Gay Marriage

Gay Couple Lost $7.91 When Florist Turned Them Down. The Florist May Lose Much, Much More.

In Michigan, a more serious case of anti-gay discrimination ends peacefully without lawyers.

|

Not speech.
Credit: srsphoto / photo on flickr

Two more cases where sexual orientation has led to refusal of service for religious reasons are in the news. First, as expected, a judge has ruled a florist in Washington cannot refuse to serve gay couples. "In trade and commerce, and more particularly when seeking to prevent discrimination in public accommodations, the courts have confirmed the power of the legislative branch to prohibit conduct it deems discriminatory, even where the motivation for that conduct is grounded in religious belief," Judge Alexander C. Ekstrom ruled. He rejected the defendant's claims that arranging flowers is a form of expression and therefore requiring her to do so for a same-sex marriage violated her right to free speech. From the Washington Post:

The penalty against [Baronelle] Stutzman and her business will be settled via summary judgment, or without a full trial. [Robert] Ingersoll and [Curt] Freed, who have since married, had sued for $7.91 (the cost of driving to find a new florist). Stutzman also faces a fine of up to $2,000 under Washington's anti-discrimination law, as well as the cost of legal fees.

Stutzman's attorney said that she'll be appealing the order.

"The ruling basically said that if you dare to not celebrate same-sex marriage because it violates your religious convictions, that the government has a right to bring about your personal and professional ruin," Kristen Waggoner, an attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom, told The Los Angeles Times. "Her home, her business … her life savings and retirement, these are all in jeopardy … all because of her deeply held religious views."

Yes, that's right. Even the plaintiffs acknowledge that the actual harms from getting turned away by Stutzman amount to less than $10. But I bet those legal fees are going to be a lot more than $7.91. Ingersoll and Freed were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, and Washington's attorney general also sued.

Another case in Michigan had the potential to be much more serious, yet the absence of laws against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation didn't prevent an outcome where both sides were able to get what they needed. In Roseville, a suburb of Detroit, a pediatrician refused to treat a baby with two moms. From the Fox affiliate in Detroit:

"It was embarrassing, it was humiliating and here we are, new parents trying to protect her," Jami [Contreras] said. "And we know this happens in the world and we're completely prepared for this to happen other places. But not at our six-day-old's wellness appointment."

Bay's parents proceeded with the appointment with the other doctor then found another pediatric group for their baby.

"When we started calling other pediatricians my first thing on the phone was, we're lesbian moms—is this okay with you," Krista [Contreras] said.

Rather than turning to lawyers, they turned to social media and thus the case has gotten a lot of notice. The doctor subsequently sent a letter to the couple apologizing for not speaking to them directly after turning them away, but she said she prayed and felt that she would not "be able to develop the personal patient-doctor relationships" that she normally does.

If Americans were polled on the matter, I imagine more people would say it's wrong or should be against the law for the pediatrician to turn away customers over sexual orientation than the florist. But it both cases, a diverse marketplace offered alternatives.

(Hat tip to Felix Finch on the Detroit case)

NEXT: Boston Reasonoids: See Damon Root Talk SCOTUS and Libertarianism at Harvard Law School on Feb. 24

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. PISTOL AND STAMEN NOT PISTOL AND PISTOL.

      1. I DON’T CARE WHEN YOU DO IT IT’S UNNATURAL. Or maybe not. What am I, a botanist?

      2. Is that like the morning pistol I woke up with?

        1. You wakin’ up un the big top?

          Wait – I don’t want to know….

          #nohomo

          1. No stovepiping. No failures to fire. That’s all I care about. 😉

      3. Whenever they open. Hope they aren’t Venus fly traps.

    1. My plants prefer “pistils”, thanks.

      WAY TO CONTRIBUTE MOAR ELIMUNASHUNIST RHETORICKS TO THE WORLD, FIST.

      1. YOUR “PLANTS” NEED TO READ TEH SECOND AMENDMENT.

        1. My plants are slave plants, and thus don’t know how to read.

          What kind of “libertarian” are you?

          Oh, right – NOT ONE, NEOCON. GO JOIN BILL KRISTOL IN THE CORNER

  2. I suppose the ACLU and the Washington AG will NOT learn from the contrast in the two cases.

    1. When there are fundraising dollars to be had? Are you nuts?

  3. What the fuck is with all the retardation in Michigan lately?

    Oh, right – all the voters who send fucking Debbie Stabenow to the senate every six years…

    (EDG will just say it’s a Michigan thing….:)

    1. Brain freeze

  4. “But it both cases, a diverse marketplace offered alternatives.”

    So insensitive Reason. Won’t you think about all the jackboot and truncheon jobs that will be lost should we ever employ this dangerous ideology?

  5. Yes, that’s right. Even the plaintiffs acknowledge that the actual harms from getting turned away by Stutzman amount to less than $10.

    It’s not about them, Scott, it’s about purging society of economic actors who do things the state does not approve of.

    I can imagine the backlash against these excessive fines triggering a “compromise” where instead of fines people like the florists have to go to “tolerance” training.

    1. You are right. You can get attorney’s fees in these cases. It is loser pays. The fact that they admit they didn’t suffer any real damage makes them look even worse. They sued knowing they would get attorney’s fees and would bankrupt the business and sued to accomplish that specific end.

      1. They sued knowing they would get attorney’s fees and would bankrupt the business and sued to accomplish that specific end.

        Tolerant people don’t tolerate intolerance.

        1. Tolerant people don’t tolerate intolerance.

          Finish your beer, pour another one.

      2. It is even worse, appatently the plaintiff had been knowm and been griendly with the forist for 9 years. She did not refuse the business because he was homosexual but because she disagreed with his ideological position on whether same sex couples can be married. It was petty vengeance. The AG was just an opportunist apparently looking to make an example of someone.

    2. It’s lucky for them they only had to pay $7.21 – I mean, it’s a miracle they could find a gay-friendly florist so quickly!

      /sarc

    3. Maybe a kind of Camp?

  6. Wait. Scott, you mean you support Gay Marriage but don’t support public accommodation Laws? AND you’re gay?

    UNPOSSIBLE!

    /John

    1. He does support public accommodation. He just thinks saying he doesn’t excuses him from the foreseeable consequences of his support for gay marriage.

      You guys are the ones who constantly claim this is no different than interracial marriage. Well, this how we deal with racial issues in this country; the aggrieved party gets to sue and the government fines the shit out of anyone who discriminates. You are the one that thinks it is just like interracial marriage. Why the hell doesn’t it being treated like that make you happy?

      1. There’s this from the Washington Post article:

        “The couple, Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed, asked Baronelle Stutzman to provide flowers for their wedding in March 2013, *three months after Washington state legalized same-sex marriage.* According to court documents, Stutzman had served Ingersoll at least 20 times before and was aware that he was gay. But her shop, Arlene’s Flowers, could not provide the flower arrangements for his wedding because doing so would have constituted a demonstration of approval for the wedding itself, she said.”

        [emphasis added]

        Another coincidence – a business serving people, including gay people, for years, then suddenly after SSM is adopted, this public-accomodation case springs up as if by magic!

      2. Unfortunate that doing the right thing might, in the short-term, result in a loss of liberty but that does not change the fact that it’s still the right thing.

        1. Really? Who are you to tell these people it is okay to sacrifice their freedom for this end? Why don’t give up some of your freedom to do the right thing?

          If doing the “right thing” requires harming other people, it isn’t the right thing. How can you say that SSM is the right thing knowing it is going to have results like this? All you are saying is you like SSM better than you like these people’s freedom. That is damn white of you. How would you feel if SSM resulted in gun rights being restricted? Would you still think it was the right thing to do if you were the one paying for it with your freedom?

          1. How would you like it if abolition of slavery infringed white people’s property rights?

            Mighty white of you to consider every angle.

            1. Abolition of slavery didn’t infringe on white people’s property rights. It enforced the individual liberty of people who’d had their right to ownership of themselves infringed upon.

              Any pain to slave owners was self inflicted as they didn’t actually have a right to the labor of others.

              Likewise, proponents of SSM have no right to the labor of others. That is why this path to SSM recognition is the wrong one.

          2. Any society of more than one person automatically infringes some people’s rights, as when they see each other’s chimney smoke or see their house lights from ten miles away.

            Get cities, and suddenly people have to accomodate each other on crowded sidewalks.

            Sacrilege, I tells ya, sacrilege!

          3. John you’re being hysterical. SSM recognition and access to equal rights under the law is legally and morally correct.

            I can accept an imperfect solution to this just like I accept that Sherman burning Georgia to the ground was an imperfect solution to slavery.

            1. Of course you can accept an imperfect solution. That is awfully charitable of you to do considering that you are not the one being harmed.

              Yeah, I get it. SSM resulted in people you don’t like being fucked and a liberty you don’t care about (right to free exercise of religion) being restricted. So you were totally on board with it happening.

              I will give you points for being honest. I do not, however, want to hear you claim you care about freedom or have any principles. You clearly don’t. You were happy to support SSM just so long as it only did harms that didn’t effect you. How noble of you Geoff.

              1. Of course you can accept an imperfect solution. That is awfully charitable of you to do considering that you are not the one being harmed.

                And you are also willing to accept a different imperfect solution, in which you are not the one being harmed. OMG TRADEOFS IN AN IMPERFECT WORLD

                1. Let’s be clear: John is not being harmed in either case. He just likes the people being harmed in one case more than he likes the much larger group of people being harmed in the other.

                  If only we could give him points for being honest.

            2. YEAH SHUT UP GEOFF!!!

            3. Oh fuck off with that noise. Statist pig.

        2. Unfortunate that doing the right thing might, in the short-term, result in a loss of liberty but that does not change the fact that it’s still the right thing.

          I assume this is ironic, but it’s hard to tell these days.

        3. How do you figure “short term”? The expansion of protected classes is not going to go away without a sea change of thinking in politics and the judiciary.

      3. Why do you think we think this is how interracial marriage should be treated?

      4. Why the hell doesn’t it being treated like that make you happy?

        Because allowing gay marriage under 14A is moral and public accommodation laws are immoral?

        But, I suppose when a man has no principles, it becomes all about utility.

        1. Then maybe you should have considered those laws before supporting gay marriage? The public accommodation laws where there and were not going anywhere. If you think this is so bad, why did you support gay marriage? It looks to me like you supported gay marriage because you were happy to see it happen as long as it only harmed people you didn’t like.

          1. You’d best get your grammar straight. Supporting gay marriage is different from supporting the right to equal marriage, as when the government uses the definition of marriage to redistribute other people’s money and control all sorts of privileges, like inheritance, guardianship, hospital visitation, jail visitation, and so on.

            You remind me of the definition of progressives and conservatives:

            The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.

            The government overstepped its previous powers in defining marriage, so you want to double down by preserving that mistake, while these clowns want to double down by adding a new mistake.

          2. I support gay marriage because it’s the moral (and Constitutional) thing to do.

            I DO NOT support public accommodation laws because they are immoral.

            Both positions are traceable back to first principles:

            1. A person may do as they choose, PROVIDED in doing so they do not infringe upon the rights of others.

            2. The ONLY legitimate function of government is to protect the rights of the individual.

            Public accommodation laws violate bot tenets 1 and 2.

            Gay marriage violates neither. (although one could argue (and I do) the government involvement in ANY marriage at all violates 2, Gay Marriage just no more so)

          3. Did the public accommodation laws already cover gays, or was that added when the marriage bills were approved?

            1. It depends on the state.

  7. It’s cases like this, where the ACLU is actively working to suppress civil liberties, that make me very disinclined to give them any financial support.

    1. In fairness to the ACLU, they are committed to the public accommodation laws. It is one of their core values and their donors would never tolerate them walking away from that. There is no way for them to support gay marriage and avoid this result unless they walk away from their support of public accommodation laws, which they can’t do.

      1. In fairness to the ACLU, they are committed to the public accommodation laws.

        Like tarran said: “actively working to suppress civil liberties”.

    2. They jumped the shark a couple of years ago. I stopped donating.

  8. Nobody saw this coming…

    1. Everyone saw it coming, but don’t let that stop you from conflating 2 separate things.

      FLOG THAT CHICKEN.

      1. If you saw it coming, then I guess you should be happy that these intolerant people are being punished for their thoughtcrimes.

        1. Congratulations. You just made the same idiotic argument Red Tony did upthread:

          It looks to me like you supported gay marriage because you were happy to see it happen as long as it only harmed people you didn’t like.

          1. Foreseeable consequences are not unintended.

            1. Indeed. Gay marriage supporters were warned that going the court route would lead to this.

              Hard to say you didn’t want this, when you were actively supporting things that would make it happen.

              1. Uh huh. Just like wanting people to have access to firearms means I want to see people murdered with firearms.

                1. Just like wanting people to have access to firearms means I want to see people murdered with firearms.

                  Um, no. Not unless murder is being legalized as part of people having access to firearms.

                  1. That’s irrelevant. Murder is going to happen.

                    1. No, it’s not irrelevant. There are laws against murder, so it doesn’t happen with the blessing of the state. Unlike these lawsuits.

                    2. Again, the blessing of the state is not relevant. I was responding to this:

                      Hard to say you didn’t want this, when you were actively supporting things that would make it happen.

                      The logic here is clearly:

                      if X is enacted, then rights violation Y will eventually occur. So, if you support X, you support rights violation Y.

                    3. There is a big difference between violation Y being something you can seek help from the government for, and violation Y being committed through the government.

                    4. Just like wanting people to have access to firearms means I want to see people murdered with firearms.

                      No, it just means that if you increase access to firearms after being warned it would it lead to more murders, you can’t say that you shouldn’t have to answer for the increase in murders.

                      The principle here is that you are responsible for the foreseeable consequences of your actions, regardless of whether you “wanted” (yeah, I shouldn’t have used that word) all those consequences.

                      When SCOTUS rules that you cannot be denied a license for a gay marriage, that ruling must be premised on the notion that treating gay people differently is invidious discrimination. If you don’t see how that cements and perhaps even requires the application of public accommodation laws to privilege gays, I can’t help you.

              2. Except not every state has gone the court route and it has STILL led to this, so the naysayers were technically incorrect.

                Which, of course, is the worst kind of incorrect.

              3. Hard to say you didn’t want this, when you were actively supporting things that would make it happen.

                IT WAS HAPPENING BEFORE GAY MARRIAGE ANYWAY JESUS FUCKING CHRIST

                1. When SCOTUS rules that you cannot be denied a license for a gay marriage, that ruling must be premised on the notion that treating gay people differently is invidious discrimination. If you don’t see how that cements and perhaps even requires the application of public accommodation laws to privilege gays, I can’t help you.

            2. Which says nothing about being “happy” about it.

      2. You know who is conflating two separate things? The people who cannot separate equality under the law from the word “marriage.”

        1. Oooo, you’re almost there.

          Admitting it is the first step towards recovery.

        2. I think you mean “the people who cannot separate equality under the law from the laws about marriage.”

  9. Racism and economic discrimination enforced against blacks in the South, because of widespread and deeply held beliefs of racism, also enforced by discriminatory laws, and more importantly, de facto enforced by the brutal opression of the klan, to the point that even local businesses WANTED to be able to hire blacks but were effectively blocked from doing so, AND the ONLY way to stop it all was to ban racial discrimination at the federal level and IMPOSE it on the local populace

    IS NOT THE SAME THING AS

    A baker or florist here or there refusing to service gay weddings, and the couples in question have absolutely no problem getting service and can literally just walk one building over or down the block to do so.

    Am I crazy for thinking history and society should be considered when crafting laws, and we don’t have to act like one thing is the same as another thing just because it’s mildly similar but actually historically massively different.

    1. Indeed.

    2. The comparison is used as a dishonest way to paint anyone critical of SSM of being no different than a Klan member, and the only way to prove you’re not advocating for the lynching of homosexuals is to give full support to SSM.

      1. if you had been paying attention, I was arguing AGAINST public accomadation enforcement laws for gays

        1. I was agreeing with you.

    3. The CRA is a real infringement on people’s freedom. And public accommodation laws represent a huge intrusion by government into people’s lives.

      Whatever you think of the CRA and public accommodation laws, there is no question the country had a huge problem with racial discrimination before the CRA. These laws are extreme measures for sure but they were at least enacted to deal with an extreme problem.

      Now they are being extended to cover a small minority that on the whole is better educated and wealthier than average and is in no way suffering from lack of access to commerce. Extending these laws to cover gays is not about helping gays, it is about punishing anyone who objects.

      1. Extending these laws to cover gays is not about helping gays, it is about punishing anyone who objects.

        I couldn’t agree more.

      2. The CRA is a real infringement on people’s freedom.

        We knew this would happen when we let those niggers marry good white women.

        1. You don’t think the government telling every business in America who they can and cannot hire is an infringement on freedom?

          Since when does freedom not include the freedom to be an asshole?

          1. You aren’t free unless you are free to be wrong.

          2. John, put on the sarcasm glasses.

            This is in response to your argument that SSM was just a wedge for accomodation laws.

            1. Sorry JW. I was being dense.

      3. //”These laws are extreme measures for sure but they were at least enacted to deal with an extreme problem….
        Now they are being extended to cover..”

        Yeah, like I said.
        I’m saying what John said, for anybody who doesn’t get it

      4. the country had a huge problem with racial discrimination before the CRA

        Yes, due in large part to the government madnadting first slavery, then Jim Crow segregation. Look up Plessey (sp?). The railroad wanted integrated passenger cars because it was cheaper and more efficient and gave better service, and the public was at least willing to go along with it. But the KKK and other bigots in government used their police powers to mandate segregation.

        Fuck off, statist slaver (but I repeat myself).

        1. I don’t support the CRA either. If you think the CRA is so bad, why are you supporting SSM even though you know it will result in the CRA applying to even more classes of people?

          You are the fucking slaver here. You are perfectly happy to expand the CRA and fuck people with it just so long as you get your pony and the people getting fucked are people you don’t like.

          1. If you think the CRA is so bad, why are you supporting SSM even though you know it will result in the CRA applying to even more classes of people?

            Because SSM is Moral?

            Are you actually arguing that it’s okay to violate people’s rights for the collective good?

            How about you grow some principles and actually delineate between good and evil? SSM isn’t evil. Public accommodation is. Why do you hate liberty, John?

            1. Like GK Chesterton said:

              The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.

              And John can’t stand correcting mistakes which upset the status quo; his only interest is in preventing new mistakes.

            2. The government has no business getting involved in morality.

            3. I don’t think you’re getting it.

              SSM is irrelevent. It could have been anything. After the maelstrom of litigation is set in motion with the supremes settling it, the progs will move on to the next thing–because SSM wasn’t important–expanding the list of those beholden to government protection and expanding the number of classes that can accuse and force someone to try to prove their innocence was.

              This has all been about expanding the power of the state.

              And nothing else. Homosexuals were just a useful tool.

          2. What makes you think I support government marriage at all?

            What makes you so damned short-sighted?

        2. the CRA was necessary. It’s unfortunate, but it’s true. Even without the laws, the Klan and all the other Good Old Boys made sure that there was never any mixing. Think of it as a guerilla war against the local business owners (really it essentially was).
          Unfortunately, the only way to remedy that was to go the other way around and make it illegal to discriminate on the federal level. And that federal level law was able to be imposed against the Southern bigots because nobody wants to fight the Civil War again.

          The large corporate chains at the time even supported the CSA, because they wanted to be able to hire blacks. The southerners and all their shit was fucking with their labor pool; this shit mattered in tiny one-horse towns with small labor pools.

          1. the CRA was necessary.

            Respectfully…horseshit!

            Simply arrest the Good Old Boys that are violating people’s rights. You see, there are two options here.

            My way, you punish only those guilty of initiating force.

            Your way, you violate the rights of one group, who hasn’t initiated force, to protect alleged rights (to be served by a private business?) of another.

            One way is moral. The other is immoral. They chose…

            …poooorly.

          2. Plessey shows how wrong that is. The railroad was perfectly happy with integrated rail cars, and presumably their public was too, or at least compared to the higher cost and less frequent servce that segregation would have created. The government mandated Jim Crow segregation. Then 70 years later, when they finally realized their mistake, instead of undoing the mistake (which would have required admitting they had made a mistake) they passed the CRA, blaming individual people for following the government mandate.

            It’s like union laws. Some states pass laws mandating union dues for non-union members, others correct for that mistake by banning union shops. Why not just stay the fuck out of the private affairs of employers and employees?

            1. instead of undoing the mistake (which would have required admitting they had made a mistake)

              This point cannot be made enough.

          3. Even without the laws, the Klan and all the other Good Old Boys made sure that there was never any mixing. Think of it as a guerilla war against the local business owners (really it essentially was).

            Yes, but that’s only because the corrupt local cops wouldn’t prosecute the klansmen for attacking local business owners.

            An alternative strategy would have been for the federal government ot step in, disband the corrupt local police departments, and replace them with federal agents who would properly enforce the laws.

            They did the CRA because it was *cheaper* not because it was the only solution.

            1. //My way, you punish only those guilty of initiating force

              //Yes, but that’s only because the corrupt local cops wouldn’t prosecute the klansmen for attacking local business owners.

              Good luck catching and prosecuting the wrong-doers when the only thing that happens is the business-owners’ stores burn down. Remember, this is in the days before cheap cameras

              And to the one guy, yeah, corrupt local cops, but guess what? The local people vote for cops. Guess which guy they vote for?

              You guys are ignoring that this was all massively socially entrenched. Why would they locals repeal the segregation laws they loved so much? Even if the Feds struck down these laws, how many versions, changes in the details and wordings of the laws, would the locals have come up with, each which would have to go to court separately. The fucking Southerners could still be dragging this shit out if it weren’t for the nuking effect of the CRA.

              It goes against simplistic libertarian dogma*, but tough titties, so does a LOT of real life.

              *not that I’m not libertarian, just that there is a way to actually take real life into account on policy issues.

              1. You guys are all ignoring the cultural/social aspect of all of this. It’d be like saying you “solved” the Mafia problem in Italy by just saying “HEY GUYS!!1!! WHY DON’T THEY JUST MAKE THE MAFIA ILLEGAL OVER THERE HER DER DERP!!!111!!” There’s the law, and there’s what people actually do.

    4. the ONLY way to stop it all was to ban racial discrimination at the federal level and IMPOSE it on the local populace

      That wasn’t the only way. The alternative would have been to send federal troops to enforces the laws to protect business that wished to hire and serve blacks. Because the local cops were racists and corrupt.

      The banned discrimination for everyone so that they *wouldn’t* have to disband and replace the corrupt local police departments.

      1. no, they banned discrimination because having the national guard stay in all of The South forever is not feasible.

        Hell, you might have ended up starting a second civil war.

  10. I once asked an SJW if a $150,000 fine for refusing to sell a cake was tad excessive and perhaps counterproductive to whirled peas. He immediately accused me of hating gay people and said that refusing to sell a cake to a gay couple was no different than forcing black people to sit at the back of the bus.

    And so another SJW briefly sated their intense craving to feel superior to everyone else.

    http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/…..imination/

    1. It has been obvious for years that progs were going to use SSM as a weapon to oppress the living shit out of their enemies and to restrict the freedom to object. Yet, Libertarians supported it anyway. They knew full well that the accommodation laws were not going to be repealed and that SSM was going to be used as a weapon to suppress freedom. Yet somehow they think some chin rubbing and crocodile tears about what a shame this all is gets them off the hook for supporting SSM. Bullshit. They knew what was going to result from this. They were warned and didn’t care.

      1. Are you in a competition with Sheldon Richman to see who can more incorrectly assign blame?

        1. Bullshit. Libertarians supported SSM while also wanting to repeal accomodation laws. But they know accomodation laws are not going anywhere. If they cared about these sorts of things they would have conditioned their support for SSM on the accommodation laws being first repealed. They could have stood on principle and said “we support this but not until it no longer can be used as a legal weapon to suppress freedom”. They didn’t do that because they didn’t want to wait for SSM. They wanted SSM now and thought people like this getting fucked was a price worth paying.

          If you supported SSM, you own the foreseeable consequences of it happening. This is not a surprise and you clearly decided it was a price worth paying or you wouldn’t have supported SSM. You own it.

          1. If you supported SSM, you own the foreseeable consequences of it happening.

            Yup. I supported SSM until I realized that it was going to be used as a weapon against people who commit thoughtcrimes.

            1. Yup. I supported SSM until I realized that it was going to be used as a weapon against people who commit thoughtcrimes.

              DRINK!

          2. What fucking libertarians?

            Nick Gillespie?

            Does he have a million votes in his pocket that he isn’t telling us about?

            1. Every vote counts. And more importantly, principle should count.

              1. Every vote counts.

                So go bitch at Gillespie then. My “vote” against all forms of state marriage licensing hasn’t counted for shit.

            2. That was and continues to be the problem, the SSM movemeny decided to by bypass the political route and go through the courts. Having votes is immaterial to method used, but that way invoked public accommodation.

              1. If we’re talking about the courts, then laying the blame for this at the feet of libertarians is truly ridiculous.

                Is there a secret cabal of judge-appointing libertarians out there somewhere? In the past decade, we’ve gotten what, Janice Rogers Brown?

                Is all of this somehow her fault too?

      2. It has been obvious for years that progs were going to use SSM as a weapon to oppress the living shit out of their enemies and to restrict the freedom to object. Yet, Libertarians supported it anyway.

        Whadya know, I still support the Nazis marching in Skokie.

        Now, excuse me while I go polish my Pinto.

        1. So you support this. Good for you to be honest and admit you are okay with this. I don’t agree with you but you are a step above the rest of the people on here who think they can walk away from the known and foreseeable consequences of the policies they support.

          1. John, supporting actions of free people, while realizing that sometimes has adverse consequences, isn’t mutually exclusive.

            Recognizing liberty isn’t a utilitarian exercise.

            1. No its not. And that is why you don’t throw these people’s freedom to think and act how they like under the bus for SSM. If SSM cannot be enacted without stomping over other people’s freedom, then you don’t support it until things are changed so that it doesn’t do that. If you do support it anyway, you are just making the utilitarian calculation that oppressing some people is worth doing to achieve this end.

              1. If you do support it anyway, you are just making the utilitarian calculation that oppressing some people is worth doing to achieve this end.

                John, you’re conflating these issues, too.

                SSM is an expansion of liberty.
                Public accommodation laws are a restriction of liberty.

                I’ll let you do the math there.

                The problem isn’t letting the homos marry, it’s the PA laws. Get rid of those and the problem of holding vendors liable for hurt widdle feels goes away too.

                1. The problem isn’t letting the homos marry, it’s the PA laws.

                  While they are certainly theoretically distinct, I don’t think you can unlink them in the real world.

                  1. I don’t think you can unlink them in the real world.

                    I can, easily. They are 2 different laws aimed at doing 2 completely different things.

                    I don’t even have to compartmentalize.

            2. Perhaps the injustice associated with the accommodation laws will now receive the attention it deserves. It certainly wasn’t before, nor did it stand any chance of being talked about at all.

              Take each thing as it comes on its own merits.

              1. Or perhaps Libertarians will all get unicorns for Christmas too Nerfherder. Meanwhile in the real world, they are not going anywhere and now have the power to screw even more people. Oh and we are one step closer to reading the Free Exercise clause out of the 1st Amendment.

                But hey, none of that affects you and everyone loves gays. So why worry?

                1. It doesn’t affect me? I own and manage a business that serves the public, do you? Do you think I’m not keenly aware of the multitude of laws that apply, whether employment or public accommodation?

      3. They knew full well that the accommodation laws were not going to be repealed and that SSM was going to be used as a weapon to suppress freedom.

        But, but, but… Intentions!

        1. You know, if you play this game hard enough, then you can’t do anything in life because you can’t control what other people do.

          Anybody can justify their actions on the basis of what somebody else said or did, no matter how strained the connection might be.

          Are we to favor capital controls because the progs will use the lack of the same as an excuse to limit political spending? Are we to favor speech restrictions because the Muslims will use the freedom of speech as an excuse to kill people? Etc.

          1. I supported SSM until I heard a piece on NPR on how it was going to be pushed as a civil rights issue. Being that civil rights means shutting down people and businesses who disagree, I withdrew my support.

            I couldn’t ally myself with those who would intentionally use this as a weapon against liberty.

            Apparently that makes me un-libertarian.

            1. I supported SSM until I heard a piece on NPR on how it was going to be pushed as a civil rights issue. Being that civil rights means shutting down people and businesses who disagree, I withdrew my support.

              DRINK!

              Now tell us about u-haul lesbians, sarc!

            2. If you knew where the civil rights movement that started in the 1950s would eventually end up, would you have supported it?

              Serious question here, because I think my answer would be “no”.

              Having said that, the merits of the issue and the goals of its (most vocal) supporters are distinct matters.

      4. My thing is, and this is a crazy idea to be sure, that if Texas recognizes straight legal marriages performed in other states it should recognize gay legal marriages too. While we’re at it, your ccw from Texas should be recognized in New York or California.

        1. You are probably right about that. I would be totally on board with extending the full faith and credit clause to include contracts another state finds against public policy.

          That would have been a victory for freedom. It would have applied to a lot of other things like C&C permits. But that is not how gay marriage is being done. So SSM is going to end up being a net loss for freedom. SSM is going to result in the government being able to compel people to act against their religion or go out of business.

          1. Ceteris paribus, public accomodation laws still exist. So then you would be saying that, by legalizing SSM, Vermont is forcing Texas to accept it as well.

            1. The full faith and credit clause only applies to the state governments. It would just mean that the state of Texas has to recognize the marriage. Would that extend to forcing Texas to make businesses do the same because they force them to recognize straight marriages? Maybe. And that would still suck, you are right.

              That being said, at least doing it via the FFC would set a good legal precedent and have had some upside. Doing via equal protection has no upside.

              1. Would that extend to forcing Texas to make businesses do the same because they force them to recognize straight marriages?

                Under our current public accommodation laws, its hard to see how a legal conclusion that anti-gay discrimination is not allowed at the state level won’t also mean its not allowed by public accommodations.

                Is there any group that the courts have said the state cannot discriminate against, that aren’t also privileged by public accommodation laws?

    2. It isn’t any different, if you are talking about a private bus. But both should be legal.

    3. I want to let you know that at least one person appreciates the “whirled peas” joke.

  11. I’m of mixed mind on this. I get the libertan agument tht you should be able to refuse to do business with anyone for any reson …. and deal with the consequences. I’m not totally sure I buy it as a broad principle. If you are offering a service to the public I think there are just going to be customers you have to grit your teeth over.

    OTOH I do kinda wonder how self-rightious the Liberal Left would be getting over such incidents if it were, say, a Jewish or Black person declining to serve the KKK.

    1. We’re finding out now, with the case of the gay baker who refused to put an allegedly anti-gay message on a Christian customer’s cake.

      Progs think this is *totally different!*

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..61108.html

    2. Unless you are offering a good or service for or through the government, you aren’t serving “the public”, you’re conduction business with private individuals.

      At least that’s the way I’ve always viewed it.

      1. That’s the way you’ve always viewed it because that’s how it is.

        1. Nice, so my brain actually IS rooted in reality.

          This will be a shock to the voices that live there.

    3. If you are offering a service to the public I think there are just going to be customers you have to grit your teeth over.

      To be successful in business, or because a gun is pointed at you?

    4. If you are offering a service to the public I think there are just going to be customers you have to grit your teeth over.

      Why?

      Also, if we are to take the government’s example into account when defining “the public”, then it would be perfectly acceptable to discriminate on whatever basis you can fathom. If the government can decide that “the public” is everyone except any particular individual, then why can’t a business owner?

  12. mumble mumble foreseeable consequences mumble mumble not unintended mumble mumble

    1. Since when did you become a consequentialist, sarc?

      I mean, Jesus fucking Christ, aren’t you the “principles” guy? Why on this subject alone are you so petulant and arbitrary?

  13. Rather than turning to lawyers, they turned to social media and thus the case has gotten a lot of notice. The doctor subsequently sent a letter to the couple apologizing for not speaking to them directly after turning them away, but she said she prayed and felt that she would not “be able to develop the personal patient-doctor relationships” that she normally does.

    I don’t understand, wouldn’t they be better off forcing someone to care for their baby who really doesn’t want to?

    1. Because it is all about them. They don’t give a shit about their kid. All they care about is shoving their politics down everyone’s throat.

      1. I think you mistook his question as being real. The lesbian couple decided to take their child, through no state force, to another pediatrician that was okay with two mommies.

        1. But why sue the first one? Why would they want someone who hates gays seeing gays’ children? The only reason to sue is out of spite.

          1. They didn’t sue (The “rather than turning to lawyers” part). They just used social media.

            1. The lesson WA and the ACLU did not learn.

            2. To be fair, that’s how the WA case started. They posted on Facebook that they were disappointed that they wouldn’t be getting their flowers there. The state got wind of it and filed suit without them.

              It wasn’t until later that the ACLU leaned on them and convinced them to be plaintiffs.

  14. “Look, you God-bothering fundies have a whole day out of the week in which to practice your religion! Yet you insist on practicing your religion on the other six days, too!

    “It’s not as if Christians have ever suggested that their doctrines are relevant to conduct in the marketplace!”

  15. You know, I’m all for gay marriage, but the fact that the couple in Washington ADMITTED that they weren’t really that put out and were able to find another florist, and still sued is the exact reason so many people on here (snoconez all of you!)* say “fuck you” about the whole thing.

    *I don’t think anybody here is actually a SOCON.

    1. What am I, chopped liver?

      But I suppose I should ask for your definition of a SoCon. Because if you say, “someone who wants to burn gays, and people who eat meat during Lent, at the stake” then I’ll have to admit I’m *not* a SoCon.

      1. *Eats hamburger in front of NGKC to see if he gets burned at the stake…*

        1. Romans 14:3

            1. Wait, I didn’t even mention the KJV, what gives?

            2. ad Romanos XIV:III or get the fuck out!

              1. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PZ2.HTM

                I’m not proficient in Latin, but let me rely on Google Translate and say: oscula asino

                1. in culis, unless you happen to have a particularly attractive donkey.

                    1. “People called Romans, they go to the ‘ouse?”

              2. Mmmmm…Romanos Macaroni Grill…

                1. Gross

        2. He isn’t burning you at the stake Swiss. He’s just making sure that hamburger is cooked all the way through. He doesn’t want you getting sick from an undercooked burger.

          1. Well, when word of this gets back to the Home Office, we will just see how this affects Swiss Guard recruiting!

      2. No, you’re a filthy papist.

        (Sorry, I couldn’t resist and that word sounds so silly in my ears.)

        1. Oh, there’s lots of good old terms of religious invective, as acknowledged in the Maryland Act of Toleration (yes, toleration):

          “And be it also further Enacted by the same authority advise and assent that whatsoever person or persons shall from henceforth uppon any occasion of Offence or otherwise in a reproachful manner or Way declare call or denominate any person or persons whatsoever…an heritick, Scismatick, Idolator, puritan, Independant, Prespiterian popish prest, Jesuite, Jesuited papist, Lutheran, Calvenist, Anabaptist, Brownist, Antinomian, Barrowist, Roundhead, Separatist, or any other name or terme in a reproachfull manner relating to matter of Religion”

          http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18t…..ration.asp

          1. [shall be punished, etc.]

            1. So, basically, that’s probbably why Fox shut down *The Independents*

              1. fuckin’ Red Necks

                1. Miserable Ranters, Diggers, Barkers and Levelers! I won’t even mention those @#$%&ing; Hussites!

  16. Even the plaintiffs acknowledge that the actual harms from getting turned away by Stutzman amount to less than $10.

    But the smarmy little fuckwads filed a lawsuit because somebody refused to acknowledge the depth and breadth of their preciousness. What the fuck do they care what happens afterward?

    1. Eh, they actually declined to sue. The state filed suit without them, and then the ACLU-WA worked on them and got them to sue. Even at that point they kept the suit as minimal as possible, hence the 7-ish dollars.

      KEPR talked with Robert Ingersoll on Monday night. He said it felt like he was getting rejected by a friend, because the couple had done business with Stutzman for over a decade. He said he had no idea she felt the way she did. Ingersoll said he and his partner have lost nights of sleep over the issue. He said he hopes that the anger and fighting on Facebook can stop, so peace and acceptance can prevail.

      You might rightly criticize them for caving to the ACLU, but they were hardly doctrinaire libertarians to begin with, so I’m sure a lawyer contacting them could make a reasonable argument for why a suit would be important.

      1. Oh, my god! They “Lost nights of sleep” over it!

        Well, THAT’s certainly never happened to ANYONE before.
        I can’t imagine that happening to me. the horror!

        1. Oh, I interpreted that as being related to the next sentence (that there was a social media shit storm), not the former sentence (how Sutsman felt). They posted something on FB, then it went viral and Stutzman/Arlene’s flowers started getting harassed in a quite disgusting way and Ingersoll and Freed expressed regret that it had blown up as an issue.

          Re-reading it I could see that loose “lost nights of sleep over the issue” could be read to go either way though.

          1. Oh, hmm ,maybe oyu are right about it being the facebook shitdstorm.

            1. You could be right, but I think the way that paragraph is structured makes it impossible to know.

              I think there are cases where the litigiousness is really front and center of the case, like the Liberty Ridge case in NY, but this one has sucked all of the air out of the room, and I feel like it’s a bad example for the GAYS ARE COMING FOR OUR BUSINESSES crowd because it’s more about a rend in a long term business relationship that was torn wide open by meddling lawyers than about a specifically litigious couple aggressing against Christians to make a point.

      2. They could not tell the ACLU to go pound sand?

        1. I don’t think you read to the end of what I said:

          You might rightly criticize them for caving to the ACLU, but they were hardly doctrinaire libertarians to begin with, so I’m sure a lawyer contacting them could make a reasonable argument for why a suit would be important.

          Would you or I tell the ACLU to sit on a rusty spike? Absolutely, but we’re hardly operating under the same first principles as your average joe.

  17. Yes, public accommodation laws make it possible for people who are assholes to fuck with other people who are assholes. This isn’t much of a reason to take away people’s rights.

  18. Yes, public accommodation laws make it possible for people who are assholes to fuck with other people who are assholes. This isn’t much of a reason to take away people’s rights.

    This seems to be an argument that its OK to take away rights from people you don’t like, to expand the rights of people you do like.

    1. You could read it that way, if you’re insane or obsessed with conspiracy theories about the gay mafia.

      1. I just feel compelled to stand up for assholes. I really do. The truth is the bakery owners are a bunch of nuts. How the hell does baking a cake mean you endorse the marriage?

        They hold a goofy position that is universally unpopular and scorned by the culture at large. I see that fact as a real compelling reason to stand up for them. Part of it is that I hate bullies and the other part is that I know that it won’t stop there. Give it time and gay couples will be suing churches demanding that they perform their ceremony and then they will move on to hostile work environment and make even saying you object to homosexuality a firable offense.

        1. “How the hell does baking a cake mean you endorse the marriage?”

          Uh, on gayweddings.com, bakers willing to make cakes for gay weddings are listed as “LGBTQ-Friendly Wedding Vendors.”

          http://gayweddings.com/vendors/

          So they can’t have it both ways: “These bakers aren’t endorsing your marriage, they’re just LGBTQ-friendly!”

          Do you see how maybe the distinction may be lost on your average Christian baker? Christians are fairly dumb, after all!

          1. “The wedding vendors in our LGBTQ-friendly directory are ready, willing and able to help all couples, regardless of sexual orientation, with their civil unions, commitment ceremonies, legal marriages and other relationship celebrations.”

          2. I see, so vendors who actively advertise to gays and people who bake cakes for their customers regardless of sexual orientation are both equally “endorsing” gay marriage?

            That’s just dumb.

            1. I *said* Christians were dumb!

              I mean, I once talked to a Jehovah’s Witness who refused alternative military service during the draft because he thought that even accepting civilian work as a conscientious objector was too much like cooperating with the war machine.

              1. I mean, if the Aryan Nations compound were celebrating a wedding, in a ceremony where the officiant said, “go bear lots of male children who can go kill Jews and queers,” would you not have a slight pang of conscience about making their cake?

                1. I mean, supposing you didn’t actually *advertise* in the Neo-Nazi Weekly Advertiser?

                2. Eddie, I couldn’t help but notice that you’re still single. Why is that?

                  1. Because my prior relationships crashed and burned.

                    Does that please you?

                    1. And what clued you in, may I ask?

                    2. (and at the time most of my relatinships crashed, I was still atheist or Protestant)

                    3. I’m just very perceptive.

                    4. No, it concerns me. Why are you wasting time debating gay marriage? Seeing as how you are single, isn’t there something better you could be doing with your time?

                      For a single man to spend so much time on gay marriage…. Isn’t that… odd?

                    5. If you think it’s odd for Reason writers to discuss it, maybe it’s odd for me, too.

                      Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think what bothers you is the *position* I take, not the fact that I’m discussing the question.

                      If I made numerous posts about the glories of same-sex marriage, I’m not sure you’d be quite as concerned.

                      So it comes down to the fact that you hold one position, and I hold another, and you think the people with the other position are weird.

                      I don’t bring up what I know about other posters’ personal lives, because I operate under the presumption that they communicate this information to me in confidence.

                    6. What I take issue with is what you said to my gay friend. You compared his situation to a violent supremacy movement that kills people.

                      I’m just trying to figure out how your moral compass got so fucked up.

                      And I didn’t reveal anything confidential about you. I would never do that. It was a guess, and the odds are overwhelmingly in my favor. As in 1000-1.

                    7. “What I take issue with is what you said to my gay friend. You compared his situation to a violent supremacy movement that kills people.”

                      I suppose it would be outrageous if I *had* said that. It never occurred to me that this was my meaning until you claimed it.

                      If he thinks that was my meaning, of course he should protest. It was chivalrous to protest on his behalf.

                      The problem is that you missed my point – how far do you cooperate with someone you conscientiously disagree with, before you’re endorsing their disagreeable views?

                3. So they can’t have it both ways: “These bakers aren’t endorsing your marriage, they’re just LGBTQ-friendly!”

                  No, Eddie, you’re making a specific claim that because some bakers advertise inclusivity that all people who bake a cake for gays are “endorsing”.

                  would you not have a slight pang of conscience about making their cake?

                  Probably not: I’d do better things with that money than a baker who was an Aryan Nation asshole and I don’t think that cake would in any way further Aryan Nation goals, but I also don’t support public accommodation laws.

                  I do think it’s funny that the anti-SSM folks complain about comparisons to interracial marriage, but when it comes to baking a cake it’s suddenly all KKK and Aryan Nation folks buying cakes. Why isn’t it ever “is selling pinatas in my general goods store endorsing immigration”?

                  1. All right, so the bakers aren’t endorsing SSM so long as they don’t advertise in gay-oriented publications or Web sites.

                    And, while I would be happy to use interracial-marriage analogies, since I don’t think Lester Maddox or Louis Farrakhan should be forced to cater an interracial wedding, my specific example went to a wedding ceremony which promoted neo-nazism.

                    1. Suppose you’re *photographing* the wedding – would you take a picture of the happy neo-Nazi couple saluting a picture of Der Fuhrer?

                      Would you put your photo on their wedding web site, proudly signed with your signature?

                    2. Would you put your photo on their wedding web site, proudly signed with your signature?

                      Would it surprise you to know that I’ve never known who the baker, florist or photographer is at any wedding I’ve ever been to?

                      Were I photographer I’d totally include photos of a neo-Nazi couple in my overall portfolio but I wouldn’t advertise it in my wedding business. Then again if I were a photographer and I’d taken pictures of the Rwandan Genocide I’d include that in my broader portfolio as well. I have a hard time passing up ridiculous adventures though, especially getting paid for a ridiculous adventure.

                      But that is neither here nor there. You’re deflecting from my criticism of the core comparison you made between people who are actively seeking a particular demographic of customers and people who accept whatever business comes their way.

                    3. OK, I think the issue is that some people have scruples on this point.

                      Maybe they’re wrong about gay marriage (I suppose you think they are). Maybe they’re wrong about how far they can go without endorsing gay marriage. But these are *their* views, for which they’re willing to make sacrifices.

                      And for religious-freedom purposes, we ought to look to sincerity, not whether we find the views understandable.

                    4. And for religious-freedom purposes, we ought to look to sincerity, not whether we find the views understandable.

                      None of which would be an issue were there not public accommodation laws in place. I’m not in favor of forcing anyone to bake a cake for anyone. I don’t believe that they should be forced to do anything whether it’s from scruples or a fit of pique. I was just objecting to your qualitative comparison between seeking out gay clients and accepting to provide services for gay clients.

                      Also your frequent attempts to compare Jew-killing rhetoric and gay marriage are tacky comparisons, at best.

                    5. “Also your frequent attempts to compare Jew-killing rhetoric and gay marriage are tacky comparisons, at best.”

                      I was trying to make a comparison based on offensiveness to the baker/florist/candlestick maker, etc., not that SSM was anywhere near as bad as neo-Nazis. I hope I didn’t suggest otherwise.

                      How about the example of an “I Rode With Forrest” birthday cake for a Klan rally? Or a “100 years without Jewish members” banquet at a country club? The bottom line is the offensiveness, and how far the person is willing to go to cooperate with the offensive event.

                      Now, all due respect, you and the others at H&R remind me of the Girondins of the French Revolution. You started out as zealous revolutionaries, casting aside all obstacles, denouncing all counterrevolutionaries and reactionaries. Now you’re at the phase where the Jacobins are pushing you aside and taking the Revolution in directions you don’t want to go. Soon the Jacbins will be calling *you* the counterrevolutionries, because of your reactionary support for business freedom.

                      Soon you and I will have adjacent cells, accusing each other of ideological deviations, while the Jacobins sharpen the guillotine for both of us.

                    6. So wait, you’re saying that the Girondins of the French Revolution shouldn’t have gotten rid of the monarch because that led inevitably to the Jacobins?

                      I mean what conclusion are we supposed to take from this. Don’t have revolutions, because the Jacobins will always take over?

                    7. HazelMeade,

                      I’d say be very careful before starting a revolution, yes.

                      Pull the stopper out of the genie’s bottle, and he could wreak a lot of havoc.

                      Of course some revolutions are justified…by their good results. See, American Revolution.

                      Not so much the French Revolution.

                    8. Don’t have revolutions, because the Jacobins will always take over?

                      Entertainingly one of my history professors made this argument about anarchist’s role in the Russian revolution.

                    9. Well, helping start the Russian Revolution *was* in hindsight, a bad idea.

                    10. Soon you and I will have adjacent cells, accusing each other of ideological deviations, while the Jacobins sharpen the guillotine for both of us.

                      I think you’re being theatrical, but more to the point: OK, I think the issue is that some people have scruples on this point.

                      In your estimation Christians should put themselves out there visibly for martyrdom because of their scruples, but people who believe that gay couples warrant equal access to the rights and responsibilities of marriage should abandon them and be utilitarian?

                    11. As I said, I bet we’ll continue to snipe at each other through the bars of our respective cells about the ideal marriage policy.

                      Meanwhile, the Jacobins will put us both in the “counterrevolutionary” category and treat us as such.

                      For all the pain and humiliation of being hassled by the Jacobins, I bet their positing a moral equivalence between you and I will be the most galling!

                    12. Suppose you’re *photographing* the wedding – would you take a picture of the happy neo-Nazi couple saluting a picture of Der Fuhrer?

                      Would you put your photo on their wedding web site, proudly signed with your signature?

                      NO YOU FUCKING MORON! I WOULDN’T.

                      THERE IS NO PERSON HERE, EXCEPT TONY, THAT BELIEVES A PRIVATE BUSINESS SHOULD BE FORCED TO DO ANYTHING AGAINST THEIR WILL, YOU MENDACIOUS TWAT!

                      IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT GAYS CAN MARRY!

                    13. I’m not sure why you think WRITING IN ALL CAPS makes your arguments any more persuasive, but I’ll see if I can try that tactic:

                      THE DISCUSSION WAS ABOUT SOME PEOPLE (LIKE JOHN AND OTHERS) SUPPORTING THE RIGHT NOT TO SERVE PEOPLE WHILE SAYING THAT THEY *SHOULDN’T* HAVE CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES AGAINST SERVING THEM.

                      I SAID IT MADE PERFECT SENSE TO HAVE CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES AGAINST ASSISTING AT AN EVENT WHOSE THEME OFFENDS YOU, LIKE A “100 YEARS WITHOUT JEWISH MEMBERS” CELEBRATION AT AN “EXCLUSIVE” COUNTRY CLUB.

                    14. I’m not sure why you think WRITING IN ALL CAPS makes your arguments any more persuasive

                      I don’t.

                      I was yelling at you, because I don’t like you.

                      However, I did misinterpret your argument in this subthread and for that I apologize.

                      But, is it or is it not your position that allowing SSM should not be allowed as it will create another protected class?

                    15. SSM should not be recognized by the government, actual marriage should be. Because marriage and the family precede the government and the government has no business either redefining marriage *or denying it recognition.*

                      My objections aren’t confined to SSM laws, but extend also to “no-fault” divorce, the promotion of single motherhood, and legalizing adultery under the name of “remarriage.”

                    16. Thanks.

                      Now I don’t feel so bad about my mistake, because I was essentially correct, just not wrt that thread.

                      You truly ARE vile bigot. Glad we cleared that up.

                    17. I’m glad you cleared up your definition of bigotry.

                      Me and the billions of human beings throughout history (including billions of non-Christians) who hold my views, can only weep bitter tears that you don’t like us.

                    18. Yes, pig, my definition of bigotry:

                      Supporting law that denies rights, that you want for yourself, to others that are in no way harming you.

                      You are shit.

                    19. “Yes, pig, my definition of bigotry”

                      Hey, hey, there’s no call to call me a policeman! Let’s keep it civil.

                    20. It would be so much easier if you had just come out and said this in the first place.

                    21. You mean I didn’t before?

          3. “How the hell does baking a cake mean you endorse the marriage?”

            I suggest you ask the bakers. If they think doing so constitutes support or endorsement of gay marriage, who are you to say otherwise?

            1. I am not RC and that is my point and why I am defending them even though I think their decision was goofy.

            2. Exactly. What are we going to have government going around telling people “You’re feelings are wrong! Stop having those feelings!”
              ???

        1. And created the Golden Girls in order to turn an entire generation of young men gay. Never forget the Golden Girls Mulatto

      2. What channel is the gay mafia on?

      3. You could read it that way, if you’re insane or obsessed with conspiracy theories about the gay mafia.

        Not necessary. I’m reading it right off the page. You seem to be saying that its perfectly alright to take away some people’s rights, by use of public accommodation laws, to expand other people’s rights. Am I reading it wrong?

        Naturally, the deeper flaw here is that public accommodation laws don’t protect anyone’s rights, because nobody has a right to the involuntary service of somebody else.

        1. You seem to be saying that its perfectly alright to take away some people’s rights, by use of public accommodation laws, to expand other people’s rights. Am I reading it wrong?

          Yes, you are. It’s a false choice.

          1. Allow gays to marry.

          2. Don’t make gays a protected class.

          Not rocket surgery.

          (And better yet, do away with all protected classes.) (And even better than that, get government OUT of marriage altogether.)

          1. Hear, hear

          2. Better.

            1. Allow gays to marry.

            2. Don’t have any protected classes.

            Isn’t the very idea of some classes being protected and others not a fundamental violation of the equal justice principle in the first place?

            1. I would say yes. Lawyers would probably say no.

              Lawyers would argue that if you say you cannot discriminate based on race, for instance, that all business must treat all races the same and there is therefore no discrimination.

              I say yes because I apply 14A to people in general, and interpret it to mean you cannot write law that discriminates against a group or person. In which case your argument holds as laws creating protected classes discriminates against business people in that they may not associate freely with whom they choose.

  19. If I own a business I own what it produces. If I own what it produces I get to decide whom I want to provide what services/products to. Anything less is an infringement on my property rights and also constitutes involuntary servitude, which was explicitly outlawed in the 13th amendment to the federal Constitution.

    The end.

  20. Wow.

    Pizza – deep-dish or good, actual pizza?

    Circumcision – abomination, or thoughtful pruning to perfect a male body part?

    Messicans – mongrel hoard or blessed workers doing the jerbs ‘murcans won’t?

    Ebola – worst threat ever or WORST THREAT EVAR!!!11!!?? (what’s up with Ebola these days? News media got nothin’)

    Intellectual Property Rights – is Old Mexican right and if you support these you’re a fucking slaver? Or is IP Otay, and not supporting them is theft of my musical/writing/other creations?

    How much better was it when Virginia Postrel was running Reason? (any arguments that it was not better are prohibited)

    Discuss

    *pops biggest tub of popcorn EVAH*

  21. DAMN THIS LIBERTARIAN ECHO CHAMBER!!!

    Who was that lamentinng the fact that people were starting to block Bo on reasonable and fscr and such, because that would lead to an echo chamber effect? NOT HERE! NEXT UP ABORTION!!! AND DEEP DISH PIZZA!!!!

  22. A diverse marketplace that straight people have 100% access to, while gay people have something less than that.

    1. You don’t have acces to the Mensa members’ store – is *that* a violation of your rights?

    2. I wouldn’t make you a cake, for the record.

    3. You have our libertarian blessing to open a gay florist shop and refuse to serve straight weddings.

      1. Would Tony fail because he has limited his customer base?

        Or just because he is an asshole?

        1. Tony is likely to fail at anything he tries, as he takes no responsibility for his actions. Why do you think he supports government stealing money for him?

          1. You fail at basic thinking, suffering from the common libertarian ailment of combining being undereducated with an oversized ego. It’s why you think we don’t need targeted policies to deal with problems in the real world, but merely the application of a few trite principles. Of course you don’t question why such a simple approach has never succeeded at producing a decent society ever–it must be the eternal liberal menace, the one obstacle, I guess, that you are willing to concede was not dreamt of in your philosophy. Or maybe you just like to whine and found a group of people willing to listen.

            Tell me, why is it not stealing to collect taxes to pay for police and courts? Because you can’t imagine needing government for much else, and it’s all about you?

              1. And in two short words you prove me right.

            1. Re: Tony,

              Tell me, why is it not stealing to collect taxes to pay for police and courts?

              It IS theft. If you collect taxes under the threat of bodily harm, privation of liberty or of property, that is THEFT. The justification for the theft is irrelevant.

              1. I applaud your consistency, even if it leads to absurdities.

            2. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you: PROGJECTION!

    4. I got bad news for you, Tony:

      Nobody has access to 100% of any marketplace. Sorry. That’s the way the world works.

      I, personally, don’t have access to the hypercar segment of the car market. Sad, but true. Those people just won’t do business with me, on account of my bank account lacking the requisite number of zeros.

      1. Well, all else being equal, straight people have more access. Sure the market will treat you differently based on your wealth. But if it treats you differently because of innate characteristics often subject to bigotry, then you can’t really claim it’s a free market.

        I’m all for minimizing government interference in people’s market transactions, provided the market demonstrates that it is as fair and free as you guys like to claim.

        1. Well, all else being equal, straight people have more access.

          If true, it is still irrelevant if you consider a business owns what it produces and is not, by any meaningful definition, a “public accomodation”.

          I’m all for minimizing government interference in people’s market transactions,

          No you aren’t. In fact, you demostrate as much in the rest of that thought (if you can call it that).

          provided the market demonstrates that it is as fair and free as you guys like to claim.

          In other words, “provided it operates in a way I think it should”. With the implication that you must use the gov’t to strongarm those actors that you disapprove of.

          Also, no one said market behavior will ever or should be “fair”. The point is that it should be composed of voluntary transactions.

          1. If true, it is still irrelevant if you consider a business owns what it produces and is not, by any meaningful definition, a “public accomodation”.

            Since minorities, to this day, suffer the consequences of being excluded from their own communities’ marketplaces, even if it was all in the past, it would seem a legitimate problem was discovered. I’m not saying there aren’t competing rights claims here, but I also don’t see why the rights you’re claiming for business owners should trump every other consideration.

            1. I also don’t see why the rights you’re claiming for business owners should trump every other consideration.

              The following:

              Rebel Scum|2.19.15 @ 12:38PM|#

              If I own a business I own what it produces. If I own what it produces I get to decide whom I want to provide what services/products to. Anything less is an infringement on my property rights and also constitutes involuntary servitude, which was explicitly outlawed in the 13th amendment to the federal Constitution.

              The end.

              1. That’s a bit of an exaggeration. And rather horrifyingly ironic. Blacks are enslaved for centuries, then when they are freed but still excluded from participating in the commerce of their society, it’s the people excluding them who are the real victims.

                You missed the pragmatic point: if people weren’t acting on their bigotries and creating a society of exclusion of minorities, we’d never have needed the laws. They brought it on themselves by insisting on a right that competed with other people’s rights–and they correctly lost.

                1. Re: Tony,

                  Blacks are enslaved for centuries,

                  Not all blacks were enslaved for centuries; there have been plenty of free blacks living in America for centuries. And some blacks had slaves themselves.

                  then when they are freed but still excluded from participating in the commerce of their society,

                  Not only blacks, Tony. The people who wanted to trade with them – white business people – were excluded as well, either through Jim Crow laws or minimum wage laws. You see things in a binary way, just like other little red Marxians.

                  if people weren’t acting on their bigotries and creating a society of exclusion of minorities, we’d never have needed the laws.

                  That’s post facto reasoning. Besides, it is irrelevant whether people act on their bigotries or not: nobody has a right to your production or mine. You can act according to your own prejudices as long as you do no harm to others, but not engaging in commerce with someone is NOT an act of aggression.

                2. Why can’t you all just accept Tony’s rightness in the fact that all southerners hate black people and want to keep them in poverty forever and ever?

            2. Because no one has a right to force someone else to labor on their behalf. Idiot.

              1. A conclusion white people reached after having become unprecedentedly wealthy via the use of slave labor. Good thing the world is remade anew every day and no past injustices inform entrenched inequities in the wondrous free market.

        2. Re: Tony,

          Well, all else being equal, straight people have more access.

          You’re confusing access with entitlement. All people have access to the same market. That does not mean people will be willing to trade with you. You con’t have the right to be liked and, certainly, you do NOT have the right to other people’s goods or services.

          Sure the market will treat you differently based on your wealth.

          Methinks you still are ignorant of what the market is and is not. The market is the complex system spontaneously created by the billions of interactions between individuals who trade. The market does not treat you one way or the other – only PEOPLE treat you one way or the other, not the “market”.

          I’m all for minimizing government interference in people’s market transactions,

          You’re a liar. That’s ok, everybody knows already.

          1. In this country you do have a right to be free from discrimination based on race, sex, disability status, etc., while being a customer at a place of business that serves the public. You don’t like it, but it has not done any harm that I can discern, so the fact that it rectifies the actual harm of widespread discrimination makes it good policy. But I put people’s lives above bullshit principles you think are somehow impenetrable aspects of nature but which are really arbitrary philosophical constructs dreamed up by people who would benefit from them.

        3. Tony,
          there is no, never was, and never will be any danger of gays getting service. No one in the debate has ever claimed there even would be.

          Your argument fails.

          The black situation was different. It was indeed effectively impossible for them to do a lot of things because the bigotry and extra-legal enforcement of segregation was so widespread.

    5. Re: Tony,

      A diverse marketplace that straight people have 100% access to, while gay people have something less than that.

      A notion betrayed by reality:

      http://www.usnews.com/news/art…..al-couples

      If homosexuals were indeed excluded from the marketplace, their incomes would be lower.

      1. I thought we were about principles over reality here? Not being able to buy flowers because you’re gay is exclusion. I don’t seriously think being gay is comparably burdensome in the marketplace as the situation black people were in when anti-discrimination laws were passed. But it is the principle of the matter–the law shouldn’t treat sexual orientation as less worthy of attention than race, in my opinion. I know that you don’t want any of them paid attention to.

        About the article–though I hate to neglect an opportunity to express gay superiority, you need to read past the headline.

        1. Re: Tony,

          I thought we were about principles over reality here? Not being able to buy flowers because you’re gay is exclusion.

          No, it is not. If I don’t want to sell you my house for whatever reason, that’s NOT exclusion. It is still MY HOUSE. Those are HER flowers.

          I don’t seriously think being gay is comparably burdensome in the marketplace as the situation black people were in when anti-discrimination laws were passed.

          Irrelevant.

          But it is the principle of the matter–the law shouldn’t treat sexual orientation as less worthy of attention than race

          The laws assume a wrong thing – that people are ENTITLED to someone else’s production. That’s THEFT.

          About the article–though I hate to neglect an opportunity to express gay superiority, you need to read past the headline.

          I did. The article is pertinent and serves to contradict your notion that gays are EXCLUDED from the marketplace. They’re not if their incomes are higher. Your contention is fallacious.

          1. Also, they aren’t excluded from the marketplace because someone somewhere is willing to sell them flowers or cake for their wedding (and in this particular case, they actually found someone to sell them flowers for the wedding and only had to spend $7 in gas to get there).

          2. Ownership is not a concept found in natural laws. It is an invention of human beings and has always been subject to conventions of both force and practicality. You don’t need to assume I’m not getting your point. Your point is that people are entitled to ownership (though how that works in a stateless, lawless society you advocate is a bit of a mystery), but that all other entitlements are illegitimate.

            1. // It is an invention of human beings and has always been subject to conventions of both force and practicality

              …except for all the fucking millions of animal species who have a territoriality instinct.

              I’m not saying formalized versions of property are “natural”, but the general idea of property is indeed instinctive.

            2. Ownership is not a concept found in natural laws.

              Libertarianism doesn’t postulate “ownership” as a basic principle, but freedom from violence. Private property is a corollary.

              Your point is that people are entitled to ownership (though how that works in a stateless, lawless society you advocate is a bit of a mystery)

              The same way property rights have been enforced through most of human history and are widely enforced today: through voluntary, mutually beneficial choices. Most people don’t take someone to court when their property rights are violated, they simply stop associating with the perpetrator.

              but that all other entitlements are illegitimate

              If you think you are entitled to a morning blowjob from a pretty woman, join a commune that provides you that entitlement. Libertarians simply believe that membership in your commune should be voluntary, while you seem to think you have the right to force people at gunpoint to join.

        2. //But it is the principle of the matter–the law shouldn’t treat sexual orientation as less worthy of attention than race,

          Then you’re a fucking idiot, and insulting the memory of millions of black people who were actually excluded

          I mean, you just said
          “I don’t seriously think being gay is comparably burdensome in the marketplace as the situation black people were in when anti-discrimination laws were passed”
          Don’t you think that should matter when drafting laws? Are laws supposed to ignore history, ignore reality?

          1. “I don’t seriously think being gay is comparably burdensome in the marketplace as the situation black people were in when anti-discrimination laws were passed”
            Don’t you think that should matter when drafting laws?

            So you’re saying that if a few faggots are fired from their jobs or strung up dead on fence posts, you don’t really give a fuck, because there are just too few of them to be worthy of your attention or compassion? At how many dead and fired do you draw the line exactly?

            If you favor non-discrimination laws at all, the distinction you try to make between different protected groups is morally wrong and offensive.

  23. You might rightly criticize them for caving to the ACLU, but they were hardly doctrinaire libertarians to begin with, so I’m sure a lawyer contacting them could make a reasonable argument for why a suit would be important.

    The ACLU should just pack it in. As far as I can tell, they do more harm than good, these days.

    I honestly hope those two people have a long and happy life together, but I am sick and tired of people of all political persuasions resorting to the cudgel of government to avenge every emotional slight.

    LIFE IS NOT FAIR.

    Get the fuck over it. Also, barring some sort of long term contractual obligation, who gives a shit about prior transactions? what would they have said if the florist had sued them for NOT bringing their business to her, based on their previous history?

    1. I agree on the ACLU, which is a shame, I think they have been historically poised to do great good, and some of their regional chapters still do, but overall they’ve become a very litigious agent of the left.

      I do get frustrated with the portrayal of this couple just because there have been some really litigious assholes who have gone for the throat in this country, but this couple was largely just disappointed that someone they’d worked with for years had rejected their business and were willing to leave it at that until the AG filed a suit without them, and civil rights lawyers leaned heavily on them.

    2. The prior transactions prove that the objection isn’t to the customer being gay, it’s to a gay wedding specifically.

      Just like someone being gay doesn’t make them a bad Christian, but having gay sex would.

    3. I honestly hope those two people have a long and happy life together, but I am sick and tired of people of all political persuasions resorting to the cudgel of government to avenge every emotional slight.

      Me too. But that goes both ways, because churches are constantly in bed with government, and they don’t limit themselves to irrelevant squabbles about wedding cakes, they go for big power and big money.

      who gives a shit about prior transactions?

      It establishes motive: if I do business with you until I learn that you are a Catholic, then it suggests that I stopped doing business with you because I dislike your religion.

  24. “But it both cases, a diverse marketplace offered alternatives.”

    I agree with this, but I also acknowledge there are small towns where this might not be viably achievable. We (or I do) find it amusing when it is about cakes and flowers. After all, haven’t these people heard of online shopping? Why do I want Luke & John on my cake? Just respond with a little white lie…my parents were very religious and they had a sense of humour.
    The case not to treat a baby for religious reasons is the most hypocritical (not the oath the doctor took) hatefulness I’ve ever heard. I’m guessing the doctor in question doesn’t have resignations to performing medical procedures in hospital that most likely employ gay personnel? And I want to believe if that doctor knew the child would be cared for by another doctor, freed her to make her own decision, and that she would not deny that child if she was the only doctor available.

  25. The Michigan case is actually much more reasonable, because the doctor’s actions harm the actual patient, the baby. I can’t see how treating a baby constitutes an endorsement of it’s parent’s lifestyle either.
    Doctors treat all sorts of people regardless of their lifestyles anyway. I’ve never heard of a doctor refusing to treat someone because they found them disreputable or immoral. It would probably violate all sorts of medical ethics to do so.

    By contrast, there is no such professional obligation when it comes to cakes or flowers.

  26. HOW THE MAFIA IS SMARTER THAN THE GOVERNMENT

    The Scene- a booth at the rear of a quiet Italian restaurant. A conference is in progress.

    Vito: So, lemme get this straight. Dis dame, she told you she wasn’t gonna bake you no cake, and now you want us to burn her shop down.

    James: Yeah, that bitch. She said we disgusted her.

    Vito: I see. Honor is important. But- I gotta tell you this. That lady, she bakes a lotta cakes. And every time she bakes a cake, we get a, you know, slice. If you see what I mean. Now, if she ain’t bakin’ no more cakes, we ain’t getting no more of the action. So, I’m gotta say no.

    My advice to you is this. Find another cake lady. And another thing. Remember this, and remember good. If she ain’t baking no cakes…. It ain’t gonna go so good for the guy who puts her outta business.

    We’re done, now.

  27. were willing to leave it at that until the AG filed a suit without them, and civil rights lawyers leaned heavily on them.

    Since I make it a habit to ignore all supporting documents and links, not to mention most of the posts, how did this come to the attention of the world at large, unless they made a big deal about it?

    1. They posted on Facebook that they were disappointed they wouldn’t be able to do business with her. Someone or possibly several persons that they knew then reposted and whipped up a furor over it. It eventually became a viral enough story that someone forwarded it to the AG.

      In a world without public accommodation laws, that’s how it should work. “Love this shop, but was unable to get flowers because they don’t like gays” and people can take that into consideration or not. With public accommodation laws the AG gets to swing his dick and make a name for himself and the ACLU can fap all over the situation.

      1. “Love this shop, but was unable to get flowers because they don’t like gays”

        My understanding from the article is that the florist was happy to work for the couple in question, excepting the creation of a floral arrangement for a same-sex wedding.

        1. You are correct, I am sorry if my glib gloss of the situation obfuscated that in any way.

  28. I think folks can support gay marriage and even public accommodation laws, and still find the ACLU teaming up with the Gov’t to go after a private citizen to be disheartening. Seems like their two defensible choices should have been: support the florist or stay out of it.

  29. Ingersoll and Freed were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union,

    Be this evidence to those that still believe the ACLU exists to protect freedoms that the ACLU does not exist to protect anybody’s freedoms. Ingersoll and Freed do NOT have the right to someone else’s property even if they were willing to pay in exchange. The property owner has all the right to possession and usufruct of her property.

    If Americans were polled on the matter, I imagine more people would say it’s wrong or should be against the law for the pediatrician to turn away customers over sexual orientation than the florist.

    Making law by majority opinion is the sure-fire way to bring in tyranny swiftly.

    1. We must avoid tyranny by letting you make all the laws, I suppose.

    2. Ingersoll and Freed do NOT have the right to someone else’s property even if they were willing to pay in exchange

      I don’t hear a lot of the people and politicians who object to non-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation calling for an end to non-discrimination laws based on religion.

      If you only call for abolishing the non-discrimination laws that limit your liberty while acquiescing to the ones that serve your interests, you are a hypocrite.

  30. What I get from all this is that you can’t be gay married unless you have a Christian-baked cake and floral arrangement.

    1. Well, you certainly can’t get Christian married unless you have a gay-baked cake and floral arrangement.

  31. Why did two guys getting married need a florist anyway?

    What’s the point of being two guys getting married if you’re gonna pretend you’re a couple of straights?

    You’re doing something new–DO something new.

    1. You’re doing something new–DO something new.

      The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

      Same sex commitment ceremonies modeled on contemporary marriage ceremonies aren’t all that new, and considering my coworker got married with Metallachi playing in the background, my Lutheran high school science teacher got married in a bikini on a cliff and a good friend of mine got impetuously married in a chapel in Vegas, I don’t know that there’s a ton “new” available. Besides, some people just want to have a wedding like their parents did an settle down. Not every straight couple wants to recreate the wheel, I’m not sure why every gay couple would be different.

  32. The beginning of the end of United States’ excuse for a fair Judicial Branch has begun. Article III will finally get fixed like Benjamin Franklin knew would “soon” be done. The editor of Poor Richard’s almanac, however, died and the American folks with money began to overthrow the U.S. forty-three days after he died with the Copy[rite] Act of 1790. Wealthy American‘s did not completely overthrow the U.S. until Citizens United made the United States become ONLY a memory of a nation America overthrew.

  33. On the day that I can refuse any service to a Christian, Ill listen to what anti-LGBT Christians have to say.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.