Indiana

"Everybody's Lost Their Goddamn Mind Over Religious Freedom"

Both conservatives and liberals aren't being straight about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

|

When it comes to the arguments over Indiana's recently passed version of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), conservatives and liberals

are both annoying and self-aggrandizing in their righteousness. Given the paucity of actual cases in play—virtually all news accounts recycle a handful of incidents in a few states—it's clear that the main function of the current controversy is to make religious conservatives feel even more persecuted than usual and to make secular liberals feel as if they are making a last stand for human decency.

Conservatives (and let's face it, Republicans) are trying to use the backlash to justify the ridiculous notion that being anti-religious is the last acceptable prejudice and all that jazz. Liberals are acting as if they are in the brave vanguard of American pluralism, despite the fact that large and growing majorities of Americans are totally good not just with homosexuality but with same-sex marriage too.

In my new Daily Beast column, I recap the strange history of the original 1993 RFRA (Chuck Schumer was its House sponsor! Jesse Helms was one of three no votes in the Senate!) and argue that

From a libertarian perspective, there's an easy enough way to resolve the current conflict between demands for religious freedom and equality. It doesn't fully satisfy either side but it has the virtue of preserving a pluralistic society and minimizing intervention into everyday life….

It's wrong for liberals to use the government to force everyone everywhere to act the way that they want. And it's tendentious for conservatives to insist that Indiana's RFRA law, passed to forestall religiously minded businesses from having to contravene their beliefs, wasn't really about discrimination.

The fight over this issue produces more heat than light, which may well be the point, especially at the start of a national campaign season for the presidential race in 2016. God knows neither side wants to acknowledge the limits of its point of view in legal, philosophical, or practical terms. But to the extent such battles get in the way of each of us getting on with the business of building the world we want to live in, we're all the worse off for it.

Read the whole thing here.

NEXT: 'The Thinking Woman's Guide to Real Magic'

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. Conservatives (and let’s face it, Republicans) are trying to use the backlash to justify the ridiculous notion that being anti-religious is the last acceptable prejudice and all that jazz.

    Well that’s clearly wrong. What about being anti-single/childless?

    1. Don’t forget anti-state.

      1. Southern tobacco-chewing homeschoolers who eat deep-dish pizza.

        1. You shouldn’t eat while chewing tobacco. The results can be, unpleasant.

    2. “Well that’s clearly wrong. What about being anti-single/childless?”

      I see that prejudice swinging the other way.

      Gay progressives use the word “breeder” for heterosexuals with children the same way racists in the South use the n-word.

      …with all the same venom and contempt.

      1. When will you guys get it through your skulls that civil rights are not about people’s hurt feelings but about real impediments to their participation in society? Heterosexuals are not at risk of being an oppressed minority. Neither are Christians, men, or billionaires.

        But whose grievances do you guys spend most of your time whining about? As in, right now in that very post?

        1. Impediments like shutting someone’s business down? Or impediments like hurt feelings?

        2. But you can *always* participate in ‘society’ – even if that means you take your fucking freedom and create your own.

          The state =/= society.

        3. What did I tell you people yesterday?

          It’s only bigotry when privileged people hold cantankerous ideas about other groups. When members of the oppressed express spiteful thoughts stereotyping the designated hate group, they’re not bigoted for doing so. They lack moral agency or intellectual wherewithal to distinguish the hurt of their victimhood from their hatred for the oppressor. They can’t be blamed for it.

          This is what they actually believe.

          1. You should see the hate that is on display on the yelp page for the Indiana pizza place that will not serve a gay wedding. The woman is being made fun of for her teeth, her weight, being inbred and so on.

            Blue believes they are the team of politeness; until you move against them.

        4. When will you guys get it through your skulls that civil rights are not about people’s hurt feelings but about real impediments to their participation in society?

          If I didn’t know any better I’d say someone lives and breathes under *presumption* that being gay is an intrinsic handicap.

          I mean, it’s obvious that you don’t think Christians and homosexuals can get along without your input, even when they do. I just figured you would assume the Christians would be the ones operating under some manner of functional handicap.

        5. Not being able to open a bakery unless you are willing to violate your religious convictions is a real impediment to participation in society.

        6. “But whose grievances do you guys spend most of your time whining about? As in, right now in that very post?”

          So you’re saying bigotry against white, heterosexuals is okay because…whatever, right?

          You’re saying that this form of prejudice and bigotry is okay?

          I denounce bigotry of every kind all the time.

          I’ve been arguing for both gay marriage and the free exercise of religion every day for ten years in this very forum.

          Just because you’re a disgusting bigot and you condone hate again white, Christian, heterosexuals–and government discrimination against them? Doesn’t mean I’m a bigot, too, Tony.

          You’re such a disgusting bigot, you still won’t admit that Rosa Parks had the right to sit in the front of a public bus or that Jews had a right to their lives during the holocaust–for fear that it might suggest that our rights originate from somewhere other than government. How may times have I brought that up over the years?

          What grievance do I complain about in every post? I complain about the government violating people’s individual rights. I complain about the racist drug war. I complain about the government discriminating against gay people in granting marriage licenses. I complain about using government coercion to violate the rights of Christians, too. I’m an equal opportunity hater of injustice.

        7. Your bigotry isn’t justified by anything I’ve done, Tony. There isn’t anything about me that defends government discrimination. And even if I were a bigot like you, that wouldn’t justify your bigotry against white heterosexual Christians, either.

          Your disgusting bigotry stands on its own.

        8. Tony, I suppose it would require a cattle gun to get it through your skull that “equal protection under the law” means you don’t get to parse out your favorite fucking disparate groups for special treatment.

          But thanks for saying it’s us that predicate our ideology on “hurt feelings.” I needed that laugh.

          1. “But thanks for saying it’s us that predicate our ideology on “hurt feelings.” I needed that laugh.”

            Tony’s idea of fighting against prejudice is to single out whites for hatred (because of their race), heterosexuals (because of their orientation), and Christians (because of their religion).

            In Tony’s twisted progressive mind, hating people because of their race, sexual orientation, and religion makes him one seriously tolerant motherfucker!

      2. I think the prejudice goes both ways, but the “breeder” hate doesn’t generally seem to be considered acceptable.

      3. I’ve never heard that term before, it’s weird, it sounds like it would be in a video game.

  2. It’s wrong for liberals to use the government to force everyone everywhere to act the way that they want. And it’s tendentious for conservatives to insist that Indiana’s RFRA law, passed to forestall religiously minded businesses from having to contravene their beliefs, wasn’t really about discrimination.

    Only one of those two things is anti-liberty.

    1. False equivalency for the win!

  3. Not only was the baker forced to change his store policy, he and his staff were required to attend sensitivity training. That sounds like something out of China during the Cultural Revolution.

    *** rising intonation ***

    Guess who’ll be getting sensitivity training?

    1. I learned all of the ethnic slurs I know if sensitivity training?

  4. Nick just can’t call a spade a spade.

    1. Nick is a salesman, or wants to be. It’s annoying, but I get it.

    2. Given that Winston is dug in like a tick, the “whiny pissbag” position is already filled on the board, “Mr. Anderson.”

      1. Ouch, I take it all back. Great article, and can you save me a seat at the cool table at lunch.

  5. the ridiculous notion that being anti-religious is the last acceptable prejudice

    It’s ridiculous because there are so many other acceptable prejudices.

    1. It’s ridiculous because there are so many other acceptable prejudices.

      Technically the old ones haven’t gone away. The problem is that, making fun of Jews just proves you’re too old and just about anyone can have a black or gay friend nowadays.

      You aren’t cool unless you’ve smacked the good book out of some bible-thumpers hands.

  6. If you’re going to do one of these moral-equivalence articles about progs and conservatives, at least find an example of a conservative actually opposing liberty – eg, find a conservative who wants to ban medical marijuana or something.

    Historically, most defenders of religious freedom are motivated by concern for their own freedom, or at least the thought of protecting their own freedom is the starting point for their reflections.

    1. The moral equivalence he’s discussing is that both sides are hiding their motivations. “This wasn’t intended to allow discrimination against homosexuals” is a lie.

      Conservatives might be on the side of liberty here, but in the stopped clock kind of way.

      1. Of course it was. The conservatives are cowards in that they won’t stand up and make a principled argument for religious freedom and the freedom to be wrong. When you consider the voraciousness of the mob of people like Joe confronting them, can you really blame them? Suppose Mike Pence was honest and made the proper case. That would be a great thing. It would also take a tremendous amount of balls to do. More balls than Nick has ever shown in his life. So I fail to see where Nick has any standing to criticize them for doing something that would take more courage than he has ever shown.

        1. Nick does just that in the article.

          For their part, liberals should recognize the limits to and wisdom of injecting state power into every possible relationship in the country. As wrong and stupid as I think it is for a particular individual or business to discriminate against a customer or neighbor based on sexual orientation (or race, gender, and class for that matter), that should be the business’s decision, especially if the business is only one service provider among many.

          You think Mike Pence will have the balls to say that?

          1. No. But, I am skeptical of whether it would do any good. I think it would likely just inflame the mob and allow them to say that Pence has now proven he really hates gays. I can understand why he would try and obfuscate here and hope the mob goes away.

            1. The problem is that appeasment doesn’t work with the Howling Mobs of Love and Tolerance. They just scream all the louder.

  7. are both annoying and self-aggrandizing in their righteousness. Given the paucity of actual cases in play?

    A Libertarian publication should more than anyone understand the importance of principle and threat of litigation over the actually likelihood of it occurring. If religious conservatives had a way to sue gay owned businesses out of existence, would Nick denigrate the concerns of gay business owners because “the chances of any of you being sued are very small and this has only happened a couple of times”? No he wouldn’t and nor should he.

    The end game of the left and the gay rights movement is to make gays a protected class and refusing to do business with them for any reason illegal. Just because they have only succeeded in doing this in a few cities doesn’t mean it won’t happen. And it sure as hell doesn’t mean conservatives are not justified in pushing for laws that ensure it won’t.

  8. Is there any circumstance where Nick will admit that the cultural left is wrong and oppressive without equivocating about how the cultural right is just as bad? Sometimes one side or the other really is wrong and the other right. This is one of those times. The cultural left are the ones who are supporting oppression. Just because you hate the cultural right doesn’t make it okay for the left or anyone else to oppress them.

    1. Is there any circumstance where Nick will admit that the cultural left is wrong and oppressive without equivocating about how the cultural right is just as bad?

      Well, Nick’s a proglodyte with a temporary gig at a libertarian publication, until his mainstream career takes off.

      So no.

      1. So in other words, a Weigel in training?

        1. That’s a good way of putting it — presently not even as mealy-mouth and victimized as Weigel, but the Nickster’s just barely warmed up now. Wait until he gets the saliva flowing and resultant frothy mouth. He’ll be busy providing oral (rhetorical) favors for good coin, regardless of the pretense at a lack of desire for performing such favors.

          He’s just following his role model, that fellow who got his big brand recognition at Salon and parlayed it into yet another opportunity to lie for pay, while pushing a private agenda he pretends not to hold.

    2. Is there any circumstance where Nick will admit that the cultural left is wrong and oppressive without equivocating about how the cultural right is just as bad?

      Can’t see any time he’d be wrong in doing so.

      1. So who exactly are the Conservatives trying to oppress here? What other than your natural instinct to signal to the world how enlightened you are, causes you to think there is?

        Sorry but being refused by a private business is not oppression. It just isn’t. If they won’t serve you because you are gay or because you are not wearing a shirt or because you don’t have the money to pay, the result is the same. You don’t have a right to do business there and you are not being oppressed if they decide they don’t want to associate with you.

        1. You seem to have me confused with a non-libertarian.

          Conservatives are CLEARLY anti-gay marriage. Granted that has little to do with this law, but calling shitbag oppressors shitbag oppressors for good measure, is ALWAYS appropriate. Pointing out Republican hypocrisy, I’m for liberty when it suits me and against liberty when it doesn’t, should be repeatedly pointed out.

          1. It is just a tad exaggerative to denounce anyone against gay marriage as “oppressive”, when the concept was not on almost anyone’s radar until ~15 years ago — including gays themselves. It is a minor issue in the grand scheme of things and one not directly related to libertarianism, so long as gays are allowed to contract with themselves. In fact, it strikes me that if one is to claim opposition to gay marriage as oppressive, one must claim that opposition to all government marriage is even more oppressive — denying as it does the same object to even more people.

            1. It is just a tad exaggerative to denounce anyone against gay marriage as “oppressive”, when the concept was not on almost anyone’s radar until ~15 years ago — including gays themselves.

              Given that DOMA was passed nearly 20 years ago, and the fact that government follows trends, I’m going to have to disagree that it wasn’t on anyone’s radar 15 years ago.

              1. Good point. Might be closer to 25-30 years.

            2. It is just a tad exaggerative to denounce anyone against gay marriage as “oppressive”

              No, it’s not.

              Government failing to provide equality under the law is the very definition of oppressive.

              And there is zero hypocrisy in holding the position that government shouldn’t be involved in anyone’s marriage, but if they are, by god, they are going to apply their mandates/entitlements to everyone equally as per the document granting power to the government.

              1. Government failing to provide equality under the law is the very definition of oppressive

                Oppression requires a use of power (an action) used cruelly or unjustly. Mere inequality does not fall under this definition unless it is paired with action; it is one reason why businesses treating their customers unequally (while perhaps unfair) does not qualify as oppression. Likewise, if government is not using force in its unequal treatment then it is wrong and hyperbolic to describe this state of affairs as “oppressive”. For example, a state which decides to provide welfare but only to whites is not being oppressive in this unequal treatment (even if this state of affairs is undesirable or unfair); it might be oppressive to those of all races whose taxes are being taken to support this system.

                It is a caricature of the libertarian who screams “statist” to apply the term “oppression” to such a minor and insignificant modification (one which does not even rectify the unequal state of affairs RE: government marriage) to an area which government shouldn’t even be involved with in the first place.

                1. Oppression requires a use of power (an action) used cruelly or unjustly.

                  Your claim is that a prohibition cannot be oppression. That’s BS.

                  I (the government) prohibit you from eating (while allowing others to eat). Am I being oppressive?

                  I (the government) prohibit blacks from using the sidewalk (while allowing whites to). Am I being oppressive?

                  Insert gays/marrying for blacks/using the sidewalk.

                  1. There is a natural, negative right to being at liberty to eat what I choose. There is no right to a government certificate establishing privileges above and beyond those who are single.

                    That’s what you’re not getting.

                    The moral wrong in restricting someone from eating has fuck-all to do with equality. It would be wrong even if you applied this restriction to each and every person in absolute fairness. It might be wrong for reasons exogenous to libertarianism to not be egalitarian with respect to certain issues, but not oppressive — and frankly, it’s hard to believe I’m having a discussion about a lack of egalitarianism being inherently oppressive with someone who is not a socialist.

                    1. HAHAHAHA!

                      Good one.

                      Forget eating.

                      I (the government) prohibit blacks from using the sidewalk (while allowing whites to). Am I being oppressive?

                    2. I (the government) prohibit blacks from using the sidewalk (while allowing whites to). Am I being oppressive?

                      That would depend on the nature of the offense. Given that the function of a sidewalk is to serve as a public easement and that blacks, being contributing and taxpaying members of society, fit within the definition of “public”, they have a legitimate claim to the use of a public easement. Even so, the oppression in this case would come in the form of a punishment administered by the state when it finds blacks (who, let us recall, have paid for the benefit of being included as part of the res publica) on the sidewalk. Were the law to be written in such a way as to be unenforceable (thus no one has the possibility of going to prison or being fined), it would be a stupid and distasteful law but not an oppressive one.

                      In the case of gay marriage bans, there is firstly no legitimate claim to the unique privileges of government marriage, either for gays or for straights. Secondly, there is not a punitive aspect to gay marriage bans such that gays are being punished or forced by the state to do anything; instead they are being denied a license to these unique privileges.

                      Egalitarianism is besides the point in both cases.

                    3. So, you’d have no problem denying a drivers license to a black man based upon his color if the law allowed for it?

                      (You are a lawyer, aren’t you?)

                    4. How about this?

                      A law stating only people with blue eyes may marry? Any issues with that?

              2. Bobbing and weaving, equivocating and sophistically dodging. Impressive to the small-minded, I’m sure.

          2. Yes, things like freedom of association are mere trifles compared to the importance of loving teh gayz.

    3. Its just another example of the unexamined absorption of lefty/proggy tropes and memes by Reason writers.

      No matter what, the conservative/right has to be at least as bad as the lefty/proggies. You can’t criticize the lefty/proggies without simultaneously making sure everyone knows you aren’t a knuckle-dragging conservative hater bigot, because if you aren’t a lefty/proggy its assumed that you are a knuckle-dragger. And that’s worse than being someone who wants the Total State to run every aspect of your life.

      1. If it ever gets to the point that they start throwing the SOCONs in camps, Nick will be on here writing about how the liberals are wrong for putting the SOCONs in camps but the SOCONS are just as bad for constantly playing the victim. It is pathetic and cowardly.

      2. So in other word’s Nick’s more into social signaling than discussing principles.

        1. It’s almost like he’s trying advance his career viability, or something.

          1. I hear Jezebel is hiring, and I hear that Hugo Schwyzer is a consultant and Hugo’s got his eye on Nickster.

    4. Nope. The Jacket has devolved into 80% social signaling. Maybe that’s because suck.com was a lot of that, though Nick’s original incarnation of H&R kept that to a 50/50 ratio, which is sort of why he feels compelled to bash both sides. But ever since he’s been writing regular pieces for The Daily Beast, his stuff has more “social signal” and less “reason”.

      But maybe I should blame Reason.tv for that – video is a powerful social signaling tool and appeals to people who feel that substance and logical defense of principles are boring.

    5. Maybe I read a different article than you did, but I see Nick as saying that conservatives are lying to support a policy he agrees with, and liberals are lying to support a policy he disagrees with.

      Liberals are, as usual, pushing the tyranny of niceness, bit both sides are lying.

      Please point to one quote from the article where Nick says oppressing businesses that don’t care to gays is OK, and I will withdraw my post. Otherwise, I’m going to conclude that you’ve gone riding off on your Cosmotarian! high horse without checking that it’s properly saddled.

      1. He never said it was okay. He jsut made a false moral equivalency. Since you can’t seem to get that, I am going to conclude you are illiterate.

        1. So your objection is that he isn’t drawing enough of a moral distinction between people who want to discriminate against gays and people who want to make it illegal to do so?

          One of those groups is more powerful, and therefore more dangerous, but neither of them is a friend of liberty.

  9. “…conservatives and liberals are both annoying and self-aggrandizing in their righteousness.”

    And you don’t think Libertarians belong right there with them? Ha. Every one of your articles is full of self-righteousness, Nick. And try reading the comments on Reason…although I would agree that most are from conservatives who are Libertarian in name only. Just read how many are taking you to task today for suggesting any sort of equivalency between liberals and conservatives.

    1. No Joe. The issue is do you stand with people that are getting fucked over by the government no matter what or just when you like the people getting fucked. Moral midgets like you only do so when it is the latter. You are happy to see religious conservatives get screwed over because you hate them. If the time ever comes for a group you like to get screwed, you will be all about freedom and principle.

      Everything you have to say about this subject is thus either lies or rationalizations for your own depraved and hate filled heart. Do yourself and everyone around you a favor, admit upfront you are a fascist who thinks only those you approve of should be allowed to exist in society and stop insulting everyone’s intelligence by claiming you care about anything but that.

      1. …speaking of conservatives who only claim they are libertarian…

        1. Call me names Joe. it is all you have. How is that Obama thing working out for you? You know, the guy you told us was going to stop domestic spying, end the wars overseas, and was really a centrist and a unifier.

          And while we are at it, how is that eternal Democratic Majority you predicted in 2009 working out? How does it feel to have a minority voice again?

          The fact that you won’t face up to Obama selling out everything you claimed to believe and you still defend him and support him, shows what a liar you are and how you don’t care about anything but power.

          You are pathetic Joe. The most pathetic person ever to post on Hit and Run. You are more pathetic than shreek or Tony. At least they never ran away and hid.

          1. I’d also ask Joe how the glorious democracy of Venezuela is going, but he’d just ignore the question.

        2. I didn’t think he claimed to be libertarian.

          1. There is that. And I have never been anything but honest in my views. Joe is a lying sack of shit who likely isn’t even honest with himself. So, he hates me more than anything for being honest. The substance of my views are secondary. It is the honesty Joe can’t take.

    2. any sort of equivalency between liberals and conservatives

      It’s not “any sort” of equivalency. It’s a very specific issue.

    3. That’s because there is no equivalency. One group is using the state to oppress another and one is not.

      Nick’s argument is that conservatives and liberals are equivalent because liberals are using the state to force religious people to go against their beliefs and conservatives are…what? Complaining about it?

      1. Exactly. Somehow taking away the government cudgel is the equivalent to brandishing it.

    4. “A lie is not the other side of the argument, it’s just a lie.”

    5. Bag of dicks, Jack. Bag. Of. Dicks.

  10. “Conservatives (and let’s face it, Republicans) are trying to use the backlash to justify the ridiculous notion that being anti-religious is the last acceptable prejudice and all that jazz.”

    Just because they’re wrong about so much, doesn’t mean they aren’t right about some things.

    Much of what I’ve seen progressives write and say about Christians over the past week would qualify by progressive definitions as hate speech if it were written about Muslims–or any other group of people. And in addition to being hate-filled towards Christians, the progressives are also mischaracterizing Christians and where they stand on the issue of gay marriage.

    According to the Pew Research Center, 60% of white mainline Protestants support gay marriage.

    57% of Catholics support gay marriage.

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

    Just because some Evangelical, among the other usual suspects that often falsely claim they’re being victimized, are screaming the same thing they always do–doesn’t mean there’s no wolf this time.

    The progressives really do want the government to compel Christians to violate their religious convictions.

    They want to force Catholic hospitals to offer abortions, and they’d use the government to force Christians to hold gay marriages in their churches if they could, too. Why should churches be allowed to discriminate against gay people?

    1. They absolutely do. You are dealing with totalitarian assholes like Joe above. They don’t care about anything except politics and destroying their enemies. Nick shows himself to be a real coward here. Ultimately, it is not popular to stand up for religious conservatives. Doing so won’t buy you many friends and also makes you potentially subject to the mob run by people like Joe. So Nick equivocates here in hopes that will save him. It won’t of course.

    2. Yep. There will come a day when progressives try to compel a church to hold a gay marriage ceremony. Absolutely it will happen.

      1. There are certain tipping points that I think (hope) are too far for even casual progressives to go. I’d like to think that such a blatant violation of the 1A is one of them.

        1. There is no such thing as too far for progressives. Discrimination is the greatest conceivable sin, refusing to provide a wedding to gay people is discrimination, they therefore must be compelled.

          Compelling someone to bake a cake for a gay wedding is also a First Amendment violation, but I don’t see them whining about that.

          1. Irish is right, they will keep pushing the line.

            1. Yeah, we’re talking about gay activists, here.

              You can’t control exactly what people in the media say about an issue, but you can control the headlines and whether they’re writing about that issue by being outrageous.

            2. This concept is literally in the name “progressive.” Progress is a one-way street and to hold up traffic is a sin.

          2. Progressives genuinely believe it is morally okay to force everyone to think like they do. if there was a machine that would literally reprogram people to have the exact same values as themselves, they would definitely use it.

            Short of that, they have absolutely zero moral problems with oppressing people with different beliefs. They are correct, everyone else is evil, and power is meant to be used.

        2. They’ll rationalize it is as something like ‘You only get 1A protection if you pay taxes.” The logic will be a lot more tortured than that, but that will be the underlying basis.

    3. the progressives are also mischaracterizing Christians and where they stand on the issue of gay marriage.

      They don’t limit themselves to just Christians, they’ll be sure to blow the dog whistle about your belief system and insinuate bigotry for making your own decisions in any form of good-conscious.

      Gay Rights just happens to be one current popular embodiment.

  11. This story is being tsk-tsk’d on FB today. It is described as the first case of a business refusing to serve a gay wedding. But in reality, it’s the first business that SAYS it will not serve a gay wedding.

    What is happening will not surprise any of us here. The business is getting a lot of flack, and their online reviews have gone down. They will lose customers because of this, and it will hurt their business. Gay couples will take their business elsewhere. No government intervention or lawsuits required.

    1. The point of this law isn’t really businesses. They know very few if any businesses are going to refuse to serve gays for the reasons you give. The real target of all of this is churches. People like Joe from Lowell get a little bit of drool running down their chin whenever they think of the possibility of the government being able to enforce acceptable views on churches. The end game here is to make any church that refuses to recognize gay marriages or perform them subject to law suit and effectively illegal.

      1. The end game here is to make any church that refuses to recognize gay marriages or perform them subject to law suit and effectively illegal.

        Here’s the end game:

        Add a requirement to tax exempt status that you don’t discriminate against protected classes. See, we’re not ordering you to hold gay marriages in your evangelical church, so we’re not infringing on your freedom of religion. We’re just going to strip you of your tax-exempt status and, effectively, fine you until you do.

        Once they get that in place, they can go after any church or charity that doesn’t pay for abortions, or hospital that doesn’t perform them.

        Mark. My. Words.

        1. That is exactly where we are going. And Nick and a good number of other Libertarians are going to stand by and watch them do it, because they just can’t stomach the idea of standing up for someone they don’t like.

        2. That isn’t the end game, that is the current game. Once they get it in place, the game will not end, they will move on to another target.

    2. This story is being tsk-tsk’d on FB today.

      Wouldn’t it be awesome if this is what broke FB?

      I kinda wish the Nazis had social media so they could all be morally embarrassed when they woke up and the party was over, but all their “I hate Jews!” posts were there to see for generations to come.

    3. Gay wedding catered by a pizza place in Walkerton Indiana. Not exactly likely to happen.

      1. I would love a wedding where we skip the YMCA dancing and had pizza and beer over…i don’t know, anything other than dancing.

        1. And video games. Seriously, reception in a lounge with video games and pool would be the greatest reception ever.

  12. And despite all the ink spilled here there is still a profound cluelessness. A state enacted a law that hews to one of the core principals of libertarianism, and is shocked, shocked do you hear, at the massive popular blowback against the bill. Rather than engage the overwhelming public rejection of this, and the implicit failure of libertarianism to win the hearts and minds of the public, you double down on the idiocy and keep wondering why people don’t like libertarians more.

    This is the moment you’ve all been waiting for, and it didn’t turn out well for you. Good luck with that denial thing.

    1. The country and the culture are addicted to affirmative rights. Anything that is shaped as a “civil right” and framed in the language of the civil rights movement because unstoppable. The fact that it tramples all over other people’s rights makes no difference.

      I the long run it doesn’t matter what you think about gay marriage or gay rights. Gay rights are just today’s cause. Tomorrow there will be another one and the day after that another new cause until so many people’s rights have been trampled in the name of other people’s “civil rights” no one will have any rights anymore.

      1. By that you mean, specifically, that white heterosexual Christians will be one or two notches less overwhelmingly dominant in our society.

        1. By that he means your prog allies will obliterate you one day because you disagree with them on even the tiniest minutiae of policy.

          In my case, I don’t care what progs think because they’re scum with no principles. What I find funny is that the people who actually get fucked the hardest by progressive idiocy are other progressives, since progressives are so obsessed with being liked and so incapable of dealing with even the most mild sort of adversity that when the mob turns on them they have no capacity to function now that they’ve been kicked out of the group.

          I’m also not a Christian Tony, but you have the intelligence of a lobotomized hamster so it’s unsurprising you make such assumptions about people who support religious freedoms, you gibbering fascist.

          1. Or it could be that progressives are so far ahead of you idiots in terms of being decent, civilized people that, among themselves, they are having spirited debates about things that baffle you, like microaggression and animal rights, because they have long moved on from wondering whether gay people should have the same basic civil rights as everyone else. It’s not that it’s surprising that there are ape-brained talking-snake believing morons straggling and refusing to go along with a modern conception of simple human decency. Somebody has to be last.

            1. Or it could be that progressives are a raving mob of incompetent rubes that you’ve fallen in with because you have no identity outside that provided to you by the dictates of a collective hive mind.

              Here’s a wonderful instance of progressives being ‘ahead’ of us idiots.

              “Crews cleaned up Oakland’s historic City Hall on Sunday from damage inflicted overnight during violent anti-Wall Street protests that resulted in about 400 arrests, marking one of the largest mass arrests since nationwide protests began last year.”

              You can’t make me angry Tony, so you can stop trying. It’s amazing that prog trolls always assume they can upset me because they’re so ruled by mindless, incoherent, unthinking emotion that they assume I’ll react in kind.

              I’ve met algae more self-aware than you.

              1. I’m not trying to upset you, but you haven’t even made a point. All you’ve done is whine about “progs.” Do you have an opinion on this subject? Because contrary to your assertions, you sound like a talk radio parroting idiot. No ideas, just grievance, with progs as the eternal enemy.

                1. You have never posted any proof for any of your assertions ever. I do so all the time, I just don’t bother with you because no statement you have ever made has been backed up by any evidence ever because you aren’t smart enough to even properly use Google in order to get evidence for a position.

            2. “Spirited debates”? I like that, it makes it sound like there is a level of rationality involved.

              1. they are having spirited debates about things that baffle you, like microaggression and animal rights

                This made my day. The humor is strong with this troll.

              2. “Spirited debates.”

                It also sounds like booze will be served. I’ll have six Schlitzes-es.

            3. they are having spirited debates about things that baffle you, like microaggression

              +1, that was funny.

              1. Yeah, “Tony” might have let the cat out of the bag.

                Of course, a person coming here and being a dumbdick for years as a joke is no less deranged than a deranged person come here for years to be a dumbdick and it not being a joke.

            4. Or it could be that progressives are so far ahead of you idiots in terms of being decent, civilized people that, among themselves, they are having spirited debates about things that baffle you, like microaggression and animal rights,

              Or they could be a bunch of insular navel-gazing bigots who have a far too high opionion of themselves. Libertarians have plenty of spirited debates amongst ourselfs about things that progressives are entirely ignorant about.

              I fail to see what is decent or civilized about forcing religious conservatives to bake cakes for gay weddings either. To me this simply appears to be the actions of a group of narrow minded bigots who just want to force their values down other people’s throats.

              1. If the Christians want to make it a contest of values, then yes I would prefer that mine win and theirs lose.

                1. Why does it have to be a contest of values? Why can’t chrstians and gay people live peacefully side by side without shoving their values down eachother’s throats?

            5. It’s not that it’s surprising that there are ape-brained talking-snake believing morons

              Surely you see the irony here. Even the most ardent anti-gay marriage activist doesn’t talk about gays with this level of vitriol. There have always been, and will always be those that look at others in society and say “they are responsible for our problems.” the fact that you’ve narrowed doesn the religion, race, and gender of thise that must be punished should give you pause about the company you are keeping historically.

            6. Tony, Are you so stupid that you don’t understand what ‘microagressions’ actually are?

              Real bigotry has become so hard to find that turns of phrase, or length of pauses, or position of eyes, or clapping have had to be substituted in their place.

              Do you understand what that means?

              1. Real bigotry among granola-chomping university liberals at any rate.

                1. Um yeah, that they are focused on looking for any hint of bigotry among their own kind. That’s the kind of ‘spirited discussions’ progressives are having.

            7. Or it could be that progressives are so far ahead of you idiots in terms of being decent, civilized people

              How soon you forget that equal rights for homosexuals has been part of the Libertarian Party platform since the party’s founding, called for gay marriage in the 1970s(!), and ran a gay candidate in 1972.

        2. No, by that he means that it doesn’t matter if you’re a black gay Muslim, the progressive movement’s aim, or message, is and always was; if I’ve got money, you’re making me a fucking pizza whether you like it or not.

        3. Holy fuck, you can’t even parody this idiot.

        4. “By that you mean, specifically, that white heterosexual Christians will be one or two notches less overwhelmingly dominant in our society.”

          Tony ignored what I wrote about hate speech.

          Why do you hate them, Tony? Is it because they’re white, heterosexual, or Christian?

          All of the above?

          Tony also ignored what I linked about white mainline protestants–60% of which favor gay marriage.

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

          So, let’s review. Tony hates white, heterosexual, Christians because they’re against gay marriage. And he doesn’t care about the fact that a healthy majority of them actually support gay marriage–presumably because it doesn’t fit with the stereotype in his head.

          Tony is a sick, hate-filled, bigot, and, unfortunately, that’s typical of progressives.

    2. Tonio, this subject has driven you insane.

      None of us thought this was popular, we supported it because it was the right thing to do. You don’t support it because you’re gay and are allowing your sexual orientation to overwhelm your principles.

      “Rather than engage the overwhelming public rejection of this, and the implicit failure of libertarianism to win the hearts and minds of the public, you double down on the idiocy and keep wondering why people don’t like libertarians more.”

      What idiocy is that, Tonio? Supporting something unpopular because you think it’s right and because you believe in religious liberty as well as every other kind of liberty?

      Where I come from, that’s called having a spine rather than pathetically caving to the mob.

      1. You don’t support it because you’re gay and are allowing your sexual orientation to overwhelm your principles.

        I don’t? Where did I write that? Show me.

        Seriously. Show me where I fucking wrote that. You’re projecting.

        I put it to you, Sir, that you are the one who is emotionally affected by this, having been driven into tantrum mode by an unpleasant truth.

    3. Could ypu please elaborate on what core principle of libertarianism the Indiana RFRA supposedly hewed?

      This should be entertaining.

      1. Freedom of association, which is implied by self-ownership.

        1. My mistake, i understood “hewed to” to mean “chopped” rather than “adhered to”.

          StIll the gay rights movement turning into a heretic burning monster is not a laudable thing.

    4. “state enacted a law that hews to one of the core principals of libertarianism, and is shocked, shocked do you hear, at the massive popular blowback against the bill.”

      Honestly, I think there may be some vestiges of Goldwater’s stand hanging in the background.

      History has taught us that if you’re going to sell some principle out short, it might as well be on an issue that would make you vulnerable to accusations of bigotry if you stood on principle.

      Once polite society decides you failed one of their bigotry litmus tests, you’re basically done for a generation.

      1. And that is a defining utility of Team politics.

    5. shocked, shocked do you hear, at the massive popular blowback against the bill

      I wouldn’t confuse a social media blowup and furrowed brows from the legacy media with a massive popular blowback.

  13. …and Reason is shocked…

    1. DRINK!

      1. Um, no, I had omitted the word “Reason” from my original post and was posting that by way of correction.

  14. Wonder if you could sneak in Freedom of Association by introducing a bill that says everyone can discrimate against anyone for anything including their religous beliefs (excluding government of course). Make it sound like its retaliation against christians for RFRA? Start a facebook campaign. Let’s show thise Christians what’s what. Would they buy it?

  15. That Indiana passed an RFRA is only about SSM? Because I seem to recall the federal RFRA was kind if important last year in the Hobby Lobby case and maybe that was at least an equally important motivation for the state passing one?

  16. The over arching issue here has nothing to do with religious freedom.

    It is that government has stomped on private property rights, freedom of contract and freedom of association to force business owners to do (or not do) all sorts of things that no level of government has any legitimate authority whatseover to interfere in.

    Government entites themselves should not be able to discriminate but no government has any business telling a business owner how he or she should operate their business.

    Government has invented a whole class of affirmative rights out of whole cloth (since there is no such thing as an affirmative right) and violated the negative liberties of individuals do as they please with their own property and freely enter into voluntary business arragements only on terms of their own choosing.

    1. You are right Gilbert. If you could go in a time machine and go back to 1964 and tell people, if you pass the CRA and force businesses to do business with black people, some day the government will be telling churches and business they must pretend gay marriages are real marriages, people would have thought you were crazy. Yet, that is exactly where we are. We have slid right down that slippery slope. If the government can tell businesses they must serve black customers and hire black employees, there is no reason why it can’t tell them they have to recognize gay marriages and hire gays. And tomorrow they will be telling them they have to do something else. There is no end to it.

      1. They’ve already told us we have to spend on certain things…insurance, retirement, etc. Why not tell us what we have to produce also? Seems the logical step

        1. Joe and MNG and other progs on this site have claimed that the government should enslave doctors and keep them from leaving the profession and require them to render services with or without payment. So yes, that is next on the agenda.

        2. This is the discussion I have when progs get into the semantic argument about how something isn’t socialism because government doesn’t own the means of production: well, what difference does it make when they have so much control over the result of production?

      2. If the government can tell businesses they must serve black customers and hire black employees, there is no reason why it can’t tell them they have to recognize gay marriages and hire gays.

        Agreed. Which is why the only way you’re going to resolve this situation is to repeal the CRA – and I don’t see that happening.

    2. People are free to exclude whomever they want from their private property. But once they decide to have a business with a literal or figurative “open” sign on the front door, they can’t turn away customers because of certain protected characteristics. This may be an affirmative right, but so is the right to own property, and each is as fictional or real as the other. Nondiscrimination in public accommodations is not fundamentally different from any other law or regulation business owners have to comply with. To make this easy, forget about blacks and gays. If there were no ADA, do you think that many businesses would go to the trouble of installing ramps? Is your idea of a free society one in which a class of people is effectively totally excluded from participation in commerce? Or is one of the points of having government to do those things that the private sector wouldn’t on its own so that people are given a reasonable chance to actually benefit from the economic system you insist they live by?

      1. I love how this retard’s argument boils down to “because capitalism wah-wah!”

        Whoever sends this idiot here shouldn’t pay him for this weaksauce shit.

      2. “This may be an affirmative right, but so is the right to own property, and each is as fictional or real as the other”

        And once again – or rather still, you are flat out wrong.

        Private property rights are a negative liberty – you have to acquire property on your own. You do not have a right to be given property. The government is prohibited from taking propery you have acquired from you. That right is explicitly enumerated in the 5th Amendment.

        What is absolutely fictional is that individuals have a right to require others to conduct business with them.

        And yes, the ADA is also a violation of private property rights.

        And there is no such thing as a “public accomodation”.

        1. Then there’s no such thing as property. These are all legal constructs, invented (to use your word) for the benefit of people living in a society. This inconsistency in property-rights-favoring libertarianism is long established and has never been convincingly refuted. There is no natural right to own a piece of land. There is a government entitlement to do so, complete with courts and police to enforce it. You don’t like this because you are reflexively antigovernment, but you like having property, so you invent meaningless distinctions between this “affirmative” right and others you don’t like. The only thing that gives you the legitimate right to restrict my access to your property is because government says so. Do you disagree with that? You can’t, because you said right there that the guarantee comes from the founding document of our government.

          But we’re not talking about property rights, we’re talking about the privilege of running a business and the responsibility that comes with that. At most, you can say there is a rights conflict. So if there is a conflict between the right to discriminate and the right to be free from discrimination, the prize goes to whichever is the bigger social problem, and I think that’s pretty obvious given this country’s history. On the one side you have entire races and classes of people who were systematically excluded from commerce in their communities. On the other side you have a baker who felt icky one day.

          1. On the one side you have entire races and classes of people who were systematically excluded from commerce in their communities.

            Government created and enforced those laws.

          2. SugarFree|4.1.15 @ 11:10AM|#

            I love how this retard’s argument boils down to “because capitalism wah-wah!”

            Whoever sends this idiot here shouldn’t pay him for this weaksauce shit.

            Still applies.

          3. But we’re not talking about property rights, we’re talking about the privilege of running a business

            This time you couldn’t even get through one sentence without contradicting yourself.

          4. “Then there’s no such thing as property

            Sure there is. You are still flat out wrong.

            “we’re talking about the privilege of running a business ”

            Wrong again. Engaging in freedom of contract with other individuals is a right – not a privilege.

            Once again you are batting 0.000 on every single claim you have made.

          5. “The only thing that gives you the legitimate right to restrict my access to your property is because government says so.”

            Ummm…no. What gives me the right is that I own it. “Government” is simply the system of dispute resolution so that I’m not forced to paint the sidewalk with your brains when you try and violate my rights.

            1. *cough* bullshit

              1. If you say it three times while clicking your heels…it’s still not a fact-based argument.

                1. “What gives me the right [to claim property] is that I [claim property].” Nobody is forcing you to wrap yourself in comforting tautologies. Realizing that property is a legal construct, like rights, doesn’t hurt all that much. It may be a first step on the road from dogma-reinforcing magical bullshit to liberalism, but that’s not so bad.

                  1. We know that you think the state of man is to be a serf cringing in fear of your feudal lord’s knout, but most of us tjink there is a better way.

                    1. …which include concepts such as human dignity and moral worth.

                  2. Again, ummm…no. Using your own words, my “legitimate right to restrict [your] access to [my] property” is because I own the property. Whether I paid for that property or laid claim to it first, my rights to exclude are a result of my ownership. The state does not grant me property rights. The state exists to merely provide a vehicle of protection of those property rights against aggressors so that we don’t devolve into violent self-help as the norm. The system you espouse is one by which my property rights are continuously subject to the whimsy of the very entity that is supposed to keep them safe from aggressors.

                    There’s another name for your preferred system, Tony. It’s called a protection racket.

      3. do you think that many businesses would go to the trouble of installing ramps

        Fuck a ramp you inconsiderate asshole. I shouldn’t have to get somebody to push me or try to propel myself up a fucking ramp. Build me a hydraulic lift or get fucked, you cretin

      4. ” People are free to exclude whomever they want from their private property. But once they decide to have a business…”

        It’s still their private property. They still own it. And you’re still an immoral retard who thinks he’s actually making a point.

        1. By his own admission he is stating that all businesses ultimately are the property of the state.

      5. People are free to exclude whomever they want from their private property. But once they decide to have a business with a literal or figurative “open” sign on the front door, they can’t turn away customers because of certain protected characteristics.

        You can’t even get through a second sentence without contradicting yourself.

      6. They aren’t turning away gays customers. They are only refusing to perform a specific service – creation of cake, specifically for their wedding. They were willing to sell them anything but that.

        You realize that most wedding cakes are custom creations, usually in specific color schemes (to go with the wedding decorations), right? They are custom creations for specific weddings.

        If he was baking 100 of them at a time and putting them in the fridge, then there’s no reason that the gay couple would even need to tell him that it’s a gay wedding.

        The only reason this happens is because for this sort of thing the baker designs a custom cake in advance for a specific event, so he has to coordinate with the wedding planner to design the cake and deliver it at the right time.

        You want to pass a law saying the gay couple can pick any cake they want out of the fridge, fine. That’s different from saying they can compell an individual to perform a customized service for a religious ceremony he disagrees with.

        1. I want sexual orientation protected exactly the same as race, sex, religion, and disability status. That’s all.

          You want to jump to the defense of laws unashamedly and obviously do nothing but serve as a means for Republican politicians to pander to their bigoted, ignorant voting base.

          1. If the Republicans are correct, which they are in this case, why should I give a fuck if it enables them ot pander to their ignorant bigoted voting base?

            I don’t support immoral positions just to poke a stick in the eye of Republicans.
            Maybe you do.

          2. Yeah, freedom also includes the freedom to be bigoted and ignorant. If the jackass up in Marysville who yelled at me angrily to go home when I was waiting for the bus isn’t free, than my freedoms are threatened too.

      7. Why does an “open” sign on the door negate property rights?

        1. Why do property rights negate the right to participate in commerce?

          1. They don’t, not any more than your refusal to sell me your house for $1 negates my ability to engage in commerce.

            1. You know, it’s OK to say that you think that on balance it’s more important to protect the rights of business owners to be able to deny service to minorities they don’t like than it is to protect the right of people to be free from discrimination from businesses. You are free to say that the Civil Rights Act was more of an abomination than segregated bathrooms and lunch counters. Just don’t soil the good name of property rights with that ludicrous opinion.

              1. Why do you have the “right” to be free from discrimination? Is there some logical reason why everyone should be forced to like you? Other than the fact that nobody likes you voluntarily.

                1. Free from discrimination in public accommodations. I honestly don’t get why anyone but a giant douchebag bigot would be that concerned about such regulations. A place of business is not a sacred space; it’s got to comply with zoning laws, health codes, labor laws, etc. I get that libertarians would like to do away with most or all of that, but libertarians are utopian idiots.

                  1. If a personalized and customized baked good is a public accommodation, then we have butchered that term beyond all reasonable meaning.

                  2. Maybe because we care about everyone rights equally, not just about the rights of people who share our values.

                    Because we’re capable of empathizing with people who have different background and faiths, unlike you.

              2. There is no difference between business owners and customers. Each is engaging in voluntary transaction. Protecting the property rights of both is protecting propert rights for everyone. And property rights are inextricably linked to all rights. If you can’t own the product of your own labor then someone else owns it.

          2. Commerce implies mutual trade. What you’re talking about is theft at gun point. If you raped a woman, but left a 20 on her nightstand, you’d still be a rapist.

          3. Why do property rights negate the right to participate in commerce?

            If I refuse to sell goods to Klansmen but you willingly sell goods to Klansmen, are the Klansmen’s right to participate in commerce being denied?

  17. Suppose a homosexual photographer in New Mexico is vehemently opposed to the Roman Catholic faith because of its teachings on homosexuality. Nevertheless, he has accepted work from Catholic clients who hired him to film birthday and graduation parties.
    One day, a Catholic offers to hire him to film a baptism and he refuses, on the basis that unlike birthday parties, baptisms directly support the Catholic faith and he can not provide such direct support to a ceremony based on a faith that he opposes.
    Is this a violation of the New Mexico’s Human Rights Act’s prohibition against religious discrimination?
    Answer correctly, and you will know why and how the RFRA would apply.

    1. Technically it would be. Everyone knows from the experience with the CRA, however, that these sorts of laws don’t apply equally. They are there for the benefit of the designated victim group and no one else.

      If a church tried to assert its rights under such an act and force someone to take their business, the very people who are screaming for gays to have the rights to do that would immediately take the other side and prevent it from happening.

      1. Correct.

        If the proggies did nopt have doubdle standards, they would have no standards at all.

        Here is the thing. Indiana prohibits religious discrimination. I am unaware if that prohibition would effectively require photographers to film Catholic baptisms despite theological differences, but now the RFRA means that they would not be so required.

        (the RFRA would not provide a defense against a religious discrimination claim if it came to selling photogrpahy supplies or even filmbng birthday parties, since neither are ” inextricably tied to” religion.)

        1. The concept of “double standards” is a tool of white male privilege.

  18. Boycotting the entire state of Indiana until they pass a law forcing Christian conservatives to bake cakes for gay weddings is not a libertarian response.

    It is morally permissible to boycott an individual business until they agree to bake cakes for gay weddings. It is NOT morally permissible boycott everyone in an entire society until they punish individuals for disobeying your demands.

    What is going on with respect to Indiana is signalling gone mad. Everyone is so eager to show their pro-gay-marriage bona-fides that they are engaging in what is effectively collective punishment in order to force another group of people to violate the fundamental human rights of a tiny number of individuals within their society.

    By analogy, this would be akin to is a larger more powerful Christian society refused to do business with a smaller secular democracy unless they passed a law requiring everyone to attend church.

    1. The left is completely full of shit. If they really supported gay rights as much as they claim, they wouldn’t love radical Muslims so much the way that they do.

      1. Muslims are an oppressed group so it is not ok to criticize them.

    2. Good point, it’s s bizarre use of boycotting.

    3. It is NOT morally permissible boycott everyone in an entire society until they punish individuals for disobeying your demands.

      Why not? Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying it’s a good thing. And I understand that law and morality are not the same thing.

      But freedom of association goes both ways. No matter how retarded your reasons, if you want to tell every Hoosier and Indiana-affiliated business to fuck off, that is absolutely your goddamned right. The only line to draw here is over the use of violence. As long as you’re not engaging in violence, whether against the targets of the boycott or against other people to force them into adhering to the boycott, then you have every right to take your money and go home.

      It doesn’t matter what the cause is. It doesn’t matter if you’re a goddamned Nazi who is boycotting Jewish-owned business, as long as you aren’t getting violent, it’s your right to do so. The day we throw away freedom of association because we don’t like it’s implications is the day we’ve lost the argument and are just fighting with the other side to put our people in charge instead of theirs.

      1. Yes, it’s your right, but morally, what you are attempting to do is get them to violate someone else’s rights.

        If it it’s morally wrong to force someone to do something that violates their beliefs, then it is morally wrong to hire or coerce a third party into forcing them to do it. If it’s wrong to put a gun to someone’s head, it is equally wrong to coerce a third party into putting a gun to their head.

        It IS morally ok to persuade them to change their minds. But forcing a third party to punish them for not changing their mind is not the same as persuading them to change their minds.

        I think that libertarians should be ok with boycotting the individual in order to get them to behave differently. Boycotting a third party in order to persuade him to use FORCE on that individual is a different beast entirely.

        1. It’s not the pro-gay-rights people making this into a contest in which you must choose sides. The first act was the passage of a law clearly meant to antagonize gays. That a large part of the business community, politicians, and others mobilized so quickly in response is a testament only to the obviousness of that fact (that it’s meant to antagonize gays).

          1. Whether it was meant to antagonize gays or not is irrelevant to the morality of the law, or the morality of boycotting an entire state until they do something that violates people’s fundamental human rights.

        2. “If it it’s morally wrong to force someone to do something that violates their beliefs, then it is morally wrong to hire or coerce a third party into forcing them to do it.”

          Tony has argued up-thread that discrimination based on race, sexual orientation, and religion is perfectly alright so long as the people being discriminated against are white, heterosexual, and Christian.

          What make your think Tony cares about morality, reciprocity, or fairness?

          Tony makes a virtue out of not caring about those things. He certainly doesn’t care about forcing people to do things that violate their beliefs. Using the government to force people to do things that are against their beliefs is the very definition of a progressives.

          A progressive is someone who wants to use the coercive power of government to force people to sacrifice their individual rights for their idea of the common good. That is not a mischaracterization. It’s the truth!

          1. Yes, to a progressive, the concept of double standards is just a tool of white male hetero privilege. Any moral concept that interfere with their justifications for doing whatever they want is a tool of white male hetero privilege. Morality depends totally on who benefits. What is good for the cause or their identity group is moral, what is bad for the cause or for the identity group is immoral.

            1. They don’t care about morality.

              It’s really important to understand that.

              You cannot appeal to their sense of ethics–because that has been obliterated for various reasons.

              Once the progressives convince someone that the ethics don’t matter, everything else falls into place. That’s what you’re dealing with here.

              1. They have elevated the value of total social equality above everything else, including basic freedom of conscience.
                And by total social equality, they don’t just mean legal equality, and they don’t just mean economic equality even.

                They literally mean that every single human being should be treated exactly the same by everyone in society. The literally means that nobody should have preferences as to who they want to interact with. We should all, like lobotomized zombies, show not the slightest difference in behavior towards anyone on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, age, beauty, or any other characteristic.

                And everyone should be trained to constantly watch themselves for any deviation from this standard, and punished by others to make sure that they watch themselves.

    4. By analogy, this would be akin to is a larger more powerful Christian society refused to do business with a smaller secular democracy unless they passed a law requiring everyone to attend church.

      Don’t you remember when 62 million Germans were victimized by 850K Jews not behaving violently?

      1. We should have just sent Woodrow Wilson to Germany and allowed the Germans to have their way with him for putting then in the situation that allowed the aspires to impose Versailles on them.

        1. Woodrow Wilson might have supported Hitler.

  19. Given the paucity of actual cases in play?virtually all news accounts recycle a handful of incidents in a few states?it’s clear that the main function of the current controversy is to make religious conservatives feel even more persecuted than usual

    Everyone knows that it’s not real freedom if it’s only “a handful of incidents” and “a few states”.

    On the other hand, gay marriage is the greatest civil rights issue since Jim Crow — nevermind that its practical effect is limited to “a handful of incidents in a few states”, and nevermind that it is not strictly speaking a libertarian solution to government involvement in marriage.

    1. It’s amazing how many people jump on the bandwagon and start singing loudly at the top of their lungs only AFTER the bandwagon has reached it’s destination.

      Maybe now that the mob has joined in we can have a few lynchings of the last few people still not on the bandwagon. That’s usually how these things work, isn’t it?

  20. Most Definitely On Topic

    http://www.goodasyou.org/good_…..-form.html

    Admitting that the state “religious freedom” bill goes further than he’d like and admitting that even his own son signed a petition asking him to veto it, [Arkansas] Republican governor Asa Hutchinson announced at a morning press conference that he will not sign the Indiana-like bill unless and until the legislature makes changes to it.

    1. Don’t want people having *too* much religious freedom.

      A partial win, it seems, particularly since this is sure to make the far-right APOPLECTIC. So hooray for now. More to come.

      Driving the right apoplectic has been acknowledged as a legitimate aim of government since Cicero, so I’m glad we’ve cleared up why, exactly, the bill in unamended form was such a bad thing and what public policy aim is advanced by thwarting it.

      1. No, we don’t want people having too much religious freedom.

        1. You don’t want people having too much freedom of conscience (or thought) in general.

          You don’t want people having too much freedom, period.

          1. “Too much” = too much. I think that it’s a good idea that people do not have so much religious freedom that they can stone adulterous women to death. At any rate, if there’s anything that deserves mere toleration, it’s religion.

            1. Because not baking someone a cake is just like stoning someone to death …

              1. So you recognize that freedom of religion is limited, meaning there is such a thing as too much?

                1. Fuck off, slaver.

                2. Your right to practice religion ends where you are violating my right to not be aggressed against.

                  Not baking someone a cake isn’t an agression.

                  1. Being gay doesn’t entitle you to violate someone else’s rights.

                    It’s as simple as that.

                  2. It could be.

        2. No, we don’t want christians having too much religious freedom.

          FTFY

          1. Tony was more specific than that.

            He doesn’t care about violating the rights of white, heterosexual, Christians.

            Specifically.

            Because they’re “dominant” or something.

  21. Why did I not protest when i was refused service at a Lesbian Bar?

    Why did i tolerate the blatant injustice?

    1. Because you’re polite. You could have had a case, though.

      1. Where’s my damn free dinner, you discriminating bigot?

      2. Why, if i only had your sage advice at the time, tony, I might have sued them out of business.

        Or i might have decided that I and my burly male lawyer friends would make it our daily drinking establishment. What better way to gradually destroy their ability to congregate as a shameful minority!? Why, the tyranny of the majority would rule! and we could ensure that nothing in our community were ever allowed to deviate from our desired norms. And if anyone spoke in their defense? BOYCOTT THEM!! I so appreciate your insights into how we can purge our society of undesirable elements by “Enforcing Tolerance”!

        Your willingness to use the power of the state to crush opposition is genius Tony! Why, I’m shocked it never occurred to anyone *before*??

        1. If public accommodation laws began having the outcome of minority spaces being bullied out of existence, that would be a good reason to reexamine them. Libertarians applying their very selective principles of liberty is not, in my opinion.

          1. Everyone deserves gay cake.

            1. Yet he is refusing to give me my free, home-cooked dinner.

            2. Freedom’s another word for forcing people who hate you to do things for you.

    2. Scissors!

  22. 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

  23. I think we’re dealing with this the wrong way. Rather than trying to dial it back, we should just go ahead and try to legally expand the notion of “public accommodation” to include all aspects of life. Make sure that people are also prevented from discriminating in the shows they watch, their choice of friends, their sex partners (favoring one sex over the other is, after all, discriminatory). Shove that fucking nondiscrimination so far up everyone’s ass that even progs get sick of it.

    1. If doesn’t marry me, he/she is denying me my right to marry!

      1. If insert model’s name here doesn’t marry me, he/she is denying me my right to marry!

  24. From a National Review column by Deroy Murdock:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/…..oy-murdock

    “In the public sector, the government must administer equal justice under the law and treat all Americans equally. Thus, the anti-gay discrimination of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell deserved to end. Likewise, conservatives such as Ted Olson and I believe that government should not discriminate against gay couples when handing out marriage licenses. (Obviously, other conservatives disagree.) The private sector, such as it is, is something different. Private individuals on private property should be free to associate with whom and without whom they wish. Just because someone runs a business or is part of a private group or organization does not mean that she surrenders her rights or becomes a mere appendage of government.”

    1. You lost this argument half a century ago.

      1. The argument isn’t over.

  25. Here is a thought, wait until there is an actual problem and then pass a law. Then you have a real frame of reference to write it rather than hypothetical situations about what could happen. Stupid people write stupid laws for stupid reasons… This issue proves it.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.