Should the government coercively sanction business owners who, out of apparent religious conviction, refuse to serve particular customers? While such behavior is repugnant, the refusal to serve someone because of his or her race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation is nevertheless an exercise of self-ownership and freedom of nonassociation. It is both nonviolent and nonviolative of other people's rights. If we are truly to embrace freedom of association, logically we must also embrace freedom of nonassociation. The test of one's commitment to freedom of association, like freedom of speech, is whether one sticks by it even when the content repulses. But does this mean that private individuals may not peacefully sanction businesses that invidiously discriminate against would-be customers? No, writes Sheldon Richman. They may, and they should. Boycotts, publicity, ostracism, and other noncoercive measures are also constituents of freedom of association.
Tulsi Gabbard Called Out Mainstream Media, Both Parties, Democratic Candidates for Supporting Disastrous Regime Change in the Middle East
"As president I will end these regime change wars."
The 7th Circuit said the guard is protected by qualified immunity.
The New York Times Wonders Aloud If Tulsi Gabbard's Anti-War, Anti-Establishment Message Makes Her a Stooge for Nazis and Russian Bots
The article ignores Gabbard's arguments for a less interventionist foreign policy, preferring to speculate about foreigners and fascists.
The mainstream media are channeling Dr. Zaius, the elitist orangutan from Planet of the Apes, who hid dark secrets out of misguided paternalism.
Asked how he'd actually follow through on his promise to "take your AR-15," the former Texas congressman didn't have much of an answer.