Gay/Lesbian Issues

News Flash: It's Already Legal to Deny Service to Gays in Arizona

Current fight a consequence of people on both sides using law as a blunt weapon

|

So that's what Richie Incognito is up to these days.
ACTV

So Senate Bill 1062 in Arizona is a bit of a stupid piece of nonsense, let's get that out of the way first of all. This "freedom of religion" legislation, passed by the state's legislature yesterday, is getting significant attention by people who think the law gives Arizona businesses the right to discriminate against gays.

Actually, Arizona's laws already give businesses the right to discriminate against gays. 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. You can read the bill here and see what is being changed in blue text. It's not very much.

Note that the law does actually allow for the state to outlaw religious-based discrimination as long as the state proves it is advancing a compelling government interest and that it's the least restrictive way of achieving that interest, so anybody arguing that bigoted firefighters will be allowed to leave gay folks to burn in their homes is full of crap (yes, that argument has bounced around as these types of bills have popped up in various red states).

So what the hell is going on here and why is there so much screaming? These laws are being ginned up in response to the current conflict over whether folks like bakers and photographers have the right to refuse to provide their services for gay weddings. So as those who support using the public accommodation laws to declare that wedding cakes and photographs are civil liberties push, religious conservatives are now trying to use the law to push back.

And so here we have two sides fighting to control laws to control things that shouldn't be controlled by laws. It should be seen as particularly telling that folks in Arizona screaming about this law don't seem to realize that it's already legal to discriminate against gays there. That's a sign this form of bigotry is perhaps not particularly widespread and becoming less and less of an issue as society has less and less of an issue with gay people. Gay people are not starving and freezing to death on the streets because nobody will sell them food or rent them shelter. There are, obviously, pockets of bigoted behavior against gay people, and we know about it because those who engage in it get lots of negative feedback when the media and the public catch wind of it.

People have the right to determine with whom they wish to do business. Occasional misbegotten bigotry is the price of living in a free society. Being an asshole is a right, while having somebody bake you a wedding cake isn't. It's sad in a way, because we'd all rather have wedding cakes than assholes, but we can't guarantee anything without freedom first. We have plenty of tools outside the force of the state to respond to bigotry. We have protests, and the media, and online reviews, and social platforms, and competition, and so many more ways to respond to bigotry than we did back in the days of segregation. The law should be reserved for prohibiting the state itself from engaging in bigotry (the "compelling government interest" exception). Once we remove the state's role in enforcing bigoted laws (like bans on gay marriage recognition) it's our responsibility to handle social discrimination through social channels, not through terrible blunt instrument of the legal code.

Update: Some Reason commenters argue I'm unfairly maligning the capacity of this law to expand freedom. A couple of little changes in the law may have bigger significance. It clarifies a whole list of organizations and private entities that can claim protection of religious expression, such as corporations, and would allow for defendants to invoke the law against private civil lawsuits, not just government actions.

NEXT: House GOP To Pass IRS Bills

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.

  1. All the bakeries and photographers and caterers that people think are being so horribly put-upon? They aren’t in the business of providing spiritual guidance or enforcing moral doctrines. They are there to turn a profit. As such, they are obligated to abide by prevailing civil rights laws, whether those laws protect people from discrimination based on race, religion, or sexual orientation.

    Should a restaurant owner be able to refuse service to Blacks because he has “moral objections” to race-mixing? Should an employer be able to fire a Muslim employee because he wants to run “a nice Christian workplace”?

    If they answer to both questions is NO, what justification is there refusing service to a Gay couple who wish to get a wedding cake or celebrate their anniversary in a restaurant? Does this bill allow people to use “religious freedom” as a justification for discriminating against ANY customer, or does it simply single out Gay citizens?

    Either way, it’s going to do WONDERS for tourism.

    1. Know your audience, dude.

    2. If they answer to both questions is NO

      That’s a mighty big “if” there, sparky.

    3. Should a restaurant owner be able to refuse service to Blacks because he has “moral objections” to race-mixing? Should an employer be able to fire a Muslim employee because he wants to run “a nice Christian workplace”?

      Yes. And I am not even a libertarian.

      1. Freedom of association and private property rights are so 19th century.

        1. I agree turning away customers is seldom sound business practice*, but it’s everyone’s right to be stupid with their own property.

          (*Chick-fil-A did a good business off its CEO’s stance on same-sex marriage, but it never had designs on turning away customers regardless of orientation.)

          1. But Chik filet does turn away the hungry on Sundays.

            1. And other stores turn away the hungry at 3 am. And on Christmas day.

              And, unfortunately, there are never ever any OTHER BUSINESSES that open when a single store or chain decides to not be open at a particular, because businesses don’t care about exploiting an opportunity to profit.

              1. I would put Taco Bell in the “Other” category…

            2. They’re closed on Sundays? Idiots.

      2. Thanks for clarifying, Ivan. Apparently the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 was just a figment of my imagination.

        1. Thanks for clarifying, Ivan. Apparently the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 was just a figment of my imagination.

          You asked “should” not “could.” And show me in the constitution where the government has the power to regulate who you can or cannot associate with.

            1. I AM THE LAW!

              /Dredd

              1. Actually I thought of Anthrax first. 🙂

        2. You said “should,” not “can they legally”. CRA has nothing to do with your question.

        3. The U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 violates freedom of association as well as private property rights by creating a fiction called “public accommodation” where such rights ostensibly don’t exist.

          1. Thank you for making it clear where your sympathies lie.

            1. It’s quite clear to anyone without a learning disability that my sympathies lie with liberty. Thanks for making it clear where your sympathies lie.

              And in case you are insinuating I am somehow a racist as you seem to be, please show where I said I was in favor of discrimination, as opposed to being against government coercion. It’s pretty telling when the best argument you can come up with in favor of your position amounts to little more than name-calling.

            2. Sympathies have nothing to do with it. Your arguments so far have been based on emotion, so I can see why you want the debate to be about your feeelings. That’s not going to work with people who are capable of rational argument.

            3. Chuckie, you’re new here. Welcome aboard. This is a libertarian website. You’d be well-served to actually engage what this libertarianism thing is all about before posting here.

              Thank you for making it clear where your sympathies lie.

              Not necessarily, but thanks for a teachable moment. WTF’s sympathies might well lie with the gays, but adherence to principals, such as freedom of association, requires allowing behavior of which one does not personally approve.

              Also, appeals to emotion do not go over well, here.

              1. “principles” dammit.

                I blame the public education system and the hours I spent staring at a door on which the word “principal” was painted.

              2. WTF’s sympathies might well lie with the gays, but adherence to principals, such as freedom of association, requires allowing behavior of which one does not personally approve.

                Bingo. I fail to understand why this is so hard for people like Charles H. to comprehend.

                1. I fail to understand why this is so hard for people like Charles H. to comprehend.

                  Because all they hear is “who wants cake?” And let me tell somthing, they all want cake.

                2. Bingo’s not here, man. 😛

                  I had a long, hard path to libertarianism, and therefore sympathize with Chuckie. Until they display obvious troll behavior I prefer to try to edumucate new commenters, rather than shout them down. We might actually gain a new recruit here. Dibs on the toaster.

            4. Aw no, Chuck’s all butthurt over his mondo case of FEELZ.

              1. Reason is the greatest gift, but not an easy gift to master.

            5. And thus we catch a glimpse of the rarest of creatures: a sarcastic asshole arrived to a political forum.

    4. Refusing services to protected groups in this day in age will your business, not due to government interference, but word of mouth. Bad reviews can outside pressure can kill these smaller businesses. I’d love to see a list of anti-gay businesses in my area so I know where to avoid. I’d love a list of gun shops that rant and rave about the Kenyan Socialist President, so I can spend my cash somewhere else. (He is a communist-raised, second generation red diaper baby, get it right, goddammit.)

      Its still their right to choose who to do business with, no matter what law is in place. They are private citizens, and a profit motive dows not change that.

      1. *reviews and
        *does

        Fuck me.

      2. If a gun shop owner who rants about Obama being a Kenyan Socialist President is willing to give me a better deal than one who doesn’t, I’ll go with the dumbo every time.

        His heart’s in the right place, he’s just pretty dumb.

        1. Eh, I typically buy online and have it shipped to the FFL. I only go to the gunstore to try’em out. The quieter store here charges the same transfer fee.

          1. How much do you pay per transfer?

            I won a Glock 30S on gunbroker recently and had to pay a $25 transfer fee at the local pawn shop.

            1. Nice. I had to pay $45.

              1. Holy god. Where do you live?

                1. In the Triangle in NC. Where the gun shops are few and expensive and the HOAs actually do put a lien on your home when someone loses their job and can’t afford to pay the $300 a year in dues.

            2. I pay 20 clams to a local guy that does ’em in his kitchen.

              The local gun shops are priced between $25-$40, and the big box places can charge up to $80.

              You got a pretty good deal.

            3. 25$ is normal here. One shop tried to charge people 40$, and had to adjust pretty quick.

              Honestly, all you are paying for is ten minutes of paperwork. Its a pretty good service to encourage.

              1. Doesn’t the ffl have to pay for the honor of using the background check system?

                1. Depends. My background check was already run by the sheriff’s dept when I bought a permit to purchase. As far as I can tell the ffl simply signed the papers attesting to the fact that I had a legal permit to purchase and filed them away for future LE perusal.

                  1. My background check was already run by the sheriff’s dept when I bought a permit to purchase.

                    You have to buy a permit to purchase a firearm? WTF?

                    *places NC on list of places to never relocate to*

                    When you say you’re in NC, is that NC as in North Carolina? I want to make sure I get my list of places to never move to right.

                    1. Yep. You have to submit an application for a permit to purchase a firearm to the sheriffs dept along with a fee of $20 per permit. You can apply to receive up to 5 at a time and they’re good for 5 years. The police dept does the background check and you cannot legally buy a firearm at any gun show, shop or through private buyers without one of these. However, if you already have a gun when you relocate here, you don’t have to register it or do anything unless you plan to carry concealed.

                2. Yeah, that can be baked in or a seperate fee, depending on the store. I pay it seperatley, and count it seperatley. $10 cash. Last time I bought a gun back home, I didn’t even get a receipt for that.

      3. We should build an app. Proscript. Enough negative reviews and it gives you a warning about whether or not you should patronzie a place.

    5. “They aren’t in the business of providing spiritual guidance or enforcing moral doctrines.”

      That’s not for you to say, actually. You can pursue those goals and a profit at the same time.

    6. Should a restaurant owner be able to refuse service to Blacks because he has “moral objections” to race-mixing? Should an employer be able to fire a Muslim employee because he wants to run “a nice Christian workplace”?

      Yep.

      You’re yelling on the wrong street corner, man.

    7. “Should a restaurant owner be able to refuse service to Blacks because he has “moral objections” to race-mixing? Should an employer be able to fire a Muslim employee because he wants to run “a nice Christian workplace”?”

      Yes and Yes.

      For the life of me I don’t know why people want to push bigots into the underground. It’s good to know who is and isn’t bigoted so we can avoid them. Knowing your photographer or baker is bigoted is good info to have as it helps you avoid shoddy services.

      1. Also, let’s consider the SJW side of this coin: should lesbians and gays be allowed to set up establishments that are designated safe spaces? Necessarily, a safe space (for example, let’s say a bar) is going to exclude at least homophobes if not straight people altogether.

        Should black people be allowed to have their own business that caters to their neighborhoods? of course.

        Shouldn’t women be allowed to set up a place to get a drink without having dudes around, other than lesbian bars of course? Yeah.

        1. What the fuck is SJW?

          I saw this yesterday, or the day before. I even googled it an only got a stock ticker.

          is the middle one ‘jewish’?

          1. Social Justice Warrior

            A bunch of ugly cat ladies on Tumblr. Pay no mind.

            1. Well shit, if its a 3-letter acronym, and it ISNT some murderer pretending to be a chick looking for cheap sex in the back of the Village Voice, I am struggling to find any reason to give a shit *at all*.

              “warrior”? Tell me they dress up. You know, like furries. Only with capes and swords and shit. That might make it more interesting.

              1. They’re Politically Correct LARPers..

                “I cast Tanzey’s Microagression!”

                “I DISPEL USING MY HELM OF SADBEARD!”

                1. I was hoping more like this

                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..Q#t=07m19s

          2. Social Justice Warriors. The owner/operators of The Internet Outrage Factory.

            1. Why don’t we stick with griefers? It’s more apt and insulting.

              1. Or maybe even outrageaholics?

                1. the church of the aggrieved and the offended.

              2. Because it is a specific form of such. One may grief on any number of subjects.

              3. My father used to call them the “Rent-A-Mob” cause the same ones show up at all the different protests.

          3. Your google broke, dude?

            1. …Also, what the fuck is Google? too lazy to…

              Dude I told you. If its not in the first 2 links, I gotta ask somebody. I’m old fashioned.

                1. Ok, now what does NSFW mean?

                  By the way, that link had a man dressed as a woman showing its ass, and also fat people.

                  1. Not Safe For Work, buddy.

                  2. Now Start Furiously Wanking

        2. And this too. Why is the left so afraid of people choosing who to associate with? Control freaks every last fucking one of them.

          1. because the left’s belief in choice is limited to one issue. Everything else is force.

            Remember, these are the same folks who believe the likes of Hobby Lobby are trying to force their values on employees by not paying for certain contraceptives, while being purposely oblivious to the fact that they support govt doing the exact same thing to the company.

        3. Something like Japan has with women-only subway cars, right?

      2. This, this, and this. Why would you want someone who hates you baking your cake? You might as well go ahead and order it with extra piss.

      3. I don’t know that bigotry == shoddy services, though.

        1. It might if you are the one they are bigoted against.

      4. We should just make bigots wear armbands so they’re easy to recognize from a distance.

        1. According to SJWs (you happy Sug?) only old white males can be bigots. They should be easy to recognize.

          1. But still want to color code them by which particular bigotry their most into.

            1. Make sure the color for being bigoted against fatties will be flattering on 99.9% of Reasonoids.

          2. Unless they purchase an indulgence by donating to an SJW cause du jour.

      5. For the life of me I don’t know why people want to push bigots into the underground. It’s good to know who is and isn’t bigoted so we can avoid them.

        Pretty much this. I can’t wrap my head around why a gay couple would want to force a baker or florist who’s bigoted against gays to serve them anyway. Seems like a guarantee to end up with a shitty cake and/or flowers.

      6. Forcing integration was very arguably a practical and necessary step to reducing racism in society.

        1. Integrated schools and public services? Sure. The rest? Not really.

        2. How the fuck do you quantify the frequency, growth or decline of what is ultimately a human sentiment? Can you pull some magical charts and graphs our of your ass that illustrate this trend?

    8. If you’re a musician by trade, are you then obligated to play Hava Nagila at the local Neo-Nazi rally?

      1. Not if you object to them because of their religion. So make them Aryan Nations and they may have a case.

      2. A good and hilarious example, Gilmore.

    9. “Should a restaurant owner be able to refuse service to Blacks because he has “moral objections” to race-mixing? ”

      Yep.

      “Should an employer be able to fire a Muslim employee because he wants to run “a nice Christian workplace”?”

      Yep.

    10. Should a restaurant owner be able to refuse service to Blacks because he has “moral objections” to race-mixing? Should an employer be able to fire a Muslim employee because he wants to run “a nice Christian workplace”?

      yes, to both. There is this thing called freedom of association and, frankly, if someone is going to be bigoted or whatever, I would rather that be in the open. That way, I and other potential customers can decide for ourselves whether or not patronize those folks.

    11. Why should I be permitted to discriminate in who I purchase orange juice from for whatever reason I wish, but not be permitted to discriminate in who I purchase labor from for whatever reason I wish?

      Why should I be permitted to discriminate in who I purchase orange juice from for whatever reason I wish, but not be permitted to discriminate in who I sell orange juice to for whatever reason I wish?

    12. Freedom of association, anyone?

    13. “Should a restaurant owner be able to refuse service to Blacks because he has ‘moral objections’ to race-mixing? Should an employer be able to fire a Muslim employee because he wants to run ‘a nice Christian workplace’?”

      Dude, A little research, and you wouldn’t have had to ask that question to us. Being pro/anti discrimination isn’t the issue. We are anti-coercion. If someone chooses to discriminate against you on superficial grounds, guess what, they don’t get your business. Here’s a concept: How about instead of forcing someone to do business with you, you reward his competitor by doing business with him? Problem solved. You didn’t even need a decree by Top Men. We’re here all week if you have any other issues to work out.

  2. Just to be clear, the new legislation doesn’t mention gays or bakers, but it does strengthen the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act so as to close off various defenses of religious repression.

    For one thing, it explicitly provides that all corporations are protected by the law. The previous phrasing wasn’t clear, since the only specific example it gave was of religious institutions. Thus it would allow the government to claim that dirty for-profit businesses didn’t have freedom of religion, the very issue being litigated now under federal law.

    For another thing, it clarifies that the defendant in a private civil action can invoke the RFRA, if the plaintiff is trying to invoke the law against the defendant. Some religious-freedom violators get away with claiming that RFRA protections only apply to a legal or administrative proceeding initiated by a government agency. So the bill guarantees that if a baker is sued for “discrimination” by a private party, he’ll be able to invoke RFRA.

    So I’m curious whether Scott Shackford agrees or disagrees with these reforms. Or is he just going “ick, right wing religious nuts, whatever they’re doing must be wrong!”

    1. I don’t think they’re actually necessary, though I understand the argument.

      1. I think, reading the wording of the law, that it will prevent certain lawsuits where the party suing is in fact trying to infringe upon the (probably icky) religious beliefs of the sued party.

        So, the law appears to me to be a good, liberty-enhancing law.

    2. Over in New Mexico, interpreting a similar RFRA, the state said the law didn’t apply when a private plaintiff tried to get a defendant to violate his conscience:

      “Elane Photography could not benefit from the protections provided by the NMRFRA, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled, because the statute applies only to legal actions in which the government was a party. Therefore, the statute did not to apply to this case, because Vanessa Willock, not the State of New Mexico, was Elane Photography’s opponent in court.”

      http://www.fed-soc.org/publica…..t-ceremony

      The Arizona bill corrects this problem by saying people like Elaine Photography can invoke the Arizona RFRA.

      And the provision re corporations prevents religious oppressors from acting like the HHS in the US Supreme Court and saying that for-profit corporations cannot have religious freedom.

      1. These are actually good points.

  3. So just to be clear: Reason.com is against freedom of association?

    Also, and this is a fun thought experiment: Does a gay bakery have a right to decline to cater a Westboro Baptist Church “We Hate Gays And So Does God” conference? Or should we force them as well?

    1. For fuck’s sake, learn to goddamn read.

      1. I think it might be considered “religious discrimination” for a gay caterer to refuse service to Westboro based on their religious view of “God Hates Fags.”

        It would also be “religious discrimination” for the caterer to have religious objections to putting the phrase “God Hates Fags” on their cakes.

        If the caterer is a for-profit corporation, Westboro would be able to claim that for-profit corporations aren’t entitled to religious freedom.

        And Westboro would be able to claim that, since they’re a private plaintiff, their attempt to invoke legal penalties against the caterer doesn’t implicate religious freedom at all!

        The Arizona bill would protect gay caterers whose religious beliefs dissent from Westboro’s.

        1. “Gay people are not starving and freezing to death on the streets because nobody will sell them food or rent them shelter. ”

          This should be reserved for the cretins of Westboro “Baptist Church.”

            1. Fascinating. Thanks, Eddie.

            2. We shoulda pussycotted the Olympics.

    2. No, Shackford’s just annoyed that the libertarian position lines up more closely with the social conservative one in this case.

      1. Yes, it’s not enough that he follows his principles to side with idiots and bigots, he must joyfully side with idiots and bigots.

        Goddammit, Scott! Love the people who are disgusted by you!

      2. Are you people all victims of surprise lobotomies?

        1. *hides ice pick behind back* *whistles suspiciously*

          Pay no attention to me.

        2. They’re just having trouble thinking straight because their room’s startin’ to spin real fast… ’cause of the gayness.

    3. So just to be clear: Reason.com is against freedom of association?

      I would say no, FTA

      And so here we have two sides fighting to control laws to control things that shouldn’t be controlled by laws.

      1. One side wants to limit freedom, the other wants to expand it.

        But the side seeking to expand religious freedom is a side I don’t like, so I’m going to make them morally equivalent to the side trying to limit freedom.

        1. “the other wants to expand it.”

          In this case, and for a pretty loathesome reason. People can exercise their freedom in ways we can be free to denounce.

          1. One side wants to limit freedom, and the other side wants to expand it.

            Some might think that hippies campaigning for legalizing recreational MJ are acting for loathsome reasons.

            1. Sure, it is not unheard to support a hippie’s rights out of principle but feel like taking a shower afterwards, especially when, in many other contexts, the hippies in question are no friends to liberty.

              1. So, what’s your point? That supoprting people you don’t like is sometimes necessary?

                No one here needed to be told that.

                1. What was Eddie’s point, that Scott should have to love it?

                  1. He can hate on the bakers and candlestick makers all he wants!

          2. so denounce them, bo. You would no doubt fine plenty of company and, quite possibly, people who would be offended enough to not patronize such businesses. It can also work the other way as with the round-the-block lines in defense of the Chik-fil-a CEO’s view of marriage.

            Freedom of expression is chilled when govt says everyone has to like everyone else.

  4. Being an asshole is a right, while having somebody bake you a wedding cake isn’t. It’s sad in a way, because we’d all rather have wedding cakes than assholes, but we can’t guarantee anything without freedom first.

    You win one internets for this gem, Scott.

  5. “The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.” – H. L. Mencken

    1. good quote

  6. The same people (and yes, it is often the same people) who want to deny Christians their freedom of association want to protect radical feminists’ freedom of association to exclude transgendered people. Want it both ways much?

    1. “want to protect radical feminists’ freedom of association to exclude transgendered people”

      ?

        1. I’m afraid I am unwilling to click on a site named ‘b*tchmagazine.com,’ could you give a little summary?

          1. I’m not doing any more googling for you past this:

            http://theterfs.com/

          2. Hold your breath.

          3. I believe that some radical feminists don’t like letting transwomen (M2F) into their clubhouses. Because they might still have pee-pees or something.

            1. Thanks, Tonio, for that elegant and efficient summary!

              Would to Almighty God that you worked in writing legal case reviews…

    2. Radical feminists own businesses and want to exclude transgendered people from shopping in them?

      Da fuq?

      1. If you are willing to read Neoliberal’s links perhaps they have an example of that?

        1. It’s true. I read the second one and there are examples of radical feminists actually arguing that.

          1. I have to say I’m curious, why?

            1. Transphobia in the feminist community isn’t new and continues to be promoted by radical feminists such as Sheila Jeffreys, Germaine Greer, and Julie Bindel who pathologize transgenderism for a variety of reasons. They characterize being transgender in various ways: as an extremely kinky sexual practice or a mental illness such as body dysmorphic disorder. Sometimes the criticism is paternalistic in claiming that transgender people are merely exploited victims of the medical industry’s drive to make money with various surgical and hormonal procedures. The 1994 book Transexual Empire: The Making of the She-Male by Janice Raymond describes being transsexual as a medical invention manufactured to create profit. Another criticism is that transgender people reinforce gender roles or expression. For example, Germaine Greer once referred to transwomen as “ghastly parodies of women” with “too much eye-shadow.” Sometimes the attacks on transgender people reach conspiracy levels by those who see the phenomenon as an effort by men to turn themselves into women in order to infiltrate “women”-only spaces. Radical feminists Lierre Keith and Derrick Jensen blend transphobia with “anti-civilization” environmentalism in Deep Green Resistance (DGR). Julie Labrouste, a contact of Radical Women, was repudiated by DGR, which had been urging her to join until she mentioned she was trans-female.

              1. Wow, sometimes you really have to climb the mountain of stupid that is feminism staring at its own navel ring to remember how silly and insular it can get.

              2. You are a brave man, Outlaw, a brave man. Thank you for going there so the rest of us didn’t have to.

            2. Vaginas, magic, and Germaine Greer, that’s why.

  7. I do not get that it is clear that government actors would not be able to refuse service to people, and while I think private actors should be protected from non-discrimination laws (though it should be based on freedom of association and available to anyone, not just on religious grounds) I do not think government employees should be able to.

    1. Agreed. Government officials and employees shouldn’t be able to deny public services to anyone based on their own personally held religious principles.

      There was a proposed law in Kansas recently that enabled them to do this. IIRC, it was pulled.

      Clear violation of the first amendment, IMO.

  8. as long as the state proves it is advancing a compelling government interest

    Again with the “compelling government interest”. WTF does that even mean?

    1. “Because we want to.”

      Government is its own compelling interest.

      1. Unlike government, “the stars never compel; they merely impel.”

    2. Whatever the hell some thugs with the government want to inflict upon us.

      Really.

      1. No, not really. Anarchist delusions FTL

        1. Cite me one example of where the government ruled it had a “compelling governmental interest” where it wasn’t trying to violate the Bill of Rights or other limitations on the power of government.

          Go ahead, I’ll make popcorn.

          1. uh, what? How about I provide you all those times where it was found the government did not have a compelling interest and a law was struck down? Because there are lots of those.

            Your sentence makes no sense, but that’s because you don’t know what you’re talking about.

            1. It made perfect sense to me, it seems you just can’t read very well.

              1. It made no sense. “one example of where the government ruled it had a “compelling governmental interest” is pretty nonsensical. I think he meant to say where government’s argued or where courts found.

                1. It made no sense. “one example of where the government ruled it had a “compelling governmental interest” is pretty nonsensical. I

                  Not really, you’re just not good at reading I guess.

                  It makes perfect sense, the govt makes a decision on why it is challenging something every time it challenges something.

                  This isn’t hard, so I have to wonder how intelligent you could poddibly be to think it makes no sense.

                  1. When the government restricts someone’s liberty and the person takes them to court then the government might argue it had a compelling interest to do so (and it might not if it thinks a lesser standard would do), but it doesn’t ‘rule’ it does.

                    1. but it doesn’t ‘rule’ it does.

                      What part of ” the govt makes a decision on why it is challenging something every time it challenges something.” are you having trouble with?

                    2. A “Ruling” is very clearly meant to mean “court ruling”. If you want to change the definition of how the word “rule” or “ruling” is used in the context of the compelling interest test, well, that’s why you’re stupid.

                    3. Let me spell it out for you:

                      The question was, “what does compelling interest mean?” prolefeed answered, “Whatever the hell some thugs with the government want to inflict upon us.”

                      That’s just flatly wrong.

                    4. Let’s clarify further, anticipating your tired talking point that the statement is technically true because the courts are part of the government. That’s not what prole meant, and that’s clear from the context. He practically equated the United States with North Korea, something foolish anarchists do every single day that grows extremely, ahem, tiresome.

                    5. He practically equated the United States with North Korea, something foolish anarchists do every single day that grows extremely, ahem, tiresome.

                      I did nothing of the sort. What I was saying is that when the government trots out the words “compelling governmental interest”, you should expect to see those words used to justify a violation of the actual language of the Bill of Rights or some other part of the Constitution that limits government power.

                      Then I challenged you to come up with even a single example of those words being used by the the government to limit government power and expand freedom.

                      Still waiting on that specific example, BTW.

                    6. That’s not what you said. You said:

                      Cite me one example of where the government ruled

                      not “trots out.” Naturally, you’re shifting your standard.

                    7. Here’s a place where the strict scrutiny test applied and it had nothing to do with the Bill of Rights, unless you think there’s a right to unemployment compensation:

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherbert_v._Verner

                      Adell Sherbert, a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, worked as a textile-mill operator. Two years after her conversion to that faith, her employer switched from a five-day to a six-day workweek, including Saturdays. Since according to her belief, God in Exodus 20:8-11 forbade working on Saturdays (seventh day is the Sabbath), she refused to work that day and was fired. Sherbert could not find any other work and applied for unemployment compensation. Her claim was denied, and the Employment Security Commission’s decision was affirmed by a state trial court and the South Carolina Supreme Court.

                    8. The government here used the phrase a “compelling governmental interest” to defend an action that SCOTUS later ruled 7-2 was an abridgment of the defendant’s First Amendment rights, so this isn’t a particularly good example of the point you’re trying to defend.

                      Of course, this is the typical muddled situation where the government first infringed on the rights of employers by demanding they supply unemployment compensation, and then tried to enforce that unjust law, but then tried to mitigate the costs by denying the claim of someone applying for the unjust claim upon the employer.

                      I will stipulate that there might be a case somewhere out there where the government unambiguously advanced freedom without any of this coercion to enforce coercion mess, using the phrase in question, but this example is the opposite of that.

                    9. Shorter: if a habitual wife-beater refrains for once from beating his wife because he claims he felt mercy was a good idea in the situation due to “compelling wife-beating interests”, that non-beating isn’t exactly a heart-warming example of moral rectitude.

                    10. Neither of them know what they’re talking about, Bo. No sense in engaging the willfully ignorant.

              2. If it made sense to you that’s your problem. His problem is that his response is not responsive to what I was saying.

                1. If it made sense to you that’s your problem.

                  I’ll suffer the problem of being smarter than you all day long guy, it’s a low bar to clear.

          2. Where the government ruled or where the government argued? Sure, the government usually argues it has a compelling interest, but Neoliberal is right that if that is the bar they have to meet they do lost quite a bit.

        2. Solid argument.

        3. Now we see the derp inherent in the system

    3. In theory, that was the standard the federal courts applied before 1990 when a “neutral” law “just happened” to infringe religious freedom. Then the Court said such violations were OK so long as they were consistently repressive and not targeting the religion in question. Then Congress and many state legislatures responded by trying to reinstate the old, pro-religious-freedom standard.

      So it wasn’t an innovation, just allowing for things like human sacrifice, beheading infidels, and other religious behavior the govt has a right to repress.

      1. “that was the standard the federal courts applied before 1990 when a “neutral” law “just happened” to infringe religious freedom”

        With high irony, it was the standard followed by the liberal Warren Court full of bad ol’ judicial activists SoCons usually complain about, and in the new 1990 case Scalia was the author. Of course that case involved drug using Indians so, totally different!

        1. Where’s So Conz Esq when you need him?

          1. Shhhh!! The Botard is conjuring it!

      2. Allowing for the *banning* of things like etc.

  9. Reread the bill, trying really hard to see if I missed some legitimate point that Scott Shackford was making, and it’s just not there.

    WTF, Scott? This is a GOOD bill. It unambiguously expands freedom, and prevents lawyers from suing over stuff that the First Amendment says you can’t sue over.

    1. I think he was arguing the bill was unnecessary, but soundly agreed with the desired effect.

    2. I read it as well. It mostly just seems unnecessary given that a) Arizona already allows for someone to refuse services to homosexuals for any reason and b) it wouldn’t do anything to protect against a federal lawsuit under CRA.

      It seems to neither expand nor contract freedom.

      They might as well have pass a resolution called “In case you were wondering, we still hate fags around here but we can’t really do anything about so we are pouting.”

      1. I don’t really know how law works in this sort of thing, but is there a value in passing a “no, we really really mean it” type law to reinforce an existing law?

        For example you could pass a federal law reinstating what the “commerce clause” actually says, and though it technically would be redundant, the effect might not be.

        Or even more simply: re-write the 1st amendment with exactly the same words, only demand that when printed the word ‘no’ should always be printed in bold italics?

  10. “No soup for you! One year!”

    Legal or illegal?

    1. Hey, he’s a Nazi. And probably a Rand-spouting teabagging Kochsucking corporation loving libertarian (though I don’t remember a top hat, striped pants or a monocle.)

    2. Depends, was the customer part of a protected class?

      1. Yeah, if only Seinfeld and his friends were part of a minority group, they might be able to say the nazi was discriminating against them.

        1. Well, let’s see. Seinfeld sounds German, so Nazi. Costanza is Italian, so Fascist. Benes is Czech, so Nazi.

          1. Benes is Czech

            I thought she was Spanish.

            1. Maybe it’s like Salma Hayek. As you may have suspected prior to today, Hayek is not a Mexican name.

              1. “It is now, Senor!”

              2. Very few Mexicans have Mexican names.

                1. Thank you for the insight, Yogi Berra.

                  1. *takes a bow*

            2. you mean they’re not an interracial couple?

      2. So, just like with hate crimes, arbitrary hate is fine, but identity-based hate is not. Why? Leaving aside that exercising your freedom to do or not do business is not on par with anything criminal.

        Practically speaking, discrimination only becomes dangerous and universal when the government endorses, codifies, and endorses it.

        1. If this law grants an exemption to government employees that feel that government laws, regulations, etc., burden their religion by making them do this or that for a citizen then I think that comes close to your last sentence. If they clarified an exception there then I do not see how this law could trouble a libertarian.

          1. It’s not about the religious issue. It’s about the freedom of association and the basic freedom to do what you want, so long as it doesn’t harm others. I mean, business is denied for all sorts of reasons, some purely arbitrary. Why should government interfere with that?

            There are scenarios we could come up with where maybe government intervention makes sense, but not as a general rule.

            1. I agree with that part, what I am saying is that there are often government laws and rules that require government employees to serve citizens in certain ways. Can they claim the exemptions mentioned here, and, say, refuse to serve citizens if they feel their religious beliefs are violated by that? If so then that seems to come close to the government itself engaging in bigoted acts, which should be prevented. It seems the law could be clarified to show government employees do get the exemption under the same standard.

  11. I find the “superfluous legislation” argument to be disingenuous. If the law is redundant, then why is it objectionable? Is the author concerned about wasting paper or something?

  12. I’ve never understood the desire for people to want to be able to demand that someone who hates them prepare food for them. i get you don’t wnat to be treated like a second class citizen but other considerations I think would prevail. kinda like people who are snotty to wait staff. How stupid can you be.

    1. It’s been said before, but the real truth of the gay bakery fundamentalism story is that these assholes deserve each other.

      1. To be sure, many civil liberties cases involve assholes (e.g., Illinois Nazis). That should not really come into the analysis as far as the general law is concerned.

      2. Why does the fundy baker deserve to be legally harassed for asserting his right to freedom of association?


    2. AlmightyJB|2.21.14 @ 11:50AM|#

      I’ve never understood the desire for people to want to be able to demand that someone who hates them prepare food for them

      So…

      …You’re NEVER eaten Chinese take-out?

      Crazy.

      1. All restaurant cooks are mexican including in chinese and italian restaurants.

        1. “There are no good white basketball players”

          I’d agree with your theory except I live in NYC, and they still have Chinese people in the Chinese takeout places. You can see them actually doing the cooking. unless! they are robot puppets controlled by Mexicans….? (ominous music)

          The Mexicans have indeed pretty much taken over everything else, including most pizza places. except sushi. THAT would be a neat trick.

          1. Around NYC there’s a ton of Mexican take out joints owned and operated by Chinese folks.

            The Mexicans have indeed pretty much taken over everything else, including most pizza places.

            My favorite Manhattan pizza joints always seemed to be run by some kind of Balkan.

            1. Rosarios (in the East Vill) is still frequented by the man himself, but he employs the latins exclusively last I checked.

              Joes(?) on 6th ave – the good slice – I think are indeed Balkans.

        2. Here they’re Korean. But there aren’t any good Korean joints.

    3. Forcing people to do things against their will is its own reward.

      1. There’s a sketch for that…

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..M#t=01m32s

    4. At the most basic level this is a fear of the slippery slope that might someday lead to, say, a rural grocer refusing to sell to a lesbian couple, forcing them to drive 100 miles round trip to the nearest large town to buy their groceries.

      Ultimately the fear that this will lead to areas which are effectively gay-free.

      1. Hoppe has written about this phenomenon, his theory being that unrestricted private-property rights would lead to many small enclaves of like-minded people who would form what amounts to an intentional community free of aggression and interference.

        The downside of that is if all the bigots pooled their resources and bought up a few thousand acres, you might not have access to their goods and services if they didn’t like you and were willing to take the economic hit. The upside is that they’d all be off on their little bigot farm right out in the open where you could identify them, and you wouldn’t have to deal, trade, or interact with them on a daily basis if you didn’t visit the community. And, of course, that we’d have secure private property rights.

    5. I got gay-kicked out of a cab once. I was not at all amused at having to stand around at 4:30 AM waiting for another one.

      1. I was once refused service by a cab for having a case of alcohol with me. He said it was against his religion.

        1. You know, if one’s religion is so strict, one might consider getting a job that allows one to remain in one’s cocoon rather interacting with the goddamn public.

          /rant

  13. I once got beat up at a gay bar~! For being straight. Sort of. And only sort-of-beat-up.

    I was DJ’ing. Unbeknownst to me it was communist-lesbian night.

    Lets just say, they aren’t huge fans of 2-Live-Crew. which I knew. And played REPEATEDLY.

    1. Hate crime.

      Also, how many microaggressions does it take to add up to a macroaggression?

      1. Look, I got paid, which is all that matters.

    2. Did they sic their cats on you?

      1. Which is funny, because the name of the bar…?

        http://ny.curbed.com/archives/…..r_feet.php

        “Meow Mix”

        The funny part is that the girls loved 2-live-crew on Fridays. Communist lesbians have no sense of fun. I didn’t know what to play. Le Tigre only has so many songs.

        1. Was this before the one Tatu song and Teagan and Sara?

          1. Well before. It wouldn’t have mattered. Coked-up lesbians looking for a fight can not be musically ameliorated.

            plus some bitch spilled beer all over my records. there are lines that you don’t cross.

            Unrelated – this is a good song
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3Jv9fNPjgk

        2. OMG, thank you for that Gilmore. I’m a huge “Chasing Amy” fan and never knew that MM was a real place.

  14. I’ll add a little update since some folks feel I’ve unfairly maligned the law as expanding to freedom. (I will admit to having a huge bias against the passage of any new laws that takes some convincing to get past. Remember — I live in California.)

    1. Remember — I live in California.

      Monster!

  15. “Should a restaurant owner be able to refuse service to Blacks because he has “moral objections” to race-mixing?

    don’t you know the first rule of dealing with people who prepare your food?

    1. “Don’t talk about Fight Club? No, that’s not it. Ummmmm….hmmmm….”

    2. Don’t send it back to the kitchen while complaining about the cook’s skill?

  16. Civil rights laws prohibit discrimination based on one’s religion. So if a business serves customers who are Muslim, does it mean the business owner if being forced to endorse Islam? Of course not.

    1. “When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law.”
      Bastiat

      I think I could fairly say that most libertarians have chosen morality over the law. So your arguments from authority of law are meaningless here.

    2. So if a business serves customers who are Muslim, does it mean the business owner if being forced to endorse Islam?

      Depends, is it a deli that is being forced to sell halal foods against their will? Is the business required to have a muslim prayer room? Is the business owner forced to compromise their principles to serve the muslims?

      Your appeals to emotion and strawman bashing are boring me.

    3. Chuckie, nobody argues that those laws don’t exist. The argument that is being made here is that those laws violate the right to freedom of association.

      The vast majority of people here are opposed to racism; that same vast majority is also opposed to forcing those racists to violate their own principles in a private setting.

      Also, highly recommend that you read my 12:15 reply to you above, and the many other fine replies by other commenters explaining the differences between our personal feelings and forcing others to adhere to those feelings.

  17. The bill seems fine to me, provided there’s no way government employees can use it to discriminate against people.

  18. It should be noted that the bill doesn’t apply to businesses, it applies to individual employees. So if you own a restaurant and are fine with homosexuals, but one of your waitresses refuses to serve them, this bill means you can’t fire them for insubordination (“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, regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding. The person asserting such a claim or defense mya obtain appropriate relief.”).

    And the original version of the bill explicitly limited it to the government, but was amended to remove those limitations. So this isn’t just bad drafting, it was the deliberate goal of the legislators.

    This isn’t about protecting freedom, it’s about giving specific religious groups control over everyone else in society.

    1. it’s about giving specific religious groups control over everyone else in society.

      That makes no sense at all.

      1. They can refuse to do the job they were hired to do and cannot be fired for doing so. Refusing to hire them to begin with remains illegal. So they can force non-discriminating businesses to discriminate by clogging up all the front line service positions.

        It’s much like the plan they’re using to force corporate pharmacies to stop offering birth control:

        Pharmacist fired for refusing to sell Plan B sues Walgreens

        1. Here’s the relevant language (as amended by the proposed bill):

          “*State action* may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if the opposing party demonstrates that application of the burden to the person person’s exercise of religion in this particular instance is both:

          “1. In furtherance of a compelling *governmental* interest.

          “2. The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling *governmental* interest.”

          [emphasis added]

          1. That’s section B. You conveniently leave out section A:

            “Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that applies in this state even if laws, rules or other government actions are facially neutral.”

            Not “government rules” but all rules.

            1. Uh, wrong. It’s clear from the fact that “rules” is sandwiched in between “laws” and “other government actions” that “rules” means “government rules”.

            2. Noscitur a sociis (“a word is known by the company it keeps”)
              When a word is ambiguous, its meaning may be determined by reference to the rest of the statute.

              1. The exception proves the rule.

                In this case the exception of explicitly limiting the third item in the list (“actions”) to the government proves the other items on the list were not intended to be so limited.

                1. I’m not sure about that. It says “other government actions.” If laws and rules were not referring to the government, then why use the word “other?”

        2. I’m not sure SoCon goal is to force the pharmacies to stop selling BC pills, so much as it is to keep individual SoCons from having to do so. Now, I’m sure the SoCons would shed no tears if, say, Walgreens, stopped selling BCP.

          It’s always dangerous to attribute broader-than-stated motions; turns into a sticky trap real fast.

      2. CORRECT!

        BTW – F’ing Canuckleheads are up 1-0

    2. It should be noted that the bill doesn’t apply to businesses, it applies to individual employees.

      You missed the part where they redefine “person”.

      “Person” includes a religious assembly or institution ANY INDIVIDUAL, ASSOCIATION, PARTNERSHIP, CORPORATION, CHURCH, RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY OR INSTITUTION, ESTATE, TRUST, FOUNDATION OR OTHER LEGAL ENTITY.

      1. So an employee isn’t an “any individual”?

        1. No, numb nuts, it destroys your assertion that the change in the law only applied to individuals and its sole purpose was to allow individuals to force businesses to to be bigoted.

      2. I don’t know enough about the bill to know if Stormy’s take on it is accurate, but if it is, that doesn’t change that, unless the business claims it serves gay people for religious reasons. Again, I don’t know if the rest of the law would protect people from being fired for discriminating when their job requires them not to, but if it does, this wouldn’t change that, unless (I presume) the organization claimed that their policies were religiously-motivated (I’m not sure what would happen in that case).

        1. “I don’t know enough about the bill to know if Stormy’s take on it is accurate”

          Well, let’s put it this way – Stormy’s analysis is derived from a dark and warm place.

    3. RE, 12:51 PM, those are great points, Storms. Thanks.

    4. Fuck, you’re back.

      You know, we didn’t miss you in your absence.

  19. I’m still wondering what is the connection between “free exercise of religion” and “I don’t bake gay wedding cakes”. Where is that in the Bible?

    1. “This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you…he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.”

      1 Samuel 10:11-13 (KJV)

      1. Oops. 1 Samuel 8:10-13

        1. Do me a favor and look up a verse that explains my religious need to browse HyR all day instead of doing work.

          1. Proverbs 6:6-8 (KJV)

            6 Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise:

            7 Which having no guide, overseer, or ruler,

            8 Provideth her meat in the summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest.

            1. Good job – these are all gibberish enough to pass muster with my boss without any lip.

              1. Your boss sounds…special. No offense.

                1. Haha, no. My point is that religious justifications for all kinds of nonsense always sound like gibberish to me. And people tend to fall for it, confusing “gibberish” with “profundity”.

                  1. The Proverbs quote translates as “get off your butt and get to work! You don’t see ants slacking off, do you?”

                    1. There’s actually a lot of down-home advice in Proverbs, like don’t promise to pay your neighbor’s debts, don’t take bribes, don’t mess with your neighbor’s wife no matter how many times she “accidentally” bends over to adjust her sandals, and the like.

                    2. Proverbs 26:18-19 (NAB):

                      Like a madman who throws Firebrands, arrows and death, So is the man who deceives his neighbor,
                      And says, “Was I not joking?”

      2. [H]e will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers…

        LOL. Clever forgery, Eddie. The real deal hier.

        1. I corrected the citation, thank you for your concern.

  20. In the ongoing American project of balancing freedoms, it is settled (in highly regarded law) that if you want the freedom to do business that caters to the public, you aren’t allowed to discriminate against people on the basis of race and other traits. In the historical context of this law, the correct balance is a no-brainer. The freedom to discriminate is simply far less worthy of protection than the freedom to participate fully in the commerce of your community, when your community would otherwise severely impede that participation (as in the Jim Crow South).

    Being bigoted is protected by the constitution. Acting upon bigotry in ways that harm others is not. In a world in which the prevalence of such bigotry is negligible, things become more arguable. But we come to a Catch-22: If people aren’t being discriminated against, then having anti-discrimination laws on the books harms no one. The only reason to advocate for doing away with such laws is to give people the freedom to discriminate, as if the lack of that freedom is to be considered a genuine social concern.

    1. You do know that Jim Crow was law, right?

      So businesses had to discriminate. They had no choice.

      Giving government credit for ending discrimination is just stupid, because government mandated discrimination!

      Would businesses have discriminated without the law? Probably not, or the law wouldn’t have been necessary.

      Is discrimination good? Heck no. Should it be illegal? Heck no. Let the bigots identify themselves so you can choose to do business with someone else. Markets at work!

      1. Ah the old bullshit about how the Jim Crow-era South would have been a hippie commune of racial harmony if not for the dastardly government imposing racism on it.

        Your problem is treating government as a monolithic and alien force. No difference between federal and local governments. It’s all just government, and it’s all evil.

        Obviously the governments of the South, being democratic (except to the extent that they excluded blacks from participation), reflected the will of the people they governed. Otherwise the geographic concentration of Jim Crow laws would be an amazing coincidence.

        Why can’t you understand that bigots don’t just want to be bigoted themselves, they want their communities to be bigoted too? Antigay people today are not content to be antigay in their own homes and let others live their lives. They want to enact laws to make gays second-class citizens. Sound familiar?

        1. The argument, which you did not address at all, is that the free market would be unkind to those business that continued to segregate. Instead, you had the government undoing it’s own mess, which somehow turns into an argument for government intrusion.

          1. The argument, which you did not address at all, is that the free market would be unkind to those business that continued to segregate.

            He usually ignores actual arguments because it’s easier to slay straw men.

          2. It would be unkind to businesses in a community in which racism was considered taboo. In the communities we’re actually talking about, what was taboo was racial integration. If the free market automatically does all the magical things you claim it does, we wouldn’t have needed the laws in the first place.

            Government wasn’t imposing anything on whites they didn’t want. The federal government was required to step in and correct their behavior. Sorry. If they weren’t racist shitheads, that wouldn’t have been necessary.

            1. “If the free market automatically does all the magical things you claim it does, we wouldn’t have needed the laws in the first place.”

              You’ve got that backwards. If everyone would have discriminated without Jim Crow laws mandating it, why were those laws necessary? The federal laws undid the state laws, they didn’t just outlaw discrimination in a previously free market.

              1. I told you why–bigots are busybodies. Why are laws forbidding gay marriage being passed? Because bigots want to impose their beliefs on everybody. Southern governments did not invent racism.

                1. Southern governments did not invent racism, but they certainly invented the segregationist policies of the Jim Crow era.

            2. We didn’t need the laws in the first place. Economic incentives are not magic. Businesses that served all races made more money, allowing them to bring down the cost of goods and services. In certain instances, you’d have a few stores with patrons willing to pay a markup so they didn’t have to shop with black people. Those businesses would gradually phase out.

              What needed to happen, of course, was the end of government mandated segregation, which was a progressive thing to begin with. The Democratic party cleaning up the mess made by the Democratic party.

        2. “Your problem is treating government as a monolithic and alien force. No difference between federal and local governments. It’s all just government, and it’s all evil.

          Obviously the governments of the South, being democratic (except to the extent that they excluded blacks from participation), reflected the will of the people they governed. Otherwise the geographic concentration of Jim Crow laws would be an amazing coincidence.”

          Who denied that? Regardless, to take the opposite of what you said earlier about anti-discrimination laws doing no harm if no one would discriminate, if everyone discriminated, why would there be a need to pass laws mandating discrimination? There are many examples of integrated public services and businesses that were compelled to segregate by Jim Crow laws. There would have been no need for those laws otherwise.

          “Why can’t you understand that bigots don’t just want to be bigoted themselves, they want their communities to be bigoted too? Antigay people today are not content to be antigay in their own homes and let others live their lives. They want to enact laws to make gays second-class citizens. Sound familiar?”

          I’m not sure what relevance this has, considering that libertarians do not support forcing communities to be anti-gay (or anti-black, etc.) or the laws you’re talking about. Just because you agree with a group of people on one thing doesn’t mean you’re obligated to support them on everything.

          1. Are you denying that racist laws are the product of a racist society? Is the claim that racism was invented by government and imposed on people?

            The reality of this situation is very difficult for the libertarian worldview, because the reality is that the “free market” was one that systematically excluded people based on race, and the only solution that came along required the power of the federal government.

            But it need not be so. You guys aren’t actually property rights absolutists. You don’t think proprietors ought to have a right to punch their customers, I presume. People still have rights even on other people’s property. Why can’t one of those rights be the freedom from racial discrimination?

            1. “that the “free market” was one that systematically excluded people based on race”

              Can you cite some evidence for this assertion?

            2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P…..Background

              Landmark case. The railroad company was complicit in helping the plaintiff set up a case, to have standing and get the law overturned.

              There’s as big of a gulf between mandatory and allowed, as there is between allowed and forbidden.

        3. You sure know how to slay straw men.

    2. That might be the longest exercise in question-begging I’ve seen yet.

      Acting upon bigotry in ways that harm others is not.

      Refusing to grant you access to my property does not harm you.

      1. Yeah, too many “points” that are easily refuted and it’s all been hashed out before so why bother.

      2. It does if, by virtue of the way I was born, I have fewer choices in my community than other people because of how they were born. There isn’t going to be an equal amount of anti-gay and anti-straight discrimination to balance things out. Gays will have fewer choices. That is a problem, just as it has been (to a much harsher extent) for racial minorities.

        1. Poor people have fewer choices. Tall people have fewer choices. We don’t need the government to compel businesses to offer more choices.

        2. I have fewer choices in my community than other people because of how they were born

          And ugly people will have fewer choices in who to date. And someone born in Peoria will have fewer choices than someone born in NYC. So what? You are not entitled to anyone else’s property.

          1. Collectivists would never admit it, but they’re a single step away from declaring that selecting your sexual partners on the basis of personal choice constitutes bigotry.

            Which is what happens when you reject property rights as the foundation of peaceful interaction between human beings. Thanks a lot, Hamilton.

            1. I’ve seen someone actually argue this very point.

              He was telling some girl she shouldn’t discriminate based on race when dating.

              She fired back with “Well you discriminate on gender, don’t you? You don’t date men.”. Basically trying to drive a concession that the reasoning, taken to its limit, is absurd.

              He didn’t miss a beat and responded, “Yes, but that’s wrong and I shouldn’t be doing it.”.

              Basically sexual orientation is sexist.

          2. We’ve decided as an advanced, free society that, in fact, people are entitled to be free of discrimination based on certain factors, because those people are at risk of being discriminated against systematically. This is a failure of imagination on libertarians’ part.

            1. Give it up, Tony. Libertarians are no different than any other political movement – they just want to force their views on others.

              When it comes down to issues like discrimination the distinctions are pathetic at best. “Initiating force is wrong!” they say. But the majority initiating force through economic means to coerce the conformity of a minority is okay – so long as there’s no specific law behind it. So, gays can be denied employment, services, housing or emergency medical care (in Libertopia if an EMT doesn’t want to treat you then their freedom of association trumps your life) at will or whim. They can all just go to some balkanized ghetto if they don’t like it too. Thus is equality of opportunity confirmed in Libertopia.

              1. Libertarians are no different than any other political movement – they just want to force their views on others.

                Yeah. Because forcing those who initiate force to stop initiating force is tyranny.

                1. Ah! So an EMT allowing a person to die is not initiation of force. Gotcha.

                  1. Also, the guy refusing to push the cancel button on an accidental nuclear launch isn’t initiating any force either, and is thus absolved of any wrongdoing.

                  2. I haven’t seen an single iteration of this bill that hasn’t excluded emergency personnel. And you know damn well this is about florists and photographers, not EMTs.

                    1. But it’s the same principle. Libertarians are all about principle, aren’t you?

                  3. Ah! So an EMT allowing a person to die is not initiation of force. Gotcha.

                    No, it’s not. But the way markets work is that a rescue service that gains a reputation for allowing people to die isn’t going to stay in business for very long.

                2. Hierarchy! Patriarchy! Othering!

              2. You failed Overheated Chomsky Rhetoric 101–it’s not “they can live in their balkanized ghetto,” it’s “then they can starve.” Because no business owner would ever welcome a captive clientele that his competitors have alienated, and because the invisible hand is, like, more than just 200 years old or something.

                The outcasts would all just starve if we didn’t point guns at self-interested business owners and pat ourselves on the back for our aggressive piety at the same time.

                1. Maybe they would. What really gets to me is the idea you all have is that discrimination is rare and isolated. Trust me, it isn’t. The EMT example wasn’t pulled out of the ether but something people in the LGBT community still have to face. It happens – a lot. I’ve had two good friends who’ve been left to die by EMS techs who never faced consequences for their inaction. Too many people can say the same thing. It’s easy to latch on to the silly shit and then pretend that’s all that it’s about so you can dismiss the systemic discrimination that remains, isn’t it?

                  1. So because EMTs illegally leave people to die (got any data on this?) businesses should also be compelled to provided photography services for gay wedding ceremonies? Not following the logic.

                    1. Lol. The logic is that anyone can deny any service based on emotional biases – regardless of the consequence. That’s what you are promoting. That’s your logic. If there’s some nuance that I’m missing please enlighten me.

                      If you want to wrap bigotry and ignorance in applause words like freedom and liberty fine but you’re only fooling yourselves.

                      As for data…

                      htt p://usatoday 30.usa today.com/news /nation/2006-03-02-cpr-suit_x.htm?csp=34

                      http://www.sheepsheadbites.com…..ay-lawyer/

                      http://www.nwlc.org/resource/h…..ng-hivaids

                      A little to get you started. I neither speak for or share the editorial bent of the links but these things do happen.

                    2. The logic is that denial in the private sector, for whatever reason, is not an initiation of force.

                      That’s why liberty allows for discrimination in the private sector.

                      With regards to government services, because the government has already forced its customers to prepay, it must not be allowed to discriminate.

                      In the private sector the customers have not been forced to prepay, so the vendors may discriminate because no force has been initiated.

                      That’s why libertarians support the part of the Civil Rights Act that prohibits government from discrimination, but in principle frown upon the part that allows government to use force on private actors who discriminate.

                    3. How do you separate the two, Sarc? The “you didn’t build that” crap quickly turns to bullshit but still…if a business accepts municipal services or payment from municipal or other government sources to which I also contributed to is it really “private” in the way that you mean? Does the 20 y.o. Assistant Manager at my local Baskin & Robbins have enough of a stake in the company to refuse service on his own initiative as a private actor? Can a private EMT company working for a private hospital deny lifesaving treatment for any reason or none at all?

                      If things were like Shaqford suggests – if this were a matter of trivial incidents caused infrequently by a few bad apples then I wouldn’t be complaining. That is not the case.

                    4. So basically we have two lawsuits where it is alleged to have happened. In either case, did the EMTs even appeal to religious liberty? It seems like they are simply denying they refused care.

                    5. Which is the dark side of non-discrimination laws of course.

                      When discrimination is illegal, the bigots are hidden in the larger mass of people, and they all pretend to not discriminate. Result: you won’t know that you’re about to get treated like shit until the moment they make that decision.

                      Alternate world: The biggots don’t have to hide their beliefs, and you can steer clear of them.

                      As usual, it seems like the support for coercive laws is rooted in superstitious belief about law’s magical powers to change people’s inner beliefs.

                  2. Maybe you should start an EMT service that caters to the LGBT community! Brag about how you discriminate against those dirty breeders! You’ll get rich!

              3. But the majority initiating force through economic means to coerce the conformity of a minority is okay – so long as there’s no specific law behind it.

                Coming from the not-a-female that had a post on a blog bitching about how Commonwealth nations only let in the dirty brown people that is fucking rich.

                But it’s nice to see that you’ve finally stopped pretending to give a shit about liberty.

        3. Gays will have fewer choices.

          Let’s say a gay man opens a business in a community that’s bigoted against gays. I want you to explain to me, without violating your own logic, why he shouldn’t be able to compel people to patronize his store.

          1. Tony doesn’t use logic (principles). Every situation is to be judged by the people (principals) involved.
            Principals trump principles.

          2. We’re talking about a specific liberty (the right to participate in the commerce of your community without discrimination) that required government enforcement because systematic infringement of that liberty happened to exist. It’s not generally thought that business owners have a right to customers, and I don’t see why I’d have to defend that entirely separate liberty argument.

            1. Forcing others to do commerce with you against their will is not liberty.

              Not that I’d ever expect you to comprehend the distinction between liberty and force.

              1. Being discriminated against because of race in the marketplace is also not liberty.

                Liberties conflict.

                1. If a florist is inhibiting your liberty because she won’t do your wedding, than she is also inhibiting liberty if she decides to open a restaurant instead.

                  Businesses do not provide for or maintain our liberty. The liberty that concerns us is freedom to associate freely, without the government telling us who we must serve. You see compulsion as somehow providing a liberty. I see that as bestowing a privilege.

                  1. If she’s cute, she’s also inhibiting my liberty by refusing to sleep with me. When you don’t know that liberty entails negative rights that individuals use to sustain their lives and livelihoods, literally everything another person does or doesn’t do can be interpreted as an infringement.

                2. Being discriminated against because of race in the marketplace is also not liberty.

                  Liberties conflict.

                  You obviously don’t understand what liberty means. I won’t bother to educate you because you have already shown that you are unable to learn. You can be taught if you like the teacher, but you cannot learn.

            2. “It’s not generally thought that business owners have a right to customers,”

              Is it generally thought that we have the right to be customers? It doesn’t matter what is generally thought. It matters whether your logic would compel citizens to shop at gay-owned businesses.

              1. But it’s apples and oranges. It’s like when gay marriage supporters are asked to defend polygamy. It’s a separate and completely different right. You are not logically compelled to support both if you support one.

  21. So-called Christians make much of the Biblical prohibition of homosexuality but say nothing about this: “For every one that curseth his father or mother shall be surely put to death:…” Leviticus 20:9 (KJV). How many teenagers, today, would be up for the death penalty if the so-called Christians were to follow the Old Testament prohibitions and laws strictly?

    1. Leviticus was written for Jews under a theocratic state, not Christians in the church age.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.