim Crow was a law. You couldn't serve both races of customers even if you wanted to.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    The fact that it had to be made a law seems to imply some things.

  • John Thacker||

    Among other things, it implies that the majority was pretty racist.

    If you think that the majority sucks, you should trust the free market rather than the government, because the free market generally makes room for outliers.

    Government action is only really effective at forcing a minority to bend to the majority. I can understand why people would favor that when they feel that the minority is morally wrong. But it's the minorities oppressed by a morally wrong majority who need the most help.

  • Tony||

    And so many Southern white business owners so desperately wanted to.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    More than you would think. For example, during those times, several Jewish immigrants attempted to open stores and cater to Blacks as well as Whites. They would always suffer from intimidation and, if that failed, violence.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Many did. That's a big part of why it had to be outlawed and couldn't be left to the desires of the business owners.

    Obviously, not all did.

  • John Thacker||

    Maybe not the majority, but at least a few. Otherwise they wouldn't have needed the laws. Laws are how a majority get a minority to conform. Seems nice when the majority isn't racist and the minority is, pretty terrifying when it's the reverse.

    Racist Sen. "Pitchfork" Ben Tillman of SC sponsored the still-existing federal ban on corporation campaign contributions because he thought that money-hungry corporations would push for an end to Jim Crow.

  • John Thacker||

    A few Southern white business owners were greedier than they were racist. At least that's what all the populist progressive-but-segregationist Democrats in my home states said.

  • Pro Libertate||

    You clearly know nothing of the time or the situation if you say that. Force of law was applied over and over again to enforce Jim Crow laws.

  • Tony||

    Law and governments are not instituted by aliens.

  • Pro Libertate||

    But the majority is always right, Tony, which is why we don't need limited government.

  • Tony||

    Yep because I've definitely said, "The majority is always right."

  • Tony||

    Of course by limited government you mean government limited to your own personal set of priorities, because whatever majorities think, you are always right.

  • Irish||

    You've explicitly argued that the majority should always get what they want and that there should be no checks on majority power.

  • Tony||

    No I haven't.

  • John Thacker||

    Tony, you've just argued that the government should operate on a basis of always doing what's morally right, as I understand it. But that's not basis for a system of government. Errors will occur.

    From a process point of view, limited government, balance of powers, and federalism leads to tolerating the mistakes of minorities while restraining majorities. I think that evil majorities do more damage than evil minorities.

  • Irish||

    Yes you have. Whenever someone brings up the need for checks and balances to protect the rights of the majority you will claim that they're terrible for arguing that the minority should be allowed to dictate policy.

    You have explicitly stated that the majority's views should be given precedence over the minority's rights. Any claim you make to the contrary is a lie.

    Explain to me how you think the majority's power should be limited.

  • Tony||

    I certainly am in favor of protections for minority rights. I'm a liberal; that's kind of our thing.

    But I strangely often find myself in the position of defending the principle of democracy here. That is, for routine matters, the majority should rule, because that's fairer than minority rule. Minority protections are practical and moral exceptions to basic democracy that are necessary in order to preserve democracy.

    Tyranny of the majority is a specific thing--it is the expression of the will of a majority that goes far enough to oppress minorities. It is countered through supermajoritarian requirements for changes to the protections I referred to above.

    It is not what you guys think it is: "I don't get my way on every little thing, therefore it's tyranny."

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    But I strangely often find myself in the position of defending the principle of democracy here. That is, for routine matters, the majority should rule, because that's fairer than minority rule.

    Are you really so fucking dense that you can't grasp that "minority rule" and "majority rule" aren't the only two options or just too disingenuous to address it?

    On the overwhelming majority of issues, and possibly every single, solitary one that doesn't involve my initiation of force or fraud, "no rule" is the better option than either majority- or minority-rule. To simply it for you: most stuff I do is none of your fucking business and you shouldn't be allowed to vote on it one way on the other.

  • Tony||

    That makes absolutely no sense. Libertarian boilerplate gone mad. There are lots of things communities (including the national one) have to deal with, and many of them are either/or choices, and often there is no such thing as not making policy (doing nothing is a policy choice).

  • John Thacker||

    Tyranny of the majority is a specific thing--it is the expression of the will of a majority that goes far enough to oppress minorities. It is countered through supermajoritarian requirements for changes to the protections I referred to above.

    It is not what you guys think it is: "I don't get my way on every little thing, therefore it's tyranny."

    *shrug* So as long as, say, blacks have their own separate schools and universities, ones that are equal, they're not really oppressed, you'd say?

    Having to buy a cake from a different person is definitely annoying as hell- but it is being oppressed, as you put it? After all, it's also annoying to be forced to say things you don't agree with.

    As I said, something like needing a motel room in a small town is a different sort of thing. If you're going to start saying that things aren't really oppression, then you equally open up for saying that the gay couple wasn't oppressed here.

  • ||

    You defend the right of the majority to rule when the minority it threatens isn't one that you identify with.

    We defend the rights of minorities, irregardless of whether we personally agree with their views.

  • Tony||

    You defend the right of the majority to rule when the minority it threatens isn't one that you identify with.

    Huh?

    Let's keep in mind that we're not defining a protected minority as people with a minority opinion on a matter of routine policy.

    Just say what you mean: libertarians should get their way in all matters, and nobody should be allowed to challenge any of it, forever.

  • Irish||

    No, you mendacious liar. Minorities should ALWAYS have their rights protected, including free speech, free association, property rights, freedom of worship, etc. This isn't about my personal beliefs.

    I personally think the world would be a better place if the modern progressive movement would stop speaking. Why don't I advocate their suppression? Two reasons. I understand that a government powerful enough to suppress a political minority is so powerful that it could destroy any dissidents, not just the ones I don't like. Secondly, I'm not evil and therefore don't think that I should use state violence to silence those I disagree with.

    The fact that you think the protection of minority rights is something insubstantial that only mean old libertarians care about says a great deal about the fascist roots of modern progressivism.

  • Tony||

    The fact that you think the protection of minority rights is something insubstantial that only mean old libertarians care about

    Not sure where you're getting this. I think minority rights is one of the greatest innovations of the Enlightenment, and I consider them an essential part of my political-philosophical heritage. Not so much yours, since yours was invented sometime in the mid-20th century long after the concept was established. Which might speak to why you guys pimp out the concept as a way of arguing for why you should get your way in all matters forever.

  • Irish||

    I think minority rights is one of the greatest innovations of the Enlightenment, and I consider them an essential part of my political-philosophical heritage.

    Tony at 6:01.

    I believe absolutely nothing should be kept away from the will of the people, since it is their government.

    Tony earlier.

    You do realize that these two statements are incompatible. If nothing is kept away from the will of the people, then there ARE no protections for minority rights. None. Those rights can be taken away should a majority decide that they can be taken away.

    You claim that minority right protections are part of your 'political-philosophical heritage' but you actively work to subvert all of the protections of those rights and allow what essentially amounts to mob rule.

    Not so much yours, since yours was invented sometime in the mid-20th century long after the concept was established.

    My political philosophy is actually derived from enlightenment thinking, which is why everything I'm saying would have fit in pretty well with the founder's own beliefs, particularly James Madison. Your beliefs are in stark contrast to everything the enlightenment advocated, so the fact that you try to claim to be an heir to a belief that you're actively attempting to destroy is hilarious.

  • Tony||

    these two statements are incompatible

    But they're not. Our constitutional minority rights protections are subject to supermajoritarian hurdles. They are not forever immune to amendment. I believe this is a good thing. The constitution is not a sacred text. I can't think of any good reason to ever change these protections, but it is still important to allow that everything is amendable via the process of democracy. Anything else is tyranny.

    I hate to break this to you, but libertarianism, especially the largely Ayn Rand-adherent version in vogue today, is reactionary to the progressive project that began with the Enlightenment and ended with Reagan. And don't tell me Ayn Rand isn't primary. Every other libertarian forefather advocated things universally called evil socialism here and in libertarian political rhetoric everywhere. Only Ayn Rand fits your guys' rhetoric.

  • Jordan||

    Every other libertarian forefather advocated things universally called evil socialism here and in libertarian political rhetoric everywhere.

    Complete and utter horseshit.

  • Irish||

    You don't know what tyranny is. Tyranny means oppressive power. A society that advocates freedom of the individual cannot be tyrannical. Tyranny does not mean 'undemocratic.' Madison actually talked about the tyranny of the majority, which would essentially be a hyperdemocratic tyranny in which 51% could order around the remaining 49%.

    This isn't your fault Tony. The modern left has created a Democracy fetish without understanding why our government is the way it is. Do you know why Democracy is always failing in the Middle East? Because they take the view that you do, that the primary goal is majority rules Democracy. That's not the view the founders took. The founders believed that we should not have majority rules Democracy because it inevitably ends in tyranny. That's why we don't have a Democracy. We have a Republic.

    Every other libertarian forefather advocated things universally called evil socialism here and in libertarian political rhetoric everywhere. Only Ayn Rand fits your guys' rhetoric.

    No. Lysander Spooner didn't. Rose Wilder Lane didn't. Most of the founders, with some exceptions, also didn't.

    It's funny that you call yourself a progressive because it's actually a reactionary political ideology that stands totally at odds with the enlightenment. Smith, Hume, Acton, Voltaire, etc. would all be disgusted with progressivism. There is not one aspect of the enlightenment that progressivism actually agrees with.

  • Tony||

    You seem to be coining a tautology. OK, but we have to define "freedom of the individual." Does that include freedom to obtain healthcare regardless of economic class? No, of course not. This vague phrase refers to an explicit set of policies, which amount to freedom only in a narrowly defined sense. So narrowly defined as to be laughably incomplete. A poor person is clearly more free with free access to healthcare. You are just obsessed with the taxes the rich person contributes to pay for it, and restrict your definition of freedom to that narrow interest. You can hardly complain that I disagree with this ridiculousness.

    The founders believed that we should not have majority rules Democracy because it inevitably ends in tyranny.

    Why did they enact it then? This isn't a controversial matter: on most routine issues the way to do collective decision making most fairly is by simple majority rule. A feature of more refined systems is to put up supermajoritarian barriers to restrictions on minority rights--since oppressing minorities undermines the point of democracy.

    I don't know where you're getting your information on progressivism, but it stinks of Glenn Beck. Progressivism is busy trying to win back successes of the 20th century, which increased the quality of living for people everywhere, while you're demanding that every advance in freedom since 1789 was a mistake.

  • ||

    OK, but we have to define "freedom of the individual." Does that include freedom to obtain healthcare regardless of economic class?

    Defining "freedom of the individual" is not so complicated as you make it seem, as your rhetorical question makes clear. An individual cannot have a "right" to "obtain healthcare" without fee, because "healthcare" is a service provided by another individual. No individual has a "right" to the labor of another - there is no right to subjugate.

  • Tony||

    An individual cannot have a "right" to "obtain healthcare" without fee, because "healthcare" is a service provided by another individual.

    So is policing, being in the military, firefighting, presiding over a court, and being on a jury. Unless you want to advocate anarchy, this argument is completely wrong.

  • Jordan||

    You can't even keep your lies straight. From earlier in the thread:

    I believe absolutely nothing should be kept away from the will of the people, since it is their government.
  • Michael S. Langston||

    No I haven't

    Yes you have - today - on this blog - @ 5:07 you wrote:

    I believe absolutely nothing should be kept away from the will of the people, since it is their government. Some things, specifically minority rights, ought to have higher institutional hurdles in order to undo, but there is no policy so sacred that people ought to be permanently forbidden from altering it.

    IE - majority rules.

  • John Thacker||

    Correct, they're instituted, in our system, by generally a majority of people.

    I worry more about minorities oppressed by a stupid majority than about majorities being oppressed, which is why I favor limited government, checks and balances, federalism, and the ability to vote with your feet via exit.

  • Paul.||

    IN a truly free market, an outlet that denies a group a product will actually incentivize the creation of an outlet which caters specifically to that group.

  • John||

    Portland is a pretty leftwing city. Just a guess, but I bet there are at least one or two bakeries who specifically cater to the gay and lesbian market.

  • Paul.||

    If there is one (1) cupcake shop, they've got the lesbian market covered.

  • ||

    I'd be surprised if there wasn't at least on bakery in Portland that was owned by an LGBT person or persons.

  • Paul.||

    investigation by the state as to whether they had violated public accommodations laws.

    Nice little bakery you got there...

  • John Thacker||

    Although goddamn Maurice's BBQ in Columbia SC remains open, despite Maurice being such an enormous racist it took the Supreme Court (Newman vs. Piggie Park Enterprises) in 1968 to force him to integrate. That was after Maurice Bessinger tried to claim that they not only sourced all their product from SC sources, but that they refused to serve people with out of state license plates, in order to claim that he didn't engage in interstate commerce.

    Dude is still super racist, big fan of the Confederate flag. An actual live neo Confederate.

  • John||

    http://verilymag.com/feature/o-alma-mater/

    Women who go to college must support the cause by working. No staying at home like proles for the patrician class.

  • Paul.||

    That degree could have gone to a woman who does want to spend her entire life using it to advance the cause of women—or others in need of advancement—not simply advancing the lives of her own family at home, which is a noble cause, but not one requiring an elite degree.

    Serious question, do women only have one cause? I keep hearing about The Cause of Women.

  • CE||

    And "elite" college degrees should never be wasted, because they have a limited supply to hand out. Clearly they should have given that degree to someone more driven.

  • Paul.||

    More driven? In this country, women can drive themselves!

  • Damned Fool||

    requiring an elite degree

    So... not a Womyn's Studies degree?

  • Paul.||

    That's not l33t.

  • ant1sthenes||

    advancing the lives of her own family at home, which is a noble cause, but not one requiring an elite degree.

    Since when does advancing the cause of women require an elite degree? We're not talking about fucking rocket science, any ignorant jackass can be perpetually and vocally aggrieved.

  • Pro Libertate||

    This will piss off my wife, who holds two graduate degrees and has chosen to stay at home.

  • Paul.||

    "Chosen" because of her husband's pressure. All sex with a man in power is rape, Pro L.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Yeah, well, no. If anything, my wife is in charge, except when she says I am. Like in most marriages.

    I'm strictly of the Bill Cosby school of parenting. I've even served chocolate cake to the kids for breakfast.

  • ||

    My wife holds a double Masters in something, something.

    She'd too stay at home and raise our daughter if given a chance. Alas, she does like her job very much but she has no problems or issues with women who stay at home.

  • Paul.||

    My ex-wife had a masters, I hold no degree. I always wanted to be a stay-at-home dad. Apparently wasn't an option. I say sexism.

  • Alice Bowie||

    The "Government" was very anti-gay for many many many years.

    It wasn't until Gays were OUT that this would be possible.

    It had NOTHING to do with the FREE MARKET and everything to do with the general population of non-religous freaks being tolerant to homosexuals.

    In the 60s, a gay couple would probably be arrested for going into a bake shop and requesting two women or two men on a wedding cake.

  • John||

    Yes and no. Sure, gays came out forcibly in the 1970s. But once they did that, there were a few people waiting to take their money and cater to them as a group. That was the free market and that did help the cause of gays. Without people in places like Fire Island and Provencetown deciding gay tourists were a good way to make money and other people thinking investing in a gay bar was a good idea, it would have taken a lot longer for gays to be accepted.

  • Paul.||

    But once they did that, there were a few people waiting to take their money and cater to them as a group.

    There were actually a lot of people willing to cater to them as a group long before that. But the government was having none of it.

    Many famous underworld mob characters made a lot of money running gay clubs.

    Fun fact: The stonewall riots started because the club was being raided mainly because of its owner's underworld connections, less so because of its gayness.

  • John||

    It was run by the Luccasie family if I am not mistaken. The problem was the government. The market is always ready to cater to people's desires no matter how out of the mainstream they are.

  • Paul.||

    I'd spin my yarn about seeing Rainbow themed Budweiser posters on the gay bars in Seattle's gay-friendly neighborhoods during Pride week. But at this point, it's preaching to the choir.

    Profit is evil, government must intervene blah blah blah.

  • ||

    Seattle's gay-friendly neighborhoods...

    I thought Seattle was a gay-friendly neighborhood.

  • Swiss Servator - Gnome Slave||

    "In the 60s, a gay couple would probably be arrested for going into a bake shop and requesting two women or two men on a wedding cake."

    Cite?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    He's talking about the 1860's.

    Obviously.

  • Paul.||

    Reasonably into the 50s:

    The Mattachine Society drew tremendous support after one of its founders, Dale Jennings, was arrested for "lewd and dissolute behavior" in February 1952. Jennings took the unheard course of acknowledging his homosexuality in court while pleading innocent to the charges against him, thus forcing authorities to draw a distinction between being homosexual and being guilty of illegal activity

    http://www.gvsu.edu/allies/a-b.....ica-30.htm

  • Paul.||

    Also, if you define anti-sodomy laws as making homosexuality (between men) as essentially illegal, or just the act as illegal could affect your opinion on the legality of homosexuality. Considering anti-sodomy laws were on the books and in force until 2003.

  • Azathoth!!||

    You've got a strange idea of what a market looks like, Scott(hint--it doesn't have the coercive fist of government hanging over it).

    And I think the Mail might have some of the threats in their coverage.

  • CE||

    How is this good for the economy?

  • Steve G||

    Screw them and their selective self-righteousness. I like how the local station baited them into baking (or agreeing to bake?) unwed mother and divorce cakes, but this is where they take a stand?? Do I agree w/ govt intervention? Absolutely not, but I just don't feel sorry for the Kleins in the slightest.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    You like how a media outlet baited some business owner? Holy fuck your life must be boring.

  • pmains||

    From what I have read, the anti-Christian bigots went around town threatening to boycott any business that didn't agree to stop doing business with this Christian couple. I suppose pro-Christian groups could have gotten involved on their behalf and threatened a counter-boycott. That certainly seems to have worked for Chik-Fil-A.

    This overlooks a major handicap that conservatives and libertarians have had in terms of political influence over the past century. The Tonys of the world do not care about right and wrong. If shutting down somebody they disagree with includes filing frivolous legal action, engaging in "jamming" and other forms of psychological or emotional abuse, or other unseemly yet legal tactics are necessary, then engage in them. Intimidating others into donating money to your cause and other brown-shirt strategies can be effective, but they are corrosive to our society because only dirtbags use them.

    Think of how "repudiation" is used to enforce conformity in Cuba. Or, more broadly, how public shaming is an integral part of any effective brainwashing program.

    To the normal, non-sociopathic individuals, such behavior is disconcerting, but to you typical conformist brown-shirt, it's just what needs to be done in order to win. Thus, decent people like these folks handicap themselves, while the scum rise to the top. Put more simply, sociopathy works.

  • John||

    The irony of the whole thing is is that public shaming was one of the biggest weapons that people used to keep gays in the closet for so many years. Businesses couldn't have an openly gay person dealing with the public even if they wanted to. Now gays are embracing the same sorts of tactics against their enemies.

    And for what? To shut the odd business here or there? Gays are totally integrated into society and are economically as a group above the mean. WTF do they care if some bakery won't sell them a wedding cake? They only care if they are totalitarians whose aim in life is to completely eliminate everyone and everything they disagree with.

  • Tony||

    Gays are totally integrated into society and are economically as a group above the mean.

    False. The economic thing is a myth, and I don't know if you know this, but gays can't even get married in most of the country.

    It's OK to boycott/shame people or businesses for their practices. It's not OK to shame and oppress classes of people because of how they were born.

  • John||

    We know Tony. It is always okay when your side does it.

  • Tony||

    Bigotry is bad. Standing up against bigotry is good. Why is this so hard for you?

    I don't give a shit what people do peaceably. As usual you seem to be bloviating just for the sake of bloviating.

  • pmains||

    So now psychological/emotional abuse of others is peaceful? I thought that was called bullying, and it was something that we need to eradicate from our society.

  • Paul.||

    Bullying the right people in this case.

  • Finrod||

    Shorter Tony: "My bigotry is proper and moral, your bigotry is evil and bad."

  • ||

    To Tony "Standing up against bigotry" = socially excluding bigots from equal participation in commerce and society, and passing laws that forbid them from living according to their beliefs.

  • KPres||

    """Bigotry is bad. Standing up against bigotry is good. Why is this so hard for you?"""

    Bigotry isn't bad in and of itself. Only when it's accompanied by some other action. Chick-fil-A, for example, serves gay people. They don't discriminate against gay people, ergo it's wrong to discriminate against Chick-fil-A, ie with a boycott.

  • Tony||

    I can boycott anything I want for any reason, thank you.

  • Irish||

    I can boycott anything I want for any reason, thank you.

    Unless the majority decide you shouldn't, in which case you've already admitted that they can force you to do anything they want.

  • Tony||

    More likely the business interests whose bidding your entire existence is dedicated to doing will find a way to subvert democratic will. The good thing about democracy is that the people tend to value those policies that give them the most freedom relative to antidemocratic forces.

    You're not saying anything other than God shall decree something to be right and no number of people shall contradict it.

  • Irish||

    More likely the business interests whose bidding your entire existence is dedicated to doing will find a way to subvert democratic will.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA! Oh man, don't ever change. Clearly the only reason someone could think you're a raving fascist is because they're in the pocket of Big Oil or the Kochtopus. I don't even know why a business interest would bother buying me. 25 year old paralegals don't really wield that much political clout.

  • Tony||

    That is the big joke of libertarianism. You're an army of lobbyists for already well-lobbied-for, well-lawyered, and very wealthy interests. Your moral worldview centers on economic mechanisms, virtue being the product of a pure market interaction, a fair price for a good or service. Yet you do the bidding of these interests for no payment or acknowledgment. They've got you convinced that a set of policy beliefs that (just so happen to) accord with every item on their wishlist is the definition of freedom. You undermine your premise with your mere existence--people clearly act irrationally, against their economic interest. You're an irony wrapped in a riddle.

  • ||

    They've got you convinced that a set of policy beliefs that (just so happen to) accord with every item on their wishlist is the definition of freedom.

    Yeah. Those large corporations love them some free trade, the removal of all import tariffs, dismantling of barriers to entry and capital formation, removal of special interest tax breaks, the shrinking of the military industrial complex, ending the federal reserve, etc etc.

    You're an irony wrapped in a riddle.

    Only when viewed through the lens of an idiot wrapped in confusion.

  • Juice||

    I can boycott anything I want for any reason, thank you.

    Not health insurance.

  • Paul.||

    False. The economic thing is a myth, and I don't know if you know this, but gays can't even get married in most of the country.

    Pragmatic hint: This is good for the gay economy.

  • Paul.||

    It's OK to boycott/shame people or businesses for their practices. It's not OK to shame and oppress classes of people because of how they were born.

    On a serious note, the institution you want more of is the institution that bars you from getting married.

  • Tony||

    Yeah and the movement is to make it so that it no longer does.

    I can already go into my local fishmonger and get someone to declare me married to a halibut, but that's not quite what equality advocates are after.

  • Paul.||

    We all understand that equality advocates are after benefits, aka money.

    To be honest with you, I was stunned to hear on NPR that DOMA denied couples something like 5000 federal benefit programs.

    I don't remember the exact number of benefit programs, but the figure was jaw-dropping.

  • Tony||

    I would put it more generally: we're after equal treatment under the law.

    I am personally opposed to marriage.

  • ||

    But you want unequal treatment under the law for people with bigoted beliefs.

  • Juice||

    No no. Just like gays can marry someone of the opposite sex, bigots can just have the right kinds of thoughts. See? Equal protection.

  • Tony||

    Not beliefs, actions.

  • ||

    Being forced to act contrary to your beliefs when they cause no actionable harm to another person being "enlightenment" in Tony-land.

  • Tony||

    It is far from a settled matter that systematic discrimination in the private sphere constitutes no harm to anyone.

  • ||

    Is there any evidence that there is systematic discrimination against gays by cake-makers?

  • John Thacker||

    That certainly seems to have worked for Chik-Fil-A.

    I think in the case of Chik-Fil-A, it's that they don't refuse to sell chicken sandwiches to gay people, so most people don't care what the founder chooses to do with his money.

  • pmains||

    That may have been a factor, but look at the bigger picture. Why is it that corporations are just expected to donate to progressive causes? Why does the Susan Komen foundation, which ostensibly fights breast cancer, need to give money to fund abortions? Because progressives know how to effectively harass and extort people without running afoul of the law. That funding is then used to influence the broader society through a variety of tactics, including the harassment tactics they used to fund themselves in the first place.

  • Finrod||

    Sadly, being an obnoxious asshole fuckwit is being rewarded.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    From what I have read, the anti-Christian bigots went around town threatening to boycott any business that didn't agree to stop doing business with this Christian couple. I suppose pro-Christian groups could have gotten involved on their behalf and threatened a counter-boycott. That certainly seems to have worked for Chik-Fil-A.

    Woah...woah...woah....back up there. As I mentioned in the last thread "Thou shall not bake cakes..." is not a doctrine in any sect of Christianity that I'm familiar with. If I'm missing something, could someone cite a source for this doctrine? In the original Koine Greek, if you have it.

  • pmains||

    I've read the New Testament in Koine Greek, but this is sophistry.

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, their refusal to provide a wedding cake for a gay couple seems to me pretty clearly a political statement in opposition to gay marriage and not a sincere religious conviction. I could be wrong, but I would be very surprised if I am.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    I wonder why they have that opposition. I bet it's from their sincere religious conviction. I could be wrong, but I would be very surprised if I am.

  • John Thacker||

    And who the fuck cares why? I think it's pretty absurd for people to decide that only beliefs that come from approved interpretations of religious doctrines are acceptable. It is not the business of the government to determine that.

    Whether their reason is religious at all, or entirely secular, I don't care.

  • Finrod||

    Yeah, it was really absurd for the First Congress to write freedom of religion into the Constitution via amendment.

  • Zeb||

    I absolutely agree that it doesn't matter why they believe what they believe when it comes to the government taking action. I think that for religious freedom to mean anything the religion I just made up deserves just as much consideration under the law as well established, mainstream Christian doctrines. I don't even care if the belief is sincere. If it doesn't hurt anyone, you should be allowed to do it.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    I sure as hell don't, I was just responding to a point in his post.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Yeah, I don't get where Zeb is coming from here. It's a rare day I meet an atheist who is simply politically opposed to gay marriage, and then it's a libertarian who doesn't believe in incrementalism.

  • John Thacker||

    OTOH, Japan (and China) are very anti-gay marriage for having a lot of atheists or effective atheists. Social conservatism is not necessarily a religious thing-- but again, who cares?

  • Zeb||

    I might have said it better. Let's put it this way. I bet that if gay marriage were not a hot button issue right now, they wouldn't be so worried about making a cake for a gay couple. But this is all idle speculation for my own amusement.
    As far as politics goes, all I care about here is that they should not be legally forbidden from declining to do business with anyone who they don't want to do business with.

  • Zeb||

    Religious conviction about what? That gay marriage is bad, sure, I'll buy that. But that baking a cake for a gay wedding is a violation of their religious convictions seems like a stretch.

    Who knows? People believe all kinds of stuff. And I don't care that much. I'm actually only interested in this because I think it is wrong for the state to be investigating them. But I have two points. First, I think that their arguing this on religious freedom grounds rather than general freedom of association grounds is harmful to freedom generally. And second, I just find it amusing that people would claim that baking a cake for people they disapprove of is some fundamental violation of their beliefs. But that's just my own sense of humor and not really relevant.

  • ||

    Well, baking a wedding cake, at least to some people, might symbolize endorsement of the wedding.
    A wedding is a celebration. It's possible that to these people, baking a cake isn't just a purely disineterested economic transaction, but an act of participating in a community. Christians are very big on community.
    Maybe most of their customers are regulars.
    Maybe they feel that providing such a cake would be a way of "celebrating" or endorsing the marriage itself.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    We don't care about your interpretation of Christianity, and theirs is theirs to interpret alone.

  • Finrod||

    Precisely. Once you no longer have the freedom to interpret your own religion the way you see fit, you no longer have religious freedom, pretty much by definition.

  • John Thacker||

    Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to celebrate holidays-- including birthdays. If one of those people, oddly, decided to open a cake business but refused to decorate cakes for birthdays, would you say that they have no *right* to do so simply because their belief is absurd to us and not in the Bible.

  • pmains||

    What? Why would I say that Jehovah's witnesses have no right to refuse to decorate birthday cakes?

    For the record, I also endorse the right of Jewish butchers to only serve kosher food at their delis and Muslim restauranteurs to only serve Halal food. If I go to a kosher deli and demand a slab of pork, I may be disappointed.

    Perhaps a better analogy: If I go to a kosher deli, and try to order a spread for my nephew's first communion and they refuse on religious grounds, I may be a little surprised, but I'm not going to go apeshit over their religious beliefs or demand that they show me in the Tanakh where it explicitly and unequivocally says that they may not cater a first communion. I'm not going to boycott or call them Christophobes. I'll probably just not go there in the future, because they have complex rules that I don't care to learn.

  • John Thacker||

    I don't think you would-- I think that Heroic Mulatto and others (with whom you disagreed) would.

    Threaded comments I believe caused a bit of confusion here.

  • pmains||

    And, yes, I know that you're agreeing with the point.

  • ||

    This.

    It is not my, nor anyone else's business, to evaluate whether other people are interpreting their faith correctly.

    How one interprets one's faith is not meaningfully distinction from the faith itself.

    Otherwise you'll end up with a whole lot of useless arguments over who is "really" Christian.

  • Paul.||

    Thou shalt not lie with another man as thou wouldst with a woman? Something like that?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Well, in an earlier thread you didn't think that catering a "we're glad we conquered those superstitious Tibetan Buddhists" party at the Chinese Embassy would violate a Buddhist caterer's religious beliefs (political beliefs, maybe).

    I'm not sure why you're so certain, but I won't try to out-Buddhist you. I would venture to suggest, however, that there *may* be other Buddhists who disagree with you. Which is the more Buddhist-ly correct I don't pretend to know.

  • Finrod||

    What the fuck?

    Reason is linking to liberal trolls now and promoting their views?

  • ||

    So, Tony, if this happened to a gay-owned business - public indimidation to try to drive them out of the market, would that be evil discrimination justifying government intervention? Should the government force consumers to spend an equal amount of time at gay-owned businesses?

  • Tony||

    So, Tony, if this happened to a gay-owned business - public indimidation to try to drive them out of the market, would that be evil discrimination justifying government intervention?

    Are the proprietors of the business breaking the law by discriminating against a class of people?

    Should the government force consumers to spend an equal amount of time at gay-owned businesses?

    No.

  • ||

    So in your mind, boycotting a minority-owned business is wrong, unless it happens to be a minority that has bigoted beliefs. Those people it's ok to discriminate against.

  • Tony||

    You can boycott any business for whatever reason you want.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Yes, you found a nut - I agree fully!

  • ||

    But you can't boycott a customer for whatever reason you want? The customers can boycott you, but you can't boycott them?

    What difference does it make which end of the transaction you are on?

  • ||

    Moreover, what is really the distinction between a buyer and a seller, anyway?

    At base, people are just trading. Each person is boy buyer and seller. Money is just a medium for me to sell you my labor in exchange for a cake.

  • Tony||

    This gets into more complex issues and a core libertarian grievance (antidiscrimination laws). Such policies depend on a premise that businesses are different from individuals, are not absolutely free, and that they have certain social contract obligations that individuals don't. I don't expect you to agree with me on that. I would certainly much prefer a world in which it is bad business practice to discriminate, and that such laws wouldn't be necessary. The contemporary real-world question is, then, is it time to repeal them? But this is a conundrum: repealing is an action presumably to right some wrong. The wrong of businesses not having the freedom to discriminate? That should be low on anyone's moral priority list. But if antidiscrimination laws become unnecessary, then repealing them is fixing nothing except some abstract discord with a philosophical premise. I guess in that situation we might as well give you what you want so you'll finally shut up about the poor businesses and their lack of freedom to deny people services because of bigotry.

  • ||

    IOW, once everyone has been compelled by government to behave in the manner you see fit, then we can talk about repealing the laws compelling them to behave in the manner you see fit -- just so long as they continue behaving the right way and thinking the right thoughts.

    It was more fun when your fascism at least came with a facade.

  • ||

    Tony, you realize that all you are doing is dehumanizing and depersonalizing the situation by referring ot them as a "business" instead of two REAL LIVE HUMAN BEINGS.

    "Businesses" are made up of people. People with dreams and plans and a right to pursue happiness. You just want to ignore that fact in this case by thinking of them as some sort of abstract entity detached from the reality of their humanity.

  • powerdoggames||

    I can't agree more.I am playing Dragon’s Call II,It’s an exciting and thrilling MMO game. We have prepared handsome gifts for new players.more free online games at powerdoggames

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement