Indiana

Indiana RFRA: What Part of Economic Boycotts Do Conservatives Not Understand?

|

That's the front-page image of today's Indianapolis Star. The Hoosier State's leading newspaper editorializes:

Gov. Mike Pence and the General Assembly need to enact a state law to prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, education and public accommodations on the basis of a person's sexual orientation or gender identity.

Those protections and RFRA can co-exist. They do elsewhere.

From a libertarian perspective, belief in the freedom of association generally trumps belief in anti-discrimination actions by the state. Not always, but mostly. In fact, things are more complicated, since it's typically the state (whether at the local, state, or federal) that historically was doing most of the discriminating. Jim Crow was ushered in by the Supreme Court's vile "separate but equal" decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, which upheld a Lousiana state law barring railroad companies from selling first-class tickets to black customers. When businesses in the segregated South attempted to treat customers equally (often a good business strategy), they were typically hemmed in by specific laws preventing such things or by de facto laws enforced through brute force by various "citizen's councils" and terror groups such as the Ku Klux Klan (which often included politicians and law enforcement). It was government at all levels, not local businesses, that disenfranchised blacks for decades. And it was, in many cases, government action that was necessary to change things.

If conservatives are serious about individual rights and limited goverment (as they claim to be), you'd think they would be at the forefront of striking down laws that treat marriages between two men or two women differently than, say, one man and one woman or one black person and one white person. Why should the same government that can't educate your children or deliver your mail get to decide which couples can marry in a civil ceremony, right? Some conservatives are at the forefront of marriage equality, of course: Former Bush-era U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson is one. But the conservative case for state-level Religious Freedom Restoration Acts such as the one passed in Indiana is precisely that the state should not be able to compel people to contravene religious beliefs when it comes to certain activities; government should be limited in its ability to force people's actions in matters of conscience.

That's fair enough, especially since there seem to be exactly no cases where gay or lesbian couples have had to forego a wedding cake or videographer due to a particular business's refusal to serve them. Fully two-thirds of Americans believe that homosexuality among consenting adults should be legal and 55 percent believe that gay marriages should be treated the same as traditional ones. Both percentages are increasing rapidly and the plain fact is that social and religious conservatives have not only lost this cultural battle, they have been so routed that even laggards such as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have switched sides on gay marriage.

Indeed, it's telling that this particular battle over having to serve gays is the one where conservatives have decided to mount what is something like a last stand against the forces of toleration and pluralism. It's their right to do so, of course, but they've also been forced into not just an unpopular position but a logically fake one. Indiana's law doesn't sanction discrimination, they claim, even as that's exactly what it does: It allows for a legal defense in certain sorts of cases based on religious views that preclude doing business with certain types of people. That conservatives can't just own that plain fact is one more sign that they've lost their fighting faith, even as they claim this fight is about faith.

So too is their unwillingness to countenance potential boycotts of Indiana and other jurisdictions that support similar laws. Sean Davis of The Federalist is a smart and sharp writer and he's had lots of fun pointing to Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy's hypocrisy on the issue (Malloy has called for a ban on state-funded travel to Indiana without realizing his own state's RFRA is more exclusionary than Indiana's, argues Davis). So what, exactly? Since when is consistency the benchmark for conservatives in matters of faith or anything else? Prior to the passage of Obamacare, with its birth-control mandate, Hobby Lobby covered some of the very same drugs it later claimed in a successful Supreme Court case were anathema to its owners' religious views. I didn't hear any conservatives mocking Hobby Lobby for its hypocrisy or lack of understanding of its own policies.

Boycotts may be based on hypocrisy and moral grandstanding (let's concede they often are) but they are also sometimes effective. In fact, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who became a conservative folk hero for wagging her finger in the face of Barack Obama on an airport tarmac vetoed Arizona's RFRA bill precisely over fears that it would hurt the state's economy. And in most every other context, conservatives love boycotts. Like libertarians, they dig "disciplining people with the market" as non-violent way of showing preferences. Just this morning, I received an email from the Media Research and the Family Research Council denouncing Disney/ABC Television for developing a show based on the life of foul-mouthed, Christian-bashing advice columnist Dan Savage (whose latest media stunt was to tell Ben Carson to "suck my dick" to show that homosexuality is not a learned behavior). "If you choose to go forward," warn L. Brent Bozell and Tony Perkins, "it is very likely you will be creating an immediate national scandal for yourself."

Sounds like a threat to boycott, doesn't it? And isn't that one of the ways that activists use market power to change the world? Maybe the gamers behind GenCon, Indiana's single-largest annual convention, or folks at the NCAA (headquartered in Indianaopolis), or the band Wilco are just blowing smoke when they threaten to forego Indiana in the future because of its RFRA (as one Twitter wag put it, like you need another reason to avoid Indiana). Maybe they're hypocritical because they live in states that similarly allow religious defenses against certain antidiscrimination laws. Maybe their boycotts won't have any effect (while they sometimes work, they are more often ineffective).

But critics of the Indiana law hardly have a monopoly on hypocrisy, tendentiousness, and lack of introspection. Indeed, to the extent that conservatives are unwilling to fully admit what the law allows and why that should be allowed, and that the same freedom of conscience at the heart of RFRA allows for customers to take their business elsewhere, conservatives may have cornered the market in this case.

Advertisement

NEXT: The Supreme Court's next Obamacare case(s)

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. …you’d think they would be at the forefront of striking down laws that treat marriages between two men or two women differently than, say, one man and one woman.

    There’s another way to treat all marriages equally.

    [collective groan]

    Fine, but people won’t couple up and have babies to pay off our debts if we allow just any pairs to get flowers or pasta primavera.

  2. Nice piece of shit article Nick. It’s been clear for some time that the term Libertarian was just the hipster term you wanted to apply to progressive politics to sound edgy. Go write for Salon.

    1. RAHR! CHOICE BAD! SMASH HOMOS!

      I’m sure there are plenty of googles that can define libertarian for you.

      1. Big rich dumb racist heads.

      2. “Libertarianism: socialist ends by free market means” seems to cover it pretty well.

        1. Ooo, this is a good entry. Would any of the yokeltarians like to try their hand at saying something stupider and/or whinier? First prize is a lifetime subscription to Lew Rockwell’s site.

        2. That’s golden.

      3. What the fuck are you rambling about.

        1. No mention of cocktail parties? I am dissapoint

        2. You’re not very bright, are you?

          1. Yes, you cracked my code. I’m secretly celebrating all the homosexuals who will starve in the streets from this law. Being against government interference in all voluntary transactions makes me a hypocrite. Any true free market advocate want more government, and if they don’t they are secret homo smashing republicans.

            1. Maybe you should write less dumber. Less strident too.

              Then, maybe we’ll know what you’re trying to say.

            2. “Being against government interference in all voluntary transactions makes me a hypocrite.”

              agree. if i do not like the terms being offered, i should be able to shoot the offerer

    2. Nice piece of shit article Nick. It’s been clear for some time that the term Libertarian was just the hipster term you wanted to apply to progressive politics to sound edgy. Go write for Salon.

      As someone who grew up reading it; The Indianapolis Star is a joke. It’s the shining example of fumbling small town newspapers. Slim on facts, wrought with errors, and packed to the gills with editorializing and selective reporting.

      That Nick stoops to the level of citing and agreeing with The Star speaks volumes.

      1. Full Disclosure: I worked Sunday delivery for the Star 20-some years ago.

  3. What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read.

  4. Gov. Pence myth: SB 101 is just like Illinois law that then-State Senator Obama voted to support.

    Truth: Gov. Pence fails to point out that Illinois has robust nondiscrimination clauses in its state Human Rights Act that specifically protect LGBT people. Indiana does not. This matters because those seeking to discriminate in Indiana may claim that the lack of a statewide law barring sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination means that there is no compelling state interest in enforcing local ordinances providing such protections.

    Gov. Pence myth: This law only reinforces established law in Indiana.

    Truth: The language in SB 101 is so broadly written that someone can sue even without their religious beliefs having actually been burdened simply by claiming that is ‘likely’ to happen.

    Gov. Pence myth: SB101 is just like federal law that President Clinton signed 20 years ago.

    Truth: SB 101 is substantially broader than the federal law. The federal RFRA can only be invoked against government action. SB 101 goes much further, inviting discrimination by allowing religious beliefs to be raised as a defense in lawsuits and administrative proceedings brought by workers, tenants and customers who have suffered discrimination. In addition, SB 101 makes it easier to claim a burden on religious freedom than the federal RFRA by defining the ‘exercise of religion’ as ‘any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.’

    1. Gov. Pence fails to point out that Illinois has robust nondiscrimination clauses in its state Human Rights Act that specifically protect LGBT people. Indiana does not. This matters because

      … because it means that the state RFRA can’t actually weaken protections that don’t exist yet. This seems like an argument that in the short run Indiana’s law does a lot less to LGBT people than Illinois’s law.

      It’s a balancing test in any case.

    2. Gov. Pence fails to point out that Illinois has robust nondiscrimination clauses in its state Human Rights Act that specifically protect LGBT people.

      Those provisions weren’t in the lllinois Human Rights Act when State Senator Barack Obama and others voted the Illinois RFRA into law.

      The language in SB 101 is so broadly written that someone can sue even without their religious beliefs having actually been burdened simply by claiming that is ‘likely’ to happen.

      No, they can raise RFRA as a *defense* if their religious freedom is “likely” to be infringed. And there’s no guarantee they will be successful.

    3. SB 101 goes much further, inviting discrimination by allowing religious beliefs to be raised as a defense in lawsuits and administrative proceedings brought by workers, tenants and customers who have suffered discrimination.

      Actually, SB 101 merely makes explicit something that the Second, Ninth, Eighth, and D.C. Circuits have found is implicit in the federal version of RFRA. (The Sixth and Seventh have held the other way.)

    4. In addition, SB 101 makes it easier to claim a burden on religious freedom than the federal RFRA by defining the ‘exercise of religion’ as ‘any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.’

      Again, something implicit in the federal statute. Apparently, some people have detected a loophole that isn’t there (Perhaps something along the lines of “Well, we’re not *really* infringing your religious exercise when we forbid you to give the communion cup to your minor children, because your religion gives you the option of receiving only the host” or “We’re not really infringing your religious freedom when we force you to rent a room in your boarding house to an unmarried couple, because refusal to cooperate materially with fornication isn’t, like, *central* to your religion; I don’t see it in the Nicene Creed, after all, or in the catechism you use for confirmation preparation. Who are these Thomas Aquinas and Alphonsus Liguori guys anyway?”) and have tried to stop it.

    5. Truth: SB 101 is substantially broader than the federal law. The federal RFRA can only be invoked against government action. SB 101 goes much further, inviting discrimination by allowing religious beliefs to be raised as a defense in lawsuits and administrative proceedings brought by workers, tenants and customers who have suffered discrimination.

      Ehh, about half the Circuit Courts of Appeals have held that the federal RFRA does cover that– Second, Eighth, Ninth, and D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. See this law review article.

      Now it’s true that some Circuit Courts of Appeals have not held that, but it’s much more ambiguous than your “Truth” claim would state. In fact, I’d say that the legislative record is much more on the side of it as a defense in private suits, at least as Congress intended, but I can certainly concede that the federal law has an ambiguity which the Indiana law lacks.

    6. make that argument AFTER gay people get put in the back of the bus and are kicked out of public accommodating businesses. There is a difference between discriminating against people because they are gay… and abstaining from activities that morally objectionable. Asking a photographer to participate in a gay wedding against their moral conscience is equivalent in asking a photographer to participate in a porn-shoot against their moral conscience. Ignoring this… is willfully rejecting religious moral conscience as anything of substance, which is unconstitutional.

    7. Does this law mean that public school cafeterias cannot be sued over the fact that they serve pork?! If that is the case, what are these people complaining about? Translated discrimination is OK, if WE approve of it? The law was a flawed attempt to protect those with beliefs from being bullied, with similar lawsuits. It was not meant to be a carte blanc to discrimination against gays eating in restaurants!

      Marriage is a religious term. Trying to call a civil union anything else, seems erroneous. Do we really want to change the definition in Webster’s?

      1. Marriage is not a religious term(i.e.: 1. the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship.). I am awaiting the day when one can apply this to his dog or other pet, however. Pence’s law was the result of a crappy lawyer doing a bad job. The problem with this so-called “democratic-republic” is that we have too many crappy lawyers of which the system is almost totally comprised.

  5. Was there a point to this article? Or do you just want to appear sufficiently worried about Christians in flyover country to your leftist friends?

    1. Reason editors like to run loopy articles like this now and then, probably hoping that progressives will see it in their Facebook news feeds, be impressed by Reason’s kumbaya credentials, and give the idea of “free markets” a second look.

      Of course, it’s the opposite that happens. “See? Even Koch-funded libertarian wackjobs agree with us that Indiana’s law is just like Jim Crow.”

      1. Reason editors are devious bastards.

        1. No reason to think they’re devious. Willfully na?ve, maybe.

        2. Nick is a flaming atheist and sees no value to religious conscience… and this is where he parts with the founding fathers. The founders where no dummies… they included the freedom of religion in with the freedom of speech for a reason. Not only are they synonymous, but it allows makes the freedom of religion impervious to progressive secular humanism by enshrining it as a immutable human right. There is a chasm between Libertarian atheists and Libertarian moralists… and this is it.

          1. I think all this article did was display Nick’s biases. Other than that is was pointless. Nick does not respect the fly over folks. He is at his heart … a hipster asshat who thinks he is smarter than others because he is an atheist.

            Intelligent people are able to come to terms that other’s think differently and that is fine. The progressives are the antithesis of this. The freedom of association is necessary for liberty. Even Christian’s who are homophobic have this freedom. Yes. Even assholes get to be free so long as they do not physically hurt someone. LGBT SJW’s cannot bend this to their will. Forcing someone to make you a cake or flower arrangement is bulshit.

            Fuck Nick for not seeing this.

      2. They do it for the cocktail parties. They’re like the one in Requiem for a Dream you know.

        1. BOOOOOOOOOO CAAAARRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

    2. Well, the

      as one Twitter wag put it, like you need another reason to avoid Indiana

      was a pretty big clue.

  6. State-sanctioned discrimination is generally wrong. But that doesn’t mean that the state has a right to compel association between people who find one another distasteful. There’s an amazingly obvious slippery slope with this argument, as it’s hard to see how anyone could refuse service to a customer based on anything other than the customer being disruptive or not paying. That’s a terrible idea, and it’s even worse when you consider that some animals are more equal than others.

    And lawsuits will now abound.

    1. And the response to discrimination that’s offensive is to not do business with the offending business and/or to publicly call out the offending business in protests, boycotts, etc. You know, the whole free market and marketplace of ideas.

      1. The response is to have criminal charges brought against them. Duh. The free market is a myth.

        1. No, it’s not a myth. It’s just contending with a massive parasite.

          1. I was kidding. You are right. The solution to this issue is correct, but sadly it is not even considered (which is why I think the only good responses are bad jokes).

            1. Not even on the table. We can’t disagree on anything anymore. Compliance with the will of the government is mandatory.

      2. That’s it ProL. I’m boycotting you.

        1. Let us celebrate our freedom to turn on each other like mad dogs. I’m refusing to sell you any Mountie Python burgers as we type.

          1. Well, double dumb ass on you!

            1. Your picture is near the register of each location–DO NOT SERVE THIS MAN. UNLESS HE PAYS DOUBLE.

              1. [Stands outside ProL’s store with sign]

                JW’S PYTHON BURGERS HALF PRICE

                1. Like you even know how to raise python, let alone prepare them.

                  1. Hey, I can microwave with the best of them, pal.

                    Pythons are the long-haired ones, right?

                    1. I feel a little ill now.

      3. It is pretty strange that people are boycotting the entire state, rather than waiting to see which businesses use the RFRA to discriminate and boycotting those instead.

        Well, not that strange. Signaling, as Robby said.

        1. Most of this kind of nonsense is about status, not deep-set political or moral beliefs.

        2. Well, there was basically no discrimination before RFRA, so I would assume there will be basically no discrimination afterwards.

          I have the idea that the gay left is primarily left, the gay part is just the excuse (and of course, the only cure is MOAR GUBMINT!)

    2. Public accommodation laws are stupid, these laws making exceptions in them for sodomites are stupid, the outrage is stupid, the counter-outrage is stupid. What should be a simple matter gets enstupified by the State, as always.

      1. If the state stayed out of this, the whole matter would blow over. Some businesses would be boycotted out of existence, some yelling would occur, and that would be that. The market, both in goods and services and in ideas, would easily settle everything.

        With the government getting involved, we’ll see not only laws getting passed and other government actions taken, we’ll also likely start seeing a shitload of lawsuits that all claim that a refusal to do business with a customer was based on some form of illegal discrimination. Incidentally, under the law, old white guys who vote Republican are also a protected class, so we’re talking free-for-all.

        It’s shit like this that makes us much poorer than we have to be. Well, all of us except for government officials and plaintiffs’ attorneys.

      2. Is it too late to wish that both sides eat each other?

        1. Some good vigorous ass-eating would go a long way to solving this, yes. All the whiners’ mouths would be full, for one thing.

        2. No. Wave your wand and yell, Schadenyoufuckus!

      3. these laws making exceptions in them for sodomites are stupid

        Huh? The law doesn’t specifically say anything about sexual orientation– in fact, given Indiana’s lack of a law including it, the law (in the short term) will do a lot more for much more minor groups about very different claims, as is typical in RFRA cases.

        The reason for Indiana adopting the law now has to do with national trends with gay marriage affecting members of the Right coalition, but in order to keep it constitutional, it’s the same as all the other laws (with very minor changes designed to make explicit closely held corporations rather than have it inferred as in Hobby Lobby.)

        I understand being suspicious about motives if, say, the UK reformed their stupid libel laws immediately after some anti-Semitic guy was convicted, wondering why they hadn’t reformed it before. Doesn’t really affect the law much.

        1. My only hope is that these stupidly restrictive laws, only recognizing a religious exemption for forced association, will be the crack in the dike.

          I have a dream, of people telling each other to fuck off, and no state goons get involved.

          1. Exactly. I would be cruel to joe even if my religion didn’t require me to.

        2. Given that RFRA was instrumental in the Hobby Lobby case, it a general defense against progressive policies.

      4. The whole thing is the height of stupidity. The law will have a marginal effect if any at all. It sets no real precedence but it does give team red an opportunity to wrap itself up in “religious freedom” while allowing team blue to salivate and froth about their moral superiority because tolerance and diversity.

        Everyone bothered to get hysterical about it is a stupid fucker – I’m looking at you, Nick.

        #nogoodguys

        Where’s the article about the secret service agent and FBI guy who stole bitcoin?

        Jesus, keep your eyes on the prize and stop focusing the the KULTUR WARRR bullshit.

        1. Hear, hear! Heard on NPR this morning someone talking about extending military retirement bennies. Any discusion of personnel costs from Nick? Nope, just need to talk about fighter jets. Just like marriage equality is all about rights and by rights we mostly mean government checks and goodies.

    3. Will this here law force the Moooslum resturant owners to roast a pig for my wedding ?

    4. +1 Animal Farm reference.

  7. This is one of those cases where I’m a conservatarian. My solution to the gay marriage debate is to get the government out of marriage, other than enforcing a contract. I believe domestic partnerships should have nothing to do with whether or not two (or more!) people are sleeping together, and everything to do with their right to enter into a contract joining their legal and financial rights. I am perfectly willing to live and let live.

    But when you ask me to endorse a lifestyle (and I’m still enough of a dinosaur to call it that) with which I disagree (for religious or non-religious reasons) by being a part of the ceremony celebrating it against my will simply because I have a business performing a certain service, you have crossed the line.

    1. We can probably expect a few more state legislatures to follow Oklahoma’s in the coming months, and draft legislation that converts state-recognized marriage to a civil union.

      Cue howls of outrage from SJW’s over conservative Christians actually supporting pluralism.

    2. I agree. But be prepared to suffer.

    3. Then what happens when a case comes up involving a 3rd entity wherein it matters whether the 1st 2 entities were married?

      1. It would probably depend on the terms of 3rd entity’s contract. Governments would use the legal notion of marriage, most establishment organizations would as well. A religious group might define it differently, provided that the definition is set out in the contract.

    4. Well put. Were you sent here by The Devil?

      1. Unless The Devil is the Reason Twitter feed, then no. 🙂

  8. In the next few months the Supreme Court of the United States is likely to rule that there is no Constitutional justification for denying law-abiding Gay couples the same opportunity to marry that Straight couples have always taken for granted.

    So the opponents of marriage equality are taking their revenge in a pro-active way, so that business owners who are against marriage equality can discriminate against Gay couples even if they are legally eligible to marry. Religious conservatives are nothing if not vindictive.

    But a business is not a church. It doesn’t matter whether you’re talking about a bakery or a restaurant, a photo studio or a factory. They aren’t in the business of providing spiritual guidance or enforcing moral doctrines. They are there to turn a profit. As such, they are obligated to abide by prevailing civil rights laws, whether those laws protect people from discrimination based on race, religion, or sexual orientation.

    Should a restaurant owner be able to refuse service to Blacks because he has “moral objections” to race-mixing? Should an employer be able to fire a Muslim employee because he wants to run “a nice Christian workplace”? And if a Christian florist agrees to provide flower arrangements at a Muslim couple’s wedding, does it mean he is necessarily endorsing Islam?

    If the answer to these questions is NO, what justification is there refusing service to a Gay couple who wish to get a wedding cake or celebrate their anniversary in a restaurant?

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

      Yes, and yes.

      1. Dear Mencken:

        Then you should work to repeal the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964. Good luck with that.

        1. Just because we can’t get it repealed that doesn’t make it right. The Fugitive Slave Act was once the law. I guess people who didn’t like it should have just abided by it while “working to repeal it”.

          1. Charles: if you aren’t prepared for the answer, you probably shouldn’t ask the question.

        2. Hubert Humphrey is busy eating it, page by page.

          And yes, it absolutely should be repealed.

        3. Oh, and do you believe you have a right to force someone else to labor on your behalf? If the answer to this question is “yes” or “it depends”, then fuck off, slaver.

          1. It appears we’re going to have a nice new influx of trolls today…

            1. Some news aggregator must have linked this.

              1. It’s the third item under a “RFRA” Google search right now.

            2. This is what happens when the jacket tries to appeal to progs.

      2. Dear Mencken:

        Good name.

    2. Religious conservatives are nothing if not vindictive.

      That’s OK, businesses run by Progs can discriminate against cis-gender hetereonormative patriarchal yadda yadda if they so wish. Crazy idea, letting people decide for themselves whom they wish to do business with.

      Should it be illegal for a woman to specify that she only wants a female gynecologist?

      1. Let people make their own choices?

        What kind of foaming at the mouth nutbag are you?

        1. The Jew kind.

          1. They’re the worst kind. And they have such small portions!

      2. I laughed when my wife told me that her male gynecologist had no arms and had to do all his work with just his tongue.

        Then I found out that the same guy was also my proctologist…

        1. I’m here all week!

      3. Well they’ve actually created an insane run-around for that — the SJWs actually believe the following statements:

        -Women can’t be sexist
        -Blacks can’t be racist

        They literally believe that. And they will shout you down if you argue otherwise.

        1. Yeah, what a crock of shit.

          “Because POWER BASE!”

    3. If the answer to these questions is NO

      I think I see the flaw in your thinking.

    4. The justification is its private property, and forcing people to serve you is slavery. Can I make a Muslim baker make a cake with Mohommad fucking a goat? Are you going to go around deciding which voluntary interactions are state approved, and which people are compelled to do business with whom?

      The simple fact is there is no difference in saying no shirt, no shoes, no service and saying I won’t bake gay cakes or Mohommad cakes. Once the government gets involved not only is it arbitrarily choosing which citizens are nobility and cannot be refused service by the serfs, but they must now settle all disputes by deciding which citizens outrank and can force others to serve them. That’s the very definition of state sanctioned discrimination.

      It’s real simple, if it isn’t your stuff you need to come to a voluntary agreement, if not go elsewhere. Frankly, it’s been like that anyway so the idea that the status quo is some dystopian hellhole of gay bashing is ludicrous.

      1. Anything that burdens small business, like all these bullshit laws and lawsuits, is welcomed by big business – witness all the CEO editorials today and yesterday.

        Meanwhile, the “dog whistle” politics of RFRA favor the Progressives who are in great need of campaign issues for 2016 after the recent drubbing.

        We can only hope, as you suggest, that Nazis attempt to get Hitler cakes baked at Jewish bakeries, Baptists force gay caterers to serve Purity Ring parties etc. etc. to point out the massive stupidity of this whole exercise.

      2. Now, see? This is less dumber.

        We’re in full agreement.

      3. Acura cakes?

    5. Like pretty much anything political, the arguments are all short-sighted and one-sided. You mention refusing service to someone based on race or sexual orientation. And I think most people would say, sure, nobody should do that. Unfortunately the law always cuts both ways. If you say you can’t discriminate for any reason, you are also saying:

      – A black business owner must serve a customer who is making racist remarks.

      – A pro-choice videographer must do business with a pro-life group who want to make a video showing the evils of abortion.

      – A Jewish bakery must make a cake in the shape of Hitler for a customer. (People actually do this).

      I could go on and on. Unfortunately I think the people against “discrimination” are saying that all discrimination is bad, unless it is against someone who offends them, in which case it’s ok.

      1. I hope every one of those scenarios plays out against someone who deserves it.

    6. But a business is not a church. It doesn’t matter whether you’re talking about a bakery or a restaurant, a photo studio or a factory. They aren’t in the business of providing spiritual guidance or enforcing moral doctrines. They are there to turn a profit

      So you’re saying that it’s wrong for businesses to boycott Indiana in order to enforce a moral doctrine, because they could turn a greater profit if they did business there?

      Seems kind of a strange place to end up in this article, but I guess you’re totally against boycotting Indiana over its state RFRA.

      1. (At least when corporations announce boycotts, that is.)

    7. Should a black owner be forced to serve people in KKK garb? Should a Jewish owner be forced to serve customers wearing swastikas? If you believe in free will the answer is no. If you believe in forcing someone to do something against their will you are an A-hole with a Capitol A.

      1. DEAR BLING BOY:

        Business owners are well within their rights to enforce dress codes in their businesses, as long as those dress codes are applied to all customers equally.

        CHUCK

        1. Business owners are well within their rights to enforce dress codes in their businesses, as long as those dress codes are applied to all customers equally.

          Where does this stupid bullshit come from? If a business owner tells you to leave, then get the fuck out. You are not owed his business any more than he is owed your patronage.

        2. So as a business owner, it’s ok for me to ban anyone wearing Hijab or a yarmulka, as long as, I ban everyone who might happen to wear a Hijab or a yarmulka?

        3. BEHOLD. CHARLES ANSCHLUSSVERDAMMENKUGELJINGLEHEIMERSCHMIDT HAS SPOKEN. SO LET IT BE WRITTEN; SO LET IT BE DONE.

    8. Should a muslim chef be able to refuse to make me a pork chop because he has ‘moral objections’ to handling the dead flesh of swine?

      1. Of course. But I’m guessing he gets fired pretty quickly by the restaurant if they have pork on the menu, because what good is a chef who won’t prepare all the meals on the menu?

      2. Yes. You’re welcome.

    9. In the case involving purchase of service from “Christians”, the Muslims would be the hypocrites. Why in the world would they use a business run by “infidels”?!

    10. “Should a restaurant owner be able to refuse service to Blacks because he has “moral objections” to race-mixing? Should an employer be able to fire a Muslim employee because he wants to run “a nice Christian workplace”? And if a Christian florist agrees to provide flower arrangements at a Muslim couple’s wedding, does it mean he is necessarily endorsing Islam?”

      Christian businesses won’t deny serviced based on your race or sexual orientation. They’ll refuse to associate with an event that is morally offensive as defined by their religion. So if a gay couple walked into purchase a drink of water on a hot day, they would not reject them. If hetero polygamists wanted to hold a mass wedding, some Christians would object to proving cakes or taking photographs of that event.

      As someone else above, this isn’t much different from Christian photographers (or even Muslims) refusing to shoot a porn. Or a halal Muslim butcher forced to cook pork for a wedding of any sort. Your hypotheticals are nonsensical as “But what if some someone thinks owning slaves is ok and want to hire them for their business.”

      I’m not white. So if I owned a pastry business, should I be forced to serve a Klan rally? If you say “no”, then a religious person should be able to conduct his business according to his religious teachings, as long as it doesn’t directly hurt someone.

      1. I think a big part of this problem is the concept of hurting someone. I don’t want to see people denied services, but the market place is large.

        If the Christian photographer tells the gay couple he want do their wedding, the gay couple may certainly be offended, but if there is no substantial burden to them finding another photographer, where is the harm? Where is the denial of service?

        Current law in many places allows a person to sue another, under the relevant state’s civil law, by being offended. I am all in favor of raising the bar to require them to show harm before the state is allowed to impose penalties.

        The left speaks of tolerance but what they are seeking is to enforce conformity. No one is allowed to think differently.

  9. So conservatives shouldn’t stand up for religious freedom because they don’t like boycotts when they adversely affect them. OK, that’s perfectly logical.

  10. HIT AND RUNPUBLICANS ASSEMBLE!

    1. I’ll bring some crullers!

    2. In the form of, SOCONZ!!!

      1. shape of… MORAL OUTRAGE!

    3. Standing athwart reality yelling something stupid.

  11. FIX THIS NOW

    FUCK YOUR SELF.

  12. What annoys me the most is the extreme oversimplification of this issue. State marriage laws were designed to protect the rights of women and children and to make it somewhat difficult to dissolve family bonds. The family unit incurs debts together and accumulated assets together. They raise children in many cases. The Gays, on the other hand, cannot naturally procreate. So the rights and issues at stake necessarily differ and those differences are not inconsequential. As far as I know, nobody is stopping gay couples from sharing assets and debts however they contractually see fit. And I always thought (until now) Libertarians actually wanted it that way and would never culturally brow beat another into a legal scheme that forced a legal recognition of what is actually a spiritual concept — marriage. Culture shifts over time and to upend centuries of legal tradition should not be done lightly.

    But no matter. Religious freedom is not in vogue at the moment. So let’s just go wherever the cultural winds take us and see where we land.

    1. State marriage laws were designed to protect the rights of women and children and to make it somewhat difficult to dissolve family bonds.

      What rights do women and children have that adult men do not?

      Furthermore, you are making a claim absent evidence. Most state marriage laws were designed to prevent miscegenation.

      1. What rights do women and children have that adult men do not?

        What I meant by this is: What rights do women and children have that either require marriage to protect or are otherwise not innate to all people, adults and men included?

        1. Again, the comments to my post represent the reactionary way people respond to hard questions these days. Far easier — and quicker — to post a knee jerk reaction on Twitter than to really think the matter over carefully.

          Do I have to really point out that children cannot take care of themselves and it’s usually better for them to be raised in a family unit? What evidence does anyone have that children are better off being raised by single parents or by gay parents?

          Wanting to have sex with people of the same sex isn’t a protected class or even a thing you can really identify. Your sexual preferences aren’t special and surely don’t deserve special legislation. Sexual desires are not even in the same ballpark as race.

          And everyone is missing the point that marriage laws are about the laws that govern property and offspring, not just whether the state considers you married. So if someone is sterile is a red herring. Marriage laws go far beyond your status as married or not married. Perhaps you all should consider looking over the family laws of your state so you can get an idea of the actual issues at stake here.

          1. Perhaps you all should consider looking over the family laws of your state so you can get an idea of the actual issues at stake here.

            So, which is it? A marriage or a family? Those aren’t mutually exclusive concepts.

            Being a bigot is your right, but at least be honest with yourself and stop pissing on our legs and telling us that it’s anything else. We get it, it shouldn’t be up to the people involved as to whether or not they can choose to marry because you think it’s icky.

            1. The funny — correction — sad thing about culture warriors such as yourself is that you think labeling someone a bigot because they don’t think as you do is supposed to end the debate. But it won’t because neither I nor anyone who thinks like me cares one whit if a culture warrior thinks them a bigot.

              On the other hand, culture warriors such as yourself are the real bigots. You attack and denigrate those who think differently — christians, for example. I don’t find an ounce of tolerance in knee jerk reactionaries. Particularly when we are talking about a philosophy, something that should always warrant careful reflection.

              1. Right. The culture warrior is the one saying that people should be free to choose and left alone. Not the one railing against homo marriage. Got it.

                If not bigotry, what is the reason for not allowing homo marriage? Your reasoning is specious, so far, and no more than a smoke screen. You can have marriages without children and families without marriage. Your reasoning invalidates both concepts.

                All I asked was for you to come clean. You have yet to state a clear a defined reason for opposing it other than “Whoa now! Let’s sleep on it.”

                1. You want a reason that transcends “mere” tradition? OK, the point is that marriage complicates the law. The law in most cases treats individuals as individuals. When it comes to marriage, you have cases in which the law must treat people as couples rather than individuals. Since law serves humanity rather than vice versa, you’ve got to ask what benefit to humanity there is to have this exception. The answer is that when it comes to families, the benefits of treating them this way exceeded the losses incurred by no longer treating the persons in all respects as individuals. It was a matter of necessity when the possibility of children came into play.

                  At certain times & places, infertility has been considered ground for annulling marriages. Now it’s considered that the costs to privacy in most cases are too great for questioning the fertility of a couple. However, in some cases it’s obvious that the couple will be infertile: cases where at least one of the couple is obviously below child-bearing age, and cases where the partners are of the same sex. So it makes sense in law to have marriages between adults of opposite sex, and not otherwise.

                  1. These marriage laws were indeed constructed in a different time… a time when a mindset of every-man-for-himself prevailed, marriage and romance were for the most past mutually exclusive, and gays weren’t interested in outing themselves and making their pride in their sexual orientation a public matter. People married because they wanted kids and a stable family unit, and that was it. Romantic attraction to each other was helpful in living through this marriage, but it wasn’t the priority in the marriage itself… and adultery was fairly commonplace, though kept secret.

                    So now that people are mostly marrying as a statement of undying love for each other, and having children is mostly an afterthought, then yes, the marriage laws are going to have to adjust to present reality. “Because children” won’t cut it, since a) infertile couples with adopted kids (or without kids at all) would be offended if you told them their marriage wasn’t genuine – as a father of two adopted kids, I’d be pissed off at you no doubt; and b) same-sex couples are just as capable of adopting kids or getting third-party sperm as infertile couples.

                    Marriage diversity isn’t going anywhere. And the nation is not going to fall apart because two men want to marry each other. Deal with it.

                    1. So now that people are mostly marrying as a statement of undying love for each other, and having children is mostly an afterthought, then yes, the marriage laws are going to have to adjust to present reality.

                      That’s a piss-poor justif’n for law. There are all sorts of changes that could be adopted in law that would help people demonstrate undying love for each other. The law could enforce a contract that when one spouse died, so would the other. The law could require all sorts of sacrifices from couples to maintain their marriage, just to prove how bad they wanted it. “You want to prove to each other your undying love? OK, every year both of you have to walk on hot coals.”

                      “Because children” won’t cut it, since…adopted kids

                      But adoption has complicated the law too. It’s not as if these institutions come without cost. See the whole to-do about surrogate parentage.

                      Children are deemed legally incompetent to determine their own best interest. So who is to determine it, & how? This is a really hard question. Of course you can come up with easy answers, but not easy & satisfactory ones. For instance, few people agree w my position on infanticide.

                2. “The culture warrior is the one saying that people should be free to choose and left alone.”

                  They want to be left alone? Hmm. Looks like anything but.

                  “If not bigotry, what is the reason for not allowing homo marriage?”

                  It that what you read? If not a knee jerk reaction, how did you get that from what he said?

          2. The problem with the current conflagration is that people are conflating the two views of “marriage”, the secular and the religious. The secular side is the government-protected multi-party contractual side, which is basically a form of contract law, and the religious side is one which has to do with each religion’s view of the joining of two people in a spiritual union. Until lately the government dealt mostly with the former, since it’s basically an artifact of government, and left the latter alone. What many activists want is for both secular and religious aspects to be covered by and controlled by government, hence the fight against “civil unions” and the demand that people who hold certain religious teachings and beliefs be punished by government for those beliefs. Seems to me the libertarian approach would be to keep them separate, since it shouldn’t be the government that decides which religious beliefs are acceptable and hence “legal.” That’s just my opinion, but my disclaimer is that I’m an irrational Christian and my opinions are thus suspect.

            1. No, the problem is conflating enacted law w customary law.

              What does “common law marriage” mean? It means the law treated a couple as married if they appeared to be married, according to the observed facts & people’s understanding of what marriage is. People understood marriage as being between (male) men & women. You could get rid of all the state’s enactments regarding marriage, and all religious decrees re marriage, and that would stand.

              If couplings between persons of the same sex came to be understood as marriages, and case law developed on that understanding when disputes arose, then the common law of marriage would include same sex marriage. But that would take a long time, maybe centuries, and it’s hard to see how it could overcome the hysteresis induced by the fact that at any given time, cases would be resolved according to the then-current understanding. There would have to be a great legal need to resolve a frequent problem. With the all-pervasive state these days, it’s hard to see that coming about cleanly according to how judge-made law used to work, without the state’s diving in & mucking about w the issue.

          3. Insofar as marriage serves a socially beneficial function, it is precisely the participants of the marriage, husband and wife, who are responsible for effecting that function. The laws of the state can only serve to change the definition of a marriage from what the husband and wife deem best.

            Furthermore, in a libertarian context, the state is only relevant when disputes arise, which is to say that the state does not set the terms of the marriage it only enforces the terms against the participants who agreed to them. Statutory law changes those terms without the consent of either party.

            Family law, such as it is, serves the principle interest of satisfying the moral narcissism of disinterested third parties. It rarely serves the interests of the children involved, and when it does, does so only incidentally. There are indeed many complex issues involved which is precisely why a bunch of irrelevant legislators sitting in the statehouse are unfit to rule on them.

      2. He’s actually mostly correct although his timing is off.

        Up though the mid 1500’s in the majority of the world the only government recognized marriages were the ones the King arraigned for purposes of political alliances. “marriage” for minor nobles and commoners was a very informal thing.

        Then with the growth of cities during the Renaissance the problem of men traveling around, promising to marry a woman, knocking her up and then leaving town when he got tired of her or things got tough started to become a serious issue so governments started to create laws around divorce and penalties for men who abandoned their “wives” along with rules for determining what made a marriage.

        1. That’s pretty much complete nonsense. “Government-recognized marriage” in a monarchy where the state itself is marital property and where the sovereign has both established religion and proclaimed that God hisself has ordained him as sovereign just ain’t the same thang as ‘civil marriage’.

          Before the American Revolution, there was ONE parliamentary law on the books re marriage. That was an explicit establishment of Anglican rituals of marriage (eg Jews now had to get married in an Anglican church by an Anglican priest, young northerners couldn’t elope to Scotland and get marriage recognized under canon law without having banns read in their Anglican parish). Other than that law, there was absolutely zero ‘civil marriage’. Marriage was a specific part of canon law – adjudicated by ecclesiastical courts. The King himself was head of the Anglican church – and it was in that role that he decided what the rules of marriage were. He sure as fuck was not going to be bound by a Parliament coming up with some ideas of marriage. Hell, that’s why the King created the Anglican church to begin with – so that he could assume the role of Pope and decide when he could divorce his wife and marry his next wife. He did not allow ‘the state’ (which was his property – not his sovereign) to make that decision and NO ONE ELSE IN ENGLAND was required to submit to ‘the state’ on that either. They were required to submit to ‘the church’ on that issue.

          1. Anybody who can use violence against you with the approval of the sovereign is an agent of the state, regardless of the costume he is wearing or the signature on his orders.

            1. Not if the state is itself deemed mere property. Which it is in a monarchy. Property cannot have an agent because property has no will that can be delegated or transferred. Only a principal (sovereign) can have an agent.

              And confusing ‘the sovereign’ with ‘the state’ is just pure lazy. In this particular case of marriage, ‘the sovereign’ ALWAYS enforced their diktats via the establishment of religion – not via mere ‘state’ action. That should reveal something about the limits of ‘the state’ even viewed from the perspective of an absolutist sovereign.

              The only people who don’t seem to get that is atheists – who have defined ‘religion’ as something that is only about the irrelevant and unknown (a definition which btw was created by Auguste Comte as a means of establishing a new religion he called religion de l’humanit? ).

              1. Well this is some quality gibberish right here. What it lacks in intellectual substance it makes up for in idiosyncratic definitions and question begging.

                1. What is it that you seem to find confusing about marriage laws being directly related to establishment of religion?

                  1. I don’t really find that confusing at all. I don’t really see how you drawing all these arbitrary distinctions is necessary to make that point.

    2. And I always thought (until now) Libertarians actually wanted it that way and would never culturally brow beat another into a legal scheme that forced a legal recognition of what is actually a spiritual concept — marriage.

      We should have never let those niggers marry our white women.

    3. The Gays, on the other hand, cannot naturally procreate

      Neither can mixed gender couples where one partner is sterile…

      Do their marriages not count? Should a sterile woman be denied the protections given to a fecund one?

      1. I think John had it right that, in the eyes of the state, marriage should only matter when children are involved. Otherwise, marriage is just a glorified contract (from the perspective of the state!) and should be treated as such.

        1. This is more of what I’m getting at. It’s contradictory for a libertarian to want freedom from all state control yet argue for laws that proactively recognize same sex marriages as binding as traditional marriages. And then argue that the RFRA is bad. My point is — keep your philosophy consistent and don’t try to brow beat me into what you think I should accept culturally.

          Libertarianism will never, ever, ever be a real thing until it embraces people who aren’t inline with the cultural preferences de jour.

          1. So-called “traditional marriages” are not what the state is enforcing. Precisely by the act of passing a statue, the state undermines any notion of “tradition” and substitutes in its place the prevailing opinion of the political class.

            Libertarianism doesn’t need to embrace either the people who are inline with the cultural preferences nor those who aren’t. It’s not my job to fly your flag, only to not stand in your way.

            1. So what if you got rid of all statutes re marriage? You’d still have traditional marriage, and it’d be between persons of opposite sex.

              1. You’d have marriage being whatever the married people deemed it to be.

                1. What happens when they go to court w another party, & the resolution depends at least in part on whether the couple is married, and the other party disagrees?

      2. It’s not that their marriages don’t count tarran and I don’t see how you can honestly read that from my comment. I’ve made it clear that i think the entire matter has been oversimplified and that anyone who wants to legislate on the matter, should carefully read the family laws of his state to see the underlying issues at stake when we talk about state-recognized marriages, and all the consequences — bot intended and unintended — that will result from towing the culture line on the issue.

        Based on Reason’s recent articles and the extreme reaction to the Indiana law, it is very foreseeable that religious freedoms will wane and cause even non believers to suffer from unintended consequences.

      3. infertility has been used as ground for annulling a marriage, yes.

    4. ‘State marriage laws’ were designed SPECIFICALLY to establish religion. Every one of them and no exceptions whatsoever. Back when that was all legal at the state level because the 1st Amendment only applied to the federal level. Once the 1st amendment was deemed (via the 14th) to also apply to states (in 1947 I think), than ALL those marriage laws should have been challenged for their constitutionality.

      They weren’t challenged back then on that basis. And more recently, the advocates of state-sponsored gay marriage chose to ignore the 1st Amendment because the last thing they want is an actual 1st Amendment that restricts the state. No surprise that the Gillespies of this world also don’t want any actual 1st Amendment that restricts the state.

      1. Not all libertarians are “Constitutionalists.” Plus a lot of people on all sides don’t really want a “wall of separation” between church and state, they want a “Maxwell’s Demon” in between, that allows commands to flow from the state to the church, but not in reverse.

        1. I blame the French for that

      2. I’m fairly certain Nick and just about everyone on this site would prefer government getting out of marriage altogether.

        1. Pretty much yes. The state ruins most everything it touches. JW above cannot conceive a non black/white world where someone like me says “whoa, let’s think this new marriage rights versus religious rights issue through for unintended consequences.” People like him merely react to anything inciting. If anyone questions their cultural view, they label them a bigot. And that makes their world simpler and more livable I suppose.

          But there shall be no philosophizing ’round these parts, no sirree.

        2. I’m even more certain that Nick would prefer state-sponsored marriage because like most ‘libertarians’ who were led down the garden path of SSM, they are incapable of admitting that they were wrong. That the whole SSM thang is not some example of a ‘growing libertarian moment’. Rather, it is just updated cultural Marxism that was intended to undermine ‘traditional’ (read bourgeoisie enhancing) institutions. And he is someone who at core believes that ‘libertarianism’ is a ‘new’ thing that is most threatened by ‘tradition’ – rather than a really old thing that is most threatened by ‘new’ means of state control.

    5. Nick surprised a LOT of Libertarians with this view. It is not representative of the whole. By far.

  13. If conservatives are serious about individual rights and limited goverment

    You know they aren’t, so why do you guys keep doing this “if” stuff? You should be helping to make it clear that they AREN’T — instead, you keep trying to muddy the water.

  14. Tsk…tsk….THE RIGHT DOES IT TOO

  15. Oh Nick, you sure know how to rile up the Redtards.

    1. Nick is Chief Editor of the #32 ranked Redtard blog so this is one of those internecine conflicts like commies vs. Nazis, only on the Right

  16. It always amuses me how often the right will say and do something so incredibly hamfisted…you can count on it like clockwork…more to come I am sure. And this after their pledge from Priebus to avoid these pratfalls again. What he never realized is that these type of comments aren’t pratfalls…its just the base speaking.

    Keep it up.

    1. Hey, joe. Still short and a loser? What am I saying? Of course you are.

    2. Don’t worry joe, the left always says something equally stupid. Like you.

        1. Union cherry picking 101

          1. Venezuelan union Cherry-Picking 101.

            1. I summon the Ghost of Caesar Chavez to mediate!

              1. So long as we remember him in our hearts, he’ll never really be dead.

                1. Doing the Lord’s work in some of the toughest cherry orchards in Venezuela.

                2. So long as we remember him in our hearts, he’ll never really be dead.

                  Does having a “Viva la Reagan Revolution” T-shirt count? Oh, wait, Caesar Chavez, and not Che Guevara? Meh, same difference.

  17. This is a no win issue for either side. Having the government force an association mandating businesses to go against their religious convictions would seem to me to be trumping the right of one individual over another. No government force is being applied to the law passed in Indiana though. Now he beauty of federalism is the state of Indiana can write a law distasteful to many and they can vote with their feet! What I fear is the normal crisis mentality of nationalizing the issue so the experiment in democracy is crushed.

    1. Its not being crushed at all…in fact its thriving, which is Nick’s point. Not only are people voting with their feet and voices, if you assume for the moment that the editorial is speaking for the people, but the marketplace (through businesses) is voting as well, as evidenced by Apple, and Eli Lily, and others. In fact, its the marketplace that is leading the way. Sounds like democracy, and Libertarian principles, at work.

      1. People are free to oppose the law. The hypocrisy of opposing a law (nominally) protecting freedom of association by exercising freedom of association is what the criticism is about. Oh, and the inevitable court case which might throw the law out–something which would not be “Libertarian principles at work”.

        1. I do think sometimes the criticisms, from whatever side, dominate the day. To me, this whole thing is part of America working. It all sorts itself out one way or the other…through the courts, through public opinion, through the marketplace, and elsewhere. To me, this is a vibrant democracy at work. But that’s just me.

          1. Thus further proving that democracy is the antithesis of liberty. The right of people to associate with others (or not, as they may choose) should not be something subject to the vote of a geographically arbitrary electoral majority.

      2. So Apple is going to stop selling stuff in Saudi Arabia? In Indiana it is wrong to do business, but in Saudi Arabia it is okay?

        1. If they so choose, OK?

          1. If they so choose, OK?

            joe, no question. But shouldn’t you expect a consistent basis for doing business? Either you’re against something, or you aren’t. If you aren’t, then we know that you’re full of shit and just PR signalling and posturing for the shrieking loons.

            But,since Apple has made status signalling into a business model, it wouldn’t shock me that they’re full of shit.

            1. “If you aren’t” in respect to the current situation.

            2. As Nick said, hypocrisy rules the day…of course he attributes that to only Republicans and Democrats, and fails to mention Libertarians, or at least those who claim they are Libertarians…see Rand Paul. Or even the many commenters here clamoring to oppose a negotiated settlement with Iran.

              1. We’re in negotiations with Iran over the homos getting cakes?

                1. Well the right kind of cakes…

  18. Riddle me this: why do we want to only legally protect the rights of assholes to be assholes when their nonexistent magical friend in the sky is telling them to be assholes?

    1. Nominally, because this is the issue du jour. Realistically, because there are enough of them and they are vocal enough to change electoral outcomes.

      That having been said, Mencken’s quote about defending scoundrels still applies.

    2. That part drives me nuts. While free exercise of religion is specifically called out in the Constitution, this is really a freedom of speech/association issue. I’m sure there are atheists that don’t like gays, for instance. Why narrow the scope of the offense by making it all about religion?

      1. Good point

      2. Because the passage of RFRA’s, and the resultant kvetching about them, is nothing but Kultur War signaling. Neither side actually gives a flying fuck about liberty.

        1. Right, the only people who care about liberty are Libertarians. Nobody else could possibly be as cool as us, and those religious people that write the first amendment were secretly trying to create a theocracy.

          1. If the law advances freedom, then support it. If it doesn’t, then don’t. Nothing about that though exempts the groups of people supporting or opposing the law from personal criticism. Invisible Finger is right that many of the people who support this law have no real interest in freedom for all, just freedom for themselves. There is nothing particularly novel or unique about that observation, since it applies to damn near everyone. Furthermore, it would be just as accurate to point out that many of the people who oppose this law have no real conviction to any sort of principle and will gladly oppress groups of people they don’t like.

            Nuance, motherfucker, do you speak it?

      3. Because the passage of RFRA’s, and the resultant kvetching about them, is nothing but Kultur War signaling. Neither side actually gives a flying fuck about liberty.

    3. If a photographer refuses to work at a gay ceremony because they fear it violates their religous beliefs. Are you willing to put a gun in their face and say tough shit, do it anyways? I’m and atheist and think people who refuse service to gays are assholes as well. But I support their decision to do business with who they choose, just as I support assholes rights ro free speech.

    4. Mostly as a way of trying to determine how sincere people are about a particular belief, but it certainly seems like the principle ought to be extended to people with philosophical adherence to particular diets, animal rights, etc.

      1. Why does sincerity matter? It’s a sad commentary on modern life that we have to quibble over whether a person is thinking correct thoughts when exercising his freedoms.

        1. Reform jews and Unitarians are screwed.

          1. I’m sorry, sir, your claim that you denied service to the Nazi asking you to make Nazi cakes for his Nazi wedding on religious grounds is denied. You aren’t Jewish enough. $2,500 fine, plus costs and Nazi attorneys’ fees, and you are hereby ordered to make the cakes. NEXT!

            You know, one thing that just occurred to me is that there is case law in personal service agreements that says that you cannot compel performance of the service (though you can recover dollar damages for the contractor’s failure to perform). That’s a contractual issue, but I vaguely recall that being based on 13th Amendment grounds, at least in part.

  19. A bit of cognitive dissonance on Nick’s part. Sure, people have every right to protest and boycott Indiana and Pence specifically as a component of free speech. Even if the protest or boycott is ineffective. Even if it’s misguided.

    At the same time, however, conservatives, as a component of their free speech, can criticize these protesfors/boycotters.

    And, Nick, by criticizing conservatives for doing the same thing you yourself are doing, who is the hypocrite now?

    1. At the same time, however, conservatives, as a component of their free speech, can criticize these protesfors/boycotters.

      RTFA

      No they can’t because HOBBY LOBBY!!11! and that one time some CHRISTFAGS said don’t go to Disney World. The right has no “right” to criticize or mock boycotts because of the HYPOCRISY penumbra of the 1st Amendment.

  20. Freedom of association unless mob disapproves in which case you should cave.

  21. So Gillespie – apparently you believe that as long as government tyranny is imposed via the appearance of an economic boycott, that its ok.

    No surprise there. Gillespie and Reason are now the pod people.

    1. So Gillespie – apparently you believe that as long as government tyranny is imposed via the appearance of an economic boycott, that its ok.

      Perhaps you could draw the line connecting those two dots?

      1. There is not one person who is advocating a stand-alone boycott. Everyone advocating a boycott is also advocating a change in the law (ie the use of government force) to undermine the ‘any person whose freedom of religion has been substantially burdened may use that as a defense’. It is an overt attempt to obliterate the 1st Amendment by denying standing in court.

        1. But they still have every right to hold the boycott. Even if the boycott is expressly designed to pressure the state into changing the law, it is still every bit their right to hold it. Insofar as the boycott alone affects change, that is upon the people who decided to change rather than further suffer the boycott.

          So far, the closest thing to state action that has yet been taken is the Connecticut ban on state employees traveling to Indiana on official business. While idiotic in nature, it’s pretty much irrelevant and doesn’t exert any force per se on Indiana’s government.

          Now, when the lawsuits start, and they are bound to, then there is a case to be made against them. But saying people have a right to boycott is not an endorsement of everything else they might do.

          1. The ENTIRE target of the boycott is everyone in Indiana except for some religious business that chooses to discriminate now in the name of religious freedom. This is not a boycott of chick-fil-a or somesuch. It is specifically targetting the ‘innocent’ in order to try to force them to take away (via the state) the explicit 1st amendment protection that someone else may (or may not) now have. If your definition of ‘free market boycott’ now includes specifically targetting everyone EXCEPT for the one who can even remotely be deemed to have caused offense; then I want nothing to do with your BS and deceit about what a free market actually is.

            Gillespie/Reason/ and you apparently believe that ‘free market’ is nothing more than a mob exercising economic power over everyone else.

            1. Gillespie/Reason/ and you apparently believe that ‘free market’ is nothing more than a mob exercising economic power over everyone else.

              Are you owed the money out of someone else’s pocket against his will?

              If so, then how is he not also owed your labor against your will?

              And if not, then what are you talking about?

            2. Especially considering there is no significant discrimination going on in Indiana. I can say this with a fair degree of certainty because if there were, it would have been the lead story on the alphabet media (ABC,CBS,NBC,FOX) for years.

              So the boycotters are holding everyone in Indiana at gunpoint (economically) because of something that ISN’T happening However, they have been told that a few businesses may possibly do this something in the future).

  22. It was government at all levels, not local businesses, that disenfranchised blacks for decades.

    Can someone please let Tony know?

    He still believes it was teh ebil, ebil, capitalists who voluntarily discriminated because poor weak government couldn’t stop them.

    1. No, I just don’t make as big a distinction between governments and the voters as you do. A government, especially a local one, is not an alien force. The only people who could have made that claim were the black people being denied access to the franchise. For them, it was an undemocratic oppressive entity–fully supported by at least a large proportion of the white population. No doubt there was some non-bigoted whites who were victimized by the system as well.

      1. If 10 people hold a council and agree to everything unanimously, then you can claim without reservation that the council and the people are indistinguishable.

        If 100 people hold a council and agree to everything by an overwhelming majority, then you can claim with more or less widespread agreement that the council is representing the people, although the two have indeed started to become distinct.

        If a million people elect 100 representatives and those representatives agree to everything by a majority of themselves alone, then you can make no serious argument that the representatives and the people are in any way the same group.

        The fact that you do not understand the difference between small groups of people making unanimous decisions and large groups of people being given orders by simple majorities of much smaller groups of people not only identifies you as an intellectually stunted fool, it makes every charge you level of plutocracy absolutely laughable.

        1. So no representative democracy? What form of government are you implying we should have?

          1. You do not refute a claim of failing to understand something by further demonstrating an inability to understand it.

            1. You do not refute a claim of failing to understand something by further demonstrating an inability to understand it.

              Hi, have you met Tony?

            2. Nobody ever answers this question. Strange. Seems like it would be pretty simple.

              1. Are you a nihilist or a communist? Only the latter think government is simple and the former don’t give a shit.

      2. But democracy can never be wrong. It just can’t be.

        1. Of course it can be. But so can a dictator. Or a bullshit ideology we’re all forced to live by and not vote on.

          1. Laws do have a tendency to get in the way of you robbing and killing people, but you’re a moral nihilist who probably belongs in a cage anyway.

  23. Why should a belief have to be religious in nature in order to be special enough to be exempt from government mandated policies? For example, if a wedding photographer thought a groom was a total douchebag, he should be allowed to deny services because he doesn’t believe douchebags deserve good wedding photos. Or even that this particular douchebag doesn’t deserve good photos.

    Freedom of association should be allowed for any and every reason. If someone is a racist or bigoted tool, let him be publicly shamed. Of course, what liberals are afraid of is that someone will deny services to a gay person and get more business over it, a.k.a. the free market at work.

    1. People take a religious angle on this for a couple of reasons. For one, it’s the right most of the people in these cases are asserting. The people who are being fined for refusing to make wedding cakes are refusing to do it for religious reasons. Even if it’s really about freedom of association, they’re asserting their right to free exercise of their religion.

      The second reason I think people take a religious angle on this is because there are a lot of gay rights people, and their fellow travelers, who imagine that our rights are somehow illegitimate if they’re predicated on something irrational. I think that’s a bunch of baloney, but that’s what they think. There are libertarians–even around here–who think that our rights fade as the basis for defending them becomes less rational, and so bringing up religion is a way to attack and minimize the basis of that right.

      Some people think that other people shouldn’t be allowed to refuse vaccinations if the reason for refusing them isn’t scientific. I hope free speech is never subjected to that kind of scrutiny. If the First Amendment didn’t protect stupid speech–only the rational kind–then that would be incompatible with a free society. Same thing with religion, too. Even if the religion is stupid, we still have a right to free exercise.

      When opponents emphasize the religious aspect, I suspect they think they’re minimizing the importance of protecting that right.

    2. I was also wondering why religion specifically. Are they the only group that has constitutional protection as a defense against discrimination claims?

      Seems to me, the liberals, at least from the arguments presented from Guardian fans, fear that a secret hatred of gays and blacks has been at the bursting point, held together only by law. The RFRA will bust that seam and we will have lynchings and gays riding in the backs of buses, starving in the streets.

  24. “It allows for a legal defense in certain sorts of cases based on religious views that preclude doing business with certain types of people. That conservatives can’t just own that plain fact is one more sign that they’ve lost their fighting faith, even as they claim this fight is about faith.”

    I think this may be a misread of the situation, Mr. Gillsepie.

    That conservative [politicians] don’t own that “fact” may indicate that they’re passing these laws at the behest of their constituents rather than because they believe in it themselves.

    You mentioned earlier that Obama and Hillary have both switched positions on gay marriage because their national constituency has changed; why assume that conservative politicians are inflicting religious freedom on their constituents against their constituents’ will?

    I’ve been consistently libertarian on this site for, what, more than 11 years now? And I’ve been against the government discriminating against gay people every day for every one of those years. But just because I’m against the government discriminating against gay people doesn’t mean I’m in favor of the government compelling people to violate their religious convictions…

    Why is it so hard to imagine that non-libertarian constituents in Indiana and elsewhere might feel the same way I do about the government coercing people into violating their religious convictions? Why must this be something that conservative politicians are inflicting on their constituents?

  25. Indeed, it’s telling that this particular battle over having to serve gays is the one where conservatives have decided to mount what is something like a last stand against the forces of toleration and pluralism.

    I don’t understand what are these forces to which you allude, considering the horrible and virulent attacks against those that would defend their right to refusal which stems from their right to liberty and property. It is one thing to suggest a person is being foolish or a bad businessman, quite another to attack and legally or physically harass that person for not acting.

    Maybe it hasn’t been made clear to you, Nick, but I am under no obligation to engage in trade with you or anybody else, your feelings notwithstanding. I ain’t your fucking slave.

    1. I do think the idea that tolerance is at play here is a bit disingenuous. The people clamoring for compelled service to gay customers getting married are hardly tolerant of other beliefs.

      How about we generally let people do what they want, so long as they aren’t actually harming others? And no, denial of service isn’t harm.

      1. Re: Pro Libertate,

        How about we generally let people do what they want, so long as they aren’t actually harming others? And no, denial of service isn’t harm.

        You see, if you simply want to be true to the NAP, Gillespie would accuse you of being a brutalist. Can’t have that.

        1. He can call me names and even kick me off his website. But I draw the line at laws compelling service.

      2. Here, here

      3. “How about we generally let people do what they want, so long as they aren’t actually harming others? And no, denial of service isn’t harm.”

        1. It cut off everything I wrote under that?

          1. It denied you service. I’d sue.

        2. “How about we generally let people do what they want, so long as they aren’t actually harming others? And no, denial of service isn’t harm.”

          I think the “harm” standard has problems. Denial of service can be harm.

          I should be free to open a pizza restaurant right next to yours. And I should be free to offer better pizza for sale, better service, and at lower prices, too. And I should be free to drive you out of business that way. And then you lose your house. And then your wife divorces you. And then she takes your dog.

          I think the government should protect my right to do you harm in that way.

          Is refusing to sell you pizza harming you?

          Sure, at least, it might be!

          Is refusing to sell you pizza violating your rights?

          The correct answer is “no”.

          We should let people do what they want so long as they aren’t violating each other’s rights. Everything we do or don’t do seems to harm somebody in some way.

          1. Re: Ken Shultz,

            I think the “harm” standard has problems. Denial of service can be harm.

            Only if you’re committing a fraud, like taking someone’s money upfront under a false promise to then refuse to deliver the goods or the services. Otherwise, fuck you: I ain’t your fucking slave and my property is not yours.

            1. I gave you examples.

              It’s about violating other people’s rights.

              Harm isn’t a high enough standard.

              Look at how the Commerce Clause has been interpreted.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

              Growing wheat on your own property for your own consumption is harmful to somebody. It really is!

              The questions shouldn’t have been whether what the farmer was doing was harmful to somebody. The question should have been whether he was violating someone else’s rights.

              Harm isn’t a high enough standard.

              Every wave I ride on my surfboard is a wave some other surfer can’t ride. The question should be whether I violated someone else’s rights by riding it myself, but I am doing them harm.

              If I have to go to some other deli for my meatball sandwich, then that deli has harmed me if they refused me service. But the government should only get involved if someone violated my rights. Harm isn’t a high enough standard. Everything we do or don’t do harms somebody–but if it doesn’t violate anyone else’s rights, then there is no reason for the government to get involved.

              1. Re: Ken Shultz,

                It’s about violating other people’s rights.

                Refusal to engage in trade is not a violation of someone else’s rights.

                Every wave I ride on my surfboard is a wave some other surfer can’t ride.

                Exclusion is not a harm. If you were first on a wave, the person not on the wave is not being harmed.

                I understand the gist of what you’re saying, but always keep in mind that you have no obligation to entertain other people’s arguments for harm based on their own petty envies or jealousies. The fact that *I* have it does not mean I am harming someone who does not have it – his feelings notwithstanding – as long as my possession of it is not the result of pilfering or theft.

                1. “Refusal to engage in trade is not a violation of someone else’s rights.”

                  I hope you understand that I agree with you.

                  But we should try to get away from saying that we’re free to do what we want unless it harms somebody else. A society in which no one is allowed to do anything unless it doesn’t have a negative impact on anybody else is a totalitarian society.

                  Rather, we should tell people that they should be free to do whatever they want so long as they don’t violate someone else’s rights.

                  “Exclusion is not a harm. If you were first on a wave, the person not on the wave is not being harmed.”

                  You guys were the ones playing with the word “harm”. You say depriving someone else of something isn’t “harm”, she says “to-May-to”!

                  I say it’s about violating other people’s rights. I say you CAN harm other people–but you can’t violate their rights. Making you walk another two blocks to buy a wedding cake is harm or a negative consequence–whatever you want to call it.

                  But refusing to sell someone a cake does not violate their rights, and protecting someone’s rights is the only legitimate reason for the government to get involved–because protecting people’s rights is the only legitimate purpose of government.

              2. It’s not actionable harm (well, it shouldn’t be, anyway), and surely the greater harm is the state compelling service.

                This is a solution in search of a problem. Even from a statist perspective, wouldn’t it make more sense to let things develop before jumping to intervention?

                1. Let’s just get away from “harm”.

                  Again, everything you do–or don’t do–harms (has a negative impact) on somebody somehow.

                  You just can’t violate someone else’s rights.

                  And, like we were saying over the weekend, “rights” always implies somebody’s personal autonomy. Every right is essentially the right to make a choice.

                  People still have a right to choose to get married–even if I choose not to sell them a wedding cake. Everybody’s rights are protected. The people who want to get married still get to choose. The baker still gets to choose.

                  It’s just that the baker doesn’t have a right to inflict his choice on the gay couple (violate their right to choose to get married). And he isn’t doing that!

                  Meanwhile, the gay couple doesn’t have a right to inflict their choice on the baker (violate his right to choose his own religion), either. If they want the government to force their religious convictions on the baker and violate his right to choose his own religion, then that’s wrong.

                  It isn’t about “harm”, though. It’s about whether someone’s rights are being violated. The baker is causing some negative consequences for the married couple, but he isn’t violating their right to choose to get married. We should all be free to do whatever we like–so long as we don’t violate anybody else’s right to make a choice for themselves.

              3. You say harm isn’t a high enough standard, but in many state civil rights laws, especially in those states without a RFRA, simply offending someone is enough grounds for them to sue, claiming a violation of their rights.

                I would prefer a substantial burden standard, where a person can win a discrimination suit only if they can prove that they face a substantial burden in obtaining legal goods or services. I find it hard to imagine this standard being reached without a super-majority of businesses engaged in discrimination.

                Most or all of these plaintiffs had other places they could have gone to purchase their goods or services, but instead wanted to use the power of the state to bully anyone who disagrees with them into compliance.

            2. Well, let’s not forget denial of lifesaving first aid service to a dying person could be harm, too. If I’m drowning in bacon grease, I hope that Muslim EMT doesn’t refuse to do CPR on me.

            3. “Otherwise, fuck you: I ain’t your fucking slave and my property is not yours.”

              Old Mexicunt,

              What makes you think anyone wants a pair of shit stained underpants and an unused toothbrush? No one’s stupid enough to a useless piece of shit like you has earned anything other than that. You claim to hate the state, yet you sit all day at the public library using their computers and internet to make your old Meixcunty comments to people who don’t give a fuck.

          2. I had this argument with someone on Guardian yesterday. Why the hell I torture myself over there…

            Anyway, he said gays in very small towns with only one pharmacy, one gas station, etc, could harm someone. I agreed, and in that case, the plaintiff would have a legitimate complaint. Anywhere else that there is choice, is up to the consumer to pick the best choice for his situation, gay or not.

            It would also make sense to check out the FRIGGIN TOWN, before moving there, or setting up a business if you anticipate having to serve someone against your conscience.

      4. denial of service isn’t harm.

        That’s really what’s being disputed in the philosophical conversation. This society came to the conclusion that it was indeed a harm and that with the privilege of running a business that serves the public comes the responsibility not to discriminate. Refusal of service is more or less a harm depending on historical and geographic context, but it was a real disadvantage perpetuating a racial economic underclass in some places. Would the balance of liberties still favor the bigoted business owner then?

        It may be true that gays are not at terrible risk of exclusion from participation in the commerce of their communities, but if we’re going to maintain the principle and apply it to race, religion, sex, etc., we cannot but apply it to sexual orientation as well.

        1. Re: Tony,

          That’s really what’s being disputed in the philosophical conversation.

          You would be a special kind of creep if you dispute it.

          This society came to the conclusion that it was indeed a harm and that with the privilege of running a business that serves the public comes the responsibility not to discriminate.

          You’re confusing ‘Society’ with government. Government came to that conclusion. Society is simply a concept people use to facilitate communication. There is no “society”. Stop equivocating. You look like a fool when you do it.

          Refusal of service is more or less a harm depending on historical and geographic context[.]

          In other words, it looks like a harm because you want to believe it is a harm.

          but if we’re going to maintain the principle and apply it to race, religion, sex, etc., we cannot but apply it to sexual orientation as well.

          There is no principle there. It is simply a mandate from the State that trade becomes obligatory by the mere fact a person claims he or she is being discriminated against. If instead of the claim the person had a gun, you and I would call it a robbery. It is STILL a robbery even without the gun, as the threat of violence and physical harm is clear.

          1. Nobody forced you to open a business that serves the public. Here in modern civilization, that activity does not come with a license to do anything you want. You can’t poison customers and you can’t discriminate against them based on certain characteristics either. As I said, the philosophical dispute is whether discrimination is like poisoning, i.e., whether it’s a harm. In what other ways do you think business owners ought to be entitled to harm would-be customers?

            1. Re: Tony,

              Nobody forced you to open a business that serves the public.

              Business do not serve the public. They serve customers.

              Here in modern civilization, that activity does not come with a license to do anything you want.

              What I like about you, Tony, is your penchant for conflating the State with everything that is good in this world, for instance: civilization. It so happens that there is nothing LESS civilizing than attacks on the right of people to trade their property with who they see fit.

            2. If the gay couple can go down to street to find a gay-friendly wedding photographer, then the one place that refused to offer service did not create a substantial burden to their obtaining the service, and they were not harmed.

        2. This is what you support Tony.

          http://tribuneherald.net/2013/…..imination/

          Look,and despair.

          1. I’m frankly more concerned about the president’s planned underaged sex-and-drugs farewell party.

            1. So you are intelligent enough to see a hoax, but not intelligent enough to understand a basic argument. You really are a cowardly, little fascist.

  26. When can this topic be over? I am tired of learning how many of my facebook friends are social signalers.

    1. The entire point of Facebook is social signaling.

      1. Talking about politics at all (for the vast majority of people) is almost entirely social signaling. It took me a summer trip with a group of prog-leaning “environmental studies” students last July to figure it out. If those kids really believed that their actions would lead to climate apocalypse, there’s no way they would’ve chosen to fly 8+ hours on an evil, excessive, carbon-emitting jet to study something that they could easily have done at home. It was an awkward moment to say the least when I brought that up in the middle of the class.

  27. “Indeed, it’s telling that this particular battle over having to serve gays is the one where conservatives have decided to mount what is something like a last stand against the forces of toleration and pluralism.”

    Are these the same forces of tolerance and pluralism that search around for recalcitrant bakers who don’t want to bake cakes for gay weddings so they can drag the bakers before the state and punish them for thoughtcrime instead of, you know, tolerating the bakers’ existence? Tolerance is supposed to be a two-way street. Leave the fundies alone and let them do their thing.

    It has become increasingly evident that people don’t want to recognize how civil liberties work; that we have to allow people with unpleasant ideas and attitudes to continue to have them, or it’s not really a civil liberty.

    Meanwhile, pace yesterday’s signaling article, all of the Twitter-paters get to signal to others their supposed tolerance, at no cost to themselves, their businesses, etc.

    1. Tolerance is supposed to be a two-way street. Leave the fundies alone and let them do their thing.

      Eye for an eye making the whole world blind? Turn the other cheek? Live well as the best revenge?

      These will not be tolerated. Both graves are dug; petulance, fear-mongering, and race-to-the-bottom for all!

  28. Republicans are just democrats with bibles, using government to force their idea of Utopia on others.

    1. I’d give it a C- on another site.

      Here? It gets a D+.

  29. “Why should the same government that can’t educate your children or deliver your mail get to decide which couples can marry in a civil ceremony, right?”

    Agreed – the government shouldn’t try to adopt its own definition of marriage based on what’s politically popular at a given time. Instead, it should acknowledge marriage as a pre-state institution, with the government’s job being limited to protecting it, not redefining it.

    Seriously, article thunders out denunciations against the law’s conservative supporters, then conclude that mutter mutter the conservatives are probably right, mutter mutter.

    The fear of ritual pollution through contact with conservatism or religious freedom seems very strong here.

  30. And can’t Nick Gillespie distinguish between boycotts with good objective and boycotts with bad objectives? If some entertainment conglomerate commissioned a dramatization of Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a boycott of the conglomerate would be a *good * thing. A boycott of a whole state because it dares support religious freedom would be a *bad* thing.

    1. You of course will always let us know which boycotts are good and which are bad.

      1. OK, *don’t* boycott the Elders of Zion movie, buy tickets and popcorn.

        1. OK, don’t boycott discrimination against a minority, buy tickets and bon bons.

          1. OK, how is the state of Indiana discriminating against minorities?

            1. That is the whole point…its all in the eye of the beholder, isn’t it? Evidently there are plenty of people, and in fact companies who believe it is in fact discrimination, and they say so. So for them, a boycott is justified, maybe not to you..

              But your the only one saying that the eye you behold with is the correct one.

              1. Re: Jackass Ass,

                That is the whole point…its all in the eye of the beholder, isn’t it?

                If it is, then it is not a real issue. If it isn’t and discrimination is an actual sin, then obviously government has not gone far enough to stop discrimination in all its manifestations. That would require very extensive and complicated legislature, leaving aside the cost of enforcement.

                Clearly, the concept of discrimination as sin, as far as it pertains to individuals and not the State, is a made-up concept, something the envious fall on to demand a redress of supposed grievances or – mainly – to steal from their neighbors.

                1. All concepts are made up, dummy.

  31. Fully two-thirds of Americans believe that homosexuality among consenting adults should be legal

    And 30% of the country thinks gay relationships should not be legal. Not marriage, but relationships at all. There’s definitely no threat of systemic discrimination against gays!

    1. Which is why our political system was designed to protect minority voices from the oppression of the majority (or substantial and influential minorities). Which is why it’s totally dumb to chip away at those protections.

      1. Christians are the oppressive majority!

        1. Weird. Those oppressive Christians were the ones who created the documents providing for the protection of oppressed minorities.

          The oppressed and oppressor may shift and trade places over time. The point is the foundational principle. Christians were very aware of this.

        2. Tony is so paranoid and stupid!

          77% of Americans identify as Christian.

          http://www.gallup.com/poll/159…..stian.aspx

          If 55% of Americans think that gay marriage should be treated just like a tradition marriage, then that WOULD mean that–at least–a third of the Christians out there think that gay marriage should be treated just like a traditional marriage–just by simple math.

          But it’s actually way better than that. According to this survey:

          http://www.pewforum.org/2014/0…..-marriage/

          60% of white “mainline” Christians support gay marriage, and 57% of Catholics support gay marriage,

          The Episcopal Church will actually marry gays.

          Tony is paranoid and delusional. He thinks that Christians are an oppressive majority–and yet a majority of Christians support gay marriage.

          Tony is so full of hate and keeps lashing out at all Christians–as if they were the scary Christians in his head. Tony is deranged!

          1. The point is these religious freedom laws were originally enacted to protect religious minorities. Now they’re being employed by powerful religious groups to not only discriminate against gays, but give businesses the ability to claim a religion, etc.

        3. “Christians are the oppressive majority!”

          Somebody should probably point out that in Tony’s world, too, this is hate speech.

    2. “Fully two-thirds of Americans believe that homosexuality among consenting adults should be legal”

      Was that poll taken before or after Americans found out that their First Amendment religious freedoms are no longer valid given the way gay rights are protected in the law?

      Do you imagine that convincing American Christians, blacks and Hispanics disproportionately among them, that their own religious freedoms are no longer valid so long as gay rights are protected–will have no impact on popular support for gay rights?

      1. This sounds like a threat. Should I take what I have managed to get and run along home lest there be a backlash (by those bigoted brown people, they’re such a thorn in the side of the gay rights movement I tell you)?

        The fact is religious freedom, like all others, is not absolute, and it doesn’t extend to discriminating against customers based on race, sex, religion, disability status, etc., and in some places sexual orientation. My question is why sexual orientation should be the one characteristic we allow people to continue to discriminate on.

        1. Re: Tony,

          The fact is religious freedom, like all others, is not absolute,

          It is absolute. Nobody can make you believe things you don’t want to believe. Nobody has that power.

          When will little red Marxians stop arguing with platitudes?

          and it doesn’t extend to discriminating against customers based on race, sex, religion, disability status, etc.,

          Of course it extends to that, but it isn’t religious freedom the reason one can discriminate against people based on sex, color, disability, marital status, etc. It is property rights. My property is not yours and I am not obligated to trade with you, even if government says otherwise.

        2. “The fact is religious freedom, like all others, is not absolute, and it doesn’t extend to discriminating against customers based on race, sex, religion, disability status, etc., and in some places sexual orientation.”

          Tony is so dumb, he thinks that if you support the First Amendment, that means you have to be in favor of the government discriminating against gay people, too.

          Never mind Tony insisting here at Hit & Run–for years–that our rights are only a fiction that depend on a popularity contest for support.

          Never mind that Tony refuses to believe that the popular support for gay rights may have been predicated on the fact that stopping government discrimination against LGBT has no substantial negative impact on anybody else. …and that such popular support might fade if gay activists start insisting that other peoples’ First Amendment rights no longer exist.

          No, forget all that. Tony is so dumb, he thinks that if you support equal protection before the law for gay people, that means you can’t respect religious freedom, too.

          You’re an idiot, Tony.

    3. Re: Tony,

      And 30% of the country thinks gay relationships should not be legal. Not marriage, but relationships at all. There’s definitely no threat of systemic discrimination against gays!

      Stop conflating government force with individual freedom of choice.

      1. Like my freedom of choice to patronize the same quantity of businesses in my community that straight people can?

        1. Re: Tony,

          Like my freedom of choice to patronize the same quantity of businesses in my community that straight people can?

          You can patronize anything you want.

  32. So…..Nick is signaling?

  33. That Indianapolis Star editorial is sure conducive to rational, calm, deliberate policymaking:

    “Governor, Indiana is in a state of crisis. It is worse than you seem to understand.”

    Solving the crisis means passing a state gay-rights law based on an Indianapolis ordinance:

    “Indianapolis, for example, has had those legal protections in place for nearly a decade. Indy’s law applies to businesses with more than six employees, and exempts religious organizations and nonprofit groups. [but not icky profit-making businesses, I notice]

    “The city’s human rights ordinance provides strong legal protection ? and peace of mind ?for LGBT citizens; yet, it has not placed an undue burden on businesses….

    “On a practical level, by basing the state law on a 10-year-old ordinance, the General Assembly could move quickly to adopt the measure without fear of unintended consequences. If lawmakers can’t act in the next month, the governor should call a special session immediately after the regular session ends in April to take up human rights legislation.”

    EMERGENCY! EMERGENCY! WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE! THE ECONOMY IS GONNA IMPLODE IF WE DON’T PASS THIS LAW RIGHT AWAY! NO, DON’T CHECK THE FINE PRINT, THIS IS URGENT!

  34. Nick… you deliberately ignored over 20 years of Federal RFRA and State level RFRA in nearly half of the States. This law has been tested and tried in the courts. It has passed the “homosexual discrimination” test. The fact is… it doesn’t allow people to discriminate against people because they are “gay”. It allows people to abstain from functions and events that violate their moral and religious conscience without State retaliation. Making gay marriage legal does not mean it is moral… just like making drugs legal does not moralize it’s use. This law gives people the freedom to associate and dissociate according their conscience without State interference. Removing the teeth from State action against people of faith does not hurt gay people. If you are to remain credible… you would abstain from this debate altogether, because as you advocate for the homosexual when there is no issue… you also advocate for the suppression of religious speech when there IS an issue. As a point of clarification… Arizona has RFRA on the books. Gov. dingbat vetoed an amendment to the law to strengthen it and immune it from Federal interference (because the Fed loves to intervene on State matters.). Do yourself a favor… Never ever ever use “Jim Crow” and the plight of blacks to justify the co-opted gay movements attempts to push progressive and secular humanist values down the throats of people of faith. It puts you on the wrong side of the political spectrum.

  35. Is anyone really surprised that, when it comes to choosing between writing an unapologetic defense of cardinal libertarian principle and bashing traditionalists, Gillespie chooses the latter?

    This type of article (wherein the libertarian grudgingly affirms through clenched teeth theoretical adherence of their principles while otherwise celebrating the wisdom and superiority of the anti-freedom position in its particulars) is what leads many to conclude that libertarian support of actual, practical liberty is a farce.

  36. Wow! I didn’t expect this article to be written by Nick Gillespie. It doesn’t seem very profound, it’s depth and complexity seems like a lot of the simple minded liberal analysis that goes on. When it comes to “marriage equality” Reason lacks an appreciation of the validity of the different values and “rights” that are in tension. The slightly more objective analysis that attracted me to libertarianism is missing. The ability of having an in depth understanding of the different points of view and then coming up with an original more nuanced point of view is missing. If I had to attribute the blind spot to something it would be a lack of appreciation of the benefits and usefulness of tradition. I mean this in the Burkean and Hayekian sense, flowing from Humean empiricism. Nothing is black and white or straightforward when it comes to throwing out long established traditions of what marriage is, but even if our society moves in that direction of celebrating and approving same sex marriages. There’s nothing black and white about not allowing people of religious leanings to express their religiosity by not facilitating or being part of something they view as sinful in their economic lives.

    1. You have not read much Gillespie have you?

      1. I was aware of ‘Reasons’ stance on ‘marriage equality’, not on their stance regarding the liberties of the religious in the economic sphere. I guess even if they come down on the ‘businesses shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs’ side, I thought he would present it in a more balanced and sophisticated way. Just have to say diversity of thought is lacking within newspapers and magazines. Maybe it would be unmanageable to have a multitude of perspectives/ideologies under one roof.

  37. So let me get this straight (no pun intended). The idiot left wants economic sanctions against a State that passes a stupid law because they think it may allow discrimination when discrimination is against Federal law BUT they support lifting economic sanctions in Iran so they can progress in developing an atomic bomb when the government states that it wants to destroy all Jews, supports persecution of gays and others deemed unworthy.

    I’m no righty, but I despise the left and what it stands for. As far as I’m concerned, Indiana is foolish, but the outrage is worthless because it is being spouted by hypocritical fools.

  38. Oh look, Nick Gillespie took the SJW/prog position.

    I am just shocked.

  39. Small business owners discriminate all the time. I choose or choose not to work with specific customers based on a plethora of reasons. It might be because my schedule is full and I can’t squeeze them in. It might be because their job requirements don’t mesh with my abilities. It might be because I think the customer is a nasty bitch and I don’t want the bother.

    I’ve had numerous conversations along the lines of……

    “The job sounds interesting but my schedule won’t permit me to take on another project right now. I can refer you to…..”

    The idea that we can compel businesses or individuals to work for others or in situations they find awkward – for whatever reason – tests the bounds of reality.

    1. “The idea that we can compel businesses or individuals to work for others or in situations they find awkward – for whatever reason – tests the bounds of reality.”

      I’m not sure the Left necessarily specifically cares to compel business. It’s more likely they just want to enforce public obeisance to their principles.

  40. ” was government at all levels, not local businesses, that disenfranchised blacks for decades. And it was, in many cases, government action that was necessary to change things.”

    So, isn’t the point then that we should be for good government and against bad government– rather than applying a broad animus against actions by the public sector. I’m for social security, the national park service, and the Clean Air Act while being against the Drug War, defense spending, and idiotic wars in the Middle East.

    One more thing: wasn’t it people on the radical Left that we’re the first people to advocate for civil rights laws for black people? I’m not a communist, but the reason why I don’t recoil from the label in horror is that I’m trying to think of a domestic issue in the U.S. That they were wrong about.

    1. Aside from some defense spending you haven’t listed any good government examples. Social security and the whole welfare statE is nothing more than the theft which you promote as noble. It doesn’t surprise me that you admire the communists as their entire reason for existence is to steal from some to buy power from others.

    2. One more thing: wasn’t it people on the radical Left that we’re the first people to advocate for civil rights laws for black people?

      No. It was Republicans. republicans and their fellow travelers.

      1. You mean like this one?

        http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vito_Marcantonio

        How many times are conservatives going to conflate left-wing with Democratic Party? Probably a hundred billion at the going rate. I’m willing to make distinctions between republicans and democrats and argue that the latter is somewhat better, but for the most part I don’t really care for Democrats either.

        1. No.

          Republicans and other abolitionists were working for black civil rights long before this socialist was born.

          Take a look at how many black Republicans were elected right after the left lost the Civil War

          And yes, I call them that–because so many segregationists, slavery supporters, eugenicists and outright racists are included in the left’s big book of hereoes–and you know what? Not all of them are Democrats, to be sure, but none of them are Republicans.

    3. Re: American Stolid,

      So, isn’t the point then that we should be for good government and against bad government

      The only good governments I know are all dead.

      I’m for social security, the national park service, and the Clean Air Act while being against the Drug War, defense spending, and idiotic wars in the Middle East.

      Which blockhead said you were not an unprincipled statist hack?

      wasn’t it people on the radical Left that we’re the first people to advocate for civil rights laws for black people?

      Not in the U.S. Not even in the world. It was actually Christian Protestants and Catholics who started that ball rolling. The little red Marxians simply stand in front of the parade after it was almost over.

  41. My best friend’s mother-in-law makes $85 /hour on the internet . She has been out of work for 5 months but last month her pay was $16453 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    Visit this website ????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  42. My best friend’s mother-in-law makes $85 /hour on the internet . She has been out of work for 5 months but last month her pay was $16453 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    Visit this website ????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  43. I spotted that text from believe it or not -Pat Buchanan- on UNZ.
    http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/stand-up-for-indiana/ and Breitbart also post their pinch of salt. http://www.breitbart.com/big-g…..ttlefield/

  44. A given tradition can be good or bad in the context of an evolving society. So traditions that have served a purpose might no longer be appropriate given changes in society brought about by changes in technology, ideas, religiosity, scientific advances, attitudes, commerce, etc. However my contention would be that the bias towards tradition should be that it’s good, or that it’s there for a reason and the it has a function in society, this would be my conservative bent. I’ve shared the spirit of questioning and challenging authority, tradition, and established norms, I’ve also been a fan of the Enlightenment. However I feel that this attitude can lead towards having a wholesale antagonism towards established traditions, and treat all tradition as antiquated and prejudiced, foolishly thinking society can be wholly reinvented on rational grounds and that we can do a better job of engineering society than the ages have done, while ignoring the all-important realities that have shaped the present state of things, which our faculties can’t be aware of. Hayek makes a point in ‘The Fatal Conceit’ that tradition is that which lies between instinct and reason, tradition is the means of society transferring ‘knowledge’ arrived at not by purely rational means but ‘knowledge’ that has emerged through the interaction of our instincts and rational faculty, with the reality of time and place.

  45. In our conversation on gay marriage I was mainly attempting to depolarize the issue by framing the opposing views, not in terms of bigotry vs an enlightened defense of equal rights, but in terms of our society trying to figure out what of our past traditions we want to change and what we want to preserve. I wanted to raise empathy for conservatives by bringing up incest, polygamy would have made the same point, by showing that we all have our own ‘bigotry’, off-course we wouldn’t call it bigotry but MORALITY. So happens to be the morality viewing homosexuality as outright wrong is in the decline, more than that it is in the defensive, thanks to the human beings that have fought to change the perception of homosexuals, and the decline of religiosity. I say ‘thanks’ because I am presuming that no real negative consequences will arise from this change, no major negative impacts to attitudes about marriage or family, no good things in society will be lost as a result of this, however I acknowledge that I could be making the mistake of being shortsighted in my assessment and be wrong.

  46. An interesting thought that comes to mind, is that the left tends to be very respectful of some traditions, as in the case of Islam, and sometimes even reverential of other traditions, like that of Native Americans. But seems more hostile when it comes to traditions arising from the American Experience, hence tending to be more critical of American society. Why the bias?

    1. Progressives are critical of any ideas tied to the “privileged” class. It’s just a coincidence that much of the ideas about the American Experience came from the “privileged” themselves. “Respecting” cultures and philosophies from the developing world is just another way for them to signal how “open” and “caring” they are. It’s just ironic that any criticism of some of these ideas leads many of them to shut off any conversation.

      1. Their morality reminds me of Nietzche’s “Slave vs Master” morality analysis:
        “Master?slave morality is a central theme of Friedrich Nietzsche’s works, in particular the first essay of On the Genealogy of Morality. Nietzsche argued that there were two fundamental types of morality: ‘Master morality’ and ‘slave morality’. Slave morality values things like kindness, humility and sympathy, while master morality values pride, strength, and nobility. Master morality weighs actions on a scale of good or bad consequences unlike slave morality which weighs actions on a scale of good or evil intentions. For Nietzsche, a particular morality is inseparable from the formation of a particular culture. This means that its language, codes and practices, narratives, and institutions are informed by the struggle between these two types of moral valuation.”

      2. I am sure it’s an over simplification but Nietzche argues ‘Slave Morality’ emerged from the Jewish Slaves basically resenting their masters and hence defining their morality in opposition to their master’s morality.
        “Biblical principles of turning the other cheek, humility, charity, and pity are the result of universalizing the plight of the slave onto all humankind, and thus enslaving the masters as well.”The interesting thing about American Progressives is that in a sense they are “Masters or Privileged”, America is the richest and most powerful nation in the world. However their morality is a “Slave Morality”, a secularized version of Christianity.

    2. “An interesting thought that comes to mind, is that the left tends to be very respectful of some traditions, as in the case of Islam…”

      I’d love to see how those “respecting Islam traditions” attempt to reconcile their beliefs with the feminists and gay-activists that dominate their team.

  47. If conservatives are serious about individual rights and limited goverment (as they claim to be), you’d think they would be at the forefront of striking down laws that treat marriages between two men or two women differently than, say, one man and one woman or one black person and one white person. Why should the same government that can’t educate your children or deliver your mail get to decide which couples can marry in a civil ceremony, right?

    Still conflating these issues, huh? The laws forbidding marriages between persons of different races were statutes that could be voided, “struck down”. Except in recent years in some places in response to the “marriage equality” movement, there were no statutes to strike down re same-sex “marriage”. Rather, marriage was long understood to mean something under the common law, a meaning that was already there beforehand. You could have no statutes on marriage at all, no marriage licensing, & you’d still have had the same legal issue regarding purported marriage between persons of the same sex.

    1. You see, it ain’t a right unless the State says so.

      Nothing prevents a couple from performing a ceremony by which each other swears love and loyalty and call themselves “married.” That is not the issue. The issue has to do with taxation and pensions – that is, getting at the government’s trough. That’s all.

      1. I can’t wait to see lesbian divorces. Those promise to be Epic bloodbaths. After all who gets the house, the car, the dog and the Barry Manilow collection and who pays the debts for all the above when both parties are female.

      2. The upholding of contracts and the recognition of legal documents like living wills and powers of attorney are also at issue here, but as has been pointed out many times those issues don’t have to be conflated with marriage per se but they are in practice.

  48. So a bunch of homofascists use the power of state anti-discrimination laws to force small businesses to take part in rituals that they oppose on genuine religious grounds, and then use the power of economic boycotts to force the states to take such actions, and good libertarian Nick Gillespie is perfectly comfortable, and doesn’t object to the blatant dishonesty of the boycotters. (Does Apple, which considers Indiana hatefully anti-homosexual, have any sort of business dealings with any of the Muslim nations that execute homosexuals? Does Tim Cook really think Indiana is more backward than they are? Does Nick Gillespie really think such questions don’t matter?) This is why I don’t take libertarianism seriously as a political philosophy. Nick Gillespie and John Stossel are both quite comfortable watching homofascism destroy the rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion as long as it’s nominally done by private citizens.

    1. Why do you fucktards insist on commenting without paying any attention to the other commenters? If Nick Gillespie and John Stossel are the only people you’ll listen to, then fucking email them.

      1. Gillespie and Stossel are hardly the only ones I read here. They are the ones I can particularly recall at the moment who have commented on this subject. As for reading other commenters, when I finish an article the option of responding is immediately available. If I feel like it, I respond. At that point, the other commenters are unavailable to me without specifically selecting them.

        1. You drew generalizations from Gillespie (what does Stossel have to do with this, anyway) to all libertarians in the comments section but didn’t bother to account for the opinions of anyone else. As you can see, Gillespie doesn’t speak for all libertarians, and even so your unwillingness to “take libertarianism seriously as a political philosophy” just reads as “people who don’t agree with me aren’t serious”.

    2. Re: TimothyLane,

      Nick Gillespie and John Stossel are both quite comfortable watching homofascism destroy the rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion as long as it’s nominally done by private citizens.

      I don’t think they’re comfortable with that but mostly how much they value tolerance over property rights or individual freedom. In other words, they don’t want to be perceived as “brutalists.”

    3. Nick Gillespie and John Stossel are both quite comfortable watching homofascism destroy the rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion as long as it’s nominally done by private citizens.

      Considering that the the actual issue is over the government, all of this allusion to “private citizens” is disingenuous. Nobody robs you of your freedom of speech or religion by taking their money elsewhere. If and when somebody uses violence against you, whether directly or by proxy through the state, then your freedom is being violated.

      1. What do you suppose was the purpose of the economic pressure that led to the coerced resignation of Jonathan Eich at Mozilla? It punished him for the sin of making a modest contribution several years earlier to a referendum on state recognition of homosexual marriages (actually banning them was not at issue). And by doing that to Eich (as has been done to many others), the homofascists intimidate others into keeping silent on the issue.

        Among the private businesses that have been victimized by the homofascist campaign to intimidate Christian small businesses (none of whom discriminated against homosexual customers aside from their refusal to participate in homosexual marriage ceremonies) are a photographer in New Mexico, bakers in Colorado and Oregon, a florist in Washington, and private chapels in New York and Idaho.

        1. Brendan Eich was fired by (or resigned from, whatever) the Mozilla Foundation. Regardless of the reasons for his termination, absent a contract of employment, they had every right to do that and their reasons, shitty or otherwise, are irrelevant. That’s what “at-will employment” and “free association” mean. It may have been a bad decision but it’s not a decision that violated anyone’s rights. You keep your job at your employer’s pleasure, and you are not owed a paycheck in perpetuity.

          The other examples you give involve the courts interpreting statutes which makes them one way or another state action. Thus while they may be relevant to the issue at hand, they are separate from the act of boycotting. You can’t force people to give you their money any more than they can force you to work for them.

        2. Ultimately, if you are dissatisfied with Eich’s firing, then don’t contribute to the Mozilla Foundation or use their products (Firefox, mostly). You have the same rights as everyone else, so exercise them.

          1. But… homofascists. All that stuff you learned about how gay people were, not long ago, basically criminals for being born, demonized worse than anyone, and forced to live underground lives? Nothing compared to the evil of social pressure to promote tolerance of gay people. Truly the conservatives have their justice meters tuned the most accurately.

            1. You need to get out more, son. There is far more evil in the world than your little mind can apparently comprehend.

  49. Indiana was stupid to pass this law for one reason, there had never been an problem before on this subject. However, the backlash is even more outrageous since again, there have been no actual instances of discrimination. All of the outrage is about what the left THINKS may happen, not what has actually happened. 19 other states and the Federal government have similar laws. Connecticut’s law is MORE restrictive than the Indiana law but that did not stop the Governor of Connecticut from expressing his “outrage” and banning state travel to the Indiana. The opponents of the law will not discuss the other laws already on the books because there has not been a single instance of discrimination they claim will be the result of the Indiana law. The actual reason for the outrage in not that the law discriminates, but the belief that no one should have the right to have views on issues other than those held by Progressives. This is nothing more than the selective outrage the left have become famous for over the past few years. Since they love to attack Christians here is something for them to think about. “First take the plank out of your own eye and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from the eye of your brother”

  50. Right, so Priests and Wedding Photographers should be forced to participate in something they find sinful and goes against their sincerely held religious beliefs, morals, and conscience? What a disgusting and TOTALITARIAN position to take. And this position coming from a supposed libertarian? Insane.

  51. Discrimination? We discriminate every single day in the choices we make. How is it that in one of the most important facets of our lives, association with others, we are told that discrimination is somehow wrong, evil? No one has a right to my service in any form. That people have let law be put into place that punishes choice and freedom is indicative of just how far Americans have strayed from the Constitution, the principles of our Founders, and from the standards of common sense.

  52. Folks boycotting Indiana will be exercising same right they wish to deny others: deciding who they do business with. No doubt the irony will be lost on them.

    1. But they’re intolerant so it’s OK to be intolerant of them, amIright?

      /progderp

  53. Where is the data on discrimination in states that have an RFRA but no specific LGBT anti-discrimination? PA is one, NJ, NY (just LGB) and the Chesapeake states are its opposite numbers. Surely there must be some actual examples to call on — or is the lack thereof what’s significant?

  54. SSM might be a settled issue, but not “marriage equality”. As far as I can tell, people still feel icky about polygamy, prostitution, necrophilia, etc. And the state is downright draconian when it comes to food choices.

    Gay marriage is cause celebre. It always was. America does not care about liberty unless it comes under a banner or involves a protected group. That’s why no one here blinks when agents raid polygamous Mormon families or when ISIS drops gays to their death.

  55. What really needs to occur is a boycott of Maryland and DC. After all, those entities are pretty clearly condoning the murder of trespassing transvestites who probably just wanted to get married on a government campus.

    The first step of the boycott should be to stop filing tax forms that originate from DC and stop sending taxes to DC.

  56. Shorter response to article:

    Nick is wrong, you have the freedom to association (disassociation).

  57. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income… You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up… You can have your first check by the end of this week…………….

    http://www.Jobsyelp.com

  58. I’m curious, for all the conservative zeal about the right of association, why so much venom for companies who are choosing to not associate with the State of Indiana? If the law protects the rights of free association -and you support it for that reason, why are you then attacking companies for exercising that right?

    1. Because they’re boycotting the state for protecting the sort of that also allows them to not associate with Indiana.

      It’s not unlike activist who deface pro Israel posters but complain “My first amendment is being violated” when the cops arrest them.

      Plus, a lot of these businesses probably make money from nations that are more openly anti gay.

    2. Because they are fighting for slavery.

  59. The business person should have the same rights as the customer. A customer can decide not to buy anything in a store for any reason at all – race of the person running the store, a cross on the wall, the store owner speaking with an Indian accent. Nothing prevents them from being as bigoted as they wish. They can do business for any reason that pleases them.
    The business contract should be voluntary by both parties. No force should ever be used or threatened. Besides, there will always be someone looking for the business – go to them.

  60. So “collective rights” (privileges distributed by the state) trump natural Individual rights?
    And the whimsical desires of a group are more valuable than private property, freedom of expression and freedom of association?
    Um, methinks Nick Gillespie is a Progressive Collectivist.
    Seriously Nick? Your willing to inflict deadly physical force in order to strong-arm citizen Jones into interacting with citizen Smith?
    .
    “It’s hard to say which is more contemptible, the brute who assumes the right to force the minds of others, or the moral degenerate who grants to others the right to force his mind.”
    -Ayn Rand

  61. Why not two black men and a white lesbian?

  62. We’re dealing with religious rights here, not conservative rights. As for “toleration
    and pluralism” let’s require those same demanding homosexuals running a
    catering service to provide service for a local branch of the KKK, or some
    radical Muslims. The freedom to deal with folks you want to trumps any and all
    phony right to a wedding cake from Bill’s Bakery, and only Bill’s Bakery.
    Pluralism (or diversity) can never be a worthwhile (or even definable) goal
    when dealing with human interactions. The essense of freedom is the freedom of
    association. It trumps everything else. There is nothing worthwhile in the abnormal
    behavior of homosexuals. It is a behavioral failure, a psychosis. If same-sex marriages are legal,then, by the same goofy logic, marriages between a woman an her cat or a man and his dog must also be judged legal. Everyone knows that same-sex marriages are stupid and are no less stupid simply because the courts mistakenly proclaimed them legal.

  63. It has been noted that a boycott is act of discrimination, an extraordinarily broad
    and unfocused act of discrimination. Also very amusing is the fact that the goofballs that
    have hysterically singled out Indiana foolishly believe that only Indiana has such a law to protect their citizens, when in fact 20 other states also have such laws and now Arkansas today has passed a law like Indiana’s and next week NC will likely follow suit, with other states to follow. Since dozens of states have these laws, boycotts become more joke than threat and Tim Cook, idiot CEO of the tax-cheating Apple corp has been fingered as the head of a company that does business with countries that EXECUTE homosexuals. Hello, Tim, helloooo …. Earth to Tim…..

  64. Strange, is it not, how a group of men, women, and children, ventured forth against the elements to find a new home in an unknown world that would allow them to practice their religion without interference from what could be considered a politically correct state.

    And now Indiana, and the Progressive Left.

  65. I hear tons of gibberish about RIGHTS RIGHTS!!

    To be a natural right it has to be justified by nature.

    Marriage was naturally created, without government or religion, as the union of not just A man and A woman, but THE man and THE woman who choose to create a family and raise their children together.

    Closely related, the natural purpose of sex is to make babies. It’s doesn’t exist for love, or tax breaks and the “feel good” aspect only exists to encourage people to make more babies.

    Homosexual sex fails to have any natural purpose and it really fails the natural test when objects go the wrong direction up the wrong hole.

    Whether I was created by nature or by a god it makes no difference. I was created with a nose… and SH!T stinks.

    There is absolutely no obligation to support, protect, or respect things which are a direct affront to nature.

    1. And there is no right to ban or discriminate against things which are a direct affront to nature, either. If they’re consenting adults doing it in private, and no one else is harmed, fuck off.

  66. To paraphrase Richard Epstein, we should apply the freedom to associate to all people in all ways at all times.
    Let the boycotts begin.

    1. I love listening to Epstein on the John Batchelor Show

  67. Do these anti-discriminators consider it discrimination worthy of punishment for choosing not to patron a LGBT owned business? If not, then why should it be punishable to refuse to accept the money of LGBT people and abstaining from providing them with services?

  68. Boycotting Indiana until it passes a LAW forcing conservative christians to bake cakes for gay weddings is NOT a free market response.

  69. Boycotting Indiana until it passes a LAW forcing conservative christians to bake cakes for gay weddings is NOT a free market response.

    1. I think if a baker refuses to sell you a cake for your wedding, your choosing to no longer buy from him afterward IS a free market choice. Telling your friends the baker about it is also a free market choice. Having the government arrange a boycott is NOT.

      That said NIck demonstrated he is a jackass by writing this dreck article that belongs somewhere inside a mother jones magazine.

  70. I think there has been some misunderstanding about Nick Gillespie’s opinion. He is saying that the Indiana law does allow “discrimination,” and that it should, and conservatives should fight for that principle instead of trying to weasel-word their way out of it. I did not get out of this that he is against allowing businesses to discriminate. Libertarians are for freedom.

    1. No, the law is trying to protect religious freedom so that a wedding photographer that happens to be a devout Christian is able to say; “It’s a same sex wedding? Sorry but I don’t feel comfortable doing that, I’ll refer you to a different wedding photographer or you can find someone else.” If you see something wrong with this you are a TOTAL fascist, that believes people should be forced to denounce their faith so that you can feel good about your lifestyle. I can empathize with a Same Sex Couple feeling hurt if someone refuses to bake their wedding cake, but in a PLURALISTIC society with citizens with all kinds of values and faiths we hope we can learn to respect one another and to try to not get in each other’s business! GET A DIFFERENT PHOTOGRAPHER!

    2. I say this as an atheist, just because a greater number of mainly irreligious people feel comfortable with our society celebrating and approving Same Sex Marriage, doesn’t mean you can persecute all the religious people that believe in God, believe the Bible is a sacred book, believe in life after death, and believe homosexuality is a sin, just because there’s been enough popular support to pass laws doesn’t mean religious people with sincerely held beliefs now have to give up their beliefs about WHAT IS MORAL AND GOOD IN THE EYES OF GOD. Can’t you be satisfied that the society is quickly moving to seeing homosexuality as completely fine to the point of legalizing SAME SEX MARRIAGE? For a long time that sexuality was perceived as immoral period, let alone a marriage between two persons of the same sex?

    3. Sorry but MORALITY is personal and you’ll never be able to control people’s minds, and you might be able to silence them with your fascist tendencies and complete disrespect for RELIGION AND RELIGIOUS RIGHTS, you can’t force all of SOCIETY to approve of the GAY life style. Live and let live! I am an atheist, love “Modern Family” and I feel somewhat uncomfortable when I see two DUDES kiss. Sorry, I am not sure it’ll ever be like just seeing a heterosexual couple kiss. It seems this is what A LOT of homosexuals want, they want approval, they want to feel that their lifestyle is good and moral. That’s something that lies in people’s hearts, you can’t force that.

    4. How would you feel about Polygamists marriages? Or marriage between two consenting adult siblings? Or marriage between two consenting adult cousins? If you’re an atheist and your morality is completely based on just looking at individual harm, you might say well, that’s fine, let them get married if they are in love, no one is getting hurt. Would the idea make you feel uncomfortable? Would you frown upon it? If you’re honest it would probably feel weird and wrong at a gut level, and you’re an atheist! Now imagine how a God believing and fearing person would feel, that doesn’t see morality as just being about harm, but that it has to do with other values, like Sanctity. The law is not meant to allow general discrimination of gays in businesses in general, the comparison with Jim Crow is ridiculous. It’s a balancing test.

      1. I don’t have any problem with marriage between persons who are already married to other persons, nor between adult siblings or cousins. The only purported marriage that’s on the table that I would not have the law recognize as such is that between persons of the same sex.

      2. Why do they have to be adult? Isn’t that another line you are drawing?

        I would argue physically mature, but that usually happens at 13 or 14. Why is 18 a magical number? Why not 21? or 16?

  71. wedding cake wedding cake bakers moan
    bake me a cake with a felching tone
    sue you and screw you and smear you in the press
    and put you in the gulag until you confess.

  72. I think there’s a fundamental difference between the boycott of a business that has business practices to which you object and the boycott a state for the offense of passing a law that gives business owners better defenses against lawsuits. Nobody is questioning people’s right to boycott Indiana, but as a libertarian I certainly disagree with the motive of boycotting a state for placing minimal limits on the government’s coercive powers. I’m rather surprised at Nick’s take on this issue.

  73. “55 percent believe that gay marriages should be treated the same as traditional ones. ”
    .
    What the heck does it matter how many people believe this? I suppose if 55% of people believe the moon is made of green cheese that makes it right.
    .

  74. My ex-wife makes $75 every hour on the laptop . She has been laid off for seven months but last month her pay check was $18875 just working on the laptop for a few hours.
    Look At This. ???? http://www.jobsfish.com

  75. Not all libertarians are conservative, nor are all conservatives libertarian. The latter is especially true among “social conservatives” who favor government intervention to protect society from all sort of perceived ills and threats to their way of life. Unfortunately, those who should read this article are most likely not to.

  76. Everybody quit pretending that homosexuals are normal people, not the neurotic/psychotic haters of the opposite sex we all know them to be. Going back in the closet would probably be
    a very good idea. Out of sight, out of mind.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.