Colorado Orders Baker to Make Gay Wedding Cakes; Also Ordered to File Reports and Reveal Customer Names

Nobody should have a right to this cake. Credit: Atelier Teee / photo on flickrA baker in Colorado who became a center of controversy over his refusal (on religious grounds) to bake a cake for a gay couple's wedding has been told he may not engage in such discrimination. This decision from the state's civil rights panel today affirms a ruling from a judge, so it's not actually a new thing. However, what is new is the rather insulting and problematic additional demands from the panel. From The Denver Post:

In its decision, the panel required [baker Jack] Phillips to submit quarterly reports for two years that show how he has worked to change discriminatory practices by altering company policies and training employees. Phillips also must disclose the names of any clients who are turned away.

By what legal authority does the panel make these demands of Phillips? I'm not even speaking philosophically. I disagree with Colorado's public accommodation discrimination laws, but at least they are actual laws. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission is made up of unelected appointees from the governor. I looked through the commission's list of rules (pdf), and while the 56-page document is full of all sorts of guidelines on how discrimination hearings should take place and pages upon pages of rules regarding employment discrimination, it doesn't actually have a lot to say about what sort of remedies the commission is able to enforce, other than giving plaintiffs clearance to sue. But I am not a lawyer and could have missed all sorts of stuff in my skimming. (Also of note: It is against the law in Colorado to put up a sign in a business that says anything similar to "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"). By what right does Colorado claim to be able to demand the names of Phillips' non-clients? Doesn't that violate the privacy of a third party completely unconnected to this case?

Also of note: The Civil Rights Division offers the kind of training they're trying to force Phillips to provide (even though employee training had nothing to do with this case), so that's a nice bit of potential make-work for themselves.

We've written extensively about the how these public accommodation laws violate the freedom of association rights of businesses and the religious freedoms of their owners. Jacob Sullum wrote most recently in our June issue about how such laws (and laws mandating businesses pay for birth control for their employees) are essentially a form of conscripted private service.

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.

  • CAB||

    So what happens if he makes the cake, but the couple deems said cake to be unsatisfactory and refuses to pay on the grounds that it is not what they expected?

    Seriously, does he just have to eat that cost?

  • Brandon||

    That's what he gets for being a bigot!

    -Jezebel

  • Sevo||

    Do you really want food from someone who does not want to make that food for you?

  • Paper Wasp||

    Beat me to it. Yes, by all means, feed your beloved friends and family members cake prepared by people who hate you.

    Dumbassedry.

  • ||

    I wonder how much I can quote RuPaul today:

    You know, if your idea of happiness has to do with someone else changing what they say, what they do, you are in for a fucking hard-ass road. [...] It's the same as Orwell's Animal Farm where the animals forgot why they had a revolution in the first place and the pigs started walking on their hind legs. [...] Secretly they just wanna be Farmer John.
  • ||

    It should be noted that RuPaul is here specifically pissed about activists pushing to control everyone's behavior in the name of "the community" while everyone else is just trying to get on with their own damn lives.

  • Paul.||

    I say again, I really like this RuPaul fellow.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    RuPaul 2016

  • Suellington||

    RuRand2016

  • PapayaSF||

    I admit I am rather surprised to see such wisdom from someone I would have expected to be doctrinaire PC.

  • Paul.||

    Also, progressives eat their own, film at 11.

  • SusanM||

    While I can't argue with the sentiment, it still seems wrong that an attention whore is complaining about people being attention whores.

    He's cocky (!) now because he's famous. I suspect that when that fame wanes and no longer protects him from the reality of how gender variant people are looked at "community" will become very important to him.

  • Sudden||

    RuPaul's fame has been pretty enduring

  • Paul.||

    Extremely.

    While I can't argue with the sentiment, it still seems wrong that an attention whore is complaining about people being attention whores.

    Well, I mean, he's an entertainer. And as sudden correctly notes, an enduring one.

    RuPaul (FWIW) garners attention for things that are positive, fun etc. He's not trying to silence anyone. The people attacking him are trying to silence him.

  • SusanM||

    Well, I have to admit that, given epic levels of apathy regarding contemporary pop culture I'm not entirely certain of what's happening. The best I can figure is that he'd been using words considered derogatory by transsexuals. Some people complained, some emails were sent. I really don't think that counts as silencing.

    I think this is less about politics as it is about a narcissistic celebrity who can't handle criticism.

  • Paul.||

    The best I can figure is that he'd been using words considered derogatory by transsexuals. Some people complained, some emails were sent. I really don't think that counts as silencing.

    I think this is less about politics as it is about a narcissistic celebrity who can't handle criticism.

    I also don't know the gory details, so I may be just talking out my ass.

    It looks from the little I've read, that RuPaul has simply went off talking points. I'm guessing the twittersphere erupted.

    It sounds (to me) that RuPaul is wincing a bit at the constant use of 'community' from the people who write 90s style critical theory.

    I'm no expert on RuPaul, but as my eyes and ears have crossed paths with him over the last... dare I say, two decades? He seems like a genuinely cool guy. LIke a guy who has a live-and-let-live personality, like someone who actually practices tolerance, not just someone who preaches it. Which, to the 'tolerance' crowd, is sometimes blasphemy.

  • SusanM||

    I live by the attitude of live-and-let-live. But that doesn't really work unless everyone else is kind of on board, no? Kind of like that old George Carlin routine "My grandfather always said "live and let live - anyone who disagrees take 'em outside and shoot the motherfucker!"

    Seriously, I'm not saying RuPaul is wrong - there are plenty of purist busybodies and any group of people - only that "the community" has done good for a lot of people and shouldn't be dismissed so glibly. I'd love a world where it wasn't needed but that's not the world we have.

  • SusanM||

    True, and good for him. He's worked hard for it and he deserves it but no one stays in the limelight forever. But the way of the world is that bad things don't happen to celebrities. And it's so easy for them to come to think things are better than they really are when you're a "social undesirable".

    Yeah, a "community" can come off bad at times, but in the best light they exist for people who've got no one else to turn to. If someone doesn't need it, fine, but that's no reason to dismiss the concept entirely.

  • ||

    He actually doesn't have a problem with community qua community. He takes specific issue with people who are aggressively trying to enforce norms that don't actually seem to fit with what most people in the community are worried about, and saying that there is a united community behind them.

  • SusanM||

    That's entirely possible but it just isn't the vibe I'm getting. Maybe I'm being too cynical but what I see is a whiny celebrity lashing out at bad press and criticism using the derogatory stereotypes a lot of people have about LGBT activists as an edge.

  • Duke||

    You guys are making me want to go watch the Bird Cage again. Just saw it a few months back. One of my all time faves.

  • Duke||

    You guys are making me want to go watch the Bird Cage again. Just saw it a few months back. One of my all time faves.

  • Duke||

    Iphones + squirrels

  • ||

    That's certainly possible. I've always gotten the impression RuPaul is pretty free-wheeling, but there could certainly be some hurt pride in there.

    It's also possible that the snippet I pulled doesn't do his comments justice. Here's the full interview. I was impressed by the sentiment.

  • SusanM||

    It's a lose/lose situation alright. He's pretty much saying "I can say what I want and no one can criticize me for it since I'm the only one who's ever suffered misfortune". A lot of special pleading for a such a short clip.

    But getting back to where I begun, I have no problem with the message regarding ideology police - just the messenger ;) If this were the transwoman who was arrested in Arizona for intent to manifest a conspiracy to attempt to commit prostitution or whateverthefuck I wouldn't be talking about it.

  • ||

    Fair enough. I think entertainers are usually imperfect messengers, but they tend to have voices loud enough to be heard.

  • SusanM||

    True and I'd be a damnable ingrate not to acknowledge the positive contributions RuPal's generally PG-13 image had made to trans-acceptance. But he's not beyond criticism.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    /flips through End Times research material

    Yup, here it is:

    "And, lo, the Bear of the West spake unto the unfaithful the WORDS of both HE and SHE declaring: Thou are as little BITCHAZZEZ, and the Invisible Hand shall slappeth thee upside the dome for thy disdain for TRUTH. The PATH is not to imitate the wicked in their dark imaginings, but to unwaddeth thy loincloths from thy buttocks and pursue that which is kind.

    But the unfaithful were lost in fevered domains of Kos and Huff and could not hear the WORDS related by the Bear. So he retired unto his abode to console himself with pressings of lime and juniper, holding himself against the day when the CHANGE could come."

    Creepy.

  • Dweebston||

    That's not the point of these laws. The point is to punish a politically unfavorable person who holds personally odious beliefs.

  • LiveFreeOrDiet||

    Do you really want food from someone who does not want to make that food for you?

    Force me to bake? Haggis cake with limburger chunks and flake salt-habenero frosting.

  • Dweebston||

    I disagree with Colorado's public accommodation discrimination laws, but at least they are actual laws.

    What a sad state in which this is the strongest affirmation one can make about the wisdom of a political policy.

  • robc||

    And its a clearly unconstitutional law too. 1st amendment.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    In its decision, the panel required [baker Jack] Phillips to submit quarterly reports for two years that show how he has worked to change discriminatory practices by altering company policies and training employees. Phillips also must disclose the names of any clients who are turned away.

    "But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother gay people."

  • paranoid android||

    (Also of note: It is against the law in Colorado to put up a sign in a business that says anything similar to "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone")

    Never noticed the absence of those signs in Colorado, but they are ubiquitous here in Washington.

    Every time I see one, I can't help chuckling a bit and thinking, "Yeah, keep telling yourself that."

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    Makes more sense in the Long Form:

    We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone that is not a member of a social demographic or special interest group that has an activist lobby that donates large amounts of money to politicians.

    But that's a little wordy for a store sign so..

  • C. Anacreon||

    Waitress: You see that sign, sir? Yes, you'll all have to leave. I'm not taking any more of your smartness and sarcasm.

    Dupea: You see this sign? [sweeps all the water glasses and menus off the table]

  • MJGreen||

    The State will make you a better person, citizen. By any means necessary.

  • Hyperion||

    I feel better when others are forced at gunpoint to like me and agree with me, and associate with me. It makes me feel special.

  • Sudden||

    A police recruiter will be contacting you momentarily.

  • Duke||

    MORE FREEDOM CAKE PLEASE

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    I am, and have been, totally in favor of gay marriage if we as a nation are going to be giving out special prizes for getting married, but fuck me if the gay marriage crowd (or activist sub-crowd, whatever) aren't doing their best to validate the fears of the social conservatives who declared that this was going to be a vehicle to establish opposition to gay marriage as a thought-crime. The total disregard for the concept of free association is at the heart of this all, and I don't doubt for a minute that if it was an atheist baker refusing to bake a Jesus Loves You cake that the SoCons would be screaming for their own flavor of social justice, but what the fuck ever happened to just flipping someone the bird and moving the fuck on with your life. Good grief what a nation of self-centered, fragile-egoed, victimization-loving bitches we have become.

  • paranoid android||

    Yeah, but the gay rights movement didn't invent the public accommodation laws that spawned this. That door has been open for half a century now, gays are just only now getting the political clout to shoulder through it. If black people and women can get special legal protections for a past history of oppression, gays are at least as deserving of the same. I mean, I agree that it's bullshit, but it's not exactly anything new.

  • Sudden||

    I'm sorry, but no group (save Native Americans) can quite compete on the historical grievance front with blacks.

  • paranoid android||

    You're right, at least in the limited context of the past several hundred years of U.S. history. I agree I phrased that poorly.

  • Homple||

    Didn't spawn the laws but make damn sure to use them to harass people, don't they?

  • sarcasmic||

    I supported SSM when I thought it was about equal legal rights, but withdrew my support when the proponents started using civil rights arguments. At that point I realized it was no longer about equality under the law, but instead about punishing those who disagree.

  • ||

    Ah yes, the sarcasmic monolithic gay agenda theory. I swear I've read something here about how collectivizing people is a progressive tactic.

  • sarcasmic||

    So proponents did not use civil rights arguments and no one has been punished for disagreeing? Oh, well then. I guess I was totally and completely wrong.

  • ||

    All gays should be punished for the actions of some gays.

    Got it sarc, you're not collectivizing at all.

  • sarcasmic||

    Yeah. I said gays need to be punished. You got me. I said I hate all fags because I saw these lawsuits coming. That's me. A fag hater. And the only way I can repent is to support SSM. You got me. Red handed. Fag hating sarcasmic.

  • ||

    Histrionic much?

    You clearly at one point believed that treating gays and straights as equal under marriage licensing was a good thing. You decided that SOME gays would strong arm good Christian folks into compliance, and so you are willing to see ALL gays not have access to something you believed to be a good thing.

    Please point out where my above assessment was anything but accurate, or for that matter where I called you a homophobe.

  • sarcasmic||

    You decided that SOME gays would strong arm good Christian folks into compliance, and so you are willing to see ALL gays not have access to something you believed to be a good thing.

    I have always supported equivalent legal protections using a different word. Still do. That would solve the problem of legal protections. However that is not acceptable. So that tells me that legal protections is not the goal.

  • ||

    No, you did not say that gays need to be punished -- but you did say that you withdrew your support of SSM because "the proponents started using civil rights arguments" -- where the "the" implies that all proponents of SSM are equally use civil rights arguments.

  • sarcasmic||

    Well excuse the fuck out of me. Yeah, some started using civil rights arguments, alerting me to impending lawsuits by some proponents against those who disagreed. Well, guess what. I was right.

  • robc||

    While clearly not all gays, it doesnt seem to be an isolated individual either. The "movement", whatever the hell that means, seems to support this kind of action.

    Considering the LP is gay friendly, I wondered for years why there werent more gay Libertarians. For some reason I cant explain, a large percentage of gays are progressives.

    If gays are just like other people, but gay, then the distribution along the economic axis (at least) should be similar to the population as a whole.

  • sarcasmic||

    I've known more than one homo who had conservative if not libertarian tendencies, but they had to keep it to themselves. Like black who are critical of Obama. Voicing their opinions can lead to being ostracized.

  • ||

    I've known more than one homo who had conservative if not libertarian tendencies, but they had to keep it to themselves. Like black who are critical of Obama. Voicing their opinions can lead to being ostracized.

    Sadly, this is because most progressives seem to be politically intolerant assholes.

    I can't for the life of me understand how such people manage to hold so much cultural sway. They are the modern manifestation of the opinionated church lady that gets in your face about your church attendence not being sufficiently regular.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    Considering the LP is gay friendly, I wondered for years why there werent more gay Libertarians. For some reason I cant explain, a large percentage of gays are progressives.

    It's not to strange when you consider that for the vast majority of people politics is a binary Team Red v. Team Blue thing. The Blue team is a lot more welcoming to homosexuals than the Red team, and this probably causes them to give the Blue team a more favorable hearing. Just look at the shit that GoProud has to put up with.

    Then add in the Blue team messaging that libertarians are just some vile sub-species of uber-reds, social conditioning, and the logical fallacies by which people operate and it pretty easy to see why many would never make the jump.

  • sarcasmic||

    This whole Red Blue thing still confuses me. Fucking commie progressives should be team Red.

  • PapayaSF||

    Which is precisely why the media decided they should be Team Blue.

  • ||

    This whole Red Blue thing still confuses me. Fucking commie progressives should be team Red.

    I think it had something to do with the way the maps were represented during Bush v. Gore. IIRC (and I could be misremembering) they alternated every election cycle, but Bush/Gore fell in a year when Dems were represented with Blue and Reps with Red and it slipped into the popular discourse.

  • paranoid android||

    Wait, so was the whole red state/blue state taxonomy not a thing before the 21st century?

  • ||

    W00t! Memory apparently serves me correctly.

    This terminology came into use in the United States presidential election of 2000 on an episode of the Today show on October 30, 2000. According to AlterNet and The Washington Post, the terms were coined by journalist Tim Russert, during his televised coverage of the 2000 presidential election. That was not the first election during which the news media used colored maps to depict voter preferences in the various states, but it was the first time a standard color scheme took hold; the colors were often reversed or different colors used before the 2000 election.

    Wikipedia explicitly points out that it's a reversal of popular historical use:

    This reverses a long-standing convention where the red symbols (such as the Red Flag or Red Star) are associated with revolutionary movements,and conservative movements often choose blue as a contrasting color.
  • ||

    If gays are just like other people, but gay, then the distribution along the economic axis (at least) should be similar to the population as a whole.

    The gay rights movement was actually very conservative (assimilationist) in the '40s/'50s, but made most of its real headway during the heyday of the late '60s/early '70s.

    Politically gays seem to break more progressive or libertarian with progressive being the lazy default. I would posit this is because they are outright rejected by the GOP (starting to change), and the LP is a microscopic fraction of the overall political pie. I think you'll notice that gays ~4% of the population rival women ~51% as commenters here.

  • Swiss Servator, CH yeah!||

    C'mon jesse, everyone knows TANFL!!!!

  • robc||

    progressive being the lazy default

    I would posit this is because they are outright rejected by the GOP (starting to change), and the LP is a microscopic fraction of the overall political pie.

    But those still dont make sense. If you are economically conservative/libertarian (I distinguish, I hate the social liberal/economic conservative concept, it isnt true) but rejected by the GOP, how do you end up progressive?

    You might be a democrat if a minority party isnt for you, but you should be something like a blue dog democrat. Okay, maybe not exactly that, but some category that no one describe as progressive.

    The elusive libertarian democrat, for example.

  • ||

    I don't know what to tell you rob. I've had some really great discussions about economic liberty at dinner parties with people who vote largely Democrat party line.

    An acquaintance once joked that he liked libertarianism but disliked libertarians (I get the impression he's really only encountered Objectivists), and I find that cluster of beliefs surprisingly frequently in my non-SF gay friends (the SF ones are a completely lost cause).

    I also don't know what you have against the socially liberal/fiscally conservative construction. It seems to describe people who are pro-gay, pro-choice (though often uneasily), pro basic safety net (but anti-permanent-welfare-state) and pro-business.

    I think Dances-with-Trolls is largely correct. People view American politics as a binary. My parents political beliefs shifted in incredibly stupid ways under the Bush administration. They went from being essentially Reagan Republicans to thinking Medicare D was right and just as was NCLB. I don't think most individuals spend as much time thinking about their politics as we clearly do.

  • Dweebston||

    It's so difficult to explain the nuanced libertarianish view of things. "I support equality in marriage licensing, but vehemently oppose socially normalizing gay marriage by force of law. I support a man's right to discriminate based on his beliefs, even if I do find him somewhat repugnant for doing so." Then again, we've been trying for decades to explain the difference between prosecuting the war on drugs and partaking in drug use ourselves, so perhaps it's a lost cause.

  • sarcasmic||

    Then again, we've been trying for decades to explain the difference between prosecuting the war on drugs and partaking in drug use ourselves, so perhaps it's a lost cause.

    My wife is a conservative. Every now and again I try to explain that my opposition to the war on drug users is not because I think drugs are good, but because I believe the consequences of prohibition are worse. Still haven't gotten through.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    It seems most "people" do not possess higher order logical capabilities.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    God damn people for not obsessing over politics like libertarians do.

    FFS. Politics is not that important, and our ability to control politics is miniscule at best. If anything, the people ignoring politics and getting on with the rest of their lives are more rational in their ignorance than we are for specializing in a subject which we have little impact over.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Its not just politics. I said logic.

  • kbolino||

    WTF?

  • robc||

    See also, Rand Paul and the CRA.

  • Paper Wasp||

    I'm particularly enjoying the big, fat, Dagwood-sandwich of irony this week, when every media outlet in the West is shouting itself hoarse declaring that those rapey men have no entitlement to expect any sort of attention or services from women. But change "rapey men" to "gay couple," and change "women" to "businesses," and suddenly...well, you get my point.

  • robc||

    Wouldnt a (male) gay couple be made up of two rapey men.

  • Paper Wasp||

    True, but they want nothing from women (except possibly their shoes) so no harm done.

  • Sudden||

    Gay rape only occurs in prison. The biggest perk of being a gay man is your fellow gay man's willingness to put out so long as you're not Quasimodo.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Oppressed minorities get to judged by more lenient standards than members of the formerly oppressive majority. Don't you get that?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    I don't doubt for a minute that if it was an atheist baker refusing to bake a Jesus Loves You cake that the SoCons would be screaming for their own flavor of social justice


    I do. Yes, you'd probably have some dipstick at AFA or somewhere calling for a boycott, but the incredible Orwellian reaction at play in this decision quite simply is not conceivable in any of the 50 states, and has not been for quite some time.

  • robc||

    You would get a boycott instead of a legal proceeding.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Probably not even that--I suspect the fundie customer would be a lot more likely to simply say "Oh well," and find a baker that would actually take his money in exchange for a service. There might be some bloo-bloo in the media, but I doubt it would have any traction.

  • Paul.||

    In its decision, the panel required [baker Jack] Phillips to submit quarterly reports for two years that show how he has worked to change discriminatory practices by altering company policies and training employees. Phillips also must disclose the names of any clients who are turned away.

    Jesus this is Kafkaesque.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    "...I don't doubt for a minute that if it was an atheist baker refusing to bake a Jesus Loves You cake that the SoCons would be screaming for their own flavor of social justice"

    I can't speak to what every single SoCon would do, but we've had some examples in the past of what mainstream SoCons did and didn't do.

    If they think a business is promoting the gay-liberation program, sometimes they declare a boycott - "if you disagree with this business, don't buy their stuff." And they did a buy-cott of Chik Fil A encouraging people to eat there.

    If they wanted to bring in the power of the law, wouldn't that have been the time to attempt it?

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Now, I know some of them are into suppressing porno, but as for going after a legitimate business with the power of the law because that business didn't serve them - it seems more likely they'd just call a boycott.

    But of course it only needs one discontented SoCon to start a lawsuit, and if that happens we'd have to look and see what mainstream SoCon organizations do in response.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    "...I don't doubt for a minute that if it was an atheist baker refusing to bake a Jesus Loves You cake that the SoCons would be screaming for their own flavor of social justice"

    I'm skeptical of that. If the option was legally available to them some might but a lot of them would probably just publicly shame the business and find a different baker.

    Which is to say that socons probably understand how markets work better than progressives. But again, there is hardly any uniformity of opinion among people with socially conservative views.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    That's just it - some SoCons are actually economic liberals* - which is why you see articles in prog magazines about the alleged hypocrisy of conservative Christians supporting the free market.

    Even SoCons who *aren't* economic liberals are more likely than progs to have associated with economic liberals as allies. So they at least understand where the economic liberals are coming from.

    I get the impression that the most vocal gay activists are not particularly familiar with economic liberal principles, except as conveyed to them in fundraising letters which use the term "Koch Brothers."

    *Classical liberals

  • Sudden||

    Speaking of "Koch Brothers" you would think that the libertarian outlook would be tremendously popular among the gay groups based only on "teabaggers" and "Kochsuckers".

  • ||

    I'm skeptical of that. If the option was legally available to them some might but a lot of them would probably just publicly shame the business and find a different baker.

    Non-descrim laws seem to make a socially shaming angle impossible. In the Oregon case, the couple who was refused service posted on Facebook something to the effect of "disappointed they wouldn't do our wedding cake because we're gay" and then the state got involved and sued on their behalf when they declined to sue for themselves.

    I'm not sure we make the assumption that most gays are sue happy just because we hear that some gays have been.

  • robc||

    Other than you, I dont see gays coming out against the action.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Eh, I know someone in my personal life who is gay and who opposes what is going on in this lawsuit. Of course, he never was the strongest supporter of gay marriage either, but there you go.

  • robc||

    There are a few, but it doesnt seem to be a groundswell.

    It doesnt necessarily mean anything, it happens in other situations too. Ive only seen one UNC sports fan slagging on them over there academic fraud issues.

    I think Im too used to libertarians, and our willingness to eat our own for the slightest of faults.

  • Sudden||

    I usually opt for eating spent orphans first, as their youth tends to impart a greater tenderness to the meat.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    I would suppose that gay dissenters might not want the hassle of provoking the indignant activists.

    Most people don't spend a lot of effort on politics, and they don't keep up with everyone purporting to speak on behalf of their interests.

    It would be unfair to insist that someone follow everything organized groups say "in their behalf" and issue disclaimers any time one of the groups says something silly.

  • robc||

    I dont disagree (see above), but I would expect SOME responses.

  • robc||

    If nothing else, where are the log cabin republicans?

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Hmmm...I found this on the Web site of the LCR, concerning the Arizona religious freedom bill Brewer vetoed:

    "Today, those who would discriminate against gay Americans learned a hard lesson: they are on the losing side of history, and boy did they lose big. This bill failed because common-sense conservatives took a principled stand against it — indeed, had so many Republicans not been as vocal in their opposition, it may well be law today. Governor Brewer, Senator John McCain, Senator Jeff Flake and the myriad Republicans across the country who came out in opposition to this bill have proven themselves to be genuine leaders of today’s GOP. Log Cabin Republicans especially congratulates our Chapter President Erin Ogletree and our members in the Grand Canyon State who have been working tirelessly behind the scenes for weeks lobbying, calling, emailing, and fighting like hell against this harmful, bad-business law. Thanks in part to their efforts, freedom for all Arizonans has been preserved."

    http://www.logcabin.org/pressr.....1062-veto/

  • robc||

    So other than a handful of gay libertarians, no gays are outraged over this?

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    My point is we don't necessarily know, since it seems that the people who believe in the government doing this tend to be a lot more vocal and active than those with reservations. So if there *were* a gay person outraged, he might not risk the hassle of sharing his views with the public or other gays.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    If the option was legally available to them some might but a lot of them would probably just publicly shame the business and find a different baker.

    I suppose I should have prefaced my hypothetical with "if Christians enjoyed the same kind of cultural inertia"

    It's a people thing and a society thing rather than an ideology thing to me. What disturbs me is the broad societal acceptance of the idea that exercising free association rights should be legally forbidden, and punitively so. This idea pre-dates the gay marriage movement, so I don't put it on them as much as our culture as a whole, and worry for the disturbing implications of criminalizing thoughts and ideas. Hate-crime laws are another prong on this particular fork that I can't stand, for example.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Forbidding peaceful association is an incredibly disturbing idea, and it would be remiss to point out that today it is most clearly and specifically enforced as a virtue among progressives (particularly of the academic bent). I cannot think of anything analogous to this ruling in conservative canons, or any conservative praising such in the American tradition of modern conservatism. It is a lawsuit virtually mandating of this man a walk to Canossa; I am hard-pressed to find something more appalling in recent politics.

  • Sudden||

    I am hard-pressed to find something more appalling in recent politics.

    I'll not pretend to have the slightest iota of sympathy for such policy, but if you're really hard-pressed to find something more appalling in recent politics, you're not paying any attention to the rest of the State's actions.

    The militarization of police and federal bureaucracies, the NSA spying, the DoD directive granting the POTUS power to declare martial law and unleash military action on domestic soil.... those are the most appalling in my mind.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Good point.

  • Sudden||

    It's also what has hardened my own RKBA views.

    Molon fucking Labe all the way.

  • ||

    Holy shit, I hadn't heard about the DoD directive.

    That is fucking scary.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    A lot of "social conservatives" are also forms of socialists. I don't think you can call that issue one way or another.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    That's obviously wrong. Most Americans aren't socialists; hell most American "progressives" probably aren't by any measure other than the one which holds all government intervention = socialist.

    People have, from time to time, had principles which don't line up with libertarian principles.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Pretty much all "progressives" are socialists.

  • kbolino||

    Most Americans aren't socialists

    Find a social program that isn't supported by a majority of Americans.

    Many have overwhelming support.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    "I like a social program" =/= "The means of production should be held in common" (the broadest possible view of socialism)

    Neither is a particularly good viewpoint, but the former is qualitatively different from the latter and is believed by far more people than the latter. Libertarians who so often have their views misconstrued should be more careful to accurately characterize the views of others who they would have listen to them

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Are you Tulpa's replacement or something?
    Social programs = socialism.

  • kbolino||

    Is there a word you would prefer I use to describe people who believe in stealing from some for the benefit of others in the name of "society"?

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    I think the word socialism sums up all forms of statism nicely. Because they all come from the same collectivist bullshit. No need for further analysis between them.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    I think the word socialism sums up all forms of statism nicely.


    No, it doesn't. Helmut Kohl is obviously distinguished from Marx in a way that is significant, and assuming them to be equivalent yields a Manichean and unusable worldview with poor predicative power.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Yeah, statist or communitarian. Socialist has a whole slew of connotations beyond certain types of wealth redistribution within a generally capitalist paradigm.

  • Sudden||

    100% agreement with you Immaculate. Socialism has a very specific and narrow definition (which I gladly cite when informing people that Obama is, and Bush before him was, a socialist and point to GM nationalization as proof).

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    THAT'S NOT WHAT SOCIALISM MEANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
    -TIT

  • kbolino||

    Statist is too broad and communitarian is not accurate.

    I use socialist in the sense of someone who supports some form of redistribution, and I reserve communist for the meaning of "common" ownership.

  • Sudden||

    Transferist, income-discriminationism, Entitlementarian.

    We do need an appropriate terminology to be added to the lexicon for the concept that is not quite socialism but heavily influenced by it.

    Although, one could argue that it does fall under the rubric of socialism insofar as capital is a means of production and the entitlement state is nothing if not a claim on the capital of sovereign people.

  • Sudden||

    Although, one could argue that it does fall under the rubric of socialism insofar as capital is a means of production and the entitlement state is nothing if not a claim on the capital of sovereign people.

    Actually, now that I've thought of that, I'd politely ask Trouser to address it. I started off on your side in this whole pedantic discussion, but realizing that capital is one of the basic elements of production, it strikes me as becoming harder for me to refute the notion of that as socialism, even if only socialism-lite.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    "We do need an appropriate terminology to be added to the lexicon for the concept that is not quite socialism but heavily influenced by it."

    How about... socialism. People get what it means.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    And they can not be called principles without logical consistency from one issue to the next.

  • ||

    Not really. The boycotts and buycotts were specifically responses to corporate spending or advertising. Some SoCons are known for going after "raunchy" advertisers via FCC complaints, but I don't see where Home Depot advertising at a gay pride parade would violate any specific legal protections of conservatives.

    These non-descrim laws are a menace because they give strong arming someone for favorable treatment a specific legal grounding.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    I'll give you this much - the religious accomodation lawsuits we get against private employers for not accomodating a religious employee's beliefs or practices.

    But then, this is not unique to SoCons since Obama* also supports these kinds of cases:

    "On March 6, 2014, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released additional guidance on religious accommodations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), specifically on issues of religious garb and grooming in the workplace. The guidance requires employers to make exceptions to their usual workplace policies to permit applicants and employees to take part in religious dress and grooming practices, unless the requested accommodation poses an undue hardship to the business operation—for example, for workplace safety, security, or health reasons."

    http://aulaborlawforum.org/201.....practices/

    *I should say the Obama Administration, since maybe he hasn't read about this in the papers yet.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    This is profoundly, insanely evil. Here we have a case where a man's entire business practices and exercise of economic freedom is going to be put under the microscope for the next 2 years to assess his devotion to the state's idea of tolerance, and to whatever twisted idea of thoughtcrime the judges of Colorado have conjured up. Whoever conceived this issue as one with which to beat the hell out of the devout must be given points for brilliance; this certainly wouldn't have been imaginable even 10 years ago. Frankly it is a tragedy that the nation didn't simply move towards civil unions and then give the gay rights movement short shrift thereafter. We now get to suffer an even greater defenstration of our rights thanks to this idiocy, and I don't see how any libertarian or classical liberal in their right minds can claim that state-sanctioned gay marriage was worth this obliteration of freedom of conscience.

  • sarcasmic||

    Frankly it is a tragedy that the nation didn't simply move towards civil unions and then give the gay rights movement short shrift thereafter.

    SEPARATE BUT EQUAL! YOU HATE GAYS! YOU'RE A RACIST! BIGOT! HATER! SEPARATE BUT EQUAL! YOU WANT GAYS TO GET IN ONE LINE AND BREEDERS IN ANOTHER! HATER! THE ONLY WAY TO REPENT IS TO EMBRACE SAME SEX MARRIAGE! REPENT! SHOW YOU'RE NOT A HATER! BIGOT! HATER!

  • ||

    The religious conservatives kind of have it coming since they opposed civil unions and tried to explicitly ban gay marriage.

    Still that doesn't justify violating their freedom of association rights now.

    Two wrongs don't make a right.

  • OldMexican||

    By what legal authority does the panel make these demands of Phillips?


    It's right there in the "Because Fuck You! That's why!" clause of the Colorado State Constitution.

  • paranoid android||

    There's also a clause of that constitution that says Colorado can't host the Olympics, so at least some past denizens of the capitol had some sense.

  • OldMexican||

    the panel required [baker Jack] Phillips to submit quarterly reports for two years that show how he has worked to change discriminatory practices by altering company policies and training employees. Phillips also must disclose the names of any clients who are turned away.


    This requirement violates almost all protected rights in the Constitution, starting with Freedom of Association and Freedom of Speech, going through almost all the rest - the 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th.

  • robc||

    9th too.

  • paranoid android||

    But he's not being required to quarter any soldiers, so he's got that going for him.

  • robc||

    But if they were gay soldiers, the 3rd wouldnt protect him.

  • Tony||

    Replace gay with black and it all looks very unseemly on the part of the baker, does it not? I know you guys would defend them, but nobody else would. (I happen to think you're entitled to your view on public accommodation nondiscrimination laws, unlike many of your views that fail at internal consistency.)

    Sarc, your position is indefensible and evidently based on your own pissiness. What is this if not a civil rights issue? How are civil rights and social acceptance separable? Why is it a bad thing for gays to want to change people's minds about their bigoted hate against them?

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    "all looks very unseemly on the part of the baker"

    Ah, I forgot about the Anti-Unseemliness Principle governing legislation - ban everything unseemly!

    And there's no way that could *ever* have any blowback on gay people, no sir!

  • Sudden||

    I think you Catholics should seek legislation that requires punitive damages for adulterous behaviours within marital confines. That is so unseemly.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Why *punitive* damages?

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Suck a fat one tonight, dipshit.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Replace gay with black and it all looks very unseemly on the part of the baker, does it not?


    No, and even if it did who gives a fuck? The baker was peacefully exercising his legal rights, his human rights, and his freedom of conscience in a way which would not only have been defensible, but also obviously so a mere 10 years ago. I don't care that his views are not mine; his conscience and property is also not mine and ultimately he is the one who will be affected by his actions both here and in the hereafter. I see no reason other than pettiness to deny him that right, and even less to impose on him a straightjacket for how to run his business in a "tolerant" manner.

  • Tony||

    There are conflicting rights principles. The right to do business with whomever you choose, and the right not to be discriminated against by businesses in your own community. As I said, I think you're entitled to prefer the scales tipped one way rather than the other.

    I do think, though, that however antidiscrimination laws treat racial and religious minorities is how they must treat gays.

  • kbolino||

    the right not to be discriminated against by businesses in your own community*

    * not actually a thing

  • Tony||

    It actually is in this entire country.

  • kbolino||

    You can write it down on a piece of paper, that does not make it so. There is no "right" to positive action. But who am I kidding? You're too stupid or mendacious to recognize the distinction, and we've been over this dozens of times.

  • Tony||

    I don't want to live in a world in which rights are the arbitrary declarations of a fringe political theory. Rights are whatever the law says they are.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Rights are whatever the law says they are.

    Behold managerialist thinking in action.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "Public Accommodation" is an arbitrary declaration of a fringe political theory. Rights can be codified into law, but they exist above the law. The law cannot create rights that don't exist, because to do so impinge the right that already exist.

  • ||

    I don't want to live in a world in which rights are the arbitrary declarations of a fringe political theory. Rights are whatever the law says they are.
    reply to this

    Ahh. I see. So you want to live in a world where rights are the arbitrary declarations of the state. Not one where they are determined according to a coherent political theory.

    What makes the arbitrary declarations of the state any different than "might makes right"?

  • paranoid android||

    I'm curious, do you feel the same way about customers discriminating against businesses? If a religious couple specifically avoided seeking the services of a gay person's sole proprietor bakery for their wedding, would that decision be an injustice deserving state interference, in your opinion? Ignore, for the purposes of this thought experiment, the impracticality of determining when this has happened--I mean purely on principle, should the "actions" of the private individual be "changed" to your tastes by force?

  • Tony||

    No.

  • Tony||

    But I can think of a scenario in which it would be appropriate, just for shits and giggles. I do believe government can force you to own a product. (Say, car insurance, or health insurance! Or food for your baby.) Therefore it would not be legitimate for a person to refuse to comply on the basis that the president is black.

  • kbolino||

    I do believe government can force you to own a product

    Just skip the bullshit and come out as a communist. It'll save us all some time, and then you can have a consistent (albeit monstrous) set of principles.

  • Tony||

    So you don't think government should force you to feed your child?

  • Tony||

    I'm a European-style socialist or a libertarian depending on the angle you view my beliefs. I believe the market should be watched very carefully by the people. And I believe that because that is freedom, and freedom is good.

  • paranoid android||

    And I believe that because that is freedom, and freedom is good.

    An adherent of the proud leftist tradition of redefining words to mean the opposite of what they actually mean, I see.

  • kbolino||

    I believe the market should be watched very carefully by the people

    Consumers are not people?

  • Tony||

    By "the people" I mean all the people with an equal say. People don't have an equal say in the market.

  • Jordan||

    By "the people" I mean all the people with an equal say.

    The nice thing about the market is that 50% can't decide to enslave the other 50%.

  • Tony||

    No just the 1%.

  • kbolino||

    There is no such thing as an "equal say". When a decision is made and backed up by force, the people being fucked by it have no "say" in the matter.

  • ||

    By "the people" I mean all the people with an equal say. People don't have an equal say in the market.

    But your naive enough to think they have an equal say in the government.

  • kbolino||

    If I didn't want to feed my child, why would I want the government to force me to do it?

    Wouldn't I just feed the child myself if I wanted it fed?

  • Tony||

    Obviously a psychopath child murderer wouldn't want to the government to force him to do anything. But you want government to force his ass into a cell forever or maybe even take his life. You can't not be a child murderer without purchasing food for your child. Hence, government forces you to purchase something, and you think it's OK.

  • Jordan||

    Hence, government forces you to purchase something, and you think it's OK.

    No, it does not. It forces you not to starve your child. How you accomplish that is your business. That is not analogous to purchasing health insurance.

  • kbolino||

    If you lack the moral fiber to feed a child that you brought into this world, nothing the government does will fix you.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    So you don't think government should force you to feed your child?

    This is a remarkably stupid strawman, even for you.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Tony is not a communist. He is a child, and to him Government is Mother, Government is Father. He wants an authority to make him wash his face and brush his teeth and tell him right from wrong. Making decisions for himself is too scary.

  • ||

    Tony has a consistent set of principles.

    Might makes right.

    Oh, and it's perfectly okay to kill anyone that disagrees with you.

  • sarcasmic||

    There is no right not to be discriminated against. That places an obligation on others to do something for you.

    There is a reason why Jim Crow was codified into legislation. It's because not all businesses would voluntarily discriminate, resulting in those that would losing business to those that would not.

  • Tony||

    Spare me your ridiculous revisionism. Racism was not imposed on white southerners.

  • kbolino||

    If everyone agreed, there would not have been a need for the law.

    Some white Southerners were not racist ≠ no white Southerners were racist

    There's a space between everybody and nobody you fucking moron.

  • Tony||

    Enough of them were to impose their will via their legislatures. Governments are not alien species. Majorities elect them. Though really majorities of whites, since their laws prevented blacks from voting at all. As you surely understand, government is a powerful tool. Put it in the hands of racists and they will make racist laws.

  • kbolino||

    No shit, how on Earth does this serve as an argument against constraining the powers of government?

    People are shitty, put them in charge of government and they'll do shitty things, so therefore we should all love it because fucking democracy?

  • Tony||

    Constraining the powers of government means nothing. By definition it has a monopoly on legitimate force and presumably the means to exercise that. No matter how little government does, it will always be the most powerful tool people can use to impose their will on others. Racist morons who dominate society are not going to withhold their use of means of oppression, including government, because of a principle of limited government.

    No you are not required to love every outcome of democracy. The whole point of democracy is to make ideas compete.

  • kbolino||

    Constraining the powers of government means nothing.

    It means that the majority does not always get what it wants.

    No matter how little government does, it will always be the most powerful tool people can use to impose their will on others.

    If this is true, then it is no better than anarchy. You cannot claim anarchy is morally bankrupt, describe government as no different from anarchy, then proclaim the moral superiority of government.

    Racist morons who dominate society are not going to withhold their use of means of oppression, including government, because of a principle of limited government.

    So the only principle then is might makes right. Again, how does this make government superior to anarchy?

    The whole point of democracy is to make ideas compete.

    That is a jumble of meaningless words.

  • Tony||

    I only believe that there will be some dominant power no matter what. I can no more envision a system of autonomous humans with no concentrations and assertions of power than I can a 10-dimensional universe. The only principle is might makes right, if you like. That's why it's smart to place the might in the hands of the people instead of the few, even if the few are the smartest human beings ever, the libertarians.

    It's not meaningless words. In democracies, ideas compete to gain ownership of the power that exists, rather than the power owning all the ideas.

  • Jordan||

    It's not meaningless words. In democracies, ideas compete to gain ownership of the power that exists, rather than the power owning all the ideas.

    Meaningless.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Government power is exercised by the few, always. All the people have is some influence over which group of the few hold the reins of power at any particular time. The larger the polity, the more insignificant that influence is on an individual level. It is that type of thinking that leads leftists movements towards the abyss of totalitarianism. Limits on the exercise of government power is vital to free society remaining free.

  • kbolino||

    That's why it's smart to place the might in the hands of the people instead of the few

    That's quaint, you think you have some measure of control over the beast.

    In democracies, ideas compete to gain ownership of the power that exists, rather than the power owning all the ideas.

    You yourself do not believe this to be true. We have a democracy yet according to you the few (the rich) are in charge.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    The right to do business with whomever you choose, and the right not to be discriminated against by businesses in your own community.

    By this logic, NBA teams could be forced to provide a contract to anyone who wanted to play in the league.

    Your argument makes no sense on its face, as its predicated on the assumption that this is the only baker in the community that can provide the couple with a cake.

  • Tony||

    Well the original civil rights movement did respond to the fact that black people were significantly barred from much of the commerce in their society. Gays are probably not significantly hindered in their ability to acquire wedding cakes. (They are wedding cakes, after all.)

    I do not claim that such laws are based on anything other than practical necessity. Sure it would be a net positive for freedom it were true that businesses were free to discriminate against minorities, but they didn't.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    I do not claim that such laws are based on anything other than practical necessity.

    But that's simply question-begging.

    Commercial discrimination against blacks was widespread, pervasive, systemic, and codified into law. There's no proof that any such status exists for gays--quite the opposite, in fact, as these type of lawsuits have been limited primarily to commerce associated with weddings, as a private choice of the business owner.

    Your analogy doesn't even hold up under scrutiny.

  • ||

    There are no conflicting rights. If you have apparently conflicting rights, some of them aren't real rights.

  • sarcasmic||

    I don't have a problem with gays changing peoples' minds. I have a problem with using force of government to do it. Because force of government means death. Hyperbole? Not really. Government summons you to court and you blow them off. So they send armed men to kidnap you and take you to court. You fight back against those who are initiating force against you. They kill you. Over changing someone's mind. Sorry, but while I don't agree with bigotry, I don't think it warrants death.

  • Tony||

    I don't believe in government using force to change people's minds either, only their actions when appropriate.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Suck a fat one.

  • Tony||

    Are you referring to a dick or a blunt? I'll take either or both, really.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    How about your meth pipe? The party drug of your "scene".

  • Tony||

    Are you under the impression that my scene is trailer trash?

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Yes.

  • Tony||

    You were misinformed.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    No, I'm not. You are trash.

  • Tony||

    But not of the trailer sort.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    But of the gay meth smoking sort.

  • ||

    Apparently THC may protect the brain against the more deleterious effects of meth.

    Too lazy to find a link.

  • sarcasmic||

    Unless those action are actively harming the life, liberty or property of another person, then government's got no business in getting involved.

    Refusing to do business with someone is not doing active harm.

  • Tony||

    Says you, and it depends on how you define liberty. If you don't have access to the same commerce in your community as other people, purely because of how you were born, then I argue that your liberty is being diminished.

  • kbolino||

    You are not "free" to take from other people who do not want to give to you, even if you want to give something in exchange.

    Your liberty has to do with things other people cannot do to you, not things other people must do for you.

  • Tony||

    So we're not allowed courts and police, which are necessary for property rights?

  • sarcasmic||

    So we're not allowed courts and police, which are necessary for property rights?

    Here we go again, confusing courts and police reacting to someone doing something like stealing or committing murder, and courts and police forcing businesses to do something like cater to customers they don't like.

    Because reacting and forcing are the same thing.

  • Tony||

    Courts and police cost money. So do public defenders. Juries require compulsory conscription. You don't want so-called positive rights then you don't get much of the constitution and your property belongs to whoever has the biggest army.

  • kbolino||

    Enforcement is a positive act. You can build the courthouse and hire the judge, but to impose his authority on me is not among your "freedoms".

  • Tony||

    If anarchy is the only morally permissible system then your moral precepts fail as a matter of pure shittiness.

  • kbolino||

    I never said there couldn't be a government, I said establishing one isn't an expression of freedom.

    In establishing a government, we give up some liberties in exchange for some privileges.

    You don't get to change that arrangement without my consent.

  • Tony||

    Who wants to change that arrangement? I just perhaps want to give up a few more (trivial) liberties in exchange for some better privileges. You don't get to claim that your checklist is the only morally legitimate one since both of ours are achieved by the same means.

  • kbolino||

    No, you want me to give up liberties that matter to me in order for you to get privileges that matter to you.

    You are free to give up more of your liberties. You are not free to take more of mine.

  • Tony||

    You want exactly the same thing. You want me to give up liberties that matter to me (liberty from potential bankruptcy due to a health problem) in exchange for privileges that matter to you (other people not being taxed a certain figure).

  • Jordan||

    liberty from potential bankruptcy due to a health problem

    Not liberty.

    other people not being taxed a certain figure

    Not a privilege.

  • Tony||

    You think liberty from potential bankruptcy via someone stealing all your money is valid. So why not liberty from the same via health problems? What's the difference? Both require tax dollars.

    And all you're saying is that people not being taxed more than they are is of such importance that it trumps the arguably quite useful liberty that comes with guaranteed healthcare.

  • Jordan||

    What's the difference?

    Robbing someone involves one person violating the rights of another. If you develop cancer, nobody has violated your rights.

    Both require tax dollars.

    Wrong.

    And all you're saying is that people not being taxed more than they are is of such importance that it trumps the arguably quite useful liberty that comes with guaranteed healthcare.

    No, I'm arguing that robbing others is not liberty.

  • Tony||

    Robbing someone involves one person violating the rights of another. If you develop cancer, nobody has violated your rights.

    This is the fascinating thing about libertarians. You are fixated on human agency. But it's completely arbitrary. There is no reason why societies should collectively care only about harm caused by humans. The ethical framework behind this fixation on agency is from like the 14th century. Nature does harm too, and when we have the means to mitigate it, there is no reason we can't use collective action to do so if we can use it for human-caused harm.

    Why wouldn't a right not to have cancer be a total positive thing, worth a hell of a lot of money? Sure we lack the means but if we had them, forcing people not to exercise that right because blahblahblah positive negative blahblah would pretty much be a crime against humanity.

  • kbolino||

    Sure we lack the means but if we had them, forcing people not to exercise that right because blahblahblah positive negative blahblah would pretty much be a crime against humanity.

    If it was really such a good idea, you wouldn't have to force people to do it. They would already be doing it.

  • Jordan||

    There is no reason why societies should collectively care only about harm caused by humans.

    You're right; there's not. Plenty of people give aid to those in need without involving violence. I know you just can't fathom that.

  • Tony||

    If people can collectively act to defend against humans why can't they do the same against other threats? There is no fundamental reason there's a difference. Thieves and rapers are just a part of the environment too.

  • kbolino||

    Thieves and rapers are just a part of the environment too

    If humans don't have agency, then how are they fit to be in charge of others?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Why wouldn't a right not to have cancer be a total positive thing, worth a hell of a lot of money?

    Sorry, but this is a piss-poor example, given the biological nature of cancer as a disease. You might as well argue that someone has a right not to get pneumonia because people can die from it.

  • kbolino||

    guaranteed healthcare

    Does not exist. This isn't even one of those mental exercises. You can't "guarantee" something that takes skills and equipment you don't have.

  • kbolino||

    You have the "liberty" to defraud lenders?

    You ought to have the "privilege" to steal from people?

    Why is your moral code superior to mine, again?

  • Tony||

    Because it increases people's well-being, comparatively. And remember, I have worldly evidence for that claim while you have theory only.

    You're begging questions all over the place. If taxation is stealing then there can be no taxation, right? Anarchy is the only morally permissible system? We need go no further--anarchy sucks, so any moral system that requires it sucks too.

  • Jordan||

    But you already asserted that anarchy is the only possible system, since the majority can do whatever it wants.

  • Tony||

    Anarchy is the only permissible system if your premise is that taxation is impermissible. Shit costs money. But what anarchy is exactly is an interesting question. Because I don't think it can truly exist. Somebody or something rules you, always. Be thankful when it's "the people" because it at least includes you.

  • Jordan||

    Be thankful when it's "the people" because it at least includes you.

    Unless the majority decides otherwise, right?

  • Tony||

    The alternative is a minority ruling, which wouldn't be fair.

  • Jordan||

    Define "fair".

  • kbolino||

    The alternative is a minority ruling, which wouldn't be fair.

    Minorities are not automatically unfair, any more than majorities are automatically fair.

    There have been undemocratic governments that have ruled with greater respect for the rights of their people than most democratic governments have ever shown.

  • kbolino||

    And remember, I have worldly evidence for that claim

    Cite it

    while you have theory only

    Don't hurt people or steal their stuff. Yeah, it's just a "theory" compared to your envy and wrath.

    If taxation is stealing then there can be no taxation, right?

    We give up some liberties...

    Anarchy is the only morally permissible system?

    to get some privileges.

    anarchy sucks

    According to your theory of government (above), it's no different from the existence of government. You have neither proved why anarchy sucks nor why government is superior to it.

  • Tony||

    Cite: all the comparative data on concrete metrics of human well-being that exist. Sweden is better than the most libertarian country I can think of--which is none. Hence your lack of evidence.

    You're right, I haven't proved that anarchy sucks. Why don't we assume it for the sake of argument? If not, that's cool. I respect anarchists for being consistent.

  • kbolino||

    Correlation is not causation, and you have once again failed to cite anything at all. In what ways is Sweden better, and how are these things caused by its government?

    Why don't we assume it for the sake of argument?

    Why don't we assume for the sake of argument that people don't need a government to force them to do the things that they already think are best?

    I respect anarchists for being consistent.

    Your "respect" doesn't mean much when the police start busting down their doors to enforce the laws you support.

  • sarcasmic||

    I respect anarchists for being consistent.

    You respect them for being the nothing to your all.

    Libertarian principles have nothing to do with the concept of "like" as you so often say.

    It's about understanding that government is force, and that force should only be used in response to force.

    Yeah, government forces us to pay for it. That's true. Which is all the more reason why it should be limited to reacting to force instead of initiating it. Because when it initiates force, it leaves no way for anyone to protect themselves because they protection from force is government's job.

    But that's the idea, isn't it.

  • sarcasmic||

    If taxation is stealing then there can be no taxation, right?

    Taxation is inevitable. There will always be a gang of men using organized violence, otherwise called government, as a license to steal. Everything government does relies on men using organized violence. From fighting off foreign invaders to keeping collecting taxes for cowboy poetry, organized violence is required.

    Organized violence is only justified when individual violence is justified. Is individual violence justified in the case of an invasion, robber, murder or rape? Yeah. Individuals have a right to use force in response to those things.

    For a minimum standard of living? No. Individuals don't have a right to force others to feed and house and clothe them.

    Collective rights negate individual rights, and without individual rights, unless you're part of the collective you've got nothing.

    But that's the idea, isn't it.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    You want me to give up liberties that matter to me (liberty from potential bankruptcy due to a health problem)

    So get rid of Medicare, Medicaid, and HMOs, go back to a cash-dominant payment system with listed costs for services--like what existed 50 years ago--and you won't have to worry about this, because you'll be able to afford the cost.

    Unlike the Krugmans and progressives of the world, I'm not afraid of the effects of deflation, because I have little debt and lower costs will increase my buying power.

  • ||

    I have way more debt than I'm comfortable with and I'd STILL accept that.

  • ||

    If you don't have access to the same commerce in your community as other people, purely because of how you were born, then I argue that your liberty is being diminished.

    Conversely, if you don't have access to participating in commerce purely because of your religion, then your liberty is diminished.

    What do you think diminishes liberty more? Being barred from opening a cake baking shop, for your entire life, because of your religious beliefs, or not having a particular baker bake you a specific singular wedding cake, because you are gay?

  • ||

    I don't believe in government using force to change people's minds either, only their actions when appropriate.

    Sure, kulaks weren't forced to change their minds about independent farming, only forced to assign their properties to the collective farms -- which was the appropriate action, otherwise the state obviously wouldn't have forced them.

  • Tony||

    Obviously I don't endorse such behavior by governments.

  • kbolino||

    So what should happen to people who don't want to pay their taxes, buy their government-mandated products, or sell to their government-mandated customers?

  • Tony||

    A justly determined fine?

  • Jordan||

    Why is it just?

  • kbolino||

    And if they refuse to pay the fine?

  • Jordan||

    Of course, you have no moral principle on which to object, since you believe those people had no rights.

  • Tony||

    Few people have rights under totalitarian regimes. Usually just the totalitarians.

  • Jordan||

    Which is fine, right? I mean, nobody's rights are being violated if they get shipped to prison camps, right?

  • Tony||

    Do they have a right not to be shipped to prison camps? Apparently not. No rights are violated. Decency and morality are, though.

  • Jordan||

    Decency and morality are, though.

    By what standard? Rocks don't have rights. Is it an immoral act to throw a rock off of a cliff?

  • Tony||

    By my standards. And those of the people, preferably. Nothing is guaranteed, and if a society is 70% racist then it's not likely to have laws that reflect this morality. I don't know what you want. To impose your moral claims on everyone and declare them sacrosanct? You and what army, exactly?

  • Jordan||

    By my standards.

    Which are?

  • Mickey Rat||

    "Decency and morality are, though."

    Rights are a conception of morality. To say the rights were not violated is to say morality was not violated either.

  • ||

    Obviously I don't endorse such behavior by governments.

    Not even if the government claims that "it increases people's well-being, comparatively"?

  • Tony||

    I wouldn't rely on government claims about such. I do think human well-being is a largely objectively determined thing.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    I do think human well-being is a largely objectively determined thing.

    If that was the case, no one would give a shit if someone made more money than them.

  • kbolino||

    I do think human well-being is a largely objectively determined thing.

    If it was objective, then it would not be subject to dispute. Yet here we are disputing it, because in fact it is not objective.

  • Tony||

    I said largely. I welcome political debates at the margins, and may the best man win. But there's no reason we should use government to prevent trespassing but not bankruptcy due to tornado.

  • kbolino||

    But there's no reason we should use government to prevent trespassing but not bankruptcy due to tornado.

    First of all, bankruptcy itself is the privilege. It is the government forcing your lenders to forgive your debts. Otherwise, you would be forced into debt peonage until you had settled what you owe.

    Second of all, taxing people who didn't cause the tornado to pay for the damage you suffered from the tornado is not justice. If the tornado killed people, does that mean the government should go around killing other people to make it "fair"?

  • kbolino||

    I welcome political debates at the margins

    But not substantive political debates, apparently. As long as everybody mostly agrees with you, you'll allow us to quibble over the scraps that are left over.

    You don't want fairness or equity, you want to be in charge.

  • ||

    We have a winner.

  • ||

    I wouldn't rely on government claims about such.

    You start to sound somewhat libertarian-ish. Better watch it ...

    I do think human well-being is a largely objectively determined thing.

    Highly unlikely. Just because all people need food, water, shelter, transportation, communication & energy (and possibly other things), it doesn't mean that their subjective well-being (the only kind possible) dictates the same amount, level and mix of those needs. That's what freedom is about: that the individual decides what it wants -- and what it is she's willing to pay for it. Because in this world (almost) everything is relatively scarce; if it weren't so, there wouldn't be any limit to human well-being: everybody would hang out on the infinite beaches where the sun always shines and the exotic drinks appear at the snap of the finger.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Replace gay with black and it all looks very unseemly on the part of the baker, does it not?

    Replacing gay with black doesn't change the principle of the matter any more than if you replaced it with polygamist.

    It's rather telling that you support putting this guy's customer base under the scrutiny of the state for two years--because that can't possibly set any bad legal precedents at all, right?

  • Tony||

    I don't know that I'm cool with that stuff, but I do hold that a government that grants you the privilege of making money using aspects of our taxpayer-funded civilization can impose restrictions on that entitlement.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    I don't know that I'm cool with that stuff, but I do hold that a government that grants you the privilege of making money using aspects of our taxpayer-funded civilization can impose restrictions on that entitlement

    Which is a completely disingenuous argument. Those things are now going hand-in-hand, because the fact is that the state is openly declaring "The only way we can be sure you're not committing thoughtcrime is to have a panel of bureaucrats dig into your books for two years."

    By supporting the latter, you're now implicitly endorsing the former as well. Because now that two years is established, why not five? Or ten? Or taking such measures to their logical conclusion--that there's no way for the state to be sure that you're selling cakes or window blinds or whatever good or service you offer to whoever walks in the door, and that everyone now has to submit their books to the scrutiny of some bureaucratic entity. Because remember, now it's there's legal precedent for this kind of action to take place, and the limits on this are completely arbitrary.

  • ||

    government that grants you the privilege of making money

    The fuck it does.

    taxpayer-funded civilization

    I pay my taxes too so you can fuck yourself with your restrictions.

  • Swiss Servator, CH yeah!||

    "Rights are whatever the law says they are."

    Behold the mind of the unprincipled!

  • paranoid android||

    TIL that slavery did not violate the rights of blacks because the law said that they had no rights to violate.

  • Tony||

    It violated their rights according to a theory of rights that deems slavery a violation. It didn't violate their legal rights since they didn't have any of those. This is not a philosophical difference we're having, but a semantic one.

  • kbolino||

    So then perhaps there ought to exist principles which transcend the whims of whoever holds the most guns?

  • Jordan||

    I'm still waiting for Tony to explain why it would be immoral for me to lock him in a cage if he threw a rock off a cliff or squashed a beetle. The simple fact is he has no coherent philosophy; his position his based entirely on emotion.

  • ||

    Fine then. *Should* blacks have a legal right to not be enslaved?

    *Should* people have a legal right to not bake cakes for people they disapprove of?

  • Jayburd||

    I kinda like this-"A group, as such, has no rights. A man can neither acquire new rights by joining a group nor lose the rights which he does possess. The principle of individual rights is the only moral base of all groups or associations.

    Any group that does not recognize this principle is not an association, but a gang or a mob . . . .

    The notion of “collective rights” (the notion that rights belong to groups, not to individuals) means that “rights” belong to some men, but not to others—that some men have the “right” to dispose of others in any manner they please—and that the criterion of such privileged position consists of numerical superiority."

  • ||

    Well at least the homophobic pricks didn't win in Colorado and pass a law reiterating 1st amendment freedom of association rights.

  • ||

    I'll say it again:

    Why is it that libertarians appear to be the only people open minded and tolerant enough to stand up for BOTH the right of gays to get married AND the right of religious conservatives to not bake them cakes?

  • ||

    Our brains are wired differently?

  • Flemur||

  • gary47290||

    If those who are opposed to equal marriage also opposed non discrimination and public accommodation laws across the board, I could respect them. Their opposition solely to gay wedding cakes is just bizarre, and hateful. Baking a wedding cake in no way requires them to accept marriage equality.

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