Indiana

Penn Jillette on Indiana RFRA: "You're Not Being Forced to Have Gay Sex"

|

Via Mediaite comes footage from CNN last night in which hardcore libertarian and atheist Penn Jillette weights in on the Indiana RFRA hoohah.

Given his libertarian bona fides, many folks in the blogosphere have been surprised that Penn has come out in favor of anti-discrimination laws that would force business owners to bake cakes and shoot video at gay marriages even if they didn't believe in such things. Part of his contribution:

These people are not being asked to engage in gay sex or even endorse gay sex. They're being asked to sell flowers and cake to people….Now, I'm a libertarian and an atheist, so I'm kind of fighting myself on this. I don't like the government involved with telling people what to do and I certainly want people to have religious freedom–because the only way that people who don't have religion are going to have freedom is if people who do have religion have freedom. But all the same, we have to be careful we don't get crazy in the hypotheticals. We are not talking about forcing people to engage in gay sex or even endorse gay sex. We're asking that maybe they can treat people the same as other people and that does not seem unreasonable. It's OK, I guess, but goofy to be against gays, but it's not OK to be against people who simply want to…use your services as a business.  

The doctrinaire libertarian position runs in the other direction: For the most part, rights to voluntary association trump claims a person or group might make on your business or service. However you feel about that, Penn hits on an inarguable truth too:

I mean, the free market should be able to take care of this faster than anything.

That much is not open for debate in at least two important ways. First, in all the accounts I've read about businesses turning away customers who wanted something related to a same-sex wedding, the businesses expressly and without issue served gay customers in other contexts. So they were not refusing to serve gays per se. Second, in each instance, there were plenty of other businesses to which customers could turn for service. The market has indeed generated businesses that are very happy to cater to gay and lesbian couples.

Penn also drops this knowledge which I also find inarguable (though surely controversial). When asked why these issues are capturing the public imagination, he says:

I don't know. It just seems that maybe it's a bunch of people who realize they've lost a battle that's very important to them. Anyone under 30 is OK with gay rights. The whole thing is ancient history. All we need is a little bit of time and this will simply be a joke. And sometimes when people feel their point of view is being lost and they're becoming an anachronism, when they clutch at what they used to believe, sometimes it's not very pretty and it's often embarrassing.

That should mix things up a bit. What do you think?

NEXT: Clint Eastwood, "Total Libertarian...Everyone Leave Everyone Alone"

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. Even *I* am getting tired of this topic. I can only imagine what the rest of y’all feel.

    1. For once I am in complete agreement with Eddie.

      1. Dittoes.

    2. It’s reaching Lou Reed levels.

      1. Whatever happened to Lou Reed, anyway? I haven’t heard from him, I hope he’s all right.

        1. I heard he’s going on a final tour this spring.

          1. Sadly, Lou Reed died in October of 2013.

    3. I’d like to have more gay sex, and talk about it less.

    4. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I’ve been doing

      http://www.work-mill.com

  2. Pinn Jillette has been married once and has two kids.

    1. Dammit that was almost perfect.

      1. I do not know this Pinn person. A commie friend of yours, Hugh?

      2. God, Hugh, why are you such a bitch?

        1. CJWs gotta CJW…

          /Botard the Hotard

        2. But it was a really good bitchy snipe!!!!!

      3. Shameful mistake, coming from such a Pinnhead.

    2. I didn’t mean with him.

  3. Now, I’m a libertarian and an atheist, so I’m kind of fighting myself on this. I don’t like the government involved with telling people what to do and I certainly want people to have religious freedom–because the only way that people who don’t have religion are going to have freedom is if people who do have religion have freedom. But…

    And that’s where you go wrong, Penn.

    It’s OK, I guess, but goofy to be against gays, but it’s not OK to be against people who simply want to…use your services as a business.

    Why not? A proprietor can kick a person out for wearing inapropriate clothing can’t they?

    1. Yep those “buts” that follow a defense of liberty are always where people screw up. If only people would stop talking before the “but” comes out of their mouths.

      I support freedom of speech, but not hate speech.
      I support the 2nd amendment, but we need restrictions on magazine sides

      etc etc.

      There’s a lesson there somewhere.

      1. but we need restrictions on magazine sides

        Is that when you buy a rifle and the guy throws in a couple of mags for free?

        1. The amazing thing is that with all the spelling and grammar nazis around here I still forget to proofread my posts.

          1. [whispers: I think you need a comma in that last one, Bard. Maybe two.]

            1. Shit! I might need to hide in the attic with my laptop if I keep posting like that.

      2. I support freedom but…

        No you don’t.

        1. ^ This

          There must be some decent method to call out this “but” , where people can sound reasonable or say they support something, and then turn around and trash the thing they claim to support in the very same sentence.

          I usually just throw it back, but there must be a better method.

          “I support freedom of speech, but not hate speech” – No you don’t, if you did you would in fact support hate speech because freedom of speech explicitly exists to protect unpopular (to the majority) speech

        2. No. It’s called nuance. That’s why Liberatarians can’t get anywhere. Because too many are absolutists.

          1. Nope – its more like that other ideologies ( the left in particular) not only don’t play by the rules but make up the rules as they go along.

            The most important rule is the Constitution which Libertarians value but leftists ignore or simply “reinterpret”

            Hell, in most government (socialist) schools the constitution is no longer even taught – instead its replaced with murky classes in “social justice” and “radical environmentalism”

        3. No. It’s called nuance. That’s why Liberatarians can’t get anywhere. Because too many are absolutists.

          1. * libertarians

            1. *librarians…s

          2. “That’s why libertarians can’t get anywhere. Because too many are absolutists.”

            Creating a belief structure around a narrow set of core principles focused on individual liberty, and then building viewpoints for everything else on those principles in a manner that does not compromise them is the right thing to do.

            Otherwise you are just flapping in the wind and making opinions willy nilly with no grounding. One day gay marriage could be wrong and the next it isn’t.

            If that is being absolutist, then so be it. I think a better term is “consistent”.

          3. Actually, they’re called principles. You should try some.

            1. If you are not free to change your principles, then you are not really free.

          4. No. It’s not nuance, it’s someone not sticking to the principles they claim to hold. It is the same as someone saying, “robbing banks is wrong, but he did it to feed his family!” Well guess what? It’s still wrong.

            Sticking to your principles, whatever they may be, is hard. It’s painful sometimes, but if we don’t stick to them, then we’re no better than the animals who do what they want to do, when they want to do it.

            There are no grays in life. There is only right and wrong, with a very hard choice between the two. The great philosophers didn’t discuss “good/right” vs. “evil/wrong”….oh and that “fuzzy thing in the middle.”

            Just sayin…..

        4. agreed

          A lot of things I don’t like BUT they are constitutionally protected and I’m not about to use the Imperial Government as a club when I don’t get my way

      3. Talking about “butts” and “screwing up”, come and mouth. No wonder the religious are all bothered.

    2. This times 1,156

      “And sometimes when people feel their point of view is being lost and they’re becoming an anachronism, when they clutch at what they used to believe, sometimes it’s not very pretty and it’s often embarrassing.”

      Couldn’t triumphant statists say that about any stubborn libertarian belief?

      1. It’s a very basic example of ad populum.

        1. No it’s not. He’s not using to justify the behaviour, he’s saying why it has captured the popular attention. Completely different.

    3. I’m busily working out agreements with a few sign manufacturers in China to create a sign that says “This business has the right to refuse service to anyone. So long as they’re an evil cishetero white Christian man”

    4. You tell me how there is any good way to spin this for Gillette or how it means he really doesn’t give a fuck about freedom beyond the freedom of people likes to do things he approves.

      1. The real test for a libertarian is to defend the rights of people you really hate. In this case the rights of a group the Penn Gillette hates (fundamentalist Christians) are being violated, and I Penn Gillette just failed the test.

        1. I’d like to jump in and say you should listen to Penn Jillette. He definitely doesn’t hate Christians. He has taken a lot of grief from lefties about his friendship with Glen Beck of all people.

          He even has a lot of fans in the evangelical world because he isn’t an atheist who mocks them. http://www.bpnews.net/29863/at…..evangelism

          I love to listen to his podcast (pennssundayschool.com) and I am really surprised that he said this.

      2. John, there isn’t a good way to spin this one incident for Penn. He really fucked that up.

        I think though, you haven’t listened much to Penn. I’m saying that because you characterize him in ways that I think you wouldn’t if you spent some time listening to him.

        His podcast about AZ’s religious law (mp3) he says pretty much the exact opposite of what he said today. (the stuff about gay cakes starts about 20 minutes in).

        I’ll be honest, I really like his podcast. I think Penn is a very interesting voice out there. I think he is for the most part very inclusive. He is an atheist, but he still says very nice things about religious people.

        If I have one frustration with him, it is that he almost never condemns a person (for example, Obama). Usually he makes a point of saying he likes the person, he just doesn’t like his ideas.

        1. Actually you’re last paragraph is why I like him. It’s a breath of fresh air. Ideas can live forever. People come and go. Even presidents. Just cause some one sucks doesn’t mean that they can’t say something or do something right from time to time.

          1. And people can change their opinions over time.

    5. I am a libertarian … But… not today.

    6. You cannot kick them out because of their race, or religion. That is where the argument seem to be going. It is one thing to be able to serve or not serve any customer you choose. That would seem like a logical argument, but it is not that simple.

      1. When someone comes into our office that we don’t want to deal with we simply say “our schedule is full” or something similar. Business owners should just use common sense and make up an excuse instead of creating a big controversy. What the fuck is so hard about this.

    7. Exactly. Why should any private entity be forced to do anything? If a business or individual doesn’t receive tax dollars, then they should be allowed to discriminate if they’re dumb enough to do so. They’re only hurting themselves, their reputation, and helping competitors by turning away business. So the problem will sort itself out.

  4. I think Penn has lost some weight. He looks mahvelous.

    1. His gay SJW friends were turning on him because obesity epidemic.

    2. He’s so skinny people are calling him Pinn.

    3. I listen to his podcast. His doctor told him to dump weight or else. (I think he had some other medical issues too).

      Said he lost like 100lb. The trick to losing a lot of weight (according to him) was to first get really fat.

      1. It helps a lot.

  5. “You’re Not Being Forced to Have Gay Sex”

    Are you sure? Because my last trip to Indiana that guy behind the dumpster was pretty persuasive.

    1. Hell, I hadn’t even stepped out of the airport; minding my own business in the bathroom stall, tapping my toes, when all of a sudden…

        1. *suddenly widens gaze*

    2. “You’re Not Being Forced to Have Gay Sex”

      That is, unless Elizabeth Warren stubbornly maintains this refusal to seek the democratic nomination.

      1. You’re not being forced to have Gay Sex, except where prostitution is legal, which Penn is in favor of.

        1. LOL, that’s actually a good point.

    3. STEVE SMITH RESPECTFULLY BUT FIRMLY DISAGREES.

    4. This was you Fist?

      http://www.theonion.com/articl…..ock,10861/

  6. Then I guess Penn Gilliete will be totally okay with government enforced Catholic Communion. I mean come on Penn, no one is forcing you to believe it. What is the big fucking deal about eating a wafer and some bad wine.

    Maybe that quote is out of context. If it is not, Gillete is a fucking moron or a liar. The drastic or vulgar nature of an act doesn’t make it any less of a violation of someone’s conscience. And saying “it is just a little thing” is in no way a justification for government coercion.

    1. Oh but come on we’re just going to violate you’re rights a little bit, and it’s for a greater cause. Besides we’re just violating the rights of some icky social conservatives, so who cares right?

      1. What a fucking coward that guy is. He is not stupid. He has to know what complete horseshit that is. He just says it because he is afraid to stand up to the SJW mob. That is really all there is too it. Gillette loves to be all for liberty and reason as long as doing so involves picking on unpopular targets and playing to the mob.

        1. He might just being cowering to the mob, but keep in mind also that Penn Gillette is not a big fan of religion at all, and I don’t mean that he’s just an Atheist, and doesn’t believe, but rather he really hates religion, and blames it for many of the world’s ills. So he might just being cowering to the SJW mob, or maybe it’s just his own biases getting the best of him, and he’s not willing to defend the rights of a group that he can’t stand.

          1. That is all true. It might be that he thinks freedom is great as long as it involves people he likes. If it is the case that he is okay with this because he hates religion and the people affected by it, than he is just a crap weasel. I am not sure if that is better or worse than being a coward but whatever it is it isn’t good.

          2. I’m also an atheist, but I’m capable of empathizing with people who have wierd, unpopular beliefs.

            For some reason ….

            1. Wait, wait, I know. It’s because you’re a woman, isn’t it?

          3. That’s horseshit, he does not hate religion. Do you have a quote or citation that he hates it?

            1. President of the Penny Dreadful fan club? How do you know Penny’s innermost thoughts, well enough to defend them against critics?

          4. Penny likes God’s Chosen even if he pretends at Atheism. Why would you trust any assertion of a man whose income is based on deception? His behavior is that of a vampire from one of the wandering tribes.

        2. You’ve never really listened to him, have you?

      2. Of course. And you’ll totally eat these brownies I made that just have a little bit of dog poop in the batter, I mean not enough to mess with the taste, really!

      3. Also I’ll be gentle and go slow. I’m really good at it.

      4. Yep. Got to make those gays feel special by letting them force people to engage in commerce with them. Or maybe the profggies will use this as a justification to eliminate our semblance of a free market and have government offer all goods and services. Which is what they really want.

        1. “Or maybe the profggies will use this as a justification to eliminate our semblance of a free market and have government offer all goods and services. Which is what they really want.”

          I think you’re onto something here…

          Everything comes down to our basic form of government and basic economic model. All this social stuff is just a distraction from the real goal and purpose. Which is a Lenin style command and control economy dictated to everyone by our betters.

          If you look across history and various societies, this is the manner most of humanity has been structured for most of it’s existence. There have only been a few rare instances where people structured society around the individual, and each of those cases said society has flourished for a few generations before inevitably being dragged back down.

          What was the enlightenment if not the individual slowly breaking free of the collective and enriching his fellow man in the process.

          1. With progs it’s all just a delivery system to get more Marxism. I have an aunt I’ve mentioned before in my comments. She is a retired CA professor of english. She is pretty much a marxist. She regards obama as most precious centrist than Hillary. Although I pointed out her criteria was his massive statist agenda. Which makes Obama a statist and not a centrist. She claims to also be a staunch feminist. Proclaiming that not being willing to have the federal government pay for all birth control and abortions is equivalent to Muslims forcing clitorectomies on young women.

            When I asked her how she could tolerate Bill Clinton’s treatment of women, or, in Ted Kennedy’s case, practically worship him, she explained that though regrettable, they did so much ‘good work’ for the country. And that their behavior could be overlooked.

            So as far as she is concerned there appears to be no limits what someone does as long as they are a good progressive and bringing more Marxism into everyone’s lives. Sexual harassment, rape, or even criminal homicide do not matter if you provide enough Marxism.

            By my observation, her belief system is consistent with other progressives. Smoke it, shoot it, or snort it. The delivery system doesn’t matter as long as it brings marxist nirvana.

            1. Remind her that Karl Marx is dead.

          2. How true. It is just another shiny object used to distract. The silliness of this entire matter is :1. They hadn’t actually discriminated against anyone 2. What lowlife cheapskate serves pizza at a wedding.
            The truth is Progressives, gays love to get hysterical over perceived slights and this non-incident is more proof. The sad thing is that it does expose a very dark side to those demanding forced acceptance.

    2. Maybe that quote is out of context.

      Pitch perfectly *in context* as far as I can tell;

      Now, I’m a libertarian and an atheist, so I’m kind of fighting myself on this.

      I’m a libertarian and an atheist and if you force me to pick between the two, I’m an atheist.

      1. The second quote is really more damning than the one I talk about. Gillette seems to think being an atheist necessarily means using government power to ensure everyone else believes the same or at the very least can’t act on their beliefs.

        When you really think about it, the atheists on here ought to take real offense to this. He is saying being an atheist necessarily means infringing on other people’s freedom to disagree. The more I think about this, the less respect I have for Gillette. He has self identified as a first class oppressive asshole here.

        1. Ya I don’t get how the libertarian and atheist thing conflict here at all.

          He should just say isn’t really a libertarian.

          1. The only label that should apply is that “I am me!”, which is really not a label. It is just a statement you use to define who you are. If you disagree from that point, then you care about something outside of the “me”! Therefore, by saying he is a libertarian and/or an atheist, he could very well be against everyone who is not a libertarian and/or an atheist.

          2. I’m a libertarian and an atheist. I’m still against forced association. My being an atheist does not inform me of politics. My libertarianism does.

        2. There are few things more annoying or repellant than a devout atheist fundamentalist zealot.

      2. There is a legitimate issue for atheists in particular here.

        Why should only the religious get the right to freedom of association?

        This issue is much like gay marriage. Gays want the right to join a privileged class, the married. Adding some group to a legally privileged class is at best an ambiguous advancement of liberty.

        How about we get government out of the business of privileging certain classes over others instead? But that’s only ever acknowledged as even a possibility in libertarian circles.

        Similarly here. The argument is over whether the religious should be a privileged class in having freedom of association that others do not.

        How about everyone getting freedom of association? Not even on the table.

        1. The issue in this legal system is that you have to get standing in court in order to effect change thru courts. Just like you gotta actually win elections to effect change thru a legislature.

          Gays actually were the one group that would have been able to get standing to challenge government involvement in marriage as an establishment of religion. Straights and singles would not be able to get that standing. Gays CHOSE a different approach – so it is now probably legally impossible to actually get government out of marriage.

          Atheists are able to get standing all the time on 1st amendment challenges.

          A goal of ‘freedom of association’ is dishwater. It doesn’t mean anything real. So assuming that is actually some goal, then you’ll probably have to win elections so the legislature can attach ‘freedom of association’ to something else as meaningless like ‘National Ice Cream Day’

        2. “Gays want the right to join a privileged class, the married.”

          I know everyone says this, but it’s always seemed absurd to me.

          How is being married “privileged”? You pay more in taxes, your spouse can cheat on you and leave you and take everything you own plus half of your future income. I know a couple of couples who are married not by choice but by common law.

          Heck I joke with my wife that we should get divorced just so she can get benefits and college tuition reductions in the future. Because it is single people who are privileged not married. She being a SJW type takes any government help suggestion seriously, so I always have to be careful with her though… “It’s just a joke honey”

          1. Maybe you pay more in taxes for being married but I sure as heck don’t. My wife also gets health insurance from my employer, social security if I die, etc etc.

            1. The military gives married people more money and benefits.

    3. This is a great point… forcing people to participate in a ceremony/event/ a wedding that violates their conscience is the equivalent of forcing Muslims and Atheists in a Christian prayer or sacrament.

  7. “And for my next trick, I will make my support for freedom disappear!”

    “Wow, that was amazing, how does he do it?”

  8. Trying to reconcile atheism with libertarianism:

    http://bigthink.com/videos/pen…..rtarianism

    …and failing.

    1. What’s there to reconcile? Start with a few premises, like self ownership and the NAP, and you have a moral foundation without religion. Base government on that moral foundation, and voila you’ve got libertarianism.

      (I didn’t watch the video)

      1. Just yanking your chain.

      2. The problem is this. If you believe man is just an animal who happened to evolve in nature, then what is so special about the individual? Libertarianism is premised on the sanctitiy of the individual. The individual is an end in himself. People are not means to any ends. Moreover, since they are not just any end but the highest end, their interests cannot be sacrificed for the greater good without their consent. People own themselves and are free to pursue whatever they feel are their best interests and no one has any right to stop them from doing so unless they harm someone.

        The problem is that if man is just another animal, then our purpose here is the same as any other animal’s; to further the species. If that is our purpose, then the individual isn’t the highest end or even an end at all. The individual is nothing but a means by which the greater species continues and improves itself.

        Libertarianism is just a species of humanism. And it is pretty hard to reconcile humanism with man being just another animal only with a larger brain and a nifty set of thumbs. Indeed, Libertarianism and Objectivism are the only ideologies I can think of that explicitly rejects theism and embraces crude material evolutionary theory and hasn’t renounced humanism. That is because it is very hard to reconcile the two.

        1. One of reason’s writers said it best even if you don’t believe rights come from God then we should still act like they do.

          1. And there is some kind of ‘God’, for lack of a better word. Our limited understanding of the order of creation is by no means the extent of the order of creation. Whatever created all of time and space, by definition, exists beyond its confines. Which would be God, or related to God. Beyond that, I have no idea. No one does.

            An that is about as religious as I get. And I would submit to an organized religion in a nanosecond if that were my only alternative to living under a bunch of militant atheist progtards. Not that I’m interested in either.

            Thirty years ago I had a similar aversion to the SoCon movement. Albeit to a lesser extent , as they were ultimately less intrusive, and on balance less detestable than progtards are in today’s world.

        2. I don’t have a problem with humanism. When I was young and raised to be a good Christian, I was taught that humanism was the same as worshiping the devil, and that humanists were EEEEEEEEVVVVIIILLLLL! But those days are past.

          1. You shouldn’t have a problem with humanism. I don’t see how you could and still be a Libertarian. The problem is how do believe in humanism and also believe in crude material evolution. Evolution doesn’t support the individual being special at all.

            1. Evolution doesn’t support the individual being special at all.

              Why not? Individuals can’t be special if people are a product of evolution and can only be special if they were created in God’s image?

              1. Because the entire purpose of the individual is to reproduce and further the species. From an evolutionary standpoint, someone with a genetic defect having children is wrong. It makes the species weaker. From a humanist or libertarian standpoint, there is nothing wrong with it at all since the individual not the species is the ultimate end and that person has a right to fulfillment and to do what they wish and shouldn’t be deprived of that because we judge them inferior.

                1. “From an evolutionary standpoint, someone with a genetic defect having children is wrong.”

                  Body armor level idiocy in that statement. There is nobody on this earth without a genetic “defect”, or several. And genetic “defects” expressing themselves in parents is no guarantee that said “defects” (requiring an omniscient arbiter to determine what constitutes a “defect” in the advancement of the species, absent the process of natural selection) would be passed down to their offspring.

                  Or maybe I just misunderstood your larger point because I’m tanked, which, I will admit, is all too plausible.

                2. Because the entire purpose of the individual is to reproduce and further the species. From an evolutionary standpoint, someone with a genetic defect having children is wrong. It makes the species weaker. From a humanist or libertarian standpoint, there is nothing wrong with it at all since the individual not the species is the ultimate end and that person has a right to fulfillment and to do what they wish and shouldn’t be deprived of that because we judge them inferior.

                  The problem with this argument is that you are forcing an ideology onto evolution that simply does not exist. There is no “ultimate end” to evolution. No purpose, no meaning, nor right or wrong. Our existence is simply the cumulative result of biological functions following physical laws. What sets us apart from other evolved lifeforms is that we have gained the cognitive capacity to recognize that we are born with self-ownership and, just as importantly, the capacity to recognize this self-ownership in others.

                  1. In a sense you are right speed. Just because we evolved doesn’t mean we have to survive or that evolving is the highest good. And as you point out a world without God is moral chaos. To the extent however you can find any order in that chaos or any purpose, it is the continued survival of the species.

                    It is not so much that evolution rejects humanism as it is that it in no way endorses it. Moreover humanism by embracing the individual as the ultimate end, rejects any idea that the survival of or betterment of the species is any kind of higher good. It is kind of hard to reconcile that with the idea that we are just another animal. Sure you don’t have to find the community to be the highest good if you believe in evolution, but it is certainly a tempting conclusion and one that most people who reject theism reach. As I said, Libertarians and Objectivists are kind odd balls in that they embrace humanism while also rejecting theism. Most people in the world choose both or neither.

                    1. And as you point out a world without God is moral chaos.

                      I and countless others are living proof that moral chaos does not follow from non-theism. I’m capable of believing that murder is wrong even if my basis for belief isn’t a magic man in the sky. In fact I would say, that the person who views murder as wrong for it’s own sake is more moral than the one who needs superstition to arrive at the same conclusion.

                    2. No Free society. You are just good at pretending. That is all. Yeah, you choose to live by a moral code. Good for you and I hope you like it. But that doesn’t make your moral code anything but something you made up and like. That is all it is. It just a made up game you play with yourself and a way you pretend life has any meaning. It is a coping mechanism and nothing more. Others have different coping mechanisms that are just as valid.

                    3. Yeah, you choose to live by a moral code.

                      Everyone necessarily makes that choice, including you.

                      But that doesn’t make your moral code anything but something you made up and like.

                      The projection here is remarkable, my Christian friend.

                      That is all it is. It just a made up game you play with yourself and a way you pretend life has any meaning. It is a coping mechanism and nothing more. Others have different coping mechanisms that are just as valid.

                      Mine happens to be the product of rational thought made with benefit of exposure to philosophy and self-education. Yours happens to be the poorly edited writings of long dead genocidal goat herders. The difference in validity between these two starting points might be just a bit bigger than you think.

                    4. Mine happens to be the product of rational thought made with benefit of exposure to philosophy and self-education.

                      Who says that is superior to any other way? You have your pretend rationality and your pretend morality. I don’t begrudge you that. I really don’t. I just think you need to stop begrudging other people for having what you feel is a pretend God. If you were honest with yourself, you would admit that they are both the same thing. Just things we dream up to get through life. That is it.

                      The projection here is remarkable, my Christian friend.

                      I am not projecting at all. If you want to claim I am making shit up, feel free. I could never convince you otherwise. I am just pointing out your lack of self awareness. You like reason, good for you. But you can’t reason without assumptions. And all of your assumptions, like for example that your reason is complete or somehow paramount over your emotion or anything else, are all made up. You still believe in God. You just call him “morality” or “reason” or “natural rights”. You faith in those things is just that, faith and nothing more.

                    5. And you have your pretend morality and pretend rationality that you get from your pretend God.

                    6. “Mine happens to be the product of rational thought made with benefit of exposure to philosophy and self-education. Yours happens to be the poorly edited writings of long dead genocidal goat herders.”

                      And yet here you both are…

                    7. But that doesn’t make your moral code anything but something you made up and like. That is all it is.

                      And from my point of view as an atheist, your moral code is no different.

                    8. +Holy 3

                3. “Because the entire purpose of the individual is to reproduce and further the species.”

                  Not true. Evolutionarily, the purpose of the species is to reproduce and further the species. The individual is a means to an end. Individuals are simply packets of genes competing for dominance no matter the outcome or environment. Evolution could care less about the individual and a small measure of nihilism is cold comfort, but comfort none the less.

                4. The individual has no intrinsic purpose. Evolution does not confer morality; it is simply a process whereby genotypes that are unsuccessful at propagating themselves cease to exist, and genotypes that are highly successful become widespread. It is easy to fall into the talk of conflating success with morality, but it would be even more of an error under the Baconite worldview than it is under the Christian.

                  Speaking for myself, I see my understanding of the world as a useful approximation, subject to revision when I find contradictory evidence, but understood at all times to be provisional. I don’t subscribe to it because I believe it to be the absolute truth, but because it is the best I can manage at this time. I treasure the individual because I can perceive my own individuality, and it is extremely important to me. My observation suggests that other people are comparable moral agents with their own individuality, and I do not bellowing that I have any more right to infringe on their lives than I would wasn’t them to infringe on mine. That is self-ownership in a nutshell, and everything else flows from there.

                5. It’s funny you are actually using purpose in a theistic way.

                  The sociobiological idea that an individual organism is a gene’s way of reproducing itself isn’t purpose in a moral or intentional sense. If you conflate the two you either have to introduce a concept of teleology that is not part of the reductive materialism in sociobiology so conceived, or you are imagining Nature having a theological purpose of reproducing species or genes instead of individuals.

                6. You are a goddamn moron. From an evolutionary perspective there is no such thing as a “defect”. Those defects you refer to are simply mutations, which may or may not better enable the individual to survive to reproduce. Take Sickle-Cell for example. Not great in the first world and you’d consider it a defect, UNLESS you lived in a mosquito hotbed in which case you’d wish you had it.

                  Fuck, you’re dumb.

                  1. Yep i love having Thalassemia living in the deep woods, sure i have to take iorn supplements in my milk but the skeeters dont give a good god-damn about me.

                7. So what if your so-called ‘genetic defect’ is an advantageous mutation that furthers the species? Then the contribution of the individual has made the species stronger, no? Mutations originate in individuals, not collectives. A biologic fact.

            2. Looking at it from a theistic perspective, evolution is just like baking a cake. The factors being the raw material, time, and stimulus. Time is of no consequence if you exist beyond it. So then it is just a tool in the toolbox within the construct of what we perceive as reality.

              Wibbly-wobbly timey wimey.

            3. Unless he’s a mutant.

        3. You don’t have to believe in God to believe that man isn’t just any other animal. Our intelligence certainly qualitatively sets us apart from at least a lot of other animals. We are special in that regard. There might be an argument for extending that special status to some other highly intelligent species, but that’s a separate issue and only broadens the scope of libertarianism.

          1. I’m all for giving equal rights to any species that discovers fire.

            1. So, homo sapiens sapiens, and Pro L?

              1. Yes assuming the dolphins don’t sue me for anti-aquatic discrimination.

                1. Can I marry a dolphin if it’s had its way with me?

        4. You don’t have to believe in God to realize that man is not just any other animal. Our intelligence sets apart qualitatively from at least many animals. We aren’t slaves to instinct. We act on individual thoughts, feelings, and desires.

        5. Evolution has no purpose or moral judgments. I don’t need to base my moral or political philosophy on some “purpose” of humanity. I don’t even need a “purpose” to live my life in content.

          I also don’t understand why humanism would have trouble with treating humans as distinct from other animals.

          1. This.

        6. Species speciate. Just because I’m human doesn’t mean I don’t have an interest in furthering MY genes above those of other humans.
          ALL evolution works at the level of individual genetic selection.

          1. Good job being so vague, that way you can weasel out of what you’re alleging when challenged.

            That last sentence is what I’m talking about. “…works at the level…”? What a crock of shit.

        7. If you believe man is just an animal who happened to evolve in nature, then what is so special about the individual?

          That he is not hooked up to a hive mind, he is not a eusocial creature and stated differently; his agency remains distinct from all others.

          The problem is that if man is just another animal, then our purpose here is the same as any other animal’s; to further the species.

          If you want to reduce it to the most basic, the goal is to simply not get eaten and to have sex. That’s the drive of the individual. I guarantee to you that two grizzly bears fighting over a fertile female don’t have any lofty conceptions about furthering their species in mind.

          And it is pretty hard to reconcile humanism with man being just another animal only with a larger brain and a nifty set of thumbs.

          Who believes that to be the case? Obviously, as the apex species of all species, there’s something different about humans. Let alone what humans have achieved relative to other species. To say that belief in evolution is belief in humans being just like any other animals is to entirely misconstrue the implications of evolutionary science and not representative of the ideas you’re arguing against. I believe in evolution and I also believe that humans have a rightful dominion over other animals by virtue of the fact that we have moral agency and reason.

          1. Obviously, as the apex species of all species, there’s something different about humans.

            Who says we are the apex? By what standard? And even if we are, does that mean we are just another animal again if a superior alien life form shows up? I sure hope not.

            There is nothing in evolution that says anything about which species are more or less special than others. I am sure the dinosaurs to the extent they could thought they were pretty special. Nature didn’t care and they don’t care what we think now.

            1. Who says we are the apex? By what standard?

              By a reasonable standard. “Apex” as in “apex predators” is a categorical distinction, meaning that it’s true by definition. Similarly, all unicycles have one wheel. That is a categorically true statement.

              You on the other hand are the one personifying a natural process to have some overarching “purpose”.

              There is nothing in evolution that says anything about which species are more or less special than others. I am sure the dinosaurs to the extent they could thought they were pretty special. Nature didn’t care and they don’t care what we think now.

              Correct, mean ole nature ‘doesn’t care’ that all unicycles have one wheel either. What nerve.

              1. I can think of quite a few animals who would pose a problem for an individual human being. Of course you can fantasize that you have a gun when you encounter one, but that assumes you’re calm enough to use it. Lots of armed people have been surprised by animals and unable to fire effectively. Short of a gun, you might try a club or knife or axe, but that’s even tougher to wield in the human/animal interaction, which takes place on the animal’s terms.

                You’d probably think it’s like going to the zoo with a pistol and shooting the captive, but I can assure you it’s nothing like that.

                Fantasy apex. Look at the big brain on you!

        8. Re: John,

          If you believe man is just an animal who happened to evolve in nature, then what is so special about the individual?

          Speak for yourself!

          That would be my answer and my proof that the individual – ME! – is indeed special. What else is there to argue with you, except individual humans?

          The problem is that if man is just another animal, then our purpose here is the same as any other animal’s/

          Only individuals have purposes. The natural world -Mother Nature – only has porpoises.

    2. Damn! Catholics can’t be libertarians, atheists can’t be libertarians. Muslims are out. Who’s left!?

      Are there really any libertarians out there?

      1. Millennials?

        1. Yes. what DO the Millenials think?

          1. DO the Millenials think?

            1. That is occasionally their claim. Though I am inclined to dispute it.

              1. agreed – if it isn’t immediately available on their smartphone it doesn’t register…..

      2. Just Bo and Buttplug.

        1. And Buttplug is only 92%. I guess only Bo is the true Libertarian.

      3. Zoroastrians, brah.

  9. “Take care of this” in the context of the market means… legal/unharmed discrimination.

    Few leftists/progressives/democrats consider that to be acceptable, they seem to prefer the mafia variety.

  10. And sometimes when people feel their point of view is being lost and they’re becoming an anachronism, when they clutch at what they used to believe, sometimes it’s not very pretty and it’s often embarrassing.

    And sometimes when people feel their point of view is being won, they’re tempted to try to try to rub their opponent’s noses in their victory. And yeah, that isn’t very pretty, either.

    1. Damn you, Bill. Beat my by 2 minutes.

      *shakes flipper in mock anger*

    2. Yeah, and sometimes “anachronisms” get revived because the “new truth” turns out to be a marketing win but a factual lose.

  11. Oh, and business owners should be able to turn away business for any reason their hearts desire.

    Tell me where I’m wrong.

    1. Society has decided otherwise.

      I’ve learned so much from Tony.

      1. Society has decided otherwise.

        Well, that is accurate, at least.

    2. #CJW problems

      1. I reject this CJW label.

        Bodor needs to start being consistent in his labeling of us. Therefore, instead of losing out on the glorious OWGB title, I move that we amend the offended white guy bridage be renamed “The Offended CisHetero White Guy Brigade.”

        1. What about me, Jesse and the girls?

          1. That why I like the #CJW it’s very inclusive.

          2. The Offended White Privilege Brigade? But then that leaves out HM….

            1. Well half of him.

    3. Because roadz and public water.

      1. No. My use of the phrase “hearts desire” was where I was wrong.

    4. Oh wait, wait, let me give my favorite answer, Fist:

      Because of ROADZZ! Since businesses are forced to use state resources, then they must play by the state’s rules, and don’t have property rights.

      This is what progs actually believe.

  12. That should mix things up a bit. What do you think?

    Huh, I mean, I dunno. I don’t think there’s much opinion about this down in the commentariat Nick.

  13. We’re asking that maybe they can treat people the same as other people and that does not seem unreasonable.

    C’mon, Penn, you know that’s bullshit. You’re not “asking” that “maybe” they can do something. You’re telling them that they must.

    It is fine and totally reasonable to ask them to bake a cakes/pies for any to-be-married couple that comes to their door. But where do you get the authority to tell them they must do this, or suffer legal retribution? Or is the quote out of context and he’s not talking about anti-discrimination laws?

    1. is the quote out of context

      There has been awful lot of this going on in the rush to condemn. Hell, yesterday an entire article and dozens of comments were spun around the fiction that Tim Cook called for a boycott of Indiana.

  14. “The whole thing is ancient history. All we need is a little bit of time and this will simply be a joke. And sometimes when people feel their point of view is being lost and they’re becoming an anachronism…”

    This statement could almost be applied to those freaking out about RFRA. Because it’s increasingly becoming obvious this is more about telling people what to do than it is about some looming mass threat of gays not having nice centerpieces at their wedding receptions.

  15. This has to be the dumbest controversy I’ve ever seen. Who would order pizza for their gay wedding? Who would force a person to bake a cake or pizza for something against their will?

    Who would think it wouldn’t be a pubic hair cake with dog shit icing? Who would eat it?

    1. Well, it may be dumb to punish somebody for a plant whose smoke gives you a buzz, but the government does it. And it is very significant to those on the receiving end.

      And the government has sought to conscript photographers, T-shirt makers, bakers, wedding chapels, etc., etc. into serving gays or gay weddings.

      And making a defective product for discriminatory reasons can also get you sued, by the way.

      1. Most of you should be familiar by now with the Seven Stages of Liberal Legal Activism:

        1. It’s a free country, X should not be illegal.
        2. The Constitution prohibits X from being made illegal.
        3. If the Constitution protects a right to X, how can it be immoral? Anyone who disagrees is a bigot.
        4. If X is a Constitutional right, how can we deny it to the poor? Taxpayer money must be given to people to get X.
        5. The Constitution requires that taxpayer money be given to people to get X.
        6. People who refuse to participate in X are criminals.
        7. People who publicly disagree with X are criminals.

        1. Did you find that somewhere or did you make it up? I think it neatly sums up liberalism, and a lot members of the baby boomer generation.

        2. Last year.

          8. People who privately disagree with X should lose their property.
          9. People who vote against X should lose their jobs.

    2. The whole thing was made up. The Pizza place never refused to serve anyone. The whole thing started because some reporter asked the owner a hypothetical and the owner said “sure we would serve gays if they came here but we wouldn’t agree to cater a gay wedding because we don’t believe in gay marriage”. That is it. The whole thing is the result of an off handed comment made in response to a hypothetical question.

      1. Well come on John. It’s not like they’re being forcibly sodomized. So who cares if people are threatening their lives or if the state fines them into bankruptcy?

  16. The way I see it is that if you sincerely believe that a customer’s lifestyle is an affront to your god that’s probably a better reason to turn them away than if you simply don’t like the clothes they wear.

    Yet the latter is okay and the former is not.

    1. I bet they plug that loophole very soon.

      1. I bet they plug that loophole very soon.

        I wouldn’t be surprised one iota if defrocking priests or banning hijabs is waiting in the wings somewhere.

        Maybe when a black man in religious attire gets choked to death by the NYPD things will change.

      2. STEVE SMITH WILL PLUG THAT LOOPHOLE, IF YOU KNOW WHAT STEVE SMITH MEAN.

        1. Many a hiker, to their everlasting dismay, does.

      3. In a way, they already have, in that in many states “gender identity” is a protected class. So you can’t turn away a cross-dresser for example, even if he looks like Juwannaman.

  17. Now, I’m a libertarian and an atheist, so I’m kind of fighting myself on this. I don’t like the government involved with telling people what to do and I certainly want people to have religious freedom–because the only way that people who don’t have religion are going to have freedom is if people who do have religion have freedom. But…

    …And his libertarian bona fides are gone!

    1. He’s basically saying “Hey, I’m a libertarian, but I’m not a principled libertarian when it comes to certain things I support”.

      1. He’s not even a principled atheist. He’s a militant evangelical anti-theist who sees this as an opportunity to fuck over the other tribe.

        Guys like Gillette have made a religion, a belief system, out of not believing in God.

        Being an atheist is one fucking thing, ONE. “I don’t believe in God/gods.” That’s it. That’s all there is to it. Whether or not somebody else believes in supernatural stories is fucking irrelevant until such time as their acting on those stories conflicts with my right to self-ownership.

        Need to see what Atheism as Religion looks like? Watch The Unbelievers. Gillette was one of the celebrity “What science (Jesus?) has done for me/means to me” retards.

        I’m a libertarian and an atheist and see absolutely no conflict between the two on this issue AT. ALL.

        1. You know I really don’t understand militant atheism at all. Did these people grow up in a fundamentalist household, or deep in the bible belt, and so feel the need to lash out against Christianity? I guess if I grew up constantly hearing nonsense about the Earth being 6000 years old, or how heavy metal is evil Satan worship I would be pretty pissed off too.

          Still after awhile you grow up, and Atheism is like you said an indifference to religious beliefs not a hate of for them, or people that hold them.

          1. I’m agnostic. But on balance I have far more respect for people of faith than I do for atheists. These days more atheists seem to be assholes about their atheism than the faithful are about religion. And a t,est the faithful’s assholery tends to be the product of a deeply held belief system than a desire to stick it to those who disagree with them.

            Like all the pricks who want to shit on Christmas. Which is fun even if you’re not Christian. Or the assholes who are always out skin the Boy Scouts or putting up billboards with a message about believers being idiots. I don’t see much of that kind of thing, even from the SoCons these days.

            1. I’m an atheist, but concur with your sentiments. The current atheist dogma of “preaching” hatred of religion is repulsive…

              1. I’m not sure it’s an “atheist dogma” since I’m an atheist and don’t subscribe to that BS of constantly looking for reasons to hate religion or any follower of any religion.

                Under some of the “atheists” you reference, you might find a latent religious identity, and it just might have 6-pointed stars adorning its raiment.

          2. “You know I really don’t understand militant atheism at all. ”

            Damn those uppity atheists! We’re not burning them at the stake anymore? What more do they want?

            1. I’m cool with atheists. I just don’t like the ones that turn it into a religion and act more dogmattic than Pat Robertson. Especially when they want to piss all over Christmas. Which on many respects isn’t entirely Christian to begin with.

              Or to make it simple, I didn’t like it when there was talk of forced school prayer in the 80’s. Now the pendulum has swung, and I don’t like the atheists that won’t let anyone pray in school of their own volition. And there are plenty of that sort right now.

  18. I’m always happy to see that Penn Jillette can muster up the courage to criticize people who demonstrably pose no threat to him (still waiting on that “Bullshit!” episode about Islam, buddy).

    As for this:

    but it’s not OK to be against people who simply want to…use your services as a business.

    This is some weird language, but then the “public accommodation” theory of civil rights flies squarely in the face of the freedom of association and the right to contract, and conversely, the right to neither associate or contract with people you don’t want to.

    1. RAYCISS!!1

    2. Penn has commented many times on his podcast and in other places why he didn’t do a Bullshit! episode about Islam.

      1. And what were the equivocations that Penny Dreadful offered? And did you see his yarmulke in his vest pocket, while preaching atheism?

    3. I generally like Gillette. His statements are disappointing. I hope he rethinks it.

  19. It’s interesting how some libertarians will abandon their principles to appease their gay friends.

    1. Penns hero and partial mentor is the Amazing Randi, who is gay. I wonder how much this plays in to it.

      Which would be even more depressing if Randi feels the same way.

      1. Which would be even more depressing if Randi feels the same way.

        Why, has he expressed libertarianish views before?

        1. Randi is like Michael Shermer, a “skeptic” working an angle having little to do with actual skepticism.

  20. These people are not being asked to engage in gay sex or even endorse gay sex.

    True, but in turn they aren’t calling for gays to be lynched or for gay sex to be outlawed, and they don’t have the power to make it happen even if they want to. So why is it necessary to use violent force against them simply because they don’t like a concept that the “progressives” embrace? Is it really so horrible that they simply don’t agree?

    1. “So why is it necessary to use violent force against them simply because they don’t like a concept that the “progressives” embrace?”

      Because that’s what gets a Progressive’s rocks off.

  21. Fuck off slaver.

    1. Word.

  22. Teller is the smart one.

    1. A friend of mine dealt with Penn & Teller while they were staying at her hotel here in L.A. She said she had the most hilarious email correspondence with Teller and that both of them were absolutely joyful people to deal with.

      1. Once I met Penn in Greenfield, MA, at a county fair. He was very nice about letting people take pictures with him. I probably wouldn’t have recognized him at that location if not for the celebrity treatment given to him by the folks.

        1. He was “very nice” about photo-ops which increase his notoriety and income? Hah hah hah, Bill Clinton was “very nice” in public sessions too.

  23. I’m all for freedom of speech, but that doesn’t mean I have to pay attention to social signalers like Penn Jillette.

  24. sometimes it’s not very pretty and it’s often embarrassing.

    To follow up on my earlier point, I can’t help but wonder how are these couples going to look at their wedding behavior 20 years from now? Are they going to be proud that the most notable thing about their wedding is that they forced some old lady to bake them a cake?

    1. Are they going to be proud that the most notable thing about their wedding is that they forced some old lady to bake them a cake?

      Probably.

    2. Not a generalization, I’m sure loads of exceptions exist, but I don’t think a very high percentage of the couples getting gay married will still be together in 20 years time.

      1. Well yeah, because without the man-woman relationship the family courts won’t know which party to screw.

      2. Not a generalization, I’m sure loads of exceptions exist, but I don’t think a very high percentage of the couples getting gay married will still be together in 20 years time.

        Considering ‘Tolerance’ is at record levels here in the U.S., homosexuals account for the majority of suicides, and suicide is at record levels here in the U.S. This is true in more ways than one.

        (I’m not asserting any sort of causation in earnest, just extrapolating a statistic/mathematic appearance of association.)

        1. If we gain a better scientific understanding of alternative sexualities, including, but not. Limited to homosexuality, we will likely find some biological correlation with the aforementioned statistics. Homosexuality used to be classified as a mental disorder. I doubt it really is a personality disorder, but there may be valid neurological and or hormonal differences that account for at least some of that higher suicide rate.

          Hopefully, progressivism does not interfere with legitimate scientific inquiries into that subject matter.

        2. That’s horseshit, where do you get the statistic that gays account for the majority of suicides?

          1. You’re right, absolutely horseshit. In trying to briefly tiptoe around the fact that there are no solid statistics, I stepped right in it.

            Based on information about attempted suicide and infrequent formal/clinical investigations into successful suicides, it’s strongly believed and widely understood that homosexuals account for a significantly disproportionate fraction of suicides.

            There are also strong implications with regard to varying definitions of family and suicide but they are routinely distorted/conflated with social prescriptions that they may or may not support. Frequently people claim that greater tolerance among friends and family lower the rates, but infrequently is the effect significant and frequently does it only account for a fraction of the disproportionality.

            But, as Suicidy points out above, we may never know the full story because of the political implications of associating homosexuality with a disease or symptoms (both pro and anti-gay because most of us can’t be trusted not to condemn even the slightest defects in others nor objectively recognize our own).

      3. Try for 20 months instead, still a huge failure rate. After all there’s some dude at a sex bunker who wants random sex, and how can Wifey or Hubby refuse that?

    3. “Are they going to be proud that the most notable thing about their wedding is that they forced some old lady to bake them a cake?”

      Proud and *turned on* like crazy! Nothing gets a Progressive hotter than controlling others.

      1. There is one thing, and that’s beyond control. It involves punishment and/or injury to others. That’s what les Pwogs pine for: the hurting/death of their ideological adversaries. Purge, baby. Purge.

  25. This is a tough issue for people who do have principles, like Penn, because of the specter of Jim Crow, which, of course, is a galaxy compared to a basketball as far as relative oppression goes. Still, even dropping the differences between that situation and this one, Jim Crow, segregation, etc. was done by law. Government sanction, including punitive actions against both blacks and business people not complying with the discriminatory laws, was the source of the problem.

    Racism back then was a big deal, but without the government embracing and expanding it, segregation would’ve had real trouble being anything close to universal, thanks to the market pressure to sell goods and services to anyone with money.

    Even so, he’s wrong as are many others. Freedom of association and speech are hugely important, as is a more general freedom to not be compelled to do or say things when minding your own business. Sure, that allows assholes to be assholes and can create inconveniences. But the constant litany to compel us to behave in very specific ways is far more dangerous and oppressive than the discrimination being complained about.

    1. I think allowing discrimination would be a good thing because that would give the bigots a chance to identify themselves. As it is, the bigots are the ones who profit from anti-discrimination laws because their customers don’t know that they are bigots. If they knew, then they might go somewhere else. So bigots are the ones who gain from such legislation because it forces them to hide.

      1. It’s akin to having wide-open freedom of speech. By not forcing offensive speech underground, you can spot assholes from a mile away.

        With this, you could sign up for Angie’s List and note vendors that aren’t gay friendly. And so on. Easily dealt with without recourse to government.

        1. This would be exactly the way to solve the problem, but it’s not good enough for progressives who gleefully anticipate the opportunity to bury their ideological opponents.

    2. After all this discussion, I’m totally on board with this position. While I personally feel that it’s wrong to discriminate against someone due to race or sexual orientation, I’m not ok with the government (aka the use of force) to punish someone else who doesn’t feel this way.

      For example, I have a disability. And if a business refused to serve me because of that, I have a lot of things I could do in return, but I don’t think calling the cops or taking the business to court to have them fined or closed should be one of them.

    3. This is a tough issue for people who do have principles, like Penn,….

      What principles are those? Sleight of hand, deception, and profit gained therefrom?

  26. I’m gonna be very charitable here and say this. IIRC, Penn lives in NYC. He may simply be trying to stay clear of a lynch mob at this point. Still cowardly at best, hypocritical at worst.

    1. I thought he lived in Vegas, being that he does a routine show there. And even still, he’s probably seen the level of boycotts going on and determined that it makes financial sense for him to be on the slaver side of the issue.

      1. He lives in Vegas, in the Slammer.

      2. Couldn’t he just not go on CNN to talk about it at all? I keep my mouth shut. That’s how I keep getting invited to the parties.

    2. He moved out of The Slammer?

    3. Or not get his SyFy show cancelled.

  27. So this is what happens when political principles come into conflict with commercial endorsements…

    1. Nigga gotta eat.

  28. What is important here is how many times Penn Jillette has been married.

    /snark aimed at Nick

    1. Hugh’s comment was funnier.

  29. This nontroversy is so fucking tiresome. I’m ready for second coming of Zod already, he’ll no what to do.

    1. Wait, didn’t Jillette say no one was going to be made to engage in gay sex? Then what the hell is Zod demanding everyone kneel before him about?

    2. Zod made his second appearance in ‘Man of Steel’ in 2013. Superman fucked his shit up good. He isn’t coming back unless there is a reboot.

  30. Reason has been strangely silent on the whole RFRA thing. Like, a mention or two here and there. What’s going on?

  31. but it’s not OK to be against people who simply want to…use your services as a business.

    Goddammit, Penn. If someone owns a business, they own what it produces. They should be allowed to deny service to anyone for any reason. Anything less is antithetical to property rights and freedom of association. It also constitutes involuntary servitude, which has been expressly prohibited in the united States.

    1. Do I have to cater a Nazi wedding?

      1. Only if you’re an outspoken jewish pacifist. Everyone else can claim they are booked that weekend.

      2. Well, NOW you do.

        1. You know, just thinking this through, having to attend a wedding (to cater or take pictures) that offends you for whatever reason really smacks of something bad. Compulsion should be a last resort, not the first option.

          1. Compulsion is the first preference of Progressives.

            “Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.”

            ? George Orwell, 1984

      3. No ProL, you know perfectly well that progreessives are only interested in forcing you to do things they like. They don’t believe in universal principles, much less rights.

        1. I dunno, they sure act like Nazis.

          1. They insist Nazis are for the right. They aren’t. Nazis are another brand of extreme leftist statism. Obama’s domestic policies have many national socialist parallels. Including legislating and using executive action to control both the health insurance I dusty and domestic auto makers. If Obama were an artist, perhaps he would have made a sketch of how he wanted the sheet metal for the Volt to appear.

    2. Could a wedding planner do work for gay couples only?

      1. That’s a great question. If it’s wrong to discriminate against gays in that context, it’s also wrong to discriminate against heterosexuals. Public accommodation laws, I believe, protect “sexual orientation.” That goes both ways.

      2. I know a caterer who won’t do anything for “breeders”. He’s doesn’t have a lot of customers. If I were evil, I’d dig up a suitably litigious Christian couple and send them his way.

  32. “You’re Not Being Forced to Have Gay Sex”

    Yet.

    What happens when prostitution is legalized?

    1. The rate of comments on HnR takes a sharp drop?

      1. Eventually. Prices have to come down first.

        1. And other things will need to rise.

    2. It’s a slippery orifice, er, slope.

    3. Public Accommodation becomes a whole lot nastier….

      1. Will there be franchising?

    4. You cannot refuse a potential customer from a protected class, obviously.

    5. The gay for lay will become mandatory. Like the Peace Corp. or something.

  33. And sometimes when people feel their point of view is being lost and they’re becoming an anachronism, when they clutch at what they used to believe, sometimes it’s not very pretty and it’s often embarrassing.

    This is true but the fact that a point of a view has lost has no bearing on its merit. Also it is quite rich for a libertarian to say that since they are still complaining about Wickard and all sorts of “settled” things.

  34. I personally think we need to make sure there’s no gay bigotry on the moon either. Because it might happen. They might need more Oxygen!? And what if the person with the oxygen dispenser was a homophobe? Jesus, anyone who disagrees with that is a fucking shit and I hope they die.

    1. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE QUEERS HAVE DONE TO THE SOIL?

      1. +1 Beelzebubba

      2. No, but I let my brother-in-law and his “friend” stay in the guest room one time, and I saw what they did to the linen.

      3. More importantly, we need to preserve our precious bodily fluids.

      4. I thought that was just the Onanites.

    2. I personally think we need to make sure there’s no gay bigotry on the moon either.

      Oh God!

      The title went from ‘The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress’ to ‘Revolution’.

      The closing scene will now have a newly soulles Mike/Michelle overseeing the ultra-Christian Lunar Authority cooking pizzas for the formerly-oppressed LGBTQWERTY Loonies.

      TANSTAAFL Dammit!

  35. We are not talking about forcing people to engage in gay sex or even endorse gay sex.

    No, just your rights taken away at gunpoint.

    1. Penny Dreadful would get wood if he thought he could force people to engage in gay sex.

  36. Disappointing. But then, everyone disappoints in the long term. Still, I think Penn is one of the rare good guys.

    1. Look, purity is only achievable in Ivory Soap. He’s been a vocal and generally consistent champion of libertarianism. I think he’s wrong here, but I’m confident he’ll think about this some more and come to a more libertarian conclusion.

      1. “”Ivory Soap'”

        OMG so racist

        1. Oops. They don’t make other-hued soaps for diversity? I assumed they did.

          1. Isn’t Ivory Soap triggering.

    2. My thought as well. Not necessarily that everyone disappoints, but that we’re all human and that our commitment to libertarianism will be more absolute in some areas than in others.

  37. Purity test fail. Whatever. I think we should have freedom association but we don’t and this bill wasn’t going to change that. Given the fact that libertarians aren’t anarchists, everyone has a but something…I can see why people would not want to see no “whomever” serviced here signs. I sure as shit don’t but would get over it. I disagree with Teller but not going to get all dogmatic about it

    1. “Purity test fail.”

      I actually think the “failure” here is getting baited into having a fucking opinion about the subject at all.

      This whole issue is like a retard version of Lord-of-the-Flies.

      As Conor F. pointed out = Indiana already has gay marriage and anti-discrimination protections… and meanwhile there’s a dozen states with neither. But people are all foaming because… well, terror at being on the ‘wrong side’ of a stupid debate.

      1. Indiana doesn’t have a statewide public accommodation law for sexual orientation. A few municipalities do, but those only extend to the city limits, so a big chunk of the population doesn’t operate under those ordinances.

        1. Oh no. Panic.

          1. *AIEEEEEE!!! Runs in circles for a while*

            Pant…pant…pant…say, GILMORE, *whew* what am I panicking about again?

          2. Indeed. That means, right now, without the RFRA, Indianans can discriminate at will against gays and many others. Even Illinois Nazis.

            1. I was gonna say, gay or not, I wouldn’t walk up to a house or a business in rural IN claiming a legal right to buy food, spend the night, or buy my share of widgets there.

              If they have a check-in desk or an ‘OPEN’ sign, I put my odds of getting service about 50/50. Better if, rather than claiming legal rights, I just ask nicely.

              But barring ‘Open’ signs and asking nicely, maybe with my share of guns, and even then I might expect the likelihood of my reneging my claim to legal authority to be between high and very high.

      2. Fesendorf is a fucking shit bag too. The article you refer to also contained this gem,

        The penalty Oregon recommends for that baker: $150,000. I think Christian bakers should happily bake for gay weddings (I’ve written that Christian photographers should happily photograph them). I don’t think doing so is prohibited by their faith. It’s arguably in keeping with it. I nevertheless see something unjust in that juxtaposition.

        Connor finds this vague sense of injustice about the government fining someone $150,000 and running them out of business for refusing to do business with one person. But not getting a marriage license is the biggest injustice ever!!!

        I hate these fuckers.

        1. in through the nose, out through the mouth…

    2. What about the part where he claims being an atheist means he must side against the religious people here? Since when does being an atheist mean you are okay with government ensuring everyone agrees with you?

      And moreover, it seems to me the fact that the government already restricts our freedom of association so much makes it that much more imperative to stand up against further encroachment. I don’t see how it is a good idea to be okay with the government further restricting people’s freedom as long as doing so benefits people we like and the burden falls on people we don’t.

      I don’t think you have to be very dogmatic to see Gillette as showing himself to be a real shithead here.

  38. Wow.

    Now that’s terrifying.

    Penn Gillette is afraid of the SJW lynch mob.

    1. He admitted being afraid of criticizing violent mooslims for fear of being targeted, which is why they never did a BULLSHIT! on the topic.

      Does this mean that we can have Gawker charged with making terrorist threats?

      1. No. I will leave it to you to consider what being afraid of the douche bags at Gawker, as opposed to no kidding psychotics who will cut off your head, says about Gillette’s character.

        1. No.

          Aw, cmon…PLEASE.

      2. which is why they never did a BULLSHIT! on the topic.

        This is why I boycott his act.

        1. He was up front about it. They have families and they don’t want them to be killed by nutbags.

          1. So does Bill Maher. He still does it. And if he is that afraid, he should shut about about religion in general. The fact that he continues to talk about religions and religious people who don’t threaten to kill him, just makes him look like that much more of a coward and a bully. Fuck him. Seriously fuck him. I used to respect him. Not anymore.

          2. Penny Dreadful worries about non-existent American Muslim Terra-wrists somehow harming his 3 pet snakes and his pot-bellied pig?

        2. Good for you.

      3. Yes. I’m going to start a petition at Change.org requesting a drone strike on all Gawker positions.

      4. Good. Now can we PLEASE wipe out all the progtards now?

  39. Wow, the yokeltarians lose Andrew Napolitano, Clint Eastwood, and Penn Jillete all on the same day. This must be the worst thrusday ever.

    1. “yokeltarians”

      Exhibit A of above point.

    2. Clint Eastwood passed the purity test just fine.

      What did the Judge Say?

    3. The “yokeltarians” never had Gillette.

      But, please, prog on, prog concern troll.

      1. The “yokeltarians” never had Gillette.

        Well, that explains the Duck Dynasty beards.

      2. Dukes!

    4. The Judge had a good point that people shouldn’t get *extra* rights because of their religion, and we don’t want the courts deciding what is and is not part of a religion, and therefore what extra rights they’re entitled to.

  40. Well, some good news – over $200k has already been raised in support of the pizza joint…

    http://www.gofundme.com/MemoriesPizza

    NPR, eat your heart out…

    1. NPR can’t even get that in one day of a pledge drive. They’ll have to find someone to victimize them to up the donations.

      1. I’d bet $20 that NPR would not allow Gun Owners of America to advertise on the station with the ad saying “Don’t liaten to the BS NPR says about guns.”

    2. Damn I need to the SJW mob to target me too.

  41. We’re asking that maybe they can treat people the same as other people and that does not seem unreasonable.

    We’re talking about the government, Penn. It doesn’t ask you to do something. It tells you, and every sentence ends with “or else”.

    This isn’t even about gay sex, really. Shame on you for pretending it is. Its about gay weddings ,and whether people should be forced to provide goods and services for them regardless of whether they want to or have religious objections. Or else.

  42. Penn Jillette on Indiana RFRA: “You’re Not Being Forced to Have Gay Sex”

    … you’re only being forced to provide labor against your will.

  43. We are not talking about forcing people to engage in gay sex or even endorse gay sex. We’re asking that maybe they can treat people the same as other people and that does not seem unreasonable.

    Like the IRS asks me to pay my taxes and the cops ask me not to rob the liquor store.

  44. I think this is really a great opportunity to look at other issues of widespread, pernicious discrimination =

    Like, “Strippers who refuse to work Bar-Mitzvahs”, or “Party Clowns who refuse to offer Balloon-Vegetables for Vegan Birthdays”

    It doesn’t just end with Gay Pizza, you know.

    1. …can gay deep dish be far behind?

      1. DEEP DISH LOVES EVERYONE, AND EVERYONE SHOULD LOVE DEEP DISH!

        1. STEVE SMITH LOVE EVERYONE, NOT CARE IF THEY LOVE BACK

    2. Strippers? SJW’s hate them. Same with those kiddie-diddling clowns

      You have to find a marginalized group that SJW’s like.

      1. Not true.

        When SJW’s cast strippers in the victim light, then they love them.

    3. What about Jewish Delis who refuse to cater Holocaust denial conventions?

    4. No, I’m waiting for the fratbros to sue the lesbian bar into bankruptcy because they didn’t get served.

      Or maybe the Westboro loons to sue to rent The Stonewall during Gay Pride Week.

      1. Or fat white guys suing a Halal deli for not serving them potk.

  45. Again, there’s a significant difference between selling cake to a gay person, and selling them a wedding cake for a specific ceremony they have religious objections to.

    That’s because wedding cakes aren’t identical generic cookie-cutter creations produced in advance. They are custom-produced for specific events, often artistically designed.
    When you’re baking the cake, you know who is going to buy it and what it is going to be used for.
    That’s a big difference from baking a generic cake, sticking it in the fridge and then selling it ot an anonymous person that walks in the door.

    People who have religious objections to gay marriage are not being crazy when they say they feel that baking such a cake would involve them in a religious ceremony they have moral objections to.

    By analogy, suppose you are a web developer. Would not not feel uncomfortable about designing (say) a website for a neo-nazi group? Would you not say that you could not really do your professional best at that job due to your moral feelings about the purpose of the website, and would you not prefer to turn the work down if you had the option?

    1. Watch how Rachel Maddow destroys Hazel who equated gays to Nazis

      The title of the video posted on every prog site tomorrow.

      1. Progressives are incapable of empthaizing with people who don’t share their views. They are emotional midgets who cannot put themselves into other people’s shoes.

        1. A lot of people are like that. It is all fun and games to stand up for freedom until you have to do it for someone you don’t like or who is legitimately unpopular. Most people fail that test sadly.

          1. I think the fact that libertarians have been so unpopular for so long makes us uniquely empathetic towards other unpopular groups. Which is why we are so much more consistent in defending their rights.

            Also, most other people fear being unpopular so desparately that they would never risk taking an unpopular position.

            1. You would think that. Yet, they as a group hate the social conservatives and often refuse to stand up for them even when they are on the receiving end of real oppression. Not being popular can cut two ways. Sure it can make you empathetic to other people who are unpopular. But it can also make you a toady to the popular culture. And I think a good number of Libertarians fall into that trap. They desperately want to be liked and accepted by the larger culture. And since the larger culture is largely run by the Progressives, it ends up making Libertarians taodies to progressive cultural causes even though they of all people should know better.

              1. Yes, some libertarians do seem to put an excessive amount of effort into trying to convince progressives to like them.
                Others also have the opposite reaction, of purposely rejecting even sound libertarian policies, just because they happen to be supported by progressives.

                I don’t want to be like either of those. I want to stick to advocating policies that are morally just, regardless of which team it puts me on the side of. I also want to deny them the power to ostracize, by not caring whether they like me or not.

                1. I don’t either Hazel. I always laugh when people on here accuse me of being a social conservative. I am anything but. I am very consistent on my rejection of prohibition and government control of virtually anything that goes on in the privacy of one’s home or body. Yet, people constantly accuse me of being a SOCON. They cannot fathom the idea that someone could stand up for a group and empathize with their point of view without being one of them. That is frankly a very sad statement about them.

                  If I have a blind spot it is not that I won’t agree with Progressives. I occasionally will. My blind spot is that I hate bullies and as a result instinctively reject the popular view and embrace the contrary or unpopular one. When my opinions run afoul with my better judgement it is nearly always because I feel like one side is being kicked around because it is popular to do so.

            2. I think the fact that libertarians have been so unpopular for so long makes us uniquely empathetic towards other unpopular groups.

              Honestly, more often than not, I’m not in the least empathetic to the groups I find myself defending. More often than not, I’m in complete agreement with the proposition that the people we’re talking about are assholes.

              I just guard my own rights very, very jealously. And if assholes don’t have rights, I know it’s just a matter of time before I’m the asshole.

              Well, that and the fact that I have this deep and abiding need to feel like I’m the good guy. And the moment I decide I can start bullying people, even assholes, I stop being the good guy.

        2. Progressives are incapable of empthaizing with people who don’t share their views.

          IMO, wrt Gay Rights movement, this is along the lines of the ‘No true Scotsman’ fallacy. I’ve never had a straight person tell me that I don’t know what it’s like to be gay.

          Only the homosexuals (admittedly the more vocal ones) are in an oppressed minority unlike any other. As though a Libertarian Hoosier living in Chicagoland couldn’t fathom being a part of a disdained minority.

          1. I’d say it’s right up there with being a pagan in the Bible belt. When I first moved in, the neighbors brought me baked goodies (which was sweet even though I can’t eat them) and asked me what kind of Christian I was. For the record, I told them I was a Unitarian (which wasn’t precisely a lie).

            1. And no conservative Christian could ever be in the minority or not fit in anywhere in America. never. Only the blessed gays ever suffer oppression.

              1. That’s right. Now make me a sandwich.

                1. You won’t like it.

                  1. Depends on who’s in it.

                  2. Depends on who’s in it.

                  3. Depends on who’s in it.

                2. “In that case, sir, may I advise against the lady ordering the clam chowder.”

            2. I’d say it’s right up there with being a pagan in the Bible belt.

              So, if a fundie says they think Jesus is Lord, that hurts you? You have a hard time believing differently from others, and assume when you do, they want to hurt you?

              Keen. Really keen.

              The hypocrisy is swell.

  46. “I’ve never had a straight person tell me that I don’t know what it’s like to be gay.”

    Why would a straight person tell another straight person that the latter doesn’t know what it’s like to be gay? Cannot think of a scenario.

    But if you’re straight, then yes, you didn’t have the same experience as gay people. It probably doesn’t matter most of the time, but there could be situations when it does.

    1. Many straight people could have similar experiences to gay people in certain respects. For instance, a high school nerd that got beat up a lot for being “wierd” could easily relate to the experience of a gay kid who got beat up a lot and socially excluded by homophobes in high school. One could also have experiences with other people picking on you for liking the wrong girl/guy (being attracted to fat girls, black guys, etc.). All sorts of social exclusion have common features.

      1. That is just it, everyone has their cross to bear. The biggest lie of identity politics is that no one but someone else of your sex or skin color could ever understand your problems and that all of our problems somehow relate to whatever identity groups we belong to. That is bullshit. I have more in common and identify better with a lot of black people I know than the white people who live around me. Just because yo u have the same color of skin doesn’t mean you have lived anything close to the same life. Identity politics rejects that truth.

        1. But my cross is bigger than yours.

          SJW’s are all about the cross envy.

          1. Yes. And the cross of hatred. To be a victim, there must have been a perpetrator who made you one.

      2. Absolutely. In certain respects. But not in others. For example, most straight people don’t face a risk of being disowned by their family for realizing that they are straight.

        By the way, I was a popular kid in high school. I probably don’t relate very well to the people who were bullied as kids.

        1. Sure grizzley but that doesn’t mean they don’t face the threat of being disowned for other reasons or that threat isn’t just as harmful or just as real. Gays do not have some monopoly on hardship, despite what Reason seems to believe.

        2. most straight people don’t face a risk of being disowned by their family for realizing that they are straight.

          Yet. Gay couples adopting children is a relatively new thing. Wasn’t there a H&R post a few months back about some lesbian professor couple raising their child to be gay?

        3. Oh I don’t know, families disown kids for all sorts of weird shit. Gayness just being one of hundreds of potentials. My aunt was disowned for marrying a Jamaican. My husband was disowned for joining the military —his mother’s family are leftist college professor types—they would have been much happier if he had been gay.

        4. There are plenty of straight people with shitty families that will disown them for various reasons, including leaving the religion they were born with. Imagine, for instance a Muslim teen that decides she’s an atheist. Or a kid from a fundamentalist Mormon sect realizing that Joseph Smith was a total charlatan.

          I would say they can relate to a gay person getting kicked out for coming out as gay.

          1. For that matter, I know of one person who was kicked out of his house for deciding to become a Mormon.

        5. Oh shut the fuck up. You think atheists don’t face a risk of being disowned by their overly-religious parents? You think the white woman who wants to marry a black guy doesn’t face a risk of being disowned by her racist father?

          You do not have a monopoly on hard times. Fuck off, doucheass.

          1. Every response to my last post either attacked the positions I never expressed (who said gays had monopoly on hardship?) or tried to misinterpret my point. My point was entirely non-controversial: if a group of people had a different life experience they are likely to have a different perspective. Some people outside the group are perfectly able to relate to this either because they had a comparable experience in their own lives or they are good at understanding those who are different from them. But on average they may be not as good at grasping a different perspective. Your responses illustrated this gap.

            If you cannot think of the gay-straight distinction at the moment, consider the difference in background of a born and raised American and a recent immigrant. Would you expect from an immigrant to comprehend the American culture just as well as from a native?

            Notice that every single post I made here included as many instances of “may”, “some”, and “probably” as possible to avoid making overgeneralized statements. Did I get the same courtesy back?

            And you, Harold Falcon, go fuck yourself you homophobic scumbag! As a libertarian I defend the rights of even the scum like you, but I have a very good memory.

            1. “Would you expect from an immigrant to comprehend the American culture just as well as from a native?”

              Sadly, I think a lot of natives do a better job of comprehending American culture than many natives. Too many Americans are eager to give up their freedoms, for the false promise of government benefits, while ignoring the voices of the many immigrants who are distressed at seeing us accept the types of tyrannies that they had originally fled.

        6. If your family disowns you because of your interest in fucking sheep or cats or dogs, why don’t you just move away and start yourself a farm, MacDonald?

    2. Why would a straight person tell another straight person that the latter doesn’t know what it’s like to be gay? Cannot think of a scenario.

      But if you’re straight, then yes, you didn’t have the same experience as gay people. It probably doesn’t matter most of the time, but there could be situations when it does.

      Straight people don’t, that’s my point. They just impugn their other beliefs as irrational bigotry while willingly ignoring their own (by your second point) irrelevance/zeal/bigotry.

      The point was made earlier (maybe not this article, it’s getting laborious to keep them straight) that the gay rights movement was being fueled and driven by irrelevant white heterosexuals at this point. My point is that this is/was a bit of the ‘True Scotsman’ fallacy; ‘No true homosexual would shame a Christian pizzeria for turning down a theoretical gay wedding.’ when they certainly did and still do.

      I don’t, for one minute, think that just because people suddenly popularly support gay marriage that they got any more sensible about doing so and the evidence would support that. I further see no special reason why a ‘True Gay Marriage’ proponent would, de facto, be a valid exception to those presumptions.

  47. What’s so asinine about all this is that if you own a business you’re inevitably going to trade with someone who has a belief or a lifestyle that you disagree with. You just might not know it. Maybe the UPS guy who delivers to my office is gay. Who knows? Who cares? But if a potential [gay] customer comes to my office, we have to argue about whether or not I can discriminate? Whether I can or whether I can’t, what does that really accomplish?

    1. Additional work for his lawyer cronies

    2. I’ve represented both black rapists and white rapists. I really don’t care as long as the one colour in common is green.

  48. As a comedian, Penn cannot imagine a group whose beliefs are so intolerable to him that he would refuse to play their event? More power to him, I guess, if it is true, but I doubt that it ts.

    1. I wonder if he’s asked his booking agent to find them gigs at, say, Oral Roberts University. Perhaps he’s too bigoted.

      1. It works the other way around, the people at the venue shop from a list of who they want to perform. Unless ORU asked for him he wouldn’t have any way to get him in.

        1. But if they asked, he could not refuse because he did not like what ORU stood for and remain consistent with the opinion he expressed here. After all, a comedian for hire is a business that cannot be against people who want to use his services.

      2. If he had an event at ORU he would be permanently disinvited from everywhere progressives control. Because saying hello to people at ORU basically means you support them.

        1. That’s right. If you know someone who is religious, it’s your duty as a member of les Pwogs to shame the fuck out of that person, and if that doesn’t work, then try to ruin that person’s life.

          Because that’s pwogwess.

      3. He should book Penn as the main act for the NAMBLA convention. That would be interesting.

        1. He’s already there, why not entertain?

    2. Well he’s better not play at events for groups that the left hates, because judging by their stance on Milton Friedman writing Pinochet a letter, merely showing up at such an event would constitute endorsement and support of their beliefs.

  49. “We’re asking that maybe they can treat people the same as other people and that does not seem unreasonable.”

    Yeah. Treat people the same as other people.

    How dare people have *their own preferences* between people, and then *act* on those preferences?

    “These people are not being asked to engage in gay sex or even endorse gay sex.”

    Why not?

    How dare they *discriminate*?

    I assume Penn is in favor of legalized prostitution. When these fine, upstanding businesses open their doors as entirely legal companies, they won’t be allowed to *discriminate* against any clients based on any protected group status, right?

    Couldn’t have that, could we?

    1. That’s an interesting hypothetical. They would be providing a service after all.

  50. Penn Gillette is not my proxy on anything. Who cares what he thinks? A sense of humor and a skill at sleight-of-hand do not mean he is persuasive on this issue.

  51. Well, I think Penn is usually right on the mark, but missed wildly on this one.
    I think even he would agree that the right to associate with anyone you choose, or sell your goods or services to anyone you choose – regardless of reason – is perfectly acceptable.

    I’d ask Penn if there was ever a reason if he ever turned down a show, even if it was just because the price wasn’t right?
    If so, is there a difference between him saying “I won’t perform because I’m worth $2mm as opposed to $400k” and “I won’t perform because the audience is full of non-atheists.”? No, there isn’t, except one decision is motivated by money and the other is motivated by an odd dislike for believers in God.

    Both, however, are perfectly legitimate motivations.

    Now, as he points out, the market will sort this out. Easily. Because if he only performed for atheists, he’d have a hard time charging $2mm as more and more people simply lost interest or forgot about him. Eventually, just to make a buck, he’d have to start reconsidering not performing for believers.

    But that doesn’t make his original decision to not perform wrong, nor does it mean there should be a law FORCING him to perform for them. It’s just freedom of association, and he didn’t want to associate with them. Big deal.

  52. See… I think we have all gotten stuck on this Christian Baker thing with the gay wedding… which is really a silly example. I seem to recall at the start of this all many years ago, it was about a pro life pharmacist who didn’t want to sell the morning after pill that induced what they considered to be abortions / murder. I believe this person was later compelled by license laws to fill these prescriptions against their conscious. I think the media likes the gay cake story better because the person in question is far less sympathetic .

    1. Not really the same thing as the pharmacist was an employee, not the owner. If the pharmacy owner chose not to stock the medication, there would be no story at all.

      Happened a couple times a week at the pharmacy I worked at in the 80’s – there were some drugs that were just prescribed so rarely that it wasn’t worth stocking them because our store was so small. We’d call around to other pharmacies to see if they had the stuff and either have them fill the scrip for us (would take a few hours) or send the customer there. Never had a customer complain about it ever.

      But people were more tolerant back in the mom-and-pop store days. Nowadays people bitch and moan to high heaven for having to wait 45 minutes, after having already walked around the store for an hour first. Hey Einstein, go to the pharmacy FIRST, then do your shopping and then pick up your items when you’re done shopping. Apparently time management is someone else’s responsibility. It’s the effect of the “everyone gets a trophy” cause.

  53. I respect Penn Jillette but I respectfully disagree with him. I think in a free market people should be allowed to discriminate against whomever they want…. whether they be of a certain race, gender, sexual orientation, or whatever. And I think there should be no reprocussion from the government. The reprocussion, should, instead, come from their customers and over time those that discriminate in a hateful way will go out of business.

    As a business owner myself, who tries to run a nice jewelry store in a nice area of town, I would love to discriminate against… say…. homeless people who smell like they haven’t showered in months and try to walk into my store and enjoy the air conditioning on a hot day… or maybe the occasional parent with 5 screaming kids…. or whatever… without worrying about the ACLU sending me a threatening letter…. and I would probably feel the wrath and ire of someone I’m sure…. but that should be my right. I would be foolish to discriminate against someone of a certain race, or religion, etc… but that should be my choice if I wish to partake in such a dangerous endeavor. Just like it’s my choice if I only want to be open 1 hour a day, or carry no inventory or whatever… my business would suffer a lot and most likely, I would end up going out of business. But that choice should be mine to make.

  54. In general, I disagree with Penn on this; however, I do see an exception:

    If a business owner or employee agrees to provide the product and service, and afterward discovers that fulfilling the transaction would violate their religious beliefs, then the owner or employee should be required to fulfill the agreement anyway.

    This would require the business to either ask about this, or to make an explicit statement that they do not provide the product or service under those conditions, before the agreement is made.

    In turn, this would limit their business with those who disagree with their policy, but if the market will still support them (I suspect that very few businesses would be able to survive with an unpopular policy such as refusing to provide products or services for a “gay” wedding, although a few might find a niche market for doing such), they would be otherwise free to do so.

    1. Such contract law is already well-established. Still, one can’t be compelled to perform labor because of the contract unless it is specifically a labor contract; the business owner can merely find a willing sub-contractor to provide the good or service and the contract is fulfilled.

      But the proggies want to humiliate people into forced labor.

  55. I have to admit that I’m fucking stunned that Penn said that. I love listening to his podcast, and the crap he said about this is 100% out of character for him.

    I remember them talking about gay discrimination in stores (in AZ?) before and he advocated the opposite. He didn’t support anyone forcing bakeries to bake cakes for gays.

    http://acedl.noxsolutions.com/……23.SS.mp3

    Start around the 20 minutes in.

    1. Call me cynical, but note the channel he was on. He’s either playing to his audience or he’s lost his mind.

    2. He was probably just shooting from the hip.

      1. You mean, “…from the tip,” don’t you? Penny Dreadful gets an O when he reveals what previously dwelt only subconsciously: his real thoughts. A genuine Ernst Rohm, that’s our Penny Dreadful.

    3. Forcing people to buy health insurance, bake cakes for gays and thousand other new things Americans are now forced to do make it apparent this nation is heading in the opposite direction of anything I consider “libertarian.” To me libertarianism means freedom to live your own life as you see fit to live it as long as you’re not directly harming others. And by the way I am not religious. Nonetheless, it’s obvious to me the ones get the raw deal here are those being forced to surrender their right to refuse service.

      1. It is still ok to refuse to hand over all of the emails. – H. Clinton & L. Lerner.

  56. How about we force Jews and Muslims eat pork. It’s easier to share common ground with people willing to “partake in” a fine BLT sandwich or a nice ham.

  57. “Rita Skylar..er Rita Squaw..” wth?

  58. Don Lemons line of questioning was outright terrifying.

  59. Apparently, anything less than being raped by gays is A-OK.

    1. Uh, that would be GAY-OK.

  60. I’m glad Nick clarified this. This article makes sense. The one he wrote yesterday, I couldn’t understand which side he was on.

  61. The Management (USED TO) reserve(s) the right to refuse service to anyone – until mob action forced the STATE to DEEM the 1st Amendment’s “Free Exercise” clause NULL and VOID!
    Thankfully we’ve dispensed with that whole Art-V BS, and we’ll just let the biggest, loudest, mob – or an Enlightened Dear Leader – make wholesale changes to the conduct of business and government, when it suits them.

  62. It seems to me that it is the governments–city, county, state, and federal–that are, or should be, prohibited from discriminating. They supposedly represent us all, even if we didn’t vote for those in power. Private individuals, running a business or not, should have the inalienable right to discriminate against anyone for any reason. The Jim Crow laws of the South were passed by and enforced by governments. Which goes to prove that the law and justice do not equate. And, of course, there’s this: Inalienable rights are a myth. We are granted privileges by the government. Or, to put it another way: In America we are free, free to do whatever the government allows us to do.

    I too am a Libertarian and an atheist. I don’t care if you are black, white, brown, gay, lesbian, etc. That you are an honest, peaceful person is all that matters to me. I will do business with you, if I had a business. But to tell people that they can’t discriminate due to race, religion, or sexual orientation is a gross violation of their rights. (Oops! Sorry. Rights are a myth.) http://www.dowehaverights.blogspot.com

  63. 4tuys and 4 gals (equality and all that) walk into a cake shop. They order a most unusual cake (as unusual as a gay couple having their wedding reception at a small town pizzaria, me thinks). They would like to celebrate their successful bank robbery, claiming to be from the Occupy movement. They feel justified in spite of the law. Would you bake their cake?
    Asking a Christian to celebrate, enable or promote sinful behavior is the same thing. Despite the honesty of the beliefs of either the Occupy or gay customers it would be too much to ask for a business person to participate in those acts.
    And before you say there is a difference, there wasn’t one 10 years ago. The ones who are bitter clinger Christians have just as much a right to not do as the gays rights to do.

  64. I see a fairly simple solution to the service providers dilemma in the face of the law requiring them to provide services.

    The law doesn’t say they must put their usual heart and soul and jubilant effort into the product, a product being provided under duress. A clear notice provided to all consumers of the product (perhaps little strips of paper tucked away in the product like a fortune cookie) making it clear that the product may in fact not be as good as it could be due to the emotional distress of the provider while preparing the product.

    I doubt many people planning an event who were of similar sexual, political, religious or other persuasion would be prone to seek these services after a few of these less than tasty/well crafted things were provided. In this way the purpose of the law could be subverted without the possibility of punishment and those who don’t care for that sort of behavior can avoid the service provider.

    I realize this merely accomplishes what the market would have dealt with naturally but it does provide an opportunity for legislators to draft new pointless legislation and crow about their awesomeness.

    Mazel tov,

    Georgie

  65. 1980s: “Look, just because we’re not throwing people in jail for gay sex doesn’t mean we’re trying to say that it’s acceptable”

    1990s: “Look, just because we’re saying being gay is acceptable doesn’t we’re saying they should be a protected class”

    2000s: “Look, just because we’re saying sexual orientation should be a protected class doesn’t mean we should legally recognize their relationships”

    2010ish: “Look, obviously it’s fair for them to have civil unions, but clearly “marriage” is still between one man and one woman”

    2013ish: “Look, gay marriage is a thing. Deal. If you don’t like it, no one’s making you go to their gay wedding.”

    .
    .
    .
    Penn Jillette, 2016: “Look, obviously it’s fair to force some people to go to a gay wedding. It’s not like you’re not being forced to have gay sex.”

    Jillette, you son of a bitch. Look what you did. Just fucking look at what you did.

    1. There is an old joke by Bob Hope about him getting out of California before gay marriage is mandated (ie, forced upon people).

      Funny how it seems to be working out that way…

  66. “I mean, the free market should be able to take care of this faster than anything.”

    If a photographer or baker is forced by law to attend to the desire for purchase of their service for a homosexual wedding they don’t agree with, then that’s NOT a “free market”.

    There are plenty of photographers and bakeries and wedding planners and decorators and all the other myriad services for weddings who are happy to take money from *anyone*, so why be so *intolerant* by demanding that *everyone* must tolerate them?

    If a refusal to make two dresses or suits for a wedding inspires some heterosexual couples to not patronize a tailor, THAT is the free market. No intolerant laws required.

  67. Penn’s clearly uncomfortable with his position, he knows something is wrong with it, but because freedom of association is simply off the table in “polite” discourse, he’s slipped over into the dark side.

    We’d turn him around in five minutes. Maybe 10 seconds.

    Hey, Penn, ready to forced prostitutes not to “discriminate” when they provide their services?

    If they’re “open for business”, they’re open for all comers. So to speak.

  68. my god what a vacuous intellectual lightweight he is

    1. But he’s tall, can do magic tricks, and says he hates religion and Muslims. Plus, he had a bris as a baby. Winning all around.

  69. I think as long as Christian conservatives are protected by anti-discrimination laws, the people Christian conservatives hate should also be protected by anti-discrimination laws.

    1. apples and oranges

    2. People should be free to discriminate against whom they choose. What laws are you referring to protecting Christian conservatives, by the way? The only way to compare this is if you were being forced to attend church. Is anyone forcing you to attend church dipshit?

      The only discrimination laws that should exist are laws that prevent gov’t from discriminating against people.

      1. Current federal law protects people from discrimination because of their religion. It doesn’t protect people because of their sexual orientation.

        Guess on which occasion you decided to get pissed off?

        1. I am objecting to discrimination laws, all of them, dumbass.

        2. Also did you not read the part of my comment that said, “The only discrimination laws that should exist are laws that prevent gov’t from discriminating against people.”

          No, you wanted to try to be witty (you’re not, you are a dumb piece of shit) and you deliberately ignored that part and made a dumbfuck comment.

        3. Federal law should protect all freedom of conscience uniformly, whether it is based on religion or not. If someone has a moral objection to doing something, they shouldn’t have to do it, and they shouldn’t be exiled from commerce for that either.

          1. Federal law protects people’s right to think or say whatever they want. Even neonazis. But when neonazis start gassing Jews, federal law steps in, and rightly so in my opinion.

            1. Because gassing Jews is just like not baking them a cake.

              1. It is in what passes for Tony’s brain.

            2. So gassing jews is the equivalent to refusing to serve someone in an establishment you own?

  70. “They’re being asked to sell flowers and cake to people”

    Now, I’ve been “asked” to do many things in my life. Never have those “asking” had lawsuits, fines, and government mandates to “ask” me to do something.
    Once you sue me, fine me, and get the government to force me to do something; you’re not “asking”.
    You don’t get to call that “asking” and pretend to have a rational conversion with that basis.

    “They’re only being forced to sell flowers and cake to people”.
    That’s an accurate description; but oddly one that would get less support.

  71. “I’m not a racist.

    But…”

  72. The market has also richly rewarded that Pizza place for its policy: donations in exchange for bigotry.

    1. Oh God bigotry, the greatest fucking sin known to the left. Fuck everything else, we just gotta make sure that we use violence to crush any thought crime.

      Go fuck yourself Tony. Seriously, God damn I fucking hate you with a seething, fiery hatred. I would gladly watch you drown, with a fucking smile on my face.

      1. Then I’m glad you don’t have any political power and the evil gay progs do. How goddamn up your own ass do you psycho fuckheads have to be to whine like little girls about antidiscrimination laws like it’s going to affect you in the slightest way, yet have such violent impulses with apparently no empathetic compunction?

        1. I threatened no violence, that’s what you fucktards do. I threatened inaction if I ever had the displeasure of meeting your statist, slave driving ass in person and saw you in distress.

          1. Which is tantamount to active violence, of course.

            So you joined our war machine, a thing that does actual violence in vastly destructive and unjust ways, yet bitch about metaphorical violence in the service of equality of access to the society we all pay taxes for. Such odd priorities.

            1. I stated that I left for a myriad of reasons did I not? One of which being that we were doing everything but defending the Constitution from foreign or domestic invaders.

              It’s not metaphorical violence dumbass.

              “Hey you must serve this people”
              “No”
              “Here’s your fine”
              “I’m not paying an unjust fine”
              “You’re under arrest”
              “I object to this”
              BOOM!BOOM!BOOM! or a forceful arrest. It always comes down to that Tony because that’s all that really can be done to someone who refuses you, you have to get them to comply and if they won’t do it then you force them to do it.

              I was unaware that taxes paid for the O’Connors business.

              1. This is simply an argument against having laws. It is not about the substance of the policy.

                1. So objecting to forcing people to act against their will which causes no harm to the other person or their property is tantamount to saying that I don’t want laws against murder which does cause harm to person and property?

                  You are a dumbass

                  1. No you just want to use gun-wielding government agents to expel gay people from businesses whose owners don’t like their kind.

                    1. “No you just want to use gun-wielding government agents to expel gay people from businesses whose owners don’t like their kind.”

                      No one called the police on anyone, and right now we are talking about gays trying to force their way into a business and forcing the owner into servitude, and backing it up with the government gun. That is what you approve of, which makes you a hate-filled, slave-driving piece of trash. Period.

                      If a property owner tells a gay to leave the premises, and the gay person does not leave, then the gay is deserving of recognition of his full equality – with criminals. He deserves to be expelled by force just like any other criminal. You are maliciously evasive of the nature of who is wielding force against whom in this situation.

                    2. So you admit that your position, if anything, requires more actual government force than mine.

            2. “Which is tantamount to active violence, of course.”

              Psychotic.

    2. You mean the policy where they said they would serve anyone in their place of business, they just wouldn’t cater a gay wedding? Wow, they don’t want to be forced to do something.

      Hey Tony, go fix me a ham sandwich and deliver it to Texas. I want banana peppers, mustard, lettuce, and yellow American cheese, oh and pickles. I want it within the next 12 hours.

      Hey, I paid for the roads that you drive on, so I demand that you let me borrow your car. After all the only reason you own a car is to drive on public roads, so in effect your car is my car.

      Hey, you can’t get to your house without public roads and you take advantage of the tax dollar paid fire dept. so I think I wanna come in and kick up my feet on your sofa and watch a little Vikings tonight.

      Oh, you won’t do that you say, DISCRIMINATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    3. The market pushed them out of business. Private citizens saw another citizen being crucified and made donations. Big difference slaver

      1. Free speech affected them both positively and negatively. If there weren’t a vast number of bigots out there trying to enforce gay apartheid (with much metaphorical violence), then the balance of rights might tilt more against nondiscrimation rules. But a baker’s right to act on his bigotry is simply not as important a right as a patron’s right not to be systematically treated like dogshit by bigots in their own community. Sorry if this sounds like a no-win for bigots. We have kind of decided, the civilized among us, that bigotry is of no positive use for decent societies. Yet nobody wants to use force to prevent people from being bigots, just acting upon it in a way that makes people second-class citizens because of how they were born. It’s understandable that a person with no such impediment would instead consider the hypothetical, meaningless harm coming to bigots for not being able to treat fags like dogs as the greatest problem in the world. But I’d suggest working on your perspective.

        1. I have no problem with gay people. I have a problem with making people do shit because the “civilized” folk have decided that they know best and everyone must worship their word as the word of God.

          I’m fine with a black person kicking me out of their store. The only thing I’d be mad about is them not hanging a sign outside and causing me to waste my time. I’m fine with a gay caterer saying they won’t cater any event of mine (hypothetical because I don’t use caterers). I’m fine with a Jew not doing my son’s wedding (we’re not Jewish). I’m fine with people telling me no, because I’m not a child that thinks I should get my way and people should worship me, because I’m special.

          1. But it wouldn’t be a black person kicking you out if you persisted in asserting a right to shop there. It would be men with government-issued badges and guns. There is no getting out of enforcement, it’s just a matter of what you want to enforce.

            1. I’m not like that, you piece of trash. I actually have respect for other people’s things. You are a fucking blood sucking parasite, I stated what I would do and then you come play the dumfuck prog shit of, “Bu..Bu…Bu..what if the moon was made of BBQ spare ribs?”

            2. No one has a right to shop at someone else’s business you dumb fuck. The business is private property. What is so hard about that, that your warped little marxist mind can’t comprehend it? You can’t go to the business after it closes and just let yourself in and then say, “I demand this business serves me at 2 in the morning because I’m a dude that likes to suck cock and by golly that makes me special somehow.”

              I see no difference between that and walking in a 2 in the afternoon and saying the same thing. The business is not yours, your line of reasoning involves forcing people to do things against their will, mine involves not forcing people and if someone asks you to leave, that you have respect and do as the owner of the establishment wishes. Your line of thinking is that everyone is a slave to society and people are born only to further the tribe. You call yourself a progressive but all you want is to take us back several thousand years and force the tribe to do your little pet projects.

              You are the enemy of the U.S. that the military should be protecting against. The jihadis can’t do shit but kill a few people every now and again. Your ilk destroys nations.

        2. Fashion is of no positive use, so let’s ban it.

          Dog shows are of no positive use, let’s ban em.

          The olympics are of no positive use, ban em.

          Football has no positive use, ban it.

          Much fine art has no real use or purpose, ban it.

          Mowing the yard has no real purpose, ban it.

        3. Explain how being able to shop at any business your heart desires is more important than freedom of association.

          1. It is freedom of association. You’re talking specifically about the aspect of freedom of association known as excluding people. Fine in many cases. Not fine when you serve the public and want to exclude all black people. If you can’t figure out why, then it seems your head is in your ass rather than a history book.

            1. They don’t serve “the public.” There is no such organism. They serve their customers. It’s the owners’ property, and they have a right to kick people out of it for any reason, regardless of whether their reasons are rational, ethical, appropriate, etc. That’s what property rights are. That is what is implied by freedom of association. That is what you are trying to destroy.

              1. They don’t actually have the right to kick people out for any reason. And that’s good. Better government goons enforce equal access than start dragging minorities out of businesses again. It’s not like there’s a third way.

                1. There’s not a third way of people being peaceful and respecting other people’s property.

                  You basically summed up your little prog fuckwit buddies right there. Violate someone else’s rights and then scream so fucking loud that everyone just appeases you. You all are like children.

                  So your saying that people (especially those on your side) are so dumb and violent and selfish that if a business owner asked you to leave his property, it would take the cops to get you out? Wow, you’re not just people with a dumb as fuck and childish philosophy, you’re actual domestic enemies in my mind.

                  1. If only everyone behaved themselves, there’d be no need for laws! How incredibly enlightening this unicorn shit is.

                    You’ve not only implied that you favor using cops to drag black people from lunch counters as a more appropriate use of government force than requiring nondiscrimination, you’ve outright said you want to use violence against me because of my opinions.

                    Such a libertarian!

                    1. Why do you keep bringing up black people? Black people are not special in any way whatsoever. I would be in favor of charging someone with trespassing if they refused to leave private property, regardless of their color, creed, religion, whatever.

                      Your obsession with black people doesn’t resonate with me because I don’t feel sorry for black people. I don’t have the white guilt that you low life white middle class, suburban do. Maybe I don’t make enough money.

                      I’ve told you before you dumbfuck that I am not a libertarian, so just to remind you, I am not a libertarian.

                      Where did I threaten you with violence for your opinions? I stated that I feel you are a domestic enemy and basically the enemy to any sort of freedom or decency, yes. However, I never said that I would use violence against you.

                      Keep it up proggy piece of shit, keep seeing ghosts and injustices, even where there are none.

                    2. You also didn’t refute the fact that your little team loves this tactic of violating someone’s rights, forcing said person to use force against them and then screaming foul.

                      The fact that you think it is ok to walk into someone’s business and demand service and if they ask you to leave, to then throw such a fit that the only way to calm them down is with force, speaks volumes about your dumbass and all your little proggy lowlife friends.

        4. This isn’t merely about preventing people from acting like bigots. This is about compelling them to do something they genuinely believe to be a SIN. All of these people said they would have no problem serving gay people in general. They just don’t want to provide services for a *wedding*. A wedding is a symbolic act with religious significance. It’s a sacrament of the Catholic church. For people who are really serious about their faith, this can be a big deal. You seem unable to understand the mindset of someone with a deep religious commitment. You can only interpret their actions as bigotry, when it is really something more like refusing to recant a heresy to an inquisitor.

          1. It’s helpful to replace gays in your mind with black people. Since when has religion been a legitimate excuse to discriminate against black people? I’ll tell you: not since the time when things were so bad for black people that antidiscrimination laws actually passed in such a country.

            I’ll try to spell this out again. You are no less for the employment of government force than I. In fact, you are for it more. Because ejecting gays and blacks from private places of business can require and has required armed government goons. Does it not? So tell me more about how I support all that hypothetical government violence.

            1. Tony:
              Please provide recent cites where blacks have been removed from businesses in the country by the govt. you implied this so back it up. Or walk it back.

            2. What sort of force does it take to allow a person to NOT show up at a wedding with cake and flowers?

              Nobody’s asking for cops to come and throwing gay people out of restaurants. They ARE asking for cops to come and shut down someone business because they didn’t show up with the cake on time.

            3. What sort of force does it take to allow a person to NOT show up at a wedding with cake and flowers?

              Nobody’s asking for cops to come and throwing gay people out of restaurants. They ARE asking for cops to come and shut down someone business because they didn’t show up with the cake on time.

              1. That is precisely what you’re asking for. You can’t weasel your way out of the fact that property rights and the right to discriminate might require the use of government force. Like, actual physical force and not just a lawsuit.

                1. Again, what actual physical force is required to let someone NOT show up at a wedding with cake?

                2. Tony
                  If yoi were in my house and you refused to leave after I aksed you, I could get you to leave without calling the police. Quit being a trog (toll – prog).

    4. Tony:
      Obama ordered the murders of hundreds of innocent moms and kids in Pakistan and progs donated hundreds of millions of dollars to his 2012 campaign. Donations in exchange for war crimes.

    5. Bigotry? Tony, your’e soaking in it.

  73. This topic reminds me of one of the myriad of reasons of why I left the military. I decided that nothing about the U.S. or the American people was worth putting up with that shit over. I used to be really naive and believe in people and our country. Then towards the last couple of years I started paying attention to politics and watching the news. What I saw was such insanity, that I concluded that the possibility of death or serious injury was not worth protecting any of this retarded shit.

    For example, I went to HuffPo to see what the “victorious” progs were saying about their latest violent triumph. What I saw was so fucking retarded that it made me want to drown myself.

    One commenter stated, that all he wanted was “equality and he didn’t care if Christians served him with a clenched jaw, but they better damn well serve him”. (Well, I don’t care if the negroes don’t like pickin cotton, but they better damn well get their black asses out there and pick some cotton.)

    Another commenter, stated that she didn’t like paying for the U.S. military death machine but if she has to pay her taxes then religious people should have to serve gays (Ignoring that her little “team” loves that death machine just as much as the dreaded republicans do)

    1. Another commenter at Salon stated that they fully intended to use the power of the state (violence and threat of violence) to push people like the O’Connors into the closet. She specifically cited Eisenhower in this (apparently the left now loves Eisenhower). This commenter failed to recognize that Eisenhower was crushing gov’t discrimination and not private discrimination.

      The fucking hypocrisy and utter stupidity of the progs (and to be fair, the conservatives) is enough to make you wanna suck start a .45. Fuck them all, and I can honestly say that if the Russians or Chinese ever beachhead California or Virginia, I’m gonna say fuck em, just leave me and mine alone.

      1. What harm has come to anyone because of antidiscrimination laws? I can name a few instances of harm that have come from our war machine, which you joined presumably without this level of consternation.

        If we have a problem of discrimination in the private sector, then you can’t very well expect the targeted minority of succeeding as much in capitalism, and thus the entire argument for the virtue of capitalism is undermined.

        And comparing Christians, who are the people doing all the shitting on minorities, to black slaves is obviously ludicrous. If you open your business’s doors to the public, you can neither risk your customers’ safety nor can you act on your bigotry. You are free to continue being bigoted all you want. But actions are things that government has a legitimate interest in.

        1. I was using that as a comparison of forcing someone to do something that they don’t want to do. In case you haven’t noticed, your God has been the cause of most discrimination and violence in all of human history. Now you seek to use your God to do what it does best, violently crush any dissent

        2. So not getting a cake at a wedding will cause gay people to be failures in life?

          1. Yes. They are very emotionally fragile and can’t function without a constant supply of free baked goods. That’s why they love cooking shows.

        3. No the gov’t doesn’t have an interest in actions unless they violate someone’s rights. You don’t have the right to tell someone to do something against their will. You don’t have the right to a business owners time or stuff. Therefore the gov’t has no interest in this whole debacle at all.

          1. You don’t have a right to refuse service to someone because of their race. See, I can assert that certain rights exist too.

            1. Then you believe in forcing people to do things because of some perceived use for such force.

              1. And you believe in forcing people from places of business because they are gay or black.

                Or did you not realize that allowing discrimination means employing government force too?

            2. I’m waiting on your address and my sandwich by the way.

              1. Vikings comes on pretty quick so I guess I’ll have to catch next weeks show at your place.

                You can’t deny me because remember, thu roadz

        4. What harm has come to anyone because of antidiscrimination laws?

          Can you not grok that some people may actually be serious about their faith and may believe that providing services to support a gay marriage is a sinful act?

          Can you not grok that some people may find it difficult, if not impossible, to do something that goes against their beliefs?

          Do you not understand people who are committed to what they believe in?

          1. Uncomfortable feelings stemming from odious beliefs are worth government protection, but the ability to participate in commerce without discrimination is not. Why do you want to use government violence to enforce bigotry?

            1. the ability to participate in commerce without discrimination is not

              Well, there we disagree. I think the right to participate in commerce is a basic human right. One which trumps even the right to marry. What you choose to do for work, is at least as important to leading a fulfilling life as whom one chooses to marry.

            2. This is dishonest analysis and hypocrisy. We want government out of it. The only one who is demanding government violence here is you. You want the government to intervene to violate people’s property rights when they use those rights to live by their peaceful moral code that you find objectionable.

              1. You can’t have property rights without government guns. It is absurd to sit here and accuse me of wanting to employ government goons for my ends and the pretend that expelling gays from businesses at the owner’s request doesn’t theoretically require the same.

                1. NOBODY is saying they want to expell gays from their businesses.

                  They just don’t want to have to GO TO THEIR WEDDINGS and SERVE THEM FOOD. (Or cake or flowers, or take pictures or whatever).

                  There has not been ONE SINGLE CASE of someone saying they wouldn’t serve gays in their restaurant. All of these cases are exlusively about providing services for their *wedding*.

                  it takes zero force to NOT FORCE SOMEONE to show up at a wedding.

            3. So if I want to run a business that only works with gays, or only with lesbians, you would use police power to stop me?

              1. Yeah, antidiscrimination laws are set up to protect people from discrimination based on characteristic such as sexual orientation and race. That means you can’t discriminate against people for being white and straight either.

        5. What harm has come to anyone because of antidiscrimination laws?

          Can you not grok that some people may actually be serious about their faith and may believe that providing services to support a gay marriage is a sinful act?

          Can you not grok that some people may find it difficult, if not impossible, to do something that goes against their beliefs?

          Do you not understand people who are committed to what they believe in?

          1. Businesses are constantly shut down or not started because of these laws.

            Many real estate companies will no longer help you find a rental because they have been sued by testers who claim that the fake clients they sent out on one day were treated differently from the fake clients they sent out on another day because the two fake clients were demographically different.

            People are no longer hired as quickly for jobs because employers know it will be more costly to let them go, as they may sue claiming discrimination.

            Any business that hope to market to a protected class, like 55+ Communities or senior citizen homes for gays may never be started.

      2. Keep your chin up, cfskyrim. Things only look grim. In reality, the country is going through a fairly rapid evolution in cultural beliefs precipitated by the urgency of the financial crisis of 2007-2009 and the events surrounding it (particularly TARP). I have never seen anything like this. This did not happen during the Reagan years. There will be some setbacks along the way, but eventually, libertarians are going to win. Cultural ideas are moving in that direction, and politics will follow. There will always be leftists with their irrational and hate-filled ideas, but they will lose power and influence. In 10 years, this is going to be a totally different place. Hang in there, don’t give up or get discouraged, pursue your own happiness, and keep up the fight for your values. Always remember that it’s your life and no one else’s. Live it well.

  74. “The doctrinaire libertarian position runs in the other direction…”

    No, the ONLY libertarian position runs in the other direction. The state has no business telling people who they can or cannot do business with. If you cannot accept that, you are not a libertarian by any reasonable definition. Indeed you are fairly profoundly statist. The *only* ‘discrimination’ laws should be the ones preventing the STATE from discriminating between citizens, not private people.

    1. Why is discrimination in business something government should endorse? What interest or social end is served?

      1. Tony:
        What if discrimination could be taxed?

      2. How is not arresting people for doing something an “endorsement” ?

        1. But you want people to be arrested who walk into a place of business and refuse to leave because the owner tells them he doesn’t like their race or sexual orientation. You don’t get to bitch about government force–your position requires more of it than mine.

          1. Nobody is claiming they want to kick gay people out of their restaurants.
            They just don’t want to provide specific wedding-related services.

            Zero force is required to let them not show up at a wedding with cake.

            1. I think it’s pretty clear that the prominent libertarian position is that business owners get to kick people out for any reason they want. Meaning they get to employ government agents to forcibly extract people, even on the basis of their race or sexual orientation. If that’s what you support, just say so. If you only support the more nuanced position that antidiscrimination laws are OK except in the case of catering, that’s cool, but weird.

              1. We’re talking about RFRA, which means that people only get to discriminate if they have a religious objection to doing so.

                Nobody is saying that they have a religious objection to serving gay people in restaurants, and it would not likely stand up in court even if they claimed to have one. The religious objection is against providing services for same sex marriages, because marriages are religious ceremonies.

                1. That’s what you’re talking about; everyone else is implying that they favor using taxpayer-funded government muscle to expel gays from businesses.

                  However I’m not sure there’s a terribly meaningful distinction between a business that serves you at a counter and one that serves you on location.

      3. How can government endorse anything after we kill it and exile or imprison all its flaks and minions, including you?

        1. Yes let’s put you people in charge.

      4. If it does not, then why do you progs constantly do it? You people are the greatest bigots in Bigotville.

  75. In regard to religion, God is my copilot. And that copilot is not my copilot.

  76. fuck you and your editors for even using the term “hardcore” when referring to libertarians.

    or should i call you a “hardcore” jew shill?

    -FFM

  77. Anti-discrimination laws are anti-free market. Discrimination is essential to a free market.

  78. “These people are not being asked to engage in gay sex or even endorse gay sex. They’re being asked to sell flowers and cake to people…”

    No, they are not being “asked,” Mr. Jillette. They are being ordered and threatened. If they refuse to do a business transaction which is otherwise voluntary, the government will sue them, confiscate thousands of dollars from their bank account, put liens on their property, and potentially put them in jail. To say they are being “asked” is an appalling misrepresentation of reality – a whitewashing of the first order. This is slavery. You are advocating slavery.

    1. I don’t get why is this so difficult for people to understand.

      Only our government cannot discriminate. But individuals? Of course!

      If a cop pulls a gay man over for speeding and then proceeds to beat the shit out of him, calling him a fucking faggot, then that man has every law in the country behind him that will back him up in a suit against the cop, the department, and even the State. If a student is denied government funds to go to school simply because he or she is black, the government has illegally discriminated (not that I believe the government should fund education).

      However, if a gay man walks into a shoe store and the clerk says, sorry, buddy, we don’t serve your kind here, the clerk and the store have done nothing wrong. We cannot legislate against hurt feelings or people being assholes.

      There are no separate protected classes in America. We’re all protected, each and every one of us, under the Constitution. As soon as you separate yourself out as the LGBT lobby or the Christians against Gays lobby, or African Americans Against Apartment Discrimination Lobby, you are no longer a set of individuals, but a bunch of thugs advocating mob rule.

      1. However, if a gay man walks into a shoe store and the clerk says, sorry, buddy, we don’t serve your kind here, the clerk and the store have done nothing wrong.

        What if the gay man refuses to leave? Do you not have cops using force against him then, explicitly enforcing discrimination?

        1. Yes, because the man refuses to leave private property, and that’s a crime, not a discrimination. Same thing if a Bible-thumper walks up to my front door, knocks on it, proceeds to preach the gospel to me, I ask them to leave, they refuse, and so I call the cops. I’m not discriminating against someone because they’re religious, and neither are the cops who escort them from my property. They’re escorting them off because they have TRESPASSED.

          1. Fine, just don’t say you’re against using government force to compel certain social ends.

            1. Of course I’m against using government force to compel certain social issues. I’m against anyone using force in that instance, because social justice is nebulous. It cannot be defined.

              The only thing that can be defined are your rights to your body and your property. In which case, the government using force against trespassing, murder, rape, arson, armed robbery, etc., is the government doing its job, i.e., protecting our civil rights. Using force against someone who doesn’t hire you because they don’t like the color of your shoes is not the same thing.

              1. It’s the same thing to the guy getting the business end of a nightstick. You are for using government force to compel certain social ends, like the prevention of trespassing. Others are for using it to compel nondiscrimination. No difference except the particulars of the policy. You don’t get a gold freedom star.

                1. Nope. Sorry. Prevention of trespassing is not a social end.

                  Under your way of thinking, then, it’s either all force, all the time, for any means deemed justified by the mob (which is tyranny) or no force, none of the time, regardless of justification (which is anarchy).

                  So YOU don’t get a gold justice star.

                  1. Prevention of trespassing is not a social end.

                    Then what is it? “It’s protection of individual rights, Tony.” Oh, so protecting individual rights is the social end. And what counts as a right? “Whatever I say, duh.”

                    Is libertarianism the political expression of the inability to see beyond black and white? It’s not all force or all anarchy. It’s the million ways modern civilization manifests. Sometimes force is required, yes, especially when you’re preventing or rectifying trespassing and the other things you don’t like.

                    1. For crying out loud, READ what I write, will you?

                      I said “Under your way of thinking.” Which means, the two scenarios you have so far presented me with are a society in which either all force or no force rules the day. But what I’M saying is: some force, in limited amounts, is necessary to protect individual rights. NOT social rights.

                      And, no, trespassing is not a social end/right. A social right is as follows: the right to an education, the right to food, the right to housing, the right to whatever the hell someone thinks they need to make them happy. Usually provided at the expense of someone else. But social rights are not rights, they are things we all have to earn, or convince someone else to voluntarily supply. But they are not granted automatically under the law. However, my right not to have someone trespass on my property?or kill me or rape me or steal from me?IS a right protected under the law.

      2. Please note that nobody is actually saying they want to be able to kick gay people out of shoe stores. The controvery is over whether various wedding-related businesses must provide services for same sex-sex marriages. Since a marriage is a religious ceremony (and a shoe store isn’t), the context is different.

        Yes, people should have the right to freedom of association. But that was already gone in the 60s. The context here is religious freedom – can someone be compelled to do things that go against their faith as a condition of participating in commerce.

        1. Sure, the context is different. I get that. But why are we keeping that context so narrow? Why not take a look at what the laws of the 1960s have done, and discuss the implications? Otherwise we’re all going to eventually become deaf mutes, cuz Thought Crime.

  79. my girlfriend just got Volkswagen Jetta by working parttime from a macbook air. official website??? http://snipr.com/29thnh

  80. Couldnt make it to penns comments, the Derp was too much…..
    I’ve had enough of these disingenuous assertions….
    Screw you guys, Immmm going to Somalia

  81. Penn Jillette… HARDCORE Libertarian…. until it comes to religious freedoms or right to associate of disassociate with people.

    Gay sex (homosexuality) and a gay wedding (a union between same sex couples) are two different things. Straight sex and a traditional wedding are two different things. Group sex and Polygamy are two different things. One is a physical act that has individual consequences for the most part and the other has repercussions on society as a whole. The first involves consenting adults… the other involves a consenting society. The first is a a union of sexual organs… the second involves families, communities, etc. Don’t be obtuse on the matter. For religious people of conscience, the first is a violation to chastity outside of wedlock and involves only the people in the sexual act… the second is a sinful aberration of the Family unit and includes ALL who recognize it in the sin itself. For people of Conscience… people who participate in the “wedding” is an acknowledgement and acceptance of this aberration in the face of God. So, in short, there is a HUGE difference between serving Gay people pizza AND catering a Gay wedding.

    1. That kind of analysis will get you nowhere with Penny Dreadful. It’s logical. It involves no sleight-of-hand. And worst of all, it hits Penny Dreadful right between the legs.

    2. thanks – glad someone else gets it.

  82. Why Penn?! Why?! Your so good on almost everything else and then you go and shoot yourself in the foot. The core principle of libertarianism is freedom of association, without that principle libertarianism wouldn’t exist, I see too many libertarians making excuses “But, but the 1964 Civil Rights Act.” Yeah sorry to say, that Act violated a fundamental and principle natural law and right, I understand why it was passed at the time, government enforced, segregated Jim Crow wouldn’t loosen their grip so something else was settled on as a federal remedy. But as usual that federal remedy went too far, instead of just saying “No more government enforced segregation” they made people associate with other people whom they might not want to associate with. Should a racist have right to not serve black/white/brown people in their establishment? Yes, its racist and disgusting but its his/her right to do so just like its my right to boycott them, picket them and call them out, however I have no right shut them down with the long arm of the law, and least that is the way its supposed to work.

  83. If a business doesn’t want your business there are businesses who will take it. Go do business with them.

  84. The only reason so many Under-30’s are okay with queers is because gun-toting goons in bulletproof vests intimidated them into attending the sessions of government-run indoctrination centers.

  85. I have to disagree with the man I much admire. When a baker bakes a cake with a specific message on it, such as something akin to congratulations to Adam and Steven on their wedding day, then that is an endorsement of gay marriage and thus an endorsement of gay sex. The same with forcing a photographer to photograph a gay wedding. A photographer could say no to not photographing sex scenes, which they would find morally objectionable, then why if a photographer (if he/she wants to be a “bigot”), finds gay weddings morally objectionable, can’t they deny photographing the event? Yet a photographer has been sanctioned in New Mexico for declining to photograph what she thought was an event that was morally objectionable. On another note, even if the IN bill allowed small businesses not to serve gays generic services and goods, well, couldn’t one say that the true name of the bill is the “help gays not give money to bigots” bill?

  86. I have to disagree with the man I much admire. When a baker bakes a cake with a specific message on it, such as something akin to congratulations to Adam and Steven on their wedding day, then that is an endorsement of gay marriage and thus an endorsement of gay sex. The same with forcing a photographer to photograph a gay wedding. A photographer could say no to not photographing sex scenes, which they would find morally objectionable, then why if a photographer (if he/she wants to be a “bigot”), finds gay weddings morally objectionable, can’t they deny photographing the event? Yet a photographer has been sanctioned in New Mexico for declining to photograph what she thought was an event that was morally objectionable. On another note, even if the IN bill allowed small businesses not to serve gays generic services and goods, well, couldn’t one say that the true name of the bill is the “help gays not give money to bigots” bill?

  87. Penn Jillette on anti-discrimination law:

    “We are not talking about forcing people to engage in gay sex or even endorse gay sex. We’re asking that maybe they can treat people the same as other people and that does not seem unreasonable.”

    Apparently it doesn’t *seem* unreasonable to Penn because he just characterized *forcing* people to do as he thinks best as *asking* them to do so….

    1. amazing lack of ability to differentiate between free choice or coercion, and why freedom is always the right answer. Lost a lot of respect for Penn over this one.

  88. hard to believe libertarians can get worse than Nickie G, but then Penn opens his mouth

  89. I don’t disagree with Jillette, though I think it’s an important point that it’s the same sex weddings that are being discriminated against and not homosexuals.

  90. So will a Jewish baker have to bake a cake with Nazi symbols and quotes? A Muslim with Allah jokes? This is all stupid, should just take your business elsewhere.

    1. No, but I think it would be cool to require gay sex on the alter in church. Sort of as a cool practical joke and it’s not like it’s w/o presidence in the church.

  91. Wikipedia nails it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A…..ng_Freedom

    Freedom? Freedom to discriminate.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.