Don't Ban Gays; Ban Politicians!

Rocco's Little Chicago PizzeriaRocco's Little Chicago PizzeriaArizona is in the midst of of one of its habitual tussles over pointless and stupid legislation intended to make some portion of the population feel unwelcome. In this case, Senate Bill 1062 is intended to give state businesses a right they already have: to deny service to gay and lesbian customers. Shunning gay customers is an expression, however unsavory, of free association rights that has never been abridged in the Copper state, and needs no encouragement on the part of lawmakers. In response, a Tucson pizzeria is exercising its free association rights in a much more praise-worthy way: by telling state legislators to take their hunger, and business, elsewhere.

As Reason's Scott Shackford documented, "sexual orientation is not included in Arizona’s public accommodation laws. Discrimination against gays is actually legal in a lot of places in America still. What Senate Bill 1062 does is essentially tweak the state’s existing freedom of religion laws to say that, no really, people in Arizona have the right to the free exercise of religion."

So Arizona lawmakers are basically just being homophobic pricks. They're playing off of incidents in other states where socially conservative bakers and photographers have been penalized for turning away gay and lesbian customers (the wisdom of insisting that somebody who hates you bake your wedding cake is a topic for another conversation). Those other states' laws don't apply in Arizona, so this is grandstanding.

In response, Rocco's Little Chicago Pizzeria posted a sign in its window (above right), and a brief and pithy statement on its Facebook page.

As a longtime employer and feeder of the gay community, Rocco's reserves the right to eject any State Senators we see fit to kick out. That is all.

Owner Rocco DiGrazia told the Arizona Daily Star that he has a lot of gay customers and employees, so "why discriminate against anybody? I'm just trying to make some food."

Of course, he is discriminating—against meddling politicians who offend his sense of right and wrong. That's essentially what some socially conservative business owners have done by shunning homosexual customers, and it's a legitimate expression of rights in both cases. Personally, I think that politicians of any stripe are a better target for such shunning than are people who happen to live a lifestyle with which some people disagree—lawmakers inherently inflict their preferences on others, while gays and lesbians do not.

But if the best response to speech is more speech, shunning is a perfectly good response to shunning.

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.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Excellent response. Although the AZ legislators also reserve the right to send out the health inspector SWAT teams to look for unsanitary conditions WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE.

  • John||

    Why is it an excellent response Hugh? Aren't there a lot worse things legislatures could be doing than passing laws affirming the rights we all have?

  • Hugh Akston||

    It's an excellent response because the business owners are expressing their disapproval of the law in a way that's both non-coercive and humorous.

  • John||

    For sure. But why do they disapprove of the law? I say it is because they are coercive pieces of shit who are angry that the state of Arizona won't use the power of the gun on people they don't like.

  • JW||

    I say it is because they are coercive pieces of shit who are angry that the state of Arizona won't use the power of the gun on people they don't like.

    RTFA:

    As a longtime employer and feeder of the gay community, Rocco's reserves the right to eject any State Senators we see fit to kick out. That is all.
  • John||

    And you don't think "a longtime and employer and feeder of the gay community" doesn't want to use the power of the gun to force other business to serve gays?

    Make you a deal I will RTFA if you try understanding what it says.

  • JW||

    And you don't think "a longtime and employer and feeder of the gay community" doesn't want to use the power of the gun to force other business to serve gays?

    I have no idea, John. I can't peek into that window of their soul.

    But, playing simply the odds, the answer is "probably.," Though, that makes them no different than the other 99% of the population, who have no problem using the gubmint's gun to enforce their own, personal moral code, whatever that may be.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Passing laws that don't change anything, whether they are "good" or "bad", is still a waste of time. Taxpayers' time.

  • robc||

    Thats a good thing, right?

    I would much prefer them do that than the average law they pass otherwise.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    Eh, I still think we want more repeals rather than any type of new law.

  • robc||

    Of course, but have you seen them doing that?

    Im just saying that based on average normal behavior, any time they waste time instead is a good thing.

    If they were wasting time in the middle of a repeal session, I would have a different view on this, but since those dont exist....

  • The Original Jason||

    The AZ legislature should immediately pass a law banning discrimination against AZ legislators.

    We'll see how quickly Rocco's changes their tune.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    "Rocco's Little Chicago Pizzeria"

    Is there enough midwest retirees in Arizona for there to actually be a market for such a niche product?

  • Hugh Akston||

    You would probably be surprised at the number of "Boston-style" pizzerias in my neighborhood of LA.

  • playa manhattan||

    Where's that? I have a lot of "Brooklyn" style here.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    WTF is a Boston-style pizza? Made with potato bread?

  • ||

    It's made the way our Native American ancestors made it. Or so we claim.

  • Rasilio||

    I've never heard of a Boston Style but here around Boston there is a specific type of Pizza called "Pub Pizza" or "Bar Pizza"

    It is basically a thicker cracker like crust with a minimally seasoned sauce and a mix of asiago/cheddar/mozzerella cheeses and is most popular in the area between Boston and Providence

  • wingnutx||

    It's wicked retahded.

  • prolefeed||

    WTF is a Boston-style pizza?

    The ones I've seen are thin crust with yuppie style toppings and fresh, tasty ingredients.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    "minimally seasoned sauce"

    So... catsup.

  • Pelosi's Rabbit||

    No, catsup is seasoned with a fuckton of sugar.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Glendale/Burbank. I'd expect a lot more Armenia-style pizza joints.

  • The Original Jason||

    Come out to the Valley.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    That's a thing? What, do they put ketchup on it like they do with their hotdogs?

  • ||

    Please be a little more clear when throwing around insults like this. I think you're making fun of Bostonians who put ketchup on their hotdogs, but there are plenty of places in Chicago that you would get thrown out of for making that joke.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Nobody in Chicago ever got thrown out of anywhere for making fun of Boston.

  • wanfuforever||

    Yes there are. Petrillo's just opened in Tempe and the place is blown out. Nothing but NFC North shirts there too.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    I think you must mean Portillo's. Whoever heard of something called Petrillo's?

  • cryptArchy||

    I live in Tucson and my friends and I go to Roccos every week

  • cryptArchy||

    It's more or less a tradition that we go there before we play D&D

  • ||

    Say hi to Morgan. She's a sweetie.

  • R C Dean||

    Is there enough midwest retirees in Arizona for there to actually be a market for such a niche product?

    Hell yeah. "Snowbirds", we call 'em. And that's just the migratory population.

  • sarcasmic||

    As a longtime employer and feeder of the gay community, Rocco's reserves the right to eject any State Senators we see fit to kick out. That is all.

    You misspelled erect.

  • John||

    Given the unpredictability of the courts, why is doing this such a bad idea? If they passed a law guaranteeing the right to bear arms would JD be on here complaining that it just gives people "a right they already have"?

    Given the huge number of laws there are to complain about, I fail to see how one that restates a right you claim to support warrants being angry.

    Sorry, but I have a hard time believing you support this right. I think you are angry here because what you want to happen is hte courts to unilaterally declare the right doesn't exist allowing you to shrug and say "well, that is a shame but gay marriage is really important".

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "Sorry, but I have a hard time believing you support this right."

    Give it a rest John. You're admittedly not a libertarian, J.D. is. You supported the Iraq Nation Building Exercise, you've supported government involvement in schools and marriage here. Where do you get off insinuating that the author is not really a lover of freedom? The chutzpah. And Reason H&R has, for some inexplicable reason, become so lousy with 'paleolibertarians' and Republicans no one calls you on this. Sheesh.

    You can defend the freedom of people to be jerks and still think they are jerks.

  • ||

    People call him on his rhetoric all the time.

    I know I've not been posting a lot as of late, but I'm not seeing the being "lousy with paleolibertarians and Republicans" in the comments I read. At least no more than usual.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Who is calling him here?

  • Cytotoxic||

    blah blah blah I can't argue against your point so here's a bunch of irrelevant shit blah blah /BCE

  • ||

    And Reason H&R has, for some inexplicable reason, become so lousy with 'paleolibertarians' and Republicans no one calls you on this.

    SOCONZ!!!!!!!(!!!!)!!!!!!

    I find it cute that you're lecturing the commentariat on what Reason has "become" when you've been posting here all of a couple months. Kinda like the born again evangelical Christians who've read half the new testament and decide they're gonna go lecture those ignorant Catholics on their own theology. Maybe you've got a little SOCON!!!!!!!!(!!!!)!!!!!! in you after all.

  • wanfuforever||

    This is an end-around to get something on the books first, but the problem is it will not pass constitutional muster. The gay marriage rulings are 12-for-12 in the courts because conservative groups cannot make a legitimate *legal* argument to stop it. It will in time be challenged the court will inevitably say it is unconstitutional, and it will be stricken down. The law will be toxic to anyone that handled it, and why any business is willing to hand over customers to rivals for things not related to business is beyond me anyways.

  • Homple||

    Here is a shot at business logic: if some customers by their behavior or demeanor cause enough of your other customers to stay away so that you suffer a loss in profitability, you may want to discourage the customers who drive away the others-- vegetarian proselytizers ordering only salads and hectoring the carvivores in a steak house, for example.

  • R C Dean||

    Gay marriage - a license issued by the state.

    Serving gays - a private decision of business owners.

    See the difference? The courts could, and maybe should, rule that the state cannot discriminate. Its when they disregard the Constitutional right of association by private individuals that I get a little itchy. The courts probably shouldn't ought to do that.

  • ||

    Its when they disregard the Constitutional right of association by private individuals that I get a little itchy.

    That right literally hasn't been recognized since 1964. The courts have upheld public accommodation laws over and over again. As far as the government is concerned, you don't have a right to free association.

  • Ranselaer||

    That's precisely it. The cake baker in Colorado and the photographer in New Mexico presumably didn't think they had a legal obligation to provide services for weddings they didn't believe in, but ever since FDR our courts have had no problem imposing affirmative obligations on private individuals to do business (associate) with persons against their will. Hence the Arizona statute that's creating all the buzz.

  • Carolynp||

    Out here in Oregon, gay marriage is illegal, yet the LBGT community hounded a bakery into closing for merely refusing to participate in an illegal wedding. Yes, the theist community needs to be protected from extremist jerks who wish to force their will on others.

  • MWG||

    "illegal wedding"?

  • prolefeed||

    It's not illegal for a gay couple to have a wedding, or represent themselves as married afterwards, so long as they don't ask for government recognition in states like Oregon.

  • Carolynp||

    Well, there you have it then. There is no rational reason to legalize gay marriage in Oregon. It's not really illegal.

  • Tonio||

    But the point, Carolynp, was that you asserted it was. You were, in today's parlance, fact-checked.

    That's why I was questioning you about your other assertions. When you assert something that is immediately and easily disproven your credibility takes a hit. Shrugging off a fact-checking with a flippant response does nothing to enhance your credibility.

  • c5c5||

    Which is why it is still impt to examine each argument on its own merit.

    People can and do get facts wrong, but it does not mean their greater or related point is wrong.

  • Tonio||

    Thanks, guys, your replies weren't there when I started typing.

  • Tonio||

    How did they hound the bakery, Carolynp? Did they harass and threaten the owners? Form a human chain and effectively blockade the business? Specifically, did anyone violate the NAP in regards to the bakery?

    Also, it appears to me that SSM is not actually illegal in Oregon, but merely that Oregon refuses to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples while recognizing SSMs performed out of state. Please address this.

  • Carolynp||

    They did harass and threaten the owners. They were threatened by the state with all kinds of fines and penalties. There were all kinds of picket lines and their business was vandalized, but mysteriously, the police never figured out who was doing it. They were forced to spend huge amounts of money to address legal issues. In short, the state and the LGBT community hounded them into bankruptcy.
    This is exactly the argument social cons make against gay marriage. Once it is legalized, how much worse would it be to simply say you don't want to participate in something you view as abhorrent? It's so ugly to watch libertarians attack people they disagree with because they desire religious liberty and somehow religious liberty is one step further than libertarians will go.

  • Tonio||

    Actual threats of violence are a violation of the NAP. That includes vandalism. I condemn that.

    The state's actions are different from those of private individuals or associations of private individuals, a point which is often made here.

    You have no right to be free of picket lines, though.

    I notice that you didn't address the point about the actual illegality of the marriages.

  • ||

    Actual threats of violence are a violation of the NAP... The state's actions are different from those of private individuals

    The state has a monopoly on violence to which certain classes of people can avail themselves if they are dissatisfied with the treatment they receive by business in certain industries. If you don't think running to the state to do violence on your behalf is a violation of the NAP then the NAP means nothing.

  • c5c5||

    This!

  • ||

    This is exactly the argument social cons make against gay marriage. Once it is legalized, how much worse would it be to simply say you don't want to participate in something you view as abhorrent?

    So much worse than being hounded into bankruptcy? You make the argument that non-discrimination laws provide all the ammunition to ruin a good Christian butcher/baker/candlestick maker's life but argue that gay marriage will make it worse.

    I dislike these laws because I'd rather know if someone is taking my money unwillingly so I can spend it somewhere else, but folks keep saying that gay marriage will somehow make this worse and I'm not sure how it will unless it involves rounding Christians up into camps and gassing them.

  • Tonio||

    This is exactly the argument social cons make against gay marriage.

    OK...

    Once it is legalized, how much worse would it be to simply say you don't want to participate in something you view as abhorrent?

    I don't know, why don't you tell us how much worse you think it will get? Srsly. You thinking that those people will be jailed?

    Please also address the difference between the state treating everyone equally (a libertarian POV), and using the coercive power of the state against viewpoints the state doesn't like (a statist POV).

    It's so ugly to watch libertarians attack people they disagree with because they desire religious liberty and somehow religious liberty is one step further than libertarians will go.

    Citations and examples needed. For the record I regularly defend the free speech rights of Westboro Baptist on here even though they'd love to see me burned at the stake.

  • Homple||

    So a legislature passes a law favoring freedom of association and libertarians have a butthurt?

  • John||

    It is almost as if they are not as freedom loving as they claim to be.

  • Brett L||

    Here's my problem with it: If they were committed to anything more than votes, they'd have written it so the racists and the people who don't want to pay to become handicapable had their freedom of association, too. All they are going to accomplish is baiting the Feds into making sexual orientation a protected class like race or disabilities covered by the ADA. There are plenty of strains of Christian White Supremacists and plenty of strains of Christianity where a person with a disability is proof that their faith is also warped -- like that couple who lost two children to pneumonia. So this really has nothing to do with freedom of religion.

  • John||

    No they wouldn't have Brett. It is possible to think that racial discrimination is something the 14th Amendment was written to make illegal and also think that homosexuality is not.

  • Brett L||

    So it really isn't about free practice of religion then? Because it seems like the 1A would outweigh the ADA at least.

  • Brett L||

    Leaving aside the thorny question -- which I believe was settled by the CRA of 1964 about whether or not the 14A really prohibits discrimination by private actors. It clearly doesn't if the Feds have to pass a law.

  • John||

    It is a free speech and association versus racial discrimination issue. The courts in the CRA cases ruled that the 14th Amendment was passed to protect blacks from discrimination and thus states and the feds via the ever expanding commerce clause had the right to compel people to serve blacks as a price of serving the public.

    I disagree with that. But even if I agreed with it, there is no way you can say the 14th Amendment was ever intended to give the states or feds the power to coerce people to do business with any group they decided deserved it.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    The states do it under their police powers John, you should know that.

  • John||

    The states police powers are limited by the rights of free association and religion. The states could not for example under their police powers make it illegal to run a Kosher Deli or illegal to wear a hi-jab in public or compel a Catholic Church to allow a Jewish Wedding on its premises.

    Can the state force someone to serve a gay wedding if they object to it? I would say no that freedom of association is more important. But you and Tonio and most of the Reason staff no doubt think that is just dandy.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    John, states under the police power have long told professions they can not turn away customers (think of inns or common carriers, this was true way back in the common law). Thanks to Scalia and the conservatives on the SCOTUS as long as such a law is neutral and generally applicable it does not violate constitutional religious rights.

  • John||

    Sure they have. But that is begging the question. The question is what governmental interest is so strong that it gives the state the power to compel such. They couldn't pass a law compelling all business to serve those who are not wearing shirts or to compel a vegetarian deli to serve meat to customers who wanted it. There is a limit to that power. Where it lies is the entire question which you just begged.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    As you know they only have to assert a rational basis that it will serve a legitimate government interest, which would be easy to do here (whatever interest the already standing discrimination laws for race and such already serve, for example).

    I am not a fan of police power in general, mind you, just saying with the states that kind of power has long been the norm.

  • ||

    I don't think Reason thinks its dandy at all. I won't speak for anyone else, but I think it's a dumb idea because this action will most likely result in making LGBT people a protected class for discrimination in places of business. If you just leave it alone and don't make any laws reaffirming a right they already have, then once a lawsuit is filed, I think it's more likely a court rules in favor of the business.

    Instead of a judge siding with the working stiff, they are now siding against right-wing, extremist, bigots in the Arizona state legislature, and I think most judges will feel a lot more latitude in swinging the pendulum as far in the opposite direction as possible.

    I'm fine with politicians reaffirming rights (it's sad that this needs to be done, but our freedoms are attacked daily). In this case, however, its going to only make things worse.

  • ||

    Here's a novel idea that would actually favor freedom: Let businesses do business with whoever they damn well please.

    Of course, JD's problem is more with the fact that it's already ok to discriminate against gays so there is literally no need for this law. That's the main thrust of his article (the shear ridiculousness of making a law that is completely unnecessary).

  • John||

    Again, it is already legal to own a gun. JD's objection would apply just well to a law that affirmed that right. But he wouldn't be making it. Why? Because he is butt hurt about this right existing in the first place.

  • ||

    I'm really not seeing this, especially since he defends the right to discriminate in the article.

  • John||

    Imagine what an article like JD's regarding the gun law example I give would look like. Take this article and replace gays with guns. You wouldn't see it as a indictment of the 2nd Amendment, the "but I support the right" or no?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    What if, in response to something like Kentucky's law that an employer can not prohibit or fire someone for keeping a gun in their car's glove department even if the car is on the boss' parking lt, some gun control paradise like NYC passed an ordinance affirming that employers there had the right to fire employees who did that. Would it not be OK for J.D. to say, 'what a bunch of gun-phobic jerks, though the property owner should have the right?'

  • Cytotoxic||

    What if unicorns?

  • Pelosi's Rabbit||

    Imagine what an article like JD's regarding the gun law example I give would look like. Take this article and replace gays with guns. You wouldn't see it as a indictment of the 2nd Amendment, the "but I support the right" or no?

    I just don't think that's a direct comparison. For it to apply, the owners would have to be using the guns to do something distasteful or offensive (in JD's eyes). And the only "gun" things I can think of that a libertarian would find offensive are things that are already violations of the NAP.

    I think "freedom of speech" would be a better compare/contrast. But I'm pretty sure that JD would defend a racist's right to free speech while condemning the speech itself, much as he does here.

  • Cytotoxic||

    JD's problem is more with the fact that it's already ok to discriminate against gays

    Yeah...but the lady doth protest too much. Getting this uppity over a law, even a useless one, that re-affirms freedom of association doesn't pass the smell test. Cosmo!

  • ||

    Aw, my first Cosmo name call. (I think the whole Cosmo/Paleo thing is a bit silly,

    And it only reaffirms freedom of association for certain classes, so not seeing the great big reaffirmation there.

    Now show me a legislature with the balls to fuck with the CRA and affirm freedom of association for everyone and I'll cheer. (I know this is a pipe dream of a pipe dream.)

  • Tonio||

    Congrats, DesigNate. You have arrived.

  • Brutus||

    JD wants everyone to know he's on the side of the angels here.

  • sarcasmic||

    Why do so many self-proclaimed libertarians turn into sniveling progressives when the subject is homos?

  • SusanM||

    It doesn't occur to you that this law can be taken as an implicit sanction to discriminate against gays?

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    I'd prefer it to be an implicit sanction for being able to discriminate against anyone.

  • sarcasmic||

    Doesn't the right to free association include the right to discriminate for any or no reason?

  • Brutus||

    I used to think so, but reading the comments here make me wonder about libertarian commitment to freedom of association. Do I really see people lambasting it?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Why do so many self-proclaimed libertarians turn into whining conservatives when the subject is homos?

  • robc||

    Supporting freedom of association makes someone a whining conservative?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    No, criticizing a person because while he defends the freedom of people to be jerks to gays he calls them jerks makes one a whining conservative.

  • Cytotoxic||

    "Things that aren't happening, the post"

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    My something has you all upset! Whining conservatives indeed...

  • Tonio||

    The whining makes one a whiner.

  • SusanM||

    Can you define freedom of association in a way that doesn't sound like "people with power over me can extort my compliance to their beliefs"?

    Secondly, the bill in question provides a religious exemption to something that doesn't exist. There are no discrimination protections for the LGBT community to be exempted from. It's more of a tacit state sanction of discrimination.

  • sarcasmic||

    Can you define freedom of association in a way that doesn't sound like "people with power over me can extort my compliance to their beliefs"?

    Freedom of association is the freedom to say "No," even when it hurts someone's feelings.

  • SusanM||

    How about leading to death, injury or property damage?

  • sarcasmic||

    Do you carry the goalposts with you all the time, or do you set them down after you move them?

  • SusanM||

    LOL. Apparently the "Discussion Evasion Wheel" landed on goalposts rather than strawmen today.

    I'm testing your assertion to the extremes. Does the right of association allow me to allow someone else to suffer tangible harm or not?

  • sarcasmic||

    Does the right of association allow me to allow someone else to suffer tangible harm or not?

    How does refusing to do business with someone cause tangible harm? There's always someone else to do business with. The only tangible harm would be to the business that discriminates, because they would lose out on profits to be made from the customers they refuse to serve.

  • SusanM||

    And if businesses act in collusion? Why would you assume that making money is the only goal of a businessman? Sarc, I said this in another thread and I'll say it here. Discrimination isn't a matter of cakes or isolated "bad apples" but deliberate and systemic actions against particular groups of people. In this particular instance it's about the state giving protection and an excuse for such actions.

  • sarcasmic||

    And if businesses act in collusion?

    Goalposts go WHOOSH again! In the real world there is very little real collusion. Someone will want the business.

    Why would you assume that making money is the only goal of a businessman?

    Because making money the only way a business can stay in business. Duh!

    Discrimination isn't a matter of cakes or isolated "bad apples" but deliberate and systemic actions against particular groups of people.

    The only way to get everyone to cooperate in discrimination is by coercion, for example Jim Crow. All it takes in one party failing to cooperate, just one, and the whole scheme breaks down.

  • sarcasmic||

    All it takes *is*

  • sarcasmic||

    To add to my 1:55 comment, that's exactly why laws were necessary to enforce discrimination. Because there's always someone else to do business with. Unless there are laws preventing other businesses from accepting the customers that the discriminating businesses refuse, then the only parties harmed are the ones that discriminate.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm testing your assertion to the extremes.

    IOW moving the goalposts.

  • Tonio||

    Even if she is moving goalposts, Sarc, it would be nice for you to articulate some limits to your assertion.

  • ||

    I thought the "hurts someone's feelings" was the limit.

  • kbolino||

    Does the right of association allow me to allow someone else to suffer tangible harm or not?

    The law certainly should not compel a person to act against his will, if that's what you're asking.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    The law certainly should not compel a person to act against his will, if that's what you're asking.

    But that's what laws are for.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    Does the right of association allow me to allow someone else to suffer tangible harm or not?

    No, you must make sure that no one comes to harm or we will prosecute you to the fullest extent allowable under the social contract you signed at birth.

  • Sudden||

    In what way can someone's refusal to do business with you on account of whatever damn reason they choose deal death, injury, or property damage to you?

  • sarcasmic||

    In what way can someone's refusal to do business with you on account of whatever damn reason they choose deal death, injury, or property damage to you?

    I was wondering that myself. Perhaps a doctor refusing to treat someone. But that goes against the profession's ethics, so I don't see a law necessary for that contrived scenario.

  • SusanM||

    Plenty of doctors and hospitals that went along with Jim Crow - even in emergencies.

    What I'm getting here - up and down the thread - is that a persons life is not a right but a privilege granted by those in power. I suppose I should give you all some credit for your unwillingness to openly accept the logical consequences by reducing it to trivialities about cakes and feelings.

  • sarcasmic||

    Plenty of doctors and hospitals that went along with Jim Crow - even in emergencies.

    Because to do otherwise was to risk jail!

    You really cannot comprehend the difference between discrimination because it is mandated by law, and discrimination because it is not prohibited by law, can you?

    I guess you're distinction-challenged. Like Tony.

    What I'm getting here - up and down the thread - is that a persons life is not a right but a privilege granted by those in power.

    Uh, no. It's a right whether or not it is recognized by those in power.

    I suppose I should give you all some credit for your unwillingness to openly accept the logical consequences by reducing it to trivialities about cakes and feelings.

    I'm certainly not going to give you credit for understanding the distinction between something being mandated by law, and something not being prohibited by law.

    Whatever you say, Tony.

  • SusanM||

    Sarc, this is why I love coming back here. Your schoolyard-lawyer logic never fails to amuse :)

    One one hand, a law is a law. On the other hand, it's a law that disadvantages certain people you don't like or care about, so the prospect of conscientious objection doesn't occur to you. "Hey, it sucks," you say, "but it's the law".

    You really cannot comprehend the difference between discrimination because it is mandated by law, and discrimination because it is not prohibited by law, can you?

    I understand it. It's a classic libertarian moral cop-out isn't it? It allows you to support bigotry in culture while letting you clean your hands of the consequences.

  • sarcasmic||

    No, you don't understand.

  • SusanM||

    Yes, I do. The rampaging butthurt you and the rest of the libertarians here are showing because Tucille dared say something vaguely nice about gay people is proof of that.

  • ||

    I understand it. It's a classic libertarian moral cop-out isn't it? It allows you to support bigotry in culture while letting you clean your hands of the consequences.

    Holy fucking Christ but you're stupid.

    Yes, bigotry is permissible under the NAP. That doesn't mean it's required under the NAP. You aren't entitled to anyone else's approval, and you do not have dominion over their private thoughts and feelings. Most importantly, you are not entitled to anyone else's labor or business. Under any circumstance. Period. It's not complicated. If you aren't comfortable with that, quit pretending you're a libertarian and get back on the grievance bandwagon.

  • ||

    I'm testing your assertion to the extremes. Does the right of association allow me to allow someone else to suffer tangible harm or not?

    Yes.

    Rights don't cease to be rights because they are inconvenient or you find them distasteful.

    Gee, that sure was easy.

    Do you have any non sequitur questions about the basic nature of the NAP that you need answered while you're here?

  • SusanM||

    So a doctor refusing to save a gay persons life is okay with you?

    Gee, that sure was easy.

  • ||

    So a doctor refusing to save a gay persons life is okay with you?

    Yep, 100%. Or a black person's life, or a white person's life, or a poor person's life. You aren't entitled to anyone else's labor. Even doctors.

  • SusanM||

    Thanks for being honest about how libertarians value human life.

  • ||

    I value human life enough that I won't put a gun to someone's head and force them to serve me. Thanks for being honest about how whatever grievance group you identify with values human life.

  • SusanM||

    I would never let a person die. You would.

  • ||

    I would never let a person die. You would.

    That's where you're wrong. I wouldn't let a person die to the extent that it was within my capability to prevent it. But I wouldn't conscript a doctor. Because I'm not a fucking fascist.

  • ||

    If you're so intellectually deficient you could probably differentiate between those things.

  • ||

    *if you weren't so...

  • c5c5||

    "I would never let a person die. You would."

    Susan, but you have not problem forcing people to do what you want them to at the point of a gun. At its heart, you approve of slavery. I don't see this making your case.

  • ||

    It may be worth pointing out that the retarded scenarios you concoct have never actually occurred in reality anyway, but yes, from a philosophical standpoint, I'm okay with doctors letting people die, farmers letting people starve, innkeepers letting people freeze, or any other sob story you could possibly invent to justify putting the government's guns to someone's head and forcing them to provide you with their labor.

  • SusanM||

    Yeah, no one is ever refused treatment

    http://books.google.com/books?.....age&q=emts refusing LGBT&f=false

  • ||

    Hey, an anecdote. Imagine if you had 2 of them, they'd be a perfect substitute for data!

    EMTALA already gave you your wish - it's illegal to refuse to provide emergency medical treatment in this country. But of course, there's always room for more coercion.

  • SusanM||

    It's sufficient to counter your "never actually occurred" isn't it? How is a widely documented incident (one of far too many) not "data"? Oh, because you don't agree with it and it contradicts your asinine assertion that such things never happen. And how did EMTALA prevent it?

  • ||

    (one of far too many)

    I was engaging a bit of hyperbole since there is an exception to virtually every certainty, but seriously, cite one more. This isn't a rampant or epidemic problem in a country where doctors are already conscripted to treat emergency patients (notably in your example, it was the EMTs and first responders who likely caused the death by withholding treatment - the patient was treated at the emergency room likely due precisely to the EMTALA).

    It's a tangential point anyway. Yes, your heartwrenching examples that are supposed to emotionally exploit libertarians into abandoning the NAP for your benefit are mostly absurd constructions. But even if it was happening on a daily basis to millions of people it still wouldn't give you a right to put guns to other people's heads. There is literally no circumstance, up to and including an impending asteroid impact that can only be thwarted by the contents of the mind of a single man, that justifies violating someone else's rights to further your own. We each have our practical limitations where we, in point of fact, would abandon our principles and do precisely that. But that doesn't make it right.

  • sarcasmic||

    That which is not banned is mandated. Right TonyM?

  • trig||

    Well if EMTALA didn't prevent what do you want to do pass another law that says like seriously, we mean it, you better not refuse emergency medical treatment.

  • ||

    Jesus fucking Christ, sarc. Just suck a cock and get it over with. You'll feel better.

  • sarcasmic||

    Just because it made you feel better doesn't mean it will do the same for me.

  • JW||

    OH SNAP.

    Sarc, when you finally come clean with yourself, do remember to thank those who urged you to do that.

  • SugarFree||

    In Scott's article on this, it was asked if the wording of the law protects from employer sanctions an individual employee's refusal to serve gays.

    If you look through the revisions to the law, individual refusal was a late addition and no consideration for the employer's right of association is indicated.

    Making a new class of unfireable workers is not a libertarian goal.

  • John||

    That is a legitimate point about the law. But Turcille doesn't make it. Instead he serves up this heaping pile of mendacious shit

    So Arizona lawmakers are basically just being homophobic pricks. They're playing off of incidents in other states where socially conservative bakers and photographers have been penalized for turning away gay and lesbian customers (the wisdom of insisting that somebody who hates you bake your wedding cake is a topic for another conversation). Those other states' laws don't apply in Arizona, so this is grandstanding.

    I am sorry but I refuse to believe that JD is so fucking stupid he is not antiquated with the concept of persuasive authority and honestly thinks there is no possibility of courts in Arizona choosing to follow the lead of those in New Mexico or Oregon.

    Thanks for pointing out the actual objectionable part of this law, since no one at Reason seems to be able to.

  • Brett L||

    So, as a thought experiment, if a radical strain of Judaism prohibited serving Christians, would the AZ legislature be protecting their freedom of religion? I think not. I'm open to evidence I could be wrong.

  • robc||

    Wasnt there a radical strain of judaism based in the southwest?

    So, maybe.

  • John||

    Who cares? If they do that, then they would be wrong. But that is not the issue in front of us. This is the issue. And the only reason to be butt hurt over this is because you think the state should be compelling people to do business against their will.

  • prolefeed||

    And the only reason to be butt hurt over this is because you think the state should be compelling people to do business against their will.

    To be fair, JD Tucille does live in AZ, and probably deals with the socons in the AZ legislature on a regular basis, and is perhaps having an emotional reaction to what he perceives as pandering that is making it hard for him to evaluate what the actual impact of the law is on a cool and calm basis.

    And if the law does make socon Christian employees unfireable when they assert their beliefs at work to the detriment of the owner, then that is a legitimate point to argue.

    But the current article comes across as emotional venting, rather than just saying "hey, isn't it cool that this business owner is protesting the socon pandering of legislators in an entirely libertarian manner?"

  • John||

    And if the law does make socon Christian employees unfireable when they assert their beliefs at work to the detriment of the owner, then that is a legitimate point to argue.

    That is a legitimate point to argue, though I am not sure it is indisputable. Religion is a protected class. I would fall into the camp that if working at the place violates your conscience, quit. But I have no doubt others would disagree.

    In fairness, JD gets paid to make salient points about the law not work out his various psychological issues he has with SOCONS. He owes his readers more than this shit and should have pointed out the actual flaw with the law instead of leaving it to Sugar Free to make it in the comments.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    He gets paid to write what his employers at Reason want him to John, and Reason has long been known in the libertarian community as more of a Cato type of place than a Mises type of place ('cosmotarians' if you will).

  • ||

    He gets paid to write what his employers at Reason want him to John, and Reason has long been known in the libertarian community as more of a Cato type of place than a Mises type of place ('cosmotarians' if you will).

    I'm not entirely sure, but I've always felt that Reason gives a lot of leeway in what their writers actually write about. I don't think it's fair to say Tucille's choice of post is because of Reason's cultural preferences. It's probably because of TUCILLE'S cultural affinities that he's not giving the Texas legislature the same benefit of the doubt that I think he would if their law was about gun rights.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Sure, my point was that Tucille does not have to write what John wants.

  • R C Dean||

    There's no question this is SoCon pandering.

    It just so happens, though, that they are pandering to group that wants to exercise its freedom of association.

    Why libertarians are opposed to any legislative support of a fundamental freedom, however misguided, is a mystery to me.

    Remember:

    You aren't free unless you are free to be wrong.

  • ||

    Or maybe, just maybe, you don't see the need for a law that doesn't actually do anything.

  • seguin||

    Someone really needs to make a real test case out of this. Either to expose the hypocrites or make them affirm the right to freedom of association, not matter how they squirm.

  • Tonio||

    ^This, this, a thousand times this.

  • Tonio||

    That's an unanswerable question, Brett. You'd have no way of knowing unless it came up.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "Antiquated?"

    And 'persuasive authority,' are you kidding?

  • robc||

    You realize John cant type, right?

  • robc||

    I mean, I cant either, but John's is brain injury level.

  • John||

    acquainted you half wit. And frankly, if it were your post, I would be more forgiving.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    So you confuse the two and I am the half wit?

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    I am the half wit?

    Well, John's got a longer track record but don't despair you are making up ground with persistence and earnestness.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    It's also unclear whether the law would allow government employees to refuse service to people if to do so would violate their conscience.

  • Homple||

    IRS employees are allowed, indeed apparently encouraged, to refuse service to people they don't like, so why not extend that privilege to, say, the Arizona DMV?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Private entities should be able to, but not governments.

  • Homple||

    Nonetheless, the governments get away with such discrimination on a vast scale while we whitter on about the gay wedding cake problem

  • SusanM||

    Oh, and the cake is a lie (nerdbait). The bakers in the Oregon case employed gay people and regularly served the couple in question so why would there be any notion that they wouldn't serve them in that instance?

    Since the couple got their cake from out of town it isn't known whether all local bakers would have refused the service or not.

  • ||

    Serving cake for your birthday party or your big promotion is not analogous to serving cake for a ceremony that some people think should be reserved to between a man and a woman.

  • ||

    refuse service to people they don't like, so why not extend that privilege to, say, the Arizona DMV

    I nearly wasn't allowed to take a driving test at a CA DMV because the clerk I was dealing with didn't like Aquariuses (Aquarii?).

    Not that I'm surprised at this point, women seem to get an attitude with me after the ask what my birthday is. Apparently my astrological sign is known for annoying the shit out of girlfriends, who knew?

  • Brett L||

    Any woman who tries to date a gay man is probably going to end up frustrated, regardless of his birth date.

  • Tonio||

    I nearly wasn't allowed to take a driving test at a CA DMV because the clerk I was dealing with didn't like Aquariuses (Aquarii?).

    And under a law like the Arizona bill under discussion, she'd have had a bona fide religious excuse to not serve you and not get fired for that.

  • ||

    Depending on whether or not government employees are covered by the law, and the courts decide that astrology constitutes a religion.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Now THAT'S a point.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    (the wisdom of insisting that somebody who hates you bake your wedding cake is a topic for another conversation).

    In reality, this is the perfect point for that conversation. Should the government have the power to force two citizens to do business?

    Heart of Atlanta Motel already gives us FedGov's answer, which is "yes because interstate commerce rules all."

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    +1 penaltax.

  • John||

    It is worse than Heart of Atlanta. IN that case you could at least argue that the 14th Amendment was written to stop racial discrimination. I don't buy that. But it is at least not absurd on its face. Here, they are saying the states have a right to compel you to serve someone because they like that group, not because t here is any constitutional provision that was ever passed with the intent of making them a specially protected group.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    lawmakers inherently inflict their preferences on others, while gays and lesbians do not.

    Really? There are some photographers and cake bakers that would like a word with you.

    Maybe could have thrown the word most in there somewhere.

  • Zeb||

    "Inherently" does the job.

  • RishJoMo||

    US POlitics, best politics money can buy lol.
    www.Anon-Works.com

  • prolefeed||

    I would not be surprised to learn that the AZ legislators behind this law are homophobic pricks. I worked one session for the lone remaining Republican in the Hawaii State Senate, and his homophobic remarks were teeth-grittingly annoying. And I have no problem with a business owner signaling to his gay customers that he is supportive of their right to love whoever they choose, or at least have sex with whoever they choose.

    But, the law itself reaffirms a basic freedom that libertarians ought to support, even if the legislators are pandering to constituents with vile opinions (like my mother, who lives in AZ, and can be hard to take on quite a few subjects). So, stow the butthurt already, TwoChilly.

  • GILMORE||

    "the law itself reaffirms a basic freedom that libertarians ought to support"

    why in holy hell would any 'libertarian' support MORE laws repeating things that are already true?

    Because we LOVE overlapping and unnecessary legislation? particularly the kind that singles out minority groups in a fashion that suggests that they are deserving of special inconsideration distinct from the general population?

  • John||

    So if they passed a similar one concerning the Right to Bear Arms, you would still be angry?

    Bullshit. All this is is butt hurt by Reason because they love freedom and rights and such right up until someone they don't like uses such.

  • ||

    I, for one, would be. Especially if they were just crafting a law that said what the current law already said, but singled out something that would give the fedgov a foothold to add or change something that would effectively lower freedom.

  • Zeb||

    Suppose they passed a law specifically endorsing the right of gay people (or straight people or black people or any other specific subset of the population) to keep and bear arms? I think that would be a bad law, even though it only reinforces a right that already exists. If you are going to pass a law to reinforce a right that already exists, protect the whole thing for everyone, not just your favorite bigots.

  • Sudden||

    What they did was codify something at the state level that should be actively understood as existing from federal constitutional protections. However, as we've seen in multiple states, the judges don't always read into the plain meaning of the constitution as they should, so passing this law is a way of codifying this freedom at the state level as an additional hurdle for judges to ban a practice that ought be constitutionall protected.

  • GILMORE||

    "John|2.24.14 @ 1:07PM|#

    So if they passed a similar one concerning the Right to Bear Arms, you would still be angry"

    As has been said - if they are simply writing new legislation as though current ones don't pre-exist = then YES.

    Its unnecessary and on the face of it patently discriminatory by naming specific groups one has been granted the privilege of 'not associating with', instead of defending the already-extent RIGHT that all people have to determine who/what they choose to associate with.

    There is an essential difference and no amount of KulturKampf indignation on your part can paper it over.

  • prolefeed||

    I think the Second Amendment would have been vastly improved if there had been a bunch of other sections in the Bill of Rights that clarified the meaning and intent of that amendment.

    When you have people hostile to your basic rights, intent on finding some way to abrogate those rights by misinterpreting them, sometimes repetition is a good thing.

    For example, someone was unable to attend the recent open carry event in Austin I attended because they were thrown in jail for several days for legally possessing a handgun on private property where they had secured the permission of the owner to so carry, and yet some cop flat out ignored the law and threw him in a cage.

  • prolefeed||

    There is something really satisfying about carrying a camo Benelli shotgun in public past a bunch of yuppies sitting outdoors at a restaurant, who are staring open-mouthed at you for doing something they felt sure was illegal, and even scrambling for their cell phones and apparently calling up Austin PD to report what they think is an illegal activity -- only to get nowhere.

    Or about getting a lot of "Heck yes!" support from Texans who do get it.

  • Sudden||

    I was at the range on Saturday night (four guns:, M1 Carbine, Mossberg 20 gauge, S+W .38 cal, Glock 19C). Everyone there was friendly as hell, the workers and thge shooters. Save two cops who came in about the time my party arrived and were absolute dicks. They simply cannot stand the thought of an equal playing field.

  • Brett L||

    Huh. I wouldn't think they'd have the guts to be dicks that outgunned.

  • Sudden||

    They weren't actively diskish, but just had this sort of smug detached demeanor about them.

  • Cytotoxic||

    why in holy hell would any 'libertarian' support MORE laws repeating things that are already true?

    Why would any libertarian get uber-butthurt over it? Prolefeed is mostly right with the above caveat that creating unfireable homo-hating employees is bad.

  • GILMORE||

    'Not supporting something that is legislatively unnecessary and potentially self-defeating' is defacto being "uber-butthurt"?

    I'm not aware of that particular legal term.

  • SugarFree||

    I'm not sure that is all the law is doing:

    D. A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, and obtain appropriate relief against a government REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT IS A PARTY TO THE PROCEEDING. THE PERSON ASSERTING SUCH A CLAIM OR DEFENSE MAY OBTAIN APPROPRIATE RELIEF. A party who prevails in any action to enforce this article against a government shall recover attorney fees and costs.

    It reads like the law can be cited in any proceeding as a trump card. This includes a wrongful termination suit by an employee that suddenly decided he would no longer work on the Sabbath or touch a pork product or be near a menstruating woman.

    This is a dangerous and stupid law. And it leaves the state of Arizona as arbiter of what is and isn't a religion that deserves this "protection."

  • Anonymous Coward||

    So freedom of association is good, but freedom of religion trumps that?

  • Homple||

    Where you been? The IRS is able to decide what does or does not constitute a religion, so why not give Arizona bureaucrats the same discretion? Local control and all that.

  • SugarFree||

    It's a beef I have with the IRS as well. I see no difference between the no-no of establishing a religion and the establishment of parameters for the definition of acceptable religions.

  • Rhywun||

    ^1000x this. Dragging "religion" into this is a big fucking problem.

  • Zeb||

    As I frequently point out, as soon as religious freedom only applies to what the government or courts determine is a legitimate religion, actual religious freedom is impossible. Religious freedom cannot be brought about by special exceptions for religious people or activities. Everyone must have the same freedoms, otherwise what you have is privilege, not freedom.

  • Tonio||

    Why do so many Sno Conez turn into screeching harpies when the subject is boycotts? And they never give a reason why they are offended by said boycotts, but rather seek to force the people engaging in the boycott to justify their rights to economic freedom and freedom of association?

  • John||

    I think boycotts are stupid and counter to civil society. But I would never support a law that banned them and effectively forced people to do business against their will.

    Unless you can show me where SOCONS are pushing for a law banning boycotts, rather than just saying they are wrong, your point is irrelevant.

    The better question is, why are you bitching about SOCONS here? Do you or do you not agree that this law affirms a right everyone should have?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "Do you or do you not agree that this law affirms a right everyone should have?"

    And J.D. agrees with that John. But there can be a right which everyone should have, and it can be pushed or exercised in a way that makes someone else say 'man, that person is a jerk.'

  • John||

    The point of having rights is so that people who are considered jerks or otherwise not allowed in polite society can exercise them. If it were just about protecting people doing the popular and enlightened thing, we wouldn't need to protect them.

    You should be happy that there are rights that protect these people because you could be the jerk next week.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I am happy there are these rights, and so is J.D.! He defends the right, but he basically calls the people pushing for its exercise jerks. That can be true for any right. I can find Michael Moore to be a slack jawed yokel every time he opens his Stalinist mouth, but I can criticize him when he does so, and if he got a bunch of liberals in a legislature to essentially pass a resolution affirming his right I could call out their motives on that without impugning the right.

  • Zeb||

    The jerks in question here are the legislators, and it is quite appropriate to call out public officials for being jerks or bigots, particularly when they are putting their jerkiness or bigotry into laws.

  • John||

    No. The jerks in question here are the people who refuse to serve gays.

  • robc||

    Cant I favor both the legislatures and the pizza place?

    I agree with both of them.

  • robc||

    Oh, just to be clear, if the law prevents someone from being fired because they refuse to serve gays when the employer prefers it, then I oppose the law.

  • prolefeed||

    I didn't get that reading of the proposed law -- it didn't seem to protect employees refusing to serve customers against the wishes of their employer -- but if that is how courts would interpret it, then yeah, I'd oppose the law too on THAT basis.

    Be interesting to have someone who is an actual lawyer weigh in on that point.

  • ||

    The Kansas version of it had an individual conscience clause that required an employer to find another worker to do the job unless it was really really hard to do so. I'm not sure if it was a standard conscience exemption, but it sounded fuzzy enough to be a win for predatory lawyers everywhere.

  • Tonio||

    And that would be totally unworkable for small businesses which only have one person on staff during non-peak hours.

  • prolefeed||

    The Kansas version of it had an individual conscience clause that required an employer to find another worker to do the job unless it was really really hard to do so.

    I'm opposed to that. Your employer asks you to do something that isn't illegal, either suck it and do it or quit.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    There is no neutrality in the H&R Kultur Warz. And you will always be wrong.

  • ||

    Damn it.

  • From the Tundra||

    OT, Harold Ramis died.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/.....9309.story

    RIP, Egon

  • seguin||

    I think this is the first time since Phil Hartmann died that I've actually been upset about a celebrity's death.

  • John||

    That is horrible. And I read where Joy Behar is like 70 or something. There is no justice.

  • Marc F Cheney||

    Aw, man. I was just watching Stripes last night.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Damn. He was one of the good ones. RIP.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    I have read a lot of outrage about people being refused service because they are Gay. I have read a lot of outrage that people are being forced to serve Gay customers against their religious beliefs, too. On the whole, I agree with the former camp rather than the latter, but I do tend to wonder; how much outrage would be expressed if a black owned business declined to cater to the KKK? How for are we going to go on the "If you own a business open to the general public you have to serve anybody" path?

    I'm willing to go all the way, but I wonder about the sincerity of some people.

  • pmains||

    Just to play devil's advocate:

    In your blacks refusing to serve klansmen example, you have a business refusing to serve those who are bigoted against them. In most public accommodations examples, you have customers being refused service by those who are bigoted against them. Obviously, African Americans dislike white supremacists, but they don't hate white people as such.

    Now, in the case of gay couples attempting to conscript Christian bakers, florists, and caterers, is there any evidence that said couples hate Christians? If that were taken into consideration, would that allow for the distinction to be drawn consistently between allowable and forbidden refusal of service.

  • John||

    Yes, this goes to the whole issue of the CRA and public accommodations. When the states stepped in and enforced equal protection not just in government actions but in private transactions, they were playing with fire. If in 1960 someone had said that if we do this for blacks some day they will be telling Churches they have to marry gay people, that person would have been called an alarmist loon. Yet, here we are.

    Thanks to the CRA, the people who object to this are left with arguing that race really is a different kind of distinction than being gay or a Steelers fan or anything else. And as the days of Jim Crow go further and further into the past, that distinction gets harder and harder to make. The CRA has for about the last 30 years been nothing but a tribal interest group grab. It is not surprising that the gays are trying to get in on the action. They won't be the last group to do so.

    The only way to really stop it, is to get rid of the CRA altogether and go back to freedom of contract and association.

  • From the Tundra||

    The only way to really stop it, is to get rid of the CRA altogether and go back to freedom of contract and association.

    Seriously. If businesses are so willing to turn away customers, their shitty acumen will take of them faster than any law could. This just seems like a lot of noise for a pretty small problem.

  • sarcasmic||

    That would be a hard sell.

    Maybe tell blacks that they could kick whites out of their businesses, or tell the homos that they could kick breeders out of their bars?

  • ||

    Something tells me, we probably already do this implicitly.

  • John||

    It is a very hard sell. But every time a new group demands government coercion, the pressure to just get rid of the whole concept altogether will grow. This is why a lot of blacks get really upset when gays appropriate the language of the civil rights movement. That language had and still has so much power because it has only really been used once. If it is used a lot and is just another way for one tribe to stick it to another, it won't work anymore.

  • Tonio||

    While there are many people who would like for members of accredited victim groups to be able to discriminate, while denying that right to persons who are not MOAVGs, I cannot agree to that (take note, CarolynP). That would violate equal protection.

  • Tonio||

    I'm willing to go all the way...

    Of course you are, you slut.

  • Swiss Servator, mehr Käse!||

    Heh.

  • R C Dean||

    I have read a lot of outrage about people being refused service because they are Gay.

    And, to me, those stories generally stink on ice. Like all the stories you read about racial threats and harassment on campus, that turn out to be totally made up.

  • ||

    I'm willing to go all the way

    So, you're a fascist. Cool.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Is it fascist? Really? Or is it simply saying "If you are in Business, then BE IN BUSINESS, dammit!"

  • pmains||

    Here is the bill. They are amending Arizona state law in order to clarify it and prevent judges from twisting its meaning.

    No, they don't roll back other public accommodations laws, but they are attempting to hold the line where they can. The fact is, public accommodation of racial minorities would be the wrong hill to die on. The battle is completely unwinnable, and prevents libertarians from fighting other, more important battles.

  • Tonio||

    The fact is, public accommodation of racial minorities would be the wrong hill to die on. The battle is completely unwinnable, and prevents libertarians from fighting other, more important battles.

    Good comment.

    I agree with you on that. I don't know whether that is a majority view here. We do have a lot of purists here, and they tend to be very vocal. Those purists also tend to want to define what hills are worth dying on for the rest of us and are quick to anger if you don't volunteer to die on their particular hill.

  • prolefeed||

    I don't think it is "dying on a hill" for me personally to defend the right of a business owner to serve or not serve anyone they want for any reason they want.

    I can understand meeker souls and legislators being unwilling to make such an unpopular stand, but personally I try to not carve out exceptions to liberty for any reason.

  • Tonio||

    There is a difference between agreeing in principle (passive agreement) but taking no action, and working for/against a particular goal (active participation).

    The point I was trying to make is that some people here take offense that others who passively agree with them don't actively participate in helping those people achieve their goals. That's what I was writing about, and how I interpreted pmains' comment.

  • robc||

    I think this goes back to your "organized effort" comment.

    Is voting active participation?

    I dont know what the fucking difference is between passive agreement and active participation.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Pmains should write on this subject and Reason writers should just not.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    This just in: Libertarians believe the answer to hate speech is MOAR HATE SPEECH!

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    Approved. Lets me know who the fuckers are.

  • Tonio||

    Except libertarians have trouble with the whole concept of hate speech since it is ultimately giving griefers a veto on the speech of others.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Why do so many Sno Conez turn into screeching harpies when the subject is boycotts? And they never give a reason why they are offended by said boycotts, but rather seek to force the people engaging in the boycott to justify their rights to economic freedom and freedom of association?

    Try again, in English.

  • Tonio||

    Try again, in English.

    It appears I wrote something which TLPB doesn't like, but he is unable to articulate an actual objection on the merits. Whaaaaa....

  • Ted S.||

    Libertarian discussion point: Does refusal to thread properly violate the NAP?

  • Tonio||

    No. Neither does refusal to learn rudimentary HTML tags.

    But neither action is praiseworthy, and chiding, remonstration and mocking are in order.

  • ||

    It's impressive how obvious objections to various homo-based initiatives are. Even when the objection is valid, the way it's presented says everything you need to know about the presenter. And the incredibly hilarious thing is that certain people think they aren't 100% obvious. And they do it every fucking time.

  • Homple||

    Tell me more about this "way it is presented" stuff that "tells you everything you need to know about the presenter". I miss the nuances, I guess. Examples help clarify.

  • Tonio||

    I see it more as believing that saying the magical words "freedom of association" gives them a total pass.

    But having said that, one is either right on the merits (pay attention, Brooks [throws chalkboard eraser]), or one isn't.

    As I often say, a desire to make the trains run on time isn't inherently bad or fascistic even if it was a favorite of Mussolini's.

  • Homple||

    As you say, "Freedom of association" gets tossed around here a lot is useful for any almost any purpose. It does not apply to a Christer who doesn't want to sell flowers to or a bake a wedding cake for a same sex couple, but it does apply when somebody wants open borders.

    Is there a secret handshake among those who understand its true meaning?

  • Tonio||

    Heh.

  • Paul.||

    Senate Bill 1062 is intended to give state businesses a right they already have: to deny service to gay and lesbian customers.

    Making no statement in support of denying business to gays and lesbians, is this a right they already have? Have we not seen court precedent essentially say that yes, you must provide services to a gay or lesbian couple? Wouldn't this law be a kind of preemptive strike?

  • SugarFree||

    Not in Arizona. Homosexuals are not a protected class under Arizona public accommodation laws. And even with this law, there would still be an avenue to a lawsuit under the CRA.

  • John||

    How would they have a lawsuit under the CRA? The CRA doesn't protect homosexuals.

  • SugarFree||

    A federal lawsuit would test the boundaries of public accommodation law. I'm not saying it is a good idea, but it may just be a matter of time.

  • John||

    Maybe. I would have to look, but I am pretty sure the CRA is explicit. I don't think you could get any but the craziest court to read other groups into it.

  • Brett L||

    Yeah, I think CRA enshrined race, sex and religion, and ADA enshrined disability -- although ADA supported disabilities now include just about everything. I think it would take legislation.

  • Paul.||

    Homosexuals are not a protected class under Arizona public accommodation laws.

    Were they under New Mexico law?

  • SugarFree||

    From wikipedia:

    Since the passage of An Act Relating to Human Rights, which became effective July 1, 2003, New Mexico law protects against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity "in matters of employment, housing, credit, public accommodations and union membership."
  • Rasilio||

    Um, can I just bitch slap everyone on both sides of this issue?

    If the Az state legislature was acting from any actual conviction of conscience they would have passed a law repealing all public accommodation laws and affirming the freedom of association, they didn't however, they passed a completely meaning law explicitly making legal something which was already legal which is problematic becuase it smacks of needing permission from the government to exercise your freedoms.

    And for all those who oppose it, well fuck off slavers. You are either a moron who doesn't realize that public accomidation laws means that Jewish Daycare centers must be forced to allow neonazi's to work there and must be forced to take the business of neonazi parents and just supports them because you want to be one of the cool tolerant kids or even worse you are a completely immoral fucker who does realize that and doesn't care becuase your worship of authority convinces you that the top men will ensure that the laws will only be enforced against the right people.

  • John||

    See my point above, the only way not to fall down the slippery slope of public accommodation after the CRA is to claim that race, sex and religion is a special distinction different from any other distinction. And that over time because a very hard distinction to defend and one fewer and fewer people want to defend as various groups want to use the government to screw their enemies.

    It is not as simple an issue as you make it. I think the point that race, religion and sex really are different and it is okay to compel in those cases is a debatable but reasonable point. So, I don't think anyone who says yes to special protection based on those categories an not to it based on others is necessarily being a hypocrite or making an unreasonable argument.

  • Homple||

    There you go again, taking things to their logical conclusions.

  • Paul.||

    Um, can I just bitch slap everyone on both sides of this issue?

    No, you may only bitch slap approved groups.

  • Brett L||

    It comes down to this for me: While I approve of everyone's right to be an asshole in their capacity as a private citizen, I do not believe the state should enshrine it in law. This is no different than the Jim Crow laws, although less specific. The State is trying to make an end run on Federal law and rulings. If they would just leave everyone alone at both levels, there would be no goddamn need.

  • John||

    I do not believe the state should enshrine it in law.

    So, people's rights shouldn't be enshrined in law? I don't think "enshrine" means what you think it does.

    Enshrining it in law would mean requiring people to discriminate not making it clear they have a right to serve whom they want.

  • Outlaw||

    You really just compared this to Jim Crow? WTF?

    Arizona is not trying to coerce businesses into denying services to gays.

    They're saying that, by the way, you can't sue a business for denying you service just because you're gay.

    Sure, that kind of shitty discrimination is currently allowed under existing AZ law and it might've been wise for the legislature to just keep on trucking. But the kind of stuff happening in NM and OR is completely reprehensible, so I can see why they would want to explicitly say it's not going to happen in AZ.

    You have no right to force Joe Smith to make you a cake or take your wedding photos.

  • Rasilio||

    Actually yes it is VERY different from Jim Crow laws.

    This says "You may be a bigoted asshole if you like"

    Jim Crow laws said "You are required to be a bigoted asshole under penalty of law".

    HUGE fucking difference because without Jim Crow laws segregation in the South wouldn't have lasted 2 generations

  • Brett L||

    In both cases the State protects you from the consequences of being a dick that couldn't last without the protection. So yes, it is a reach, but the point is that if there were no such association laws, it would be better than amending them every time we recognize a "new" political class, which is why I oppose them.

  • Rasilio||

    In both cases the state may protect you from the consequences of being a dick but in one the state compels you to be a dick against your will

  • Marc F Cheney||

    I have no strong feelings on this issue. Am I a monster?

  • Tonio||

    No. See the "dying on a hill" comments above. I don't expect you to actively help me achieve my goals if you understand that I may not actively help you achieve yours. We all have our own priorities. I'm willing to work with pretty much anyone on any single issue, even people with whom I vehemently disagree with on other issues.

  • Homple||

    I don't have either but it's worth hashing out apparently conflicting views on principles.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    he is unable to articulate an actual objection on the merits. Whaaaaa....

    Incoherent ramblings alway annoy me.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Maybe what appears to me to be some sort of incomprehensible word salad gibberish is merely jargon based boilerplate.

    In Bronyland.

  • ||

    In Bronyland.

    Can we have a Reason-sponsored safari there? The schandenfreude would be epic.

  • Outlaw||

    It's all fun and games until a gay person sues a Muslim business owner for not serving them.

  • John||

    Never happen.

  • Outlaw||

  • Outlaw||

    Pretty much how I feel about all this nonsense: “When we in Canada talk about human rights in foreign countries, we’re talking about rights like the right you have for the government not to kill you — that is a genuine right,” said the litigation director of the Calgary-based Canadian Constitution Foundation. “When we talk about rights in Canada we talk about rights [that require] someone to do things for you. I don’t see that as a right at all.”

    It’s misguided to try to balance these competing rights —which, she says, should have been anticipated when human rights codes were created in the 1960s — because “genuine rights don’t conflict,” she said.

    “It undermines the meaning of the word ‘right’ because if they say this woman has the right to force the barber to cut her hair, essentially they’re saying he doesn’t have the right to practice his religion.”

    Market pressures should prove enough of a deterrent from discrimination, she said. Ms. McGregor has a right to express her disgust with being turned away, she can boycott the barber, which may drive male business away. But to ask Mr. Mahrouk to hire another person who is not Muslim and will be able to cut a female client’s hair (he and his colleagues follow the Muslim teaching that a man should not touch a woman who is outside his family) would be an unreasonable burden.

  • ||

    Market pressures should prove enough of a deterrent from discrimination, she said. Ms. McGregor has a right to express her disgust with being turned away, she can boycott the barber, which may drive male business away.

    Isn't that how the Oregon baker case started? The couple that was turned away had mentioned it on Facebook but wasn't going to do anything about it, it went viral and the state said they were going to sue anyway. The couple was eventually convinced to come on board (which pissed me off).

    At least in the Oregon case the individuals discriminated against couldn't successfully use non-coercive means to persuade/punish the baker for discrimination.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    They're saying that, by the way, you can't sue a business for denying you service just because you're gay.

    What if they deny you service because GAY, when you're not gay?

    Can you sue for defamation?

  • Outlaw||

    I don't know. There's nothing wrong with being gay so I wouldn't sue them.

    Thankfully that'll never happen to me.

    I'm a man's man! If you all need me I'm gonna be in the garage..hanging sheetrock around an engine I'm rebuilding.

    Where's my chewing tobacco?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEBhP0YjLrY

  • John||

    Yes you could.

  • Tonio||

    I'm guessing this would be a mens rea case - if it was their intention to discriminate then they were discriminating even if they weren't discriminating enough to know they were discriminating against the wrong person.

  • Eric||

    Serious question here:

    Generally, when we talk about freedom of association, the businesses involved are mom & pop type shops that offer non-essential products...cakes, photography, diners, tailors, bars, etc.

    However, what about semi-essential products provided by the likes of private entities like supermarkets, pharmacies, physical therapists, gas stations, etc???

    In libertopia, should a town's sole supermarket refuse service to a segment of the population, how is it punished by market forces? What if said segment is a despised minority like pedophiles, nazis, or Science forbid...atheists, and no consumer backlash is initiated by the majority?

    Is freedom of association still paramount in these cases?

  • Tonio||

    That's a damn good question Eric, and one I have often asked here and to which I have never received a responsive answer.

    Anyone? Brooksie? Anyone?

  • Tonio||

    The strict libertarian, freedom of association, answer is, of course, that you cannot compel individuals to do business with anyone.

    My suspicion is that the refusal to address that question is because it turns the tables on the SoCon narrative of the poor victimized Christians being harassed by the mean old gays.

    Oh, and I did receive a sorta answer once - that providing a cake for a gay wedding is different because (somehow) it forces the Christians to "participate" in a gay wedding; whereas nobody would ever deny food or gas to people. That answer blithely ignored the existence of people like Westboro Baptist, Klansmen, Nazis, Nation of Islam and other similarly-situated groups.

  • Outlaw||

    Yes, and I'd suggest moving out of that backwater ASAP.

    Just like I'll never move to most of the northeastern states because they're anti-gun assholes who'd love to throw me in prison, I'd never move to Alabama or some other deeply religious SOCON-dominated state if I were openly gay.

  • Tonio||

    So, one yes.

    Outlaw, this doesn't change things on FoA principle, but do consider that not all gay people can up and move. There are poor rural people who have limited mobility, and some of those are gay.

  • SugarFree||

    It's a bit of a lifeboat scenario, which is why few take it seriously. (Much like the fantastical knowledge required to justify torturing a suspect in a typical pro-torture ticking time-bomb scenario.)

    There are no other avenues to express your economic choices? If the one store refuses to do business with you, you have to just sit down and die? There's not a friendly store one town over? You can't buy anything over the internet? You can't deprive them of your business in this awful place where you are trapped by moving away? How are you going to live without food while your lawsuit grinds through the courts?

    A commitment to freedom leaves you open to the actions of bad actors. Compelling someone to do business with you has bad effects that far outweigh personal inconvenience.

  • Tonio||

    But only a bit. Sug, do you deny that there are places in BFE where there is only one grocery? Those places are increasingly uncommon, but they still exist. And while I agree that no gay person in his right mind should live in one of those places, I can envision a gay person who was born and raised in one of those places, and who chooses to stay there because of family.

    That does nothing to change FoA principles, but I'm dismayed that nobody wants to address this scenario head-on.

  • prolefeed||

    do you deny that there are places in BFE where there is only one grocery?

    Never been any place that didn't have more than one place to buy groceries somewhere within an hour or so driving distance, and I've been all over the U.S.

    OK, maybe rural Alaska. Haven't been there.

  • Tonio||

    Will you answer the question head-on?

  • c5c5||

    Freedom of association is paramount because you do not have a right to the labor of others.
    Refusing to offer skilled labor does not violate your rights and it is not aggression.
    Demanding (through the authorities) that others serve you violates their rights and is aggressive.

    It reminds me of the fallacy,Two wrongs do not make a right. Forcing (which is typically how this is resolved) labor is also a wrong, and that does not make it right.

    To most,the action of refusing to serve another in dire need could be considered immoral. Immoral it may be, but it is NOT a rights-violation type immorality.

    I agree with the commenter who said this question is generally not taken seriously because the occurrence of it would be very rare.

    BTW, theoretically, each and every one of us could go out and find people who are desperate and need help in a big way. There are legitimately homeless people right here where I live. There are extremely abused people who I could technically offer temporary shelter to in my home until they get other help. However, most of us do not assist in the majority of these cases. Are we violating their rights by not helping them? Is valuing our freedom to NOT associate more paramount than just letting them suffer? This analogy is not perfect, but I hope it helps to explain the bigger scope of your inquiry as to dealing with competing values.

  • Rasilio||

    Wait, why is there only 1 supermarket?

    If the only one refuses to sell to a segment of the population then you have an underserved population which represents a market opportunity. Either a supermarket from a neighboring community moves in to serve them or someone opens a new supermarket. The market won't punish the discriminating company but it will see to it that the minority is served.

    Now you can of course do the reducio ad absurdium and devise a scenario where you have a completely isolated community with a discriminated against minority which makes up less than 1% of the population but these have little bearing in reality because I can respond with a service provider being compelled by public accommodation laws to provide services to the person who raped them

  • Tonio||

    Wait, why is there only 1 supermarket?

    Because the goal of the exercise is to take FoA to the extreme case to see if it's an absolute right.

    But thanks for proving me right above when I said that nobody here really wanted to engage this scenario.

    Also, why does it matter that gay people might only comprise only 1% of the population? Is that a license to deny them rights? Or are you making an argument about statistical unlikelihood?

  • Rasilio||

    Actually the 1% number only matters if it is from a small population. If it is 1% of 300,000 then that is still more than 3000 customers you are guaranteed to get, more than enough to keep a supermarket in business meaning your entire scenario falls apart because it could never exist.

    If it is 1% of 3000 people then your scenario holds because you barely have enough customers to support 1 grocery store and the 30 guys being discriminated against are not going to be enough to draw in competition.

    So we will posit a remote outpost of civilization with a total population of say less than 5,000 and more than a days travel to the nearest civilized area. The sole supplier of food has decided he doesn't like the 10 guys who are from some specific minority group and refuses to sell to them. Does he have the right to do this in libertopia.

    Yes, absolutely, even if it means those 10 guys starve.

    Now, please explain what you want to force hair dressers who have been raped to provide hair dressing services to their rapists.

  • prolefeed||

    The market won't punish the discriminating company but it will see to it that the minority is served.

    "The market" aka "people" can do both. If I go to a supermarket that has a sign saying they don't serve (insert list of minority segments not served), I'm gonna take my business elsewhere even if I'm not on the list.

  • SusanM||

    That makes one. But if they're happy to turn away customers why would losing one more matter to them?

  • Tonio||

    So, the sole grocer within a hundred miles can turn away gay people? Yes or no.

  • c5c5||

    Yes.

    And the gay folks can enlist the help of family or friends to shop for them and get what they need.

    The gays can get together, open up their own shop, and put the other one out of business with better practices and service.

    No one is entitled to the labor or services of another, despite their station in life.

    There are alternatives so that in general, this really isn't a problem. When it is, you will almost always find government involved.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "However, what about semi-essential products provided by the likes of private entities like supermarkets, pharmacies, physical therapists, gas stations, etc???"

    Such status gives a legal right claim to force others to serve their wants, why? Why are you claiming the existence of a positive right to other peoples goods?

  • Tonio||

    Food is semi-essential? WTF?

  • Mickey Rat||

    That is a quote from Eric's post. If you object to that characterization, take it up with him.

  • ||

    Count me as a yes, FoA is paramount. Anything other than that involves the use of government force.

    Is there really such a town that has only one supermarket that isn't a Walmart?

  • Tony||

    There are hundreds of things you're not allowed to do on your own private property, most of which you agree on. Drawing the line at invidious discrimination is not conforming to some liberty principle, it's to parrot the discredited arguments racist bigots used to try to make.

  • Tonio||

    Again, any excuse to avoid the question head-on.

    Just once, I would like to hear someone own up to the implications of his principles and state that yes FoA means that yes that hypothetical rural grocery store can not sell food to gay people. And that it would be OK for the rural Telco to not allow him phone service to call the outside world for rescue, etc, etc.

    Man up, people.

  • R C Dean||

    Is freedom of association still paramount in these cases?

    Yes, it is. You will note that, even when racial discrimination was mandated by the state, all those semi-essential products and services somehow made their way to the black community.

    Nobody is going to go cold or hungry because of freedom of association, so you can stop worrying about it now.

  • Tonio||

    Nobody is going to go cold or hungry because of freedom of association, so you can stop worrying about it now.

    RC, since you claim to be able to see into the future, prove it by giving us the winning numbers to the MegaMillions lottery drawing for Tuesday, Feb 25, 2014.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    In libertopia, should a town's sole supermarket refuse service to a segment of the population, how is it punished by market forces?

    Is this some sort of medieval walled fortress?

  • prolefeed||

    I'm gonna guess that if that sole supermarket refuses service to certain members of the population, it will quickly become one of several supermarkets as competitors rush to fill that market niche.

  • Tonio||

    Again, a refusal to address the question. Well done, Brooksie.

  • c5c5||

    Tonio,

    You seem to be doing a good job at ignoring the many rational arguments given to your query.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "Of course, he is discriminating—against meddling politicians who offend his sense of right and wrong."

    And what offends his sense of right and wrong is a business owner legally discriminating against what offends said business owner's sense of right and wrong. Which seems to be cognitively dissonant on Rocco's part.

    "They're playing off of incidents in other states where socially conservative bakers and photographers have been penalized for turning away gay and lesbian customers (the wisdom of insisting that somebody who hates you bake your wedding cake is a topic for another conversation)."

    They are affirming to their state judges that this right does exist in Arizona. It is perfectly appropriate for legislatures to pre-empt judicial innovations, especially those that are on the rise in other states.

    Sorry, Tucille, at some point you are going to have to decide where you stand on this issue, with the gay activists or with freedom of association, because you cannot be with both.

  • GILMORE||

    "Sorry, Tucille, at some point you are going to have to decide where you stand on this issue, with the gay activists or with freedom of association, because you cannot be with both."

    One can object to this particular piece of legislation specifically IN DEFENSE of "freedom of association".

    something I tried to point out above.

    The state legislature is trying to codify what would otherwise be an extant right of freedom of association as a "freedom of religious expression". It strikes me as bad law by presupposing that we would need to legislatively define what constitute positive rights under these freedoms.

    As a person with a great deal of interest in both freedom of religion and freedom of association, I can find many reasons to object to the particulars of the legislation.

    The Governor seems to see the issue similarly =

    ""I think anybody that owns a business can choose who they work with or who they don't work with," Brewer told CNN in Washington on Friday. "But I don't know that it needs to be statutory. In my life and in my businesses, if I don't want to do business or if I don't want to deal with a particular company or person or whatever, I'm not interested. That's America"

    I don't see this as having anything to do with gay activists, frankly, and I could give a shit about them.

  • R C Dean||

    The state legislature is trying to codify what would otherwise be an extant right of freedom of association as a "freedom of religious expression".

    They are merely recognizing that freedom of association is pretty much a dead letter in current jurisprudence, while freedom of religion at least still has a pulse.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "It strikes me as bad law by presupposing that we would need to legislatively define what constitute positive rights under these freedoms."

    Freedom of association is a negative right. A customer having an enforceable right to be served over the owner's objection is a positive right. Brewer's quote seems to be wishful thinking at best wit the way the judiciary is going on theses types of issues.

    "I don't see this as having anything to do with gay activists,..."

    The push to have homosexuals as a protected class is coming out of nowhere, with no ideological organization behind it? Besides I was not saying that you gave a shit about them, but that Tuccille sees a need to perform obeisance as an act of contrition for being nominally against gay "rights" in this case.

    Tuccille and Shackford want to have it both ways. Giving lip service to freedom of association while being against practical measures to defend it while going on hysterical rants using propaganda phrases like "homophobic pricks".

  • Tony||

    A customer having an enforceable right not to be served poison, or be bludgeoned, or raped, or have his children kidnapped and put to work doing dishes, are also so-called positive rights.

    Nobody here is a property rights absolutist. Drawing the line at discrimination is perfectly arbitrary, unless you think that no harm comes to the person being discriminated against.

    Apart from the fact that you're in no position to determine that if you're not part of the group, it's already long been established that discrimination actively harms members of minorities.

  • GILMORE||

    "A customer having an enforceable right not to be served poison"

    Tony, we know you're a fucking moron already, but must you be so persistent in reminding us?

    'Allergic To Peanuts'-Jane has no "right" to not "be served poison" when she decides to go to "Thai-Tony's Peanut Palace" for dinner.

    *noted: I have no objections to your own consumption of poison. Lots of it. It is Your Right. Since it may also be for the greater benefit for all mankind, you might even consider it your socially-responsible duty?

  • Mickey Rat||

    "...are also so-called positive rights."

    No, they are not.

    "... unless you think that no harm comes to the person being discriminated against."

    I think more harm is done to the person who is told "you must do this" than the one being told "find someone who is willing to do this".

  • c5c5||

    Tonio,

    No. All the examples you cited are ones of negative rights, not positive ones.

  • GILMORE||

    "Tuccille and Shackford want to have it both ways."

    I see what you did there.

    as far as your characterization of "practical measures" goes...

    I personally think legislation pretending that existing law is insufficient can often undermine the larger priciples enshrined in the constitution. What worries me about this so-called 'reinforcement' of freedom of association is that it pretends to be nothing of the sort = it positions itself entirely as being an exercise of religion. In this sense, it abandons the idea of any legitimate (non-religiously motivated) Freedom of Association rights in favor of picking specific instances of 'religious speech' which it thinks needs protection. I don't like either spin they are trying to put on constitutional rationale. It may seem favorable as some kind of temporary Band-Aid for kulturwar score-keepers, but from a constitutional perspective I see nothing worth cheering about.

  • Tony||

    Hello libertarians. How's being on the other side of Democrats, Republicans, history, and decency going today?

  • GILMORE||

    Hello Statist Cocksucker! Actually, life without the domination of petty party politics goes swimmingly. I hope you are enjoying the constant failure of your progressive ideology making itself manifest in the world around us daily! Have a beer and enjoy your day.

  • Tony||

    Well let's just stick to the point. Surely in the decades since the passage of the Civil Rights Act we've seen a bloody horror of turmoil and oppression at what must be millions of instances of violations of "freedom of association." Oh, the humanity.

  • XM||

    Many businesses openly violate the civil right act. The government just doesn't crack down on people who pretty much hire their own people or Latinos for cheap labor. If they did, the economy would cease to function and the libertarians would be a bit more robust than they are now.

  • Outlaw||

    And a lot violate it and simply lie about their reasons so they don't run afoul of the law. Since reading minds is impossible, they get away with it.

    This is what I don't understand about the stupid bigots that live in states like NM.

    If you don't want to serve gay people and fear they may be litigious, all you have to do is lie about why you refused them service.

    Too busy, on vacation or reserved for that week, not enough inventory, etc.

    It also means the CRA's protections are fucking useless in the scheme of things.

  • GILMORE||

    "Tony|2.24.14 @ 4:14PM|#

    Well let's just stick to the point."

    But we already covered the "you're a statist cocksucker" part?

    What else *is* there?

  • R C Dean||

    How's being on the other side of Democrats, Republicans, history, and decency going today?

    Swimmingly, partly because history and decency are on our side (we're not the ones that run up none-figure body counts, you know). As for Reps and Dems, you can judge a man by the quality of his enemies.

  • Tony||

    You don't run up body counts because you don't have any political power. Even if you did, you'd never take credit for the inevitably famine, epidemics, looting, and chaos that would result from your policies. You'd just call it freedom.

  • R C Dean||

    none-figure = nine-figure.

  • Tonio||

    Still an open challenge to you upthread, RC.

  • XM||

    The gays can order stuff online. The problem is solved.

  • Tonio||

    Another coward who won't answer the question. Outstanding.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Again, a refusal to address the question. Well done, Brooksie.

    Do you get tired of dragging that cross around, Tonio? You and Tulpa make a nice pair.

    What's the question?

    Does a private business owner have the right to decide whom to provide goods and services to? YES.

    Does the aggrieved victim have the right to whine about it? YES.

    Does the aggrieved victim have the right to coerce me into participating in his personal boycott? NO.

    Does the aggrieved victim have the right to employ government force to put that business owner out of business? NO.

  • Tony||

    But the business has the right to employ government force to expel people from his property.

    Force paid for by taxpayers of all races and sexual orientations, presumably.

  • Tonio||

    The actual question, Brooks, is whether the right of FoA is absolute, specifically: Does a hypothetical rural grocer who is the sole source of groceries in a 100 mile radius have the right to refuse customers? Yes or no answers only.

    Now had you actually read anything I wrote above you would see that I realize that the correct pure libertarian answer is yes, the grocer does have the right to refuse. I just want libertarians to own up to their convictions.

    I agree that FoA is pretty absolute and the whole notion of "essential services" is a slippery slope. But I'm shocked at the cowardice and dishonesty exhibited by many people here.

  • Tony||

    Just so I understand--most libertarians here favor what is pretty much a Jim Crow law?

  • SusanM||

    It really isn't though. Remember that this applies to adulterers, lewd women, people who work on the sabbath, people who put lima beans and parsley in their window boxes, people who work on the sabbath, wear lycra/spandex and other such sinful people who will doubtlessly be denied services in Arizona. No one's being singled out.

  • Calidissident||

    Tony, once again displaying his lacking knowledge of Jim Crow laws.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Force paid for by taxpayers of all races and sexual orientations, presumably.

    Ooh, ya got me!

  • The Late P Brooks||

    If you don't want to serve gay people and fear they may be litigious, all you have to do is lie about why you refused them service.

    No kidding.

    "I don't work on Harleys. You'll have to take it to somebody else."

  • John||

    Because telling people "sure the law sucks but you can always perjure yourself in court and get away with violating it" makes it all better.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    And there's a bit of an overlapping diagram of "people who would rather incur legal penalties than violate their consciences" and "people who don't want to lie."

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    overlapping *Venn* diagram

  • The Late P Brooks||

    But I'm shocked at the cowardice and dishonesty exhibited by many people here.

    You're deep into MNG territory, with your selfrighteous lifeboat ethics hypotheticals.

    MANAGEMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REFUSE ANYTHING TO ANYONE

    especially noxious twats like you.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    As long as businesses are equally free to discriminate against straights, I have no problem with it.

  • Ymmarta||

    When did a behavior - which people have the choice to engage in or not - reach the same status as biological characteristics such as race and gender?

  • lbyron||

    Thank you. Agreed, one may not like the decision of some business owners to reject business, but it is a fundamental liberty to choose who one wishes to associate with, and by associate, it is not only who comes into one's home but with whom one trades. If one has that right, then it does not matter why they wish not to associate, it only matters that they have the right not to do so.

  • daniwitz13||

    I wasn't aware that Reason.com was a LGBT spoke site. I guess that "free mind and free market" slogan is sponsoring the Gay agenda. I'm wondering why they send me notices when I am totally against SSM. Maybe they should ask their customers on their stance on LGBT? I hope they realize that Homosexuality is 3.2% and the other side is the rest of the Nation. Good luck on that. Pity

  • BambiB||

    Being queer is either a medical condition or a lifestyle choice.

    If the former, then it should be subject to treatment, like cancer or bubonic plague.

    If the latter, then it's like choosing to be a Democrat or a Nazi.

    It's patently unfair to discriminate against those who are helpless in the face of biology. One cannot choose to be black, or female. In cases where biology has inflicted some malady, like cancer or homosexuality, it's unfair to deny service to one who is seeking treatment (subject to the safety and well-being of other customers). But there's no right to flaunt the fact that you're a nazi or a queer and demand that you be served by those who disagree with your lifestyle choice.

    So which is it? Is being queer a disease (and should there be an "American Queer Society" to solicit funds for queer therapy research? Or is it a lifestyle choice? In which case, those who don't approve should not be forced into involuntary association?

  • Tony||

    It's neither a medical condition nor a lifestyle choice. It's as natural, innate, and unchosen as heterosexuality. If you don't believe that, you're an idiot and maybe you should read a book or something.

  • Ymmarta||

    Is IQ and criminality innate as well? It amazes how progressives reject biological determinism in every other area except for sexual orientation.

  • optimusratiostultum||

    I think people ought to have the right to discriminate against anyone they feel like for any reason, GOVERNMENT should not be allowed to discriminate.

    Presently in America we DO NOT have such a right, despite what the author of this article said, in fact the AZ law was written precisely because a photographer was forced to provide services for a gay wedding, despite the photographer being against gay marriage.

    Liberty is about people being free to make their own choices regardless of whether you agree with them or not. If a person chooses to refuse service to a person for whatever reason that ought to be their right according to freedom of association, whereas people do not have the right to demand services be rendered to them.

  • c5c5||

    "the wisdom of insisting that somebody who hates you bake your wedding cake is a topic for another conversation). "

    If I recall, the person this article may have been referring to did not "hate" the gay couple who forced him to bake their cake through legislation. They were friends. The baker just did not agree with their getting married. That does not mean he hated them. One can care about another without approving of every action.

    Sounds too much like progressive thinking (unthinking?), Tuccille.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement