Gay Marriage

Making People Who Hate You Serve You Is a Really Bad Idea

Enjoy that slice of victory cake. It tastes like...What the hell is that?


Pope of Greenwich Village

I hoped the culture-war silliness might have ended by this week, but this morning the headlines contain the tale of a pediatrician unwilling to treat the child of a lesbian couple, and yet another successful fundraiser for a business (this one a florist) facing official sanctions after refusing to sell wedding flowers to same-sex customers. So lets talk about why it's a bad idea to force people who don't like you to do business with you.

One of my favorite movie scenes is from The Pope of Greenwich Village. A New York City traffic cop turns a neighborhood against him by towing every car in sight and shaking down a local bar for free drinks. 

What are they going to do about it, right?

What they're going to do is slip horse laxative into his drink at the bar—and then lock the door behind him when he goes outside to get back to work. Hilarity ensues in the street.

I doctored a few drinks myself in my ill-spent youth—just spit in 'em—when I tended bar and people pissed me off. But maybe I'm mean. I've been told that I am, and I don't doubt it. But I'm willing to guess that a fair sampling of overt bigots are meaner than I am, when push comes to shove.

The thing is, freedom of association—and disassociation—aren't just abstract individual rights dreamed up as intellectual games. They're practical knife fight-preventatives. If people can't play nice, you want to keep them separated. If they're willing to separate themselves, so much the better. Shaming people who refuse to associate with others for contemptible reasons is a perfectly legitimate response. But forcing them into proximity may not produce ideal results.

Even if people aren't overtly malicious when forced to serve people they don't like, just how enthusiastic is their work going to be? Do you really want somebody who hates you to photograph your special occasion? Or care for your child? Or serve you food of any sort at any place or time? There's a good chance you're just not going to get best efforts.

Sure that's unprofessional. And?

So we'll see how the culture wars shake out. My guess is that tolerance is growing and bigotry receding, despite the best efforts of poor winners to make the dwindling holdouts feel like martyrs to their lousy cause.

But forcing people to do business with you? Putting yourself at the mercy of people who hate you? That's always a risky idea.

Don't believe me? Fine. Enjoy that slice of victory cake. It tastes like…What the hell is that?

NEXT: Is Rand Paul Becoming Less "Libertarian-ish?" Seems So, But He's Still the Most Interesting GOP Candidate for President. By a Long Shot.

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I have the freedom to disassociate… every particle in your body with mighty blows!

  2. Are you kidding? The best way to know you gained cultural acceptance is when you can force someone to agree with you at the point of a state agent’s gun.

    1. If it was just about service, of course they’d just go to a business happy to have their business.

      Who but a sadistic dominant would want to force someone who finds their marriage an abomination to be involved in their marriage ceremony?

      It’s obviously not about service, it’s about power – forcing you to comply. That’s how Progressive Theocrats get their rocks off – forcing you to bend over.

      “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

    2. Seems to have worked for Christian churches just fine. Without government forcing Christianity on citizens since the time of the Romans, it wouldn’t have gone anywhere.

      And, of course, Christianity still forces itself on people that way because I don’t see churches clamoring for a repeal of anti-discrimination laws based on religious preference.

  3. They’re practical knife fight-preventatives. If people can’t play nice, you want to keep them separated.

    This is one of the practical reasons why I support battle arenas. I mean seriously, dueling used to be a legal way of resolving conflicts when all else fails.

    1. I suppose I don’t have a problem with dueling between consenting adults.

      But I don’t think it is really something that would improve anything if it became a more common practice again. The outcome of a duel is kind of arbitrary and has nothing to do with who is in the right.

      If there is any good purpose to government, it is exactly to avoid having people settling disputes by killing each other in the streets.

      1. I think mutual combat, for whatever reason whatsoever, is perfectly acceptable.

        1. Sure. Not my business. I just think it is almost always stupid.

          1. Sure. Not my business. I just think it is almost always stupid.

            I agreed with your precepts in the past until I realized that the Israeli policy of ‘mowing the grass’ applies to more than just terrorism. Sometimes stupid will beat itself to death, and sometimes you’ve gotta give it a kick or two when it asks for it, but avoiding it altogether does nothing to prevent it.

            I see a cage match for the fate of Apple’s market share in IN as being just as intelligent and significantly more entertaining than a unilateral edict from Tim Cook.

        2. It would keep certain idiots’ mouths from writing checks their ass can’t cash.

    2. dueling used to be a legal way of resolving conflicts when all else fails.

      Yes, but who are the better shots nowadays?

      1. I’m betting gun owners, you know, not the Left.

  4. If people can’t play nice, you want to keep them separated.

    But wouldn’t it be better to think that these people can play nice, if you just force them to? If one side can’t play nice, simply punish them in some way.

    Just imagine everyone plays nice together. It’s easy if you try.

    1. You know who else wanted to keep them separated?

      1. Offspring?

        1. That was worth one last perusal of this thread.

        2. Ha ha ha! That is the first track on my morning run music list.

        3. HEY! You won’t bake a cake for me? Shut them down! (gotta keep ’em separated!)…

      2. Sauciers?

      3. Centrifuges?

      4. Obi-Wan Kenobi?

      5. Dr. Egon Spengler?

        1. Heh

        2. *chuckles sensibly*

      6. Starfleet engineers?

    2. No, it damn well ISN’T easy, if you have the imagination of a grub. Which just shows that the folls who babble “can’t we all just get along” have mush for brains.

      And, yes, I did recognize the sarcasm, but too many idiots MEAN that twaddle.

  5. So Tuccille unapologetically admits a history of using violence to punish people that were annoying him, but is aghast that other people want to do the same thing.

    1. Stormy, if one refers to events in one’s ill spent youth, they are admitting apologetically.

      You might want to try again without the mendacity.

      1. Stormy without the mendacity would be the sound of no hands clapping

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

      1. Well that’s an understatement.

        1. He wants to be a contrarian troll but he hasn’t worked up the nerve to go full Tulpa yet. I wish he would shit or get off the pot.

          1. I vote for get off the pot. I don’t think we can support any more pissy-trolls.

          2. You never go full Tulpa…

      2. You’ve never heard of the Theory of Dark? Try these (One, Two).

        He’s obviously a Dark Battery.

    3. Tuccille said his youth was ‘ill-spent’ thus implying this was not behavior that anyone ought to emulate, and argues that his bad behavior is a good reason why people shouldn’t force their enemies to serve them.

      I also question a definition of ‘violence’ which includes spitting in someone’s drink. It’s bad behavior which you shouldn’t engage in, but it’s hardly violent.

      1. Ok. Irish and Tarran, sorry. You’re not on filter, I just felt it need saying three times.

    4. Oh Jesus Christ, Stormy. Take the pole out. He admits he was a dick for doing what he did when he was young and foolish.

      We all did things that were shitty in our youth. From spitting in a drink to knocking the mailbox of the first man on the moon off its post. We’re all entitled to forgiveness.

      1. We’re all entitled to forgiveness.

        YOU aren’t.

      2. I keep trying to tell you Lance Armstrong was a cyclist not an astronaut.

        1. Poor Lance. I genuinely feel sorry for him.

      3. Stormy’s point isn’t about the spitting, its about using violence against religious ppl. She wants it justified.

        Notice how its not violence/fraud she is critiquing, rather hypocrisy. Her point is that forced association should be accepted because the alternative is hypocritical for the author.

        1. If we did it that way, we could justify any behavior that someone was hypocritical about.

          The whole point of principles is so that you have a standard against which your behavior is judged. He wasn’t justifying his bad behavior (in fact, he was criticizing it), which shows self-awareness and growth. These principles should be encouraged, rather than used as excuses for whatever you feel like.

          Like justifying violent behavior against people who are mean to you.

    5. No, he isn’t aghast. He EXPECTS it, and thinks that making policy that DOESN’T expect it is rife with possibilities, all of them bad.

    6. No, see, if you add all those trees together, that’s a forest. Get it? A forest. Not a tree over and over again.

  6. Does my asserting a right of free association imply I hate anybody?

    1. Doesn’t posting here imply that you hate everybody?

      1. Some things are just implied by their very existence.

      2. I don’t discriminate; I hate everyone? A bit like labeling a murder an extra-special murder because it was a “hate crime”….. Orwell at his best.

    2. No. I think the word “hate” gets thrown around a little too freely.

      But you know what he means.

  7. Do you really want somebody who hates you to photograph your special occasion? Or care for your child? Or serve you food of any sort at any place or time? There’s a good chance you’re just not going to get best efforts.

    Just wait. Soon it will not be enough to force people to do business but they will also be liable if the product which has been coerced is deemed sub-par.

    “They discriminated against me because I am (fill in random victim group). Just look how someone in that portrait almost has their eyes closed!”

    1. Just wait. Soon it will not be enough to force people to do business but they will also be liable if the product which has been coerced is deemed sub-par.

      That’s already the case. You provide a custom service for someone and they refuse to pay because of ‘bad’ quality (which is entirely subjective for custom services). So you sue for payment.
      7 times out of 10 you are going to lose that case. Been there, done that enough that you I’ve become attuned to difficult clients and jack the prices up for them to the point that they go elsewhere.

      So yes, it won’t surprise in the least when the next phase of this is people refusing to pay for services that they forced someone else to perform.

      1. Which is why these supposed cultural fixes end up harming the least privileged. Title IX was great for the educated, bright, and proficient within a given minority group, and likely helped more than a few mediocre talents secure better positions than they’d earn on their own. But it ultimately harms those on the bottom rungs who lack the financial wherewithal or connections to turn the screws on potential or current employers, who nonetheless view them in turn as potential sources of civil rights suits.

    2. Well, it’s not really a random victim group. There’s a method to the madness; we just haven’t identified it yet. But don’t worry, I’m working on it — using my supercomputer to crunch through hundreds of thousands of SJW reports with the aim of developing a definitive hierarchy of victimhood. (For example, if a black gay man refuses service to a handicapped rape victim who hates gays, is that noble or discriminatory?)

      1. Was it gay rape, cis rape, gay rape rape, or cis rape rape?

        1. Or rapity-rape-rape? (RIP Patrice O’Neil)

      2. See, you’ve got it all wrong. Victim classes cannot discriminate against each other or anyone else in the eyes of a prog. Why? Because victim classes are not full people to them. Only straight white men are full people to them, and are therefore held to their standards.

    3. Yep. It’ll be a penalty-enhancer. They delivered sub-par goods/services, so I am entitled to damages.

      And they did it because they are haters, so I get treble damages and attorneys’ fees.

    4. “Soon it will not be enough to force people to do business but they will also be liable if the product which has been coerced is deemed sub-par.”

      Doesn’t anyone in a protected (i.e. privileged) class already have a presumptive case for discrimination whenever they’re unhappy with anything?

      It’s racism/sexism/whateverism!

    5. You mean as in: “They discriminated against me because I am a Catholic/Jew. Doesn’t look so silly anymore, does it? I don’t see Catholics or Jews wilingly giving up their protections under the CRA. Historically, these groups have persecuted homosexuals, so why shouldn’t their victims get at least the same legal protection as they do?

  8. If it was legal for businesses to proclaim their bigotry, customers could vote with their dollars.

    1. Well said.

  9. Just because someone doesn’t want to serve you, doesn’t mean they hate you. But forcing them is a good way to ensure they do.

    1. I think you just hit on the plan. Force people to hate you, then use your new shiny victim status to get all self-righteous and have something to talk about at parties.

  10. The problem is you’re imagining a scenario where said gay couple has many different cake options. What if they live somewhere with only one baker? Or there is only one baker that has what ever the want?

    Actual quote from somebody to whom I asked this question. So I guess the answer is “because’?

    1. Stop crying and bake your own fucking cake, then. Goddam.

      1. My father in law is gay. I guarantee you almost any of his friends could bake a goddamned cake and it’d be fabulous.

        The father in law actually baked the wedding cake for my wife and I. It was absolutely delicious too.

        When the father in law got married to his partner, their friends did EVERYTHING in the wedding. Catering, flowers, cake, decorations, the whole shebang.

        The point is, these people who want a christian cake baker are just trying to stir up trouble because they are assholes.

        1. ” just trying to stir up trouble because they are assholes.”

          They’re asserting their dominance BFYTW.

        2. For both my wedding and later my daughter’s wedding, cakes and photography were provided by family friends who did those things out of their house as a side job, and family catered the food. I made a 20 lb turkey and three 10 lb hams for my daughter’s wedding.

          1. You ahould have had the state mandate that an Islamist caterer bake the hams.

    2. Clearly the solution is to sue that cake baker out of business so that then the town has no cake bakers.

      Problem solved.

      1. Way back, I was being a lobbyist in a meeting where the deaf activists were pushing for a requirement that all pay phones (I said it was way back) had to have that TDD thing. We pointed out that this would probably mean no real increase in TDD phones, because they are expensive, but a dramatic decrease in non-TDD phones.

        IOW, they were pushing for something that wouldn’t help deaf people, but would hurt everyone else.

        Their response:


        Identity group politics is only incidentally about helping your group. Its always been mostly about punishing the other guy.

        1. Deaf AND dumb, eh?

          1. Ouch.

          2. [claps silently]

        2. Shoot, the Deaf Culture fuckers are sometimes all about punishing themselves too.

          More harmful still, Deaf activists have railed against cochlear implants, which enable many deaf children to gain functional hearing; some deaf parents have denied implants to their children on ideological grounds. The activists also oppose research into cures for deafness through gene therapy and other means.


        3. Yup. This is the group of people who consider cochlear implants to be “cultural genocide.”

    3. Actual quote from somebody to whom I asked this question.

      Look Andrew, government is like physics, see. The laws are just there and they exist, there is no arguing with them. Sure, you may take 10 lbs. of feathers and a 10 lb. bowling ball, drop them side by side, and see that the bowling ball hits the ground and the feathers flutter off in the breeze. But that just proves that you are an anti-science bigot and in the vacuum of space, where you can be judged impartially and where no ones feelings get hurt, a 10 lb. bowling ball weighs as much as 10 lbs. of feathers.

      1. I thought that was Agile Cyborg for a second, but not enough dolphins.

        1. Look, ASM, the problem is you’re imagining reality. Libertarianism as a singular philosophy has never been able to deal well with anyone and everyone’s arbitrary imagination of reality.

          Only by imagining a set of rules concocted entirely in the abstract and theoretical conditions that you’ll likely never encounter can you begin to understand the nature of truth and apply that truth to the reality around you.

      2. You needed to ask him if the 10 lbs of shit he was peddling would keep up with the bowling ball if it fell out of his hands.

    4. Answer:

      Yes because there are SOOOO many places in the US where there is only 1 baker AND that baker is extremely religious AND has at least 2 gays who actually want to get married.

      Hell, the far more likely scenario is that those 2 Brokeback Mountain cowboys don’t have ANY bakers within 50 miles of their home than just 1

    5. That’s just pathetic. They see this as the same as Jim Crow or something. There was a time when in many places a mixed race couple couldn’t find a place to stay for the night. Often by law.

      Now, I think that without a segregation law, a business owner should be free to be a racist dick if he wants to and refuse to do business with people. But at least in that case there was an actual problem. I can see why people might think a law would be necessary, even if I disagree. But here people seem to be trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. If you are going to force people to do things, there should at least be a legitimate problem that needs to be solved.

      1. Yeah, but always disregarded is that the problem stemmed partially or almost wholly because of segregation laws in the first place.

        Government has never tried free association. Why? Because the nature of government is to control people. It doesn’t really care what people do, just that they do what it says.

      2. Right, that’s the reason for requiring strict scrutiny. But the SJW folks think hurting someone’s feelings is more than enough

    6. I’ve seen this addressed by a couple conservative-leaning bloggers now. In essence it gets to the legitimacy of striking down Jim Crow laws as impediments on a minority to integrate with his community (and conversely, it illustrates how dumb it is to make the Jim Crow comparison with contemporary gays). If a single baker or consortium of bakers really did preclude the opportunity by a gay couple to celebrate their nuptials as they see fit, the comparison might be warranted. Even still it doesn’t remotely justify calling them to account legally for their philosophical disposition. Having many options besides the bigot is a solid practical argument against upending the right of association, but it isn’t the core of it.

      1. Yeah, like I always thought that gays were supposed to be good at cooking and baking anyway (bullshit! Don’t even pretend you weren’t thinking it)

        1. You must be old. That was back when the lack of a wife was seen as an impediment to a man. Now they’re supposed to be good at fashion and witty comebacks.

    7. Here’s your answer:

      Bakers aren’t responsible for ensuring that all the cake needs of a certain radius are covered such that there is no place in the United States where a person of any sort cannot have their cake needs met in the fashion they so desire. Bakers are businesspeople. In the highly unlikely event that two gay people are living somewhere where there is only one bakery within thirty miles, I’m willing to bet that the bakery will take anyone who comes in the door, because they live in the deep boondocks and there are maybe twenty people within 100 miles. And if that’s not the case, then, sorry, there’s not enough demand for pro-gay-marriage cake bakeries.

      I love barbecue. If the only barbecue joint near me is run by a Muslim, but I want him to cater my wedding with pulled pork, do I get to force him out of business?

      1. Until someone actually tests this in a jurisdiction where there was a “gay cake” ruling against the business owner I think the answer is unclear.

  11. I utterly disagree with this rationale every bit as much as a rTionale a freshman student once used as to why gay couples shouldn’t be able to adopt: because the kids of gay couples gay might get beat up in school for it.

    Freedom of association doesn’t need any overt justification, and nor would any self respecting human being feel okay with saying “sure Joe got stabbed at the pizza parlor, but he was gay, and Ed doesn’t like gays.”

    1. Agreed

    2. I don’t really read it as a rationale for anything. More an observation of how odd the things people are demanding are.

  12. Coming soon. Priest refusing to marry gays have state refuse to recognize other marraiges they perform and their churches lose tax exempt status and are labeled hate groups. Yeah, I know, I’m crazy. We’ll see.

    1. After all, it’s not like anyone is being forced to have gay sex…

      Well, unless you transgress the laws in a manner that lands you in prison; but even then it’s only a maybe and those aren’t agents of the state…

      Well, they’re housed, clothed, fed and frequently employed by the state at well below minimum wage, but their raping you is purely coincidental and neither prisons, felony rapists, or gay rights is part of some larger agenda or cause.

      You’d be an idiot to point out that people involved in the gay rights movement have an agenda or that prison changes a man.

      1. it’s not like anyone is being forced to have gay sex…

        Depends on the church,

        1. Depends on the church,

          No. Agenda.

          That would be crazy.

        2. +1 altar boy

          Or is that an altered boy?

          1. Jesus has risen. And so has the smallest memeber of creepy priest’s congregation.

    2. Coming soon. Priest refusing to marry gays have state refuse to recognize other marraiges they perform

      I’m ok with any step that gets the government out of the business of recognizing marriage and into the business of recognizing civil unions between any combination of consenting adults.

      and their churches lose tax exempt status and are labeled hate groups.

      I can’t see this ever happening, but we’re already on a slippery slope.

      1. Why is the government involved in marriage at all? Religious? Civil?

        The “equality” so many seek starts with government and law treating us all as equal individuals. Not as equals and “couples” or other combinations of flesh and blood.

        I have been stanchly against legalizing gay marriage. But NOT because I see anything wrong with gay coupling. But because the government shouldn’t be sanctioning, regulating or controlling what is actually a religious institution in the first place. This is born out bye the very contention that many made in supporting government recognition of gay marriage: They wanted the same “rights” that married couples already were endowed with.

        That to me says there is something wrong with government involvement in marriage in the first place. Where does government get off conveying special privileges to married couples in the first place? How is a married couple any different than any other “couple”?

        Treat us each as individuals.

        We could go a long way towards fixing income tax laws by eliminating “filing status” to start with. You have taxable income, you file. Your status is “filer”.

        Forget about life choices like spouses, children and other dependents. The government has no interest in those.

        1. “Why is the government involved in marriage at all? Religious? Civil?”

          This is just my theory, without doing any research on the subject. It was too easy for the husband to ditch the wife (and maybe kids), leaving her/them in bad straits after several years of marriage. The government had to get involved to stabilize marriage. This was formerly done by culture and peer pressure when the local society was much smaller and it was easier for locals to know each other and essentially police each other. Now you can flee your responsibilities more easily. So basically, it’s technology making movement easier, cheaper, and quicker. Like I said, it’s just a theory and I reserve the right to modify it any time and by any degree. I’m sure there are many exceptions and other factors to point.

  13. Note to picky restaurant goers who send back their food: Line cooks don’t hesitate to employ spit as a seasoning.

    1. In all my years of working in restaurants, I only saw that happen once. And the guy lost his job.

      1. Well, you don’t do it when someone can see you.

        Another one is: Your ordered a medium steak but are sending it back because it’s pink inside, which is medium but you’re stupid and don’t realize that? Sure, I’ll cook it some more, but oops, it dropped on the floor first. Oh well, the grill will burn that dirt right off.

        1. I don’t know where you’ve worked, but apparently neither the management nor the owners have any pride in their product or staff.

        2. You sound like a petty asshole.

          1. That seems like the point; in the real world, it is often petty assholes preparing your goods and services. It is wise to consider this when picking your battles.

    2. “…she broke the cardinal rule: Don’t fuck with people who handle your food.”

    3. I was a line cook for years in and after high school and never did that. I wanted to give the customer what they wanted even if they didn’t really know what that was themselves. If the manager says recook it. I’m recooking it. Comes out of their food cost numbers

      1. Yeah, I suspect this would be more common among waitstaff than kitchen staff.

        The guys in the kitchen don’t have to deal with and act subservient to the asshole customers, the guys in the front of house do.

        1. Who said anything about being subservient? When I was a waiter I was never subservient. I controlled the entire situation. Otherwise you get tied to a table if the customer controls the conversation. And I consistently had the highest sales and tips anyplace I worked. I even beat out the perky blond girls for tip percentages.

          1. Dinner came with a happy ending, huh?

            1. I probably laughed a little more at this than I should have.

            2. “My name is Ted and I will be servicing you tonight.”

    4. I have sent something back exactly once, and that was undercooked chicken. I figured spit, if he even bothered, would be safer than nearly raw chicken.

  14. a pediatrician unwilling to treat the child of a lesbian couple

    Isn’t that the kind of thing you can lose a medical license over? Honestly don’t know, but I would have sort of assumed so.

    1. If it is not a medical emergency, I think they have the right to refuse, but I’m not certain. I definitely know Docs who refuse to see problem patients without any repercussions.

    2. Isn’t that the kind of thing you can lose a medical license over?

      I could see it being against a hospital or care networks’ police but, at a private practice?

      I could hardly see how it’s anyone else’s buine… nevermind.

    3. Is this the pediatrician?…..a-patient/

      If so, then the couple was provided a pediatrician in the same practice. And why in the hell would they want to force a doctor to care for their newborn that felt she couldn’t provide her best service. The doctor made sure they had a doctor that was willing to treat them. Forcing someone at the point of gun to be your doctor sounds like slavery to me.

    4. What about the pediatricians who are refusing to see kids who aren’t vaccinated?…..heir-kids/

      Can they be forced to admit unvaccinated kids?

      1. Religious objections? Not allowed.

        Statist objections? Go right ahead.

  15. Also, would you take your child to a pediatrician that refuse to treat any child for any reason? What a dick.

  16. The thing is, freedom of association?and disassociation?aren’t just abstract individual rights dreamed up as intellectual games. They’re practical knife fight-preventatives. If people can’t play nice, you want to keep them separated. If they’re willing to separate themselves, so much the better.

    That’s the major point that a lot of people don’t seem to get. The reason why respecting people’s rights makes for a more prosperous and happier society is precisely because it minimizes the amount of conflict in a society.

  17. Business owners who refuse to serve gay weddings should be forced to man the video camera on the wedding night.

    1. Shoot. I’d volunteer to not serve some lesbian weddings.

      1. The adult film industry may be giving you the wrong impression of lesbian couples.

        1. I actually know a cute lesbian couple.

          Of course the hints of domestic violence makes me want to stay far away. Far, far away.

        2. I’d help Scarecrow start a pro-choice movement.

          I mean if you aren’t free to choose which lesbians’ weddings you will film and which lesbians’ wedding nights you will be forced to film, then what’s the Constitution/BoR good for then?

        3. *Some*, I said *some*.

          1. *Some*, I said *some*.

            Tsk, tsk you… man.

            This is about a self-ownership, freedom of choice, and a right to privacy. If you aren’t free to choose when and where your personhood will be filming private lesbian nuptial moments, women everywhere could be forced to perform lesbian porn as part of the oppression of the patriarchy.

            Only by voluntarily filming women who mutually consent to be filmed, and whom you consent to film, can you sexually liberate women at large from the patriarchy.

            1. Go on…

            2. Your newsletter, where can it be found?

              1. And is it illustrated?

  18. We need a Night of Long Knives, wedding-style. I don’t know how many Saturdays/weekends of mine were ruined cuz Fat Bride married Loser Husband.

    I can’t stand wedding fetishists.

    1. Agreed. If would could somehow make it socially acceptable for men to be replaced by life sized card board cut outs of themselves, everyone would be happier.

      Guys could spend their summer weekends wearing comfortable clothes and getting drunk with people they like.

      Women could go watch weddings while at the same time being able to signal to other women that they already have a husband or a serious boyfriend.

      Everyone wins. I’d also posit that cardboard husbands/boyfriends would be an improvement on the real thing. No whining, no complaining and no making asses out of themselves.

      1. ^^^^^ This! This!

        What a wonderful idea.

        Take it from an old fart, I’ve wasted a lot more of my life going to weddings I had no interest in or connection with, than I care to count. My wife loves weddings.

        And, long ago I decided that the perfect test of marital compatibility was, which is more important, the couple getting married or, the wedding?

        These days, the later seems to be winning ten to one. Sheesh!!

  19. In the cop’s defense, was he not doing the bar a favor by having Eric Roberts’ car towed Wouldn’t he be doing the moviegoing world a favor if he towed Eric Roberts’ car off the planet in the 70’s?

    Movie fans: if you had a time machine and could either go back and kill Hitler in his crib or go back and stop Eric Roberts from acting, what would be the moral choice?

    1. This is a false question. The correct answer is prevent Lena Dunham from being conceived in the first place.

      1. She was conceived? I thought her kind reproduced by fission or budding.

        1. I always pictured a slime mold plasmodia situation.

          A collection of amoeba-like cells coalesce into a more physically capable organism collective.

          1. For very large values of “physically capable.”

      2. “The correct answer is prevent Lena Dunham from being conceived in the first place.”

        Naah. Talk Tony’s mom into an abortion.

    2. If I say neither do I get to perform a vasectomy on Archie Manning in 1970?

      1. I wonder what the offspring of Peyton Manning and Sarah Jessica Parker would look like.

        1. I wonder what the offspring of Peyton Manning a potato and Sarah Jessica Parker a horse would look like.

        2. John Elway?

        3. John Kerry?

    3. You’d kill a baby!?

      1. No. I’d rather stop Eric Roberts.

    4. Did Eric Roberts play Baby Hitler?

  20. despite the best efforts of poor winners to make the dwindling holdouts feel like martyrs to their lousy cause.

    Deft phrasing there 2Cilly, I like it.

    1. Points for that.

      However, a demerit may be in order for appearing to conflate “won’t service a gay wedding” with “overt bigotry.”

  21. This has gone beyond making someone serve you. None of these cases that I am aware of involved people refusing to do business with homosexuals. All of them involved people who refused or said hypothetically they would refuse to serve a gay wedding. Saying you don’t want to be a part of or do business with a ceremony that you feel is against your religion is completely different than saying you will never do business with homosexuals.

    This is not analogous to a business refusing to serve black people or telling them they can only get takeout out the back door. A good analogy would be if an Orthodox Jewish caterer was willing to cater any wedding that wanted to hire him, except weddings involving Jews marrying gentiles, because he felt Jews marrying outside of the religion was wrong and against the tenants of Judaism such that he couldn’t participate in such a ceremony in good conscience.

    1. I think, I shall support my local Jewish businesses. I’ll ask them to cater my celebration of Hitler’s birthday! And if they refuse, I’ll organize a twitter mob, and a countermob to dump money into their gofundme page.

      What could go wrong?

      1. Can I demand a Muslim baker make a cake with a picture of Mohammed on it for Everyone Draw Mohammed Day?

        1. It’s a free country! You can demand anything you want!

          1. GLENDOWER. I can call spirits from the vasty deep.

            HOTSPUR. Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them?

      2. I love that gofundme page. The frothing from the left about it is awesome.

        Reading them rant about how this was all a diabolical plot by the pizza place to scam a bunch of bigoted rubes is insanely fun to read.

        They can’t admit that maybe a lot of people see the pizza folk as the victims and the left as bullies.

  22. The other reason there has been such a backlash over this is that everyone knows the rule will never be applied equally. No one in the media is out trolling Muslim owned businesses or even black or minority owned Christian businesses about this subject. I bet I could get some real interesting responses if I went around Dearborn, Michigan to various Muslim owned business about helping me put on my upcoming gay wedding. Yet, no one has done that and no gay rights activists are suing because everyone knows that no Muslim or minority owned business will ever be held accountable under this rule. The entire thing is nothing but a way to go after white Christian conservatives.

    1. I don’t know how you missed this. But.…..ake-192026

      1. Twice in one thread. I’m going to bed. Have a good day and go Wisky.

      2. I missed it because it didn’t result in anything. That example proves my point. Of course you can get outrageous responses from Muslim business owners. And of course the mob that claims to be so concerned about gay rights doesn’t care.

        1. Yeah, you’re right. That’s the point of the video. Richard Epstein at Hoover made the succinct and clear case against this cake crusade. Competitive markets exist, so no need to crush religious freedoms.

    2. I bet I could get some real interesting responses if I went around Dearborn, Michigan to various Muslim owned business about helping me put on my upcoming gay wedding.

      Already been done –…..ake-192026

      Unsurprisingly gets no media attention at all.

      Because this whole contrived issue is all about team blue getting their christ-fag hate on.

      1. Dude, and I thought I was bad at refreshing.

      2. It is weird. I totally get some of the disdain for some of the beliefs of certain Christians. But how does that not transfer to Muslims and other religions who believe the same or even worse?

        1. Muslims have killed for their religion.

          1. But not too many of the ones in Dearborn. Probably not significantly more than American Christians kill for their religion, which has also happened.

            I say what I think about any religion and have yet to be killed even a little bit.

    3. Hey, I heard Steven Crowder did this.

      1. Did you here about this as well?…..ake-192026

    4. something something Steven Crowder

      1. Alright, assholes. That’s 15 yards for piling on.

  23. The problem with violating people’s right to the free exercise of their own religious beliefs isn’t that you might get…awful service.

    The primary problem is that you don’t get to live in a free society.

    The secondary problem is that there tends to be retribution for that, and if that retribution can’t take the form of some kind of legislation, then it typically takes the form of violence.

    Natural rights are natural, in part, because violating them tends to produce the same kinds of consequences in society. Violate people’s right to free speech, for instance, and there tends to be the same sorts of consequences for that–cross culturally and throughout history.

    It works like that with other rights, too. Why wouldn’t it work that way with free exercise?

    Hasn’t it always worked that way with free exercise?

    1. Re: Ken Shultz,

      The primary problem is that you don’t get to live in a free society.

      Some people don’t care about liberty or a free society. The discourse gets to be god-awful the moment some little red Marxians argue that “freedom is the buzzword for segregation!”

      That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t fight constantly for freedom in whatever its manifestation and to continue to educate people on what they will lose if they allow the State to play people against each other through bribery. And bribery it is: giving a group what is owned by another group, either your current production (taxes) or your FUTURE production.

    2. The problem with violating people’s right to the free exercise of their own religious beliefs isn’t that you might get…awful service.

      I don’t think he is really saying that free association is needed because it avoids bad service and conflicts. Just that those things are additional good effects of freedom of association. And to point out how silly the opposition to it is.

      1. I think it denigrates violation of free exercise.

        Using the coercive power of government to compel people to violate their religious convictions is actually a very serious thing–and the consequences are likely to be serious.

        A lot more serious than just making people worry about the cake they eat at gay wedding receptions.

        1. Sure. But everyone already knows that and either agrees or doesn’t. You aren’t going to convince anyone who doesn’t already agree by just repeating the pure rights argument.

          I’d also add that using the coercive power of government to compel people to do anything they don’t want to do is a very serious thing. If you are going to make the pure rights argument, there is no reason to single out religious convictions. It is equally bad to force anyone to do anything, no matter the reason.

        2. Abu Ghraib

  24. Oh you didn’t want your cake to taste like rotten eggs and dog shit. I’m sorry, that was a terrible mistake. No sorry we don’t give refunds for any reason…..

  25. This latest outrage has never been about logic or right or wrong. It’s simply their latest tactic to punish those who don’t hold the ‘correct’ beliefs.

    1. Honestly, it’s pure culture war retribution–on both sides.

      Its worked that way on other issues since forever.

      Trying to get prayer and intelligent design into public schools was a reaction to subjecting the children of fundamentalists to things like evolution and sex education in public schools.

      We’d live in a better society if parents had always been free to send their children to whatever school they pleased.

      This latest push for public accommodation for LGBT is ultimately a reaction to legislation meant to discriminate against gay people who want to get married.

      We’d live in a better society if our governments had never discriminated against LGBT in granting marriage licenses.

      Do unto others as you would have them do unto you–or they will strive to do unto you as you have done unto them.

      There will be further consequences for using the government to compel people to violate their religious convictions. There always is.

      1. Yeah, but how do you clean up after this sort of culture-war BS? How do you put the djinni back in the bottle?

  26. OT: Bear witness to fantastically bad arguments against home-schoolers utilizing public school sports resources

    No! Home-schooling is often a crutch for parents who refuse to accept the reality of their children’s needs for socialization. Excepting extreme medical or psychiatric cases, home-schooling should not be allowed. Decisions are often based on ill-founded church-related reasons and most parents are unqualified. Too much daily-time with children weakens the primary relationship.

    No. When parents make the decision to remove their children from public schools, they also choose to remove them from public school activities. Were this not so, parents who send their children to parochial schools could elect to have them participate in public school athletics. Public education is not a cafeteria; it’s an all or nothing decision.

    1. The “need for socialization” is really funny. First, since when is school the only or even the primary way children are socialized? Second, they never offer any evidence beyond the voices coming out of their asses that kids who are home schooled are somehow “less socialized” because of it. I have never seen a single piece of evidence that indicates that. Yet, every Progressive is convinced that it is true.

      1. It makes sense if you take socialized to mean indoctrinated to support socialism.

      2. Tenet 156 of Modern Progressives: Anything outside of the collective is against the collective.

      3. I once had a girlfriend who was home-schooled and who turned out to be a nut, but I think that was more because her family was in some kind of nutty cult than because of the home-schooling. It was a shame. She had great tits.

        1. I have known a lot more than one girl who turned out to be a nut. What is the suicide rates among home schooled kids versus public schooled one. I bet few if any home schooled kids get tortured and bullied much at all let alone to the point of trying to commit suicide.

          1. I think kids who interact primarily with adults tend to be socialized to act more adultly. Kids who interact primarily with kids tend to act more childishly.

            Guess which form of socialization is better when one becomes an adult?

            1. I was one of those kids. Was the youngest kid in my family by seven years. I didn’t know how to interact as well with kids my age. That fact didn’t make school very pleasant in some ways. Yet, it also made adulthood much better.

            2. The homeschooled kids I’ve coached have been the most mature and out going kids I’ve ever met almost without exception.

          2. Being stuck in the house with my mother all day would have resulted in either a murder or a suicide or a murder/suicide. But I will not universalize my experience.

            1. Every child is different.

            2. My going to public schools almost resulted in several murders across 12 years, but my parents’ moral imprint on me saved a lot of lives.

              Mordant observations of my classmates were ever a balm, though.

              1. Maybe you shouldn’t have used words like “mordant” and “balm” as a fifth grader, though.

                1. +1 pair of torn underwear worn at shoulder level.

      4. First, since when is school the only or even the primary way children are socialized?

        And if it is, that’s a big problem right there.

        I think some homeschool kids are way too sheltered and suffer from it in life. But some kids come out of public schools fucked up and traumatized from all of the “socialization”.

        I thought school was great, but I understand my experience may not have been typical.

        1. But, you are also mostly full of shit.

          Watching you furiously fence-sit is getting fucking tiresome.

    2. parents who send their children to parochial schools could elect to have them participate in public school athletics.

      Um. They can. My shitty public school didn’t have a wrestling team and the fancy-ass private school down the road didn’t have a football team, so the fancy-ass kids who wanted to play football came to us and the stupid poor kids who wanted to wrestle went to them. This is a common situation.


    3. Yes, because a “well socialized” child only knows how to interact with people their exact same age and an authoritarian leader called a “teacher.”

      1. You forgot in a highly regimented environment where free time is kept to a bare minimum

      2. What better model to teach others how to get along than one developed by the Prussians in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s.

    4. So “I think these kids are being harmed by reduced socialization, so let’s make sure they get even less socialization so that we can really stick it to the parents”?

    5. This is less silly than the BFD of a debate we had in Sunny Minnesoda a few months back. We spent a lot of time with our panties in a bunch trying to come up with a policy to cover trans students and their involvement with high school sports.

      Arguing about home schoolers trying to join a local sports team is a walk in the park compared to this nonsense.

    6. That’s soooo fucked up, because in class you’re not supposed to socialize*; it’s the extracurricular events that are supposed to be for socializing. So whoever Scruffy quoted wants to deprived home schoolers from just those school-associated activities that are supposed to be socializing, because uh…huh??

      * Unless you consider sitting with a bunch of other people all having 1 adult be their focus of att’n & allowing that adult to direct all your activity to be “socializ’n”. Of course the reality in some gov’t classrooms is that hardly anybody’s paying att’n to the teacher, they’re all socializing, but there’s no schooling getting done, so I don’t think that’s what the quoted person meant.

  27. No kidding. When are blacks going to get the hell out of my restaurant? They can be perfectly happy in their negro restaurants, drinking from their negro water bubblers and sitting on their own buses (well, they’re mostly broken down but I’m sure we can get one fixed next year). How dare they expect to be seated at my counter?

    1. Well that would make you an asshole, now wouldn’t it?

    2. Were you born this stupid or did you have to work on it?

      1. If someone says ‘I’d prefer not to bake a cake for a wedding ceremony’ it’s just like that time shitloads of black people got lynched and weren’t allowed to go to white schools.

        Gay people are practically second class citizens in this country, just like black people during Jim Crow. We don’t let them vote, they can’t form relationships with members of other races without potentially getting murdered, and when they try to attend school with straights governors call out the national guard in order to stop them.

        Progressives really do have oppression envy. There’s no one in America today oppressed because of their skin color, sexual orientation, or gender in any way that’s actually notable or important, so progressives just compare incredibly minor annoyances to black people getting shot with fire hoses and mauled by police dogs.

        It’s actually incredibly offensive when you think about it, the way progressives appropriate the suffering of past generations as a means of making it seem less pathetic when they whine about wedding cakes and microaggressions.

        1. They have oppression envy because their entire sense of self worth comes from politics. They build themselves up by building up their enemies. If they admit the truth that the US is one of the most gay accepting countries in the world and probably all of history, then how important are they for working for gay rights?

          The truth is gay marriage is the definition of a first world problem. Most gays throughout history or in the world today would never thing about getting married because they are too concerned about not going to prison or being killed. Crusading for gay marriage is very much penny ante compared to going down to Mississippi in 1961 and being a freedom rider. They can’t accept that and deal with it by demonizing their enemies and pretending that it is.

        2. So how much equality is enough? 30%? 40%? Because homosexuals still can’t marry in a large number of these same states. Besides a relational issue, it’s also a very legal inequality regarding property, healthcare and tax law. So, how much is “equal enough”?

          1. Which is why I’m in favor of gay marriage so that there can be equal protection rights under the law.

            You seem to be under the delusional assumption that believing someone has the right not to bake someone a cake must mean I also oppose equal legal protections, but those subjects are totally unrelated.

            Tell me: If someone says ‘No, I’d prefer not to bake you a cake’ why do you think that’s worthy of destroying their businesses and destroying their lives? People are put into bankruptcy by these lawsuits, and it’s such a minor issue that the punishment clearly does not fit the ‘crime,’ assuming you believe ‘I don’t want to bake you a cake’ is a crime in the first place.

            I’d also say gays are quite a bit more than ‘40% equal’ in modern American society.

            1. I’m merely pointing out that saying there is a limit to your false equivalency defense.

              1. Except progressives (Iike Dan Savage) have explicitly claimed that the Indiana law is like Jim Crow, so I’m not setting up a false equivalency, I’m accurately pointing out that progressives are engaging in a ludicrous false equivalency by comparing this issue to fucking Jim Crow.

              2. The problem is that all of those issues are tied to marriage in the first place.

                Why can’t a person in a hospital specify who has visitation rights? What fucking difference does it make to the hospital?

                We all know that the intersection of healthcare to employment and hence to marriage is driven by obsolete government policies. Why not get rid of them instead of ladeling ever more on top?

                The other issues are all related to tax policy.

                The bottom line is that all of those benefits for getting married are inherently discriminatory against people aren’t married. And frankly, what man in his right mind would want to get married at this point, with the way that family law is stacked against him.

                1. Here! Here!

                  You deadbeat dad you. 😉

          2. The amount of equality that is “enough” is the amount that is enough for you, Fiddledeedee, in the interactions you personally have.

            You look to your knitting; I’ll look to mine; and the world will become a better place (or at a minimum our bits of it).

            1. So, again, that would allow for racial discrimination. If you’re logically ok with that, then at least you’re internally consistent. If not, I’d certainly like to hear why A not B.

              1. Yes, it would allow for racial discrimination – private racial discrimination not backed up by the government.

                The problem with Jim Crow was that the government backed up forced segregation and would not protect blacks against violence from whites. Jim Crow was a government monster, not a creature of private transaction.

                You also haven’t answered my question. Why is ‘no, I don’t wish to bake you a cake for your wedding’ a crime so heinous that someone deserves to be fined $100,000 or sued into bankruptcy? I could break your nose and suffer fewer personal consequences than if I didn’t wish to cater a gay wedding, and there’s absolutely no way that punishment fits the alleged crime.

                1. You can actually be thrown in a rape cage or killed if you refuse to bake a cake.

                  Refuse to bake cake.
                  Get fined for refusing
                  Refuse to pay fine
                  Get thrown in jail
                  Get raped in jail
                  OR Resist being arrested for not paying fine and get shot.

                2. I certainly wasn’t trying to argue that the size of the punishment was just, merely that society has chosen with (imo) good reason overt discrimination of classes. If we get past that part, and are left with the punishment discussion, I’m with you, $100K is absurd.

              2. Yes, the right to freely associate means that the local bigots and racists can associate with whomever they want. Just as you can then freely choose to not associate with them.

              3. Several points:

                1) First a definition:

                noun dis?crim?i?na?tion \dis-?kri-m?-?n?-sh?n\
                Full Definition of DISCRIMINATION

                a : the act of discriminating
                b : the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently
                : the quality or power of finely distinguishing
                a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually
                b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment racial discrimination

                2) Almost everyone is comfortable with some degree of racial discrimination – eg a producer insisting that the actor who plays Martin Luther King be black.

                3) It’s almost impossible to tell whether one is discriminating racially (bad) or for some other reason (good). (eg. is my refusal to hire Barack Obama for any job becasue he’s black or because he is a dishonest weasel who shouldn’t have any access to the till)?

                4) The mind control required to prevent people from actually racially discriminating requires horrific Samuel Bergeron levels of thought control and will never actually happen.

                1. 5) The half assed attempts to push racial discrimination into the shadows to give the appearance that it’s not allowed have devastating real world consequences that frequently hurt the very people they are intended to benefit.

                  In most cases, I disapprove of racial discrimination. And when I encounter it, I try to persuade people to not engage in it. However, I accept that in this world people will do idiotic and stupid things. I recognize that preventing them from being idiots will often exact a very heavy price.

                  1. Blast! forgot a link:

                    The statement “And when I encounter it, I try to persuade people to not engage in it” should have linked here:

                    Liberty and Racial Discrimination: Responding to David Duke.

                2. “A gay friend still eats at Chik-Fil-A: “They never did anything to me, and they make good sandwiches.””

                  Could that be because, like so many other businesses in our world, Chik-Fil-A is an entity and not a person? Each unit is a separately owned franchise and as likely to be influenced by the owner’s standards as the entity’s. That’s why “they” have never done anything to your gay friend. “They” are the employees and owners of the franchises your friend has patronized. They have no issue or quarrel.

                  1. I absolutely hate it when activists defame an entire, large entity because of the actions or, usually perceived actions, of one or two individuals involved in the entity.

                    An irresponsible ship captain gets drunk, leaves the helm in violation of all rules of the sea and the oil tanker runs aground. But, it’s that damn Exxon’s fault. “Exxon” the entity, was just irresponsible and didn’t care.

                    People who believe that have never worked for a large entity and been trained and held to standards of conduct of that entity.

                    I’m old enough to have been around – my college days – for the crusade against Coors beer as being anti-gay. Only it was really union (union= racketeering gang) grievances driving it. Sadly, many students accepted it as fact and began to repeat the false claims. Which spread the boycott far and wide to colleges everywhere.

                    In the age of the internet, this happens faster and spreads farther. Faster.

                    As a friend of mine said recently:

                    “The internet may be the end of truth. All knowledge now has equal weight. Therefore it all becomes worthless”

                    Yes, I know we might apply that to this site. ;-(

          3. Your equating the ability to get married with 60%-70% of equality? You’ve obviously never been married before.

            1. It is more than that. Equality means the ability to have the government dictate the terms of your relationship and how it can be ended. It means the “privilege” of having to get a judge sign off on your relationship ending and him and the law deciding how your property will be divided.

              More than anything that is what government marriage is; a set of default contractual terms enforced on any couple that doesn’t go to great efforts to say otherwise.

          4. In addition, I would guess that between 99% to 100% of posters on this site would agree that there is some discrimination in that area with 70-80 pushing for marriage for gays under the current law and many arguing that marriage shouldn’t even be a gov. recognizable status for anyone.

            1. I agree with your assessment of the site and my statement was in no way meant to detract from people’s agreement that the laws need to catch up in some ways. I’m merely arguing that there are other ways and the market is not always so good at managing discriminatory practices.

              1. The market is the best way to handle discrimination. You allow people to choose who to do business with. Will some black, hispanic, asian, woman, handicapped, gay, lesbian, and believe it or not, some man be refused service by someone? Yes and if those around said business decide they don’t like it they will refuse to do business with them. The guy down the street who will do business with everyone will then get all the business. Problem solved. Why should the rights of free association be violated for 100% of the people to make sure feelings of 1% don’t get hurt?

              2. I’m merely arguing that there are other ways and the market is not always so good at managing discriminatory practices.

                Your argument appears to be more that a) free markets don’t get rid of all instances of private discrimination, therefore b) we must rely on the government to do so instead. I think most people on this site will agree with you that the free market does not perfectly counteract all instances of discrimination…since it is, after all, a system administered by human beings. The problem with expecting the government to do so is that it is also administered by human beings, and government intervention in acts of discrimination usually ends up targeting only politically unpopular groups. The government isn’t some objective arbiter on discrimination…it’s run by self-interested people, and they pick and choose who they represent, which has only a coincidental relationship to fixing problems.

                I’m not saying this to misstate your beliefs (and if I’ve misunderstood what you’re saying, please feel free to correct me). I just think that you’re falling prey to the idea that because the free market isn’t perfect in addressing illogical forms of discrimination, we can’t trust it at all. The counterargument is that, even with its imperfections, the free market is still a more objective force for addressing discrimination than the government, since its corrective measures operate on a case-by-case basis (which governments struggle to do).

                1. As well as assuming that government is benevolent and thus the “trusted” arbitrator of all differences or disagreements.

                  I always get a kick out of my compatriots who feel free to bash free enterprise as being unfair and/or unjust but believe without hesitation that government is benevolent and thus the best overseer and regulator of us all. I remind them that both are involve imperfect human organizations and both will reflect both the good and bad of the humans involved in those organizations.

                  That always seems to go right over their heads. ;-(

          5. Not being able to marry takes away 60 to 70% of your equality? So the polygamist is only 30 to 40% equal as well? Almost every issue that concerns you raise can be taken care of with a civil union contract and power of attorney granted to each other. I personally think that marriage is a religious exercise and government should get out of the marriage business completely. Let people have contracts with each other if they wish. Quit using the tax code as some social experiment.

            1. What about the sheep fuckers? They can’t even bring their so into a restaurant or go shopping in public. The Scottish might be the most discriminated class in America today.

            2. All of that. Moreover, the Libertarian position has always been that the government should not be in the business of recognizing marriages. What does that mean? It means that people should be free to create whatever sorts of relationships they want. That would give people the freedom to create the terms of their marriages. You don’t want to divide the community property in half if you ever divorce, fine create a contract that says so. You don’t want your spouse to get a piece of your retirement, create a contract that says so. You want to make a contract that is binding such that neither of you can get out of it and remarry without the agreement of the other (i.e. old school no divorce marriage is for life), create a contract that says so.

              The flip side of that freedom is that you would no longer get the benefit of the default government terms and government enforced recognition of your marriage. Your employer doesn’t recognize marriages not done in a church, he can do that and if you don’t like it go work somewhere else. Forget to write a will giving your spouse everything, too bad your parents and siblings are getting your stuff. Gasp, you have to take responsibility for your affairs, the horror.

            3. Gays were living in this world before palimony (which is nothing but judicially enforced marriage) and gay marriage. Why anyone thinks it is a good idea to put them under the yoke of government recognized marriage, rather than just fixing any laws that discriminated against them or made their contracts unenforceable, is beyond me

              1. Exactly.

              2. I think the problem was judges simply deciding not to enforce their contracts. Which is also a problem for lots of other people too.

                1. Dark Lord,

                  The Libertarian solution should have been to stop courts and businesses from discriminating, not expanding government marriage. If it were the case that hospitals were refusing to accept gay partners’ medical powers of attorney, the solution is to change the law and make them. If courts were not recognizing marriage or union contracts between gay couples, change the law so that they would and would enforce them. All of the harms could have been solved while increasing freedom and also affirming the right to contract. It is a sorry shame that Liberarians abandoned their commitment to free marriage and instead committed themselves to extending government marriage to more people.

                  Worse, the argument for getting the government out of the business of recognizing marriages has, thanks to gay marriage, morphed from a positive one telling people they should be free to set the terms of their relationships without government mandates into a negative and vindictive one. The anti government marriage position is now mostly expressed in negative terms by telling people who object to gay marriage “if you don’t like gay marriage, just get rid of government marriage and you won’t have this problem”. That argument is never going to convince anyone.

                  1. Start by making govt policies agnostic on marital status, as described many time sin this thread. Then, once one’s marital status doesn’t matter one way or the other to the govt, it’s easy to get the govt out of the business of defining and regulating marriage.

        3. Just like the common references in social debates to “Hitler” and “Nazis”.

          It’s all black and white.

          You’re with us. Or, against us. You can’t possibly have a third option.

      2. Modeled you.

        1. You are doing a pretty piss poor job. You are apparently so stupid you can’t see the difference between refusing to participate in a wedding and refusing to serve an entire class of people.

          You clearly can’t think about this question rationally. All you know is signalling and that you like guys and hate anyone who doesn’t. You want your pony and you want your enemies crushed. That is about as sophisticated as your thinking gets.

          1. Wow, I didn’t realize someone so smart could possibly misread so much from one post. That was so impressively wrong on all levels as to essentially be a perfect inversion. Nice fail!

            1. You don’t have to be that smart to figure out how someone like you thinks. It is so simple and emotion driven that anyone can understand it and see it for what it is.

            2. Did you actually use the “fail” meme as a word in a sentence? Like it’s a thing?

              Huh. That’s like the prose equivalent of a 50-year-old in mom jeans going to a club.

      3. Pretty sure it is both. He was born that way and has worked very hard to maintain his natural born lack of intellect.

        I am always amazed that these morons forget that they were Jim Crow LAWS because business owners had a nasty habit ignoring the segregationist desires of their local Klan leadership and serving anyone who handed them money.

        Sure, in a world without anti discrimination laws there will be some businesses that choose to discriminate, a few of them will even thrive because they exist in an area where that kind of bigotry is particularly pronounced. What does not happen however is long term widespread systematic discrimination because companies that engage in that kind of behavior tend not to be able to compete on the open market.

    3. How dare the state pass laws that make it illegal for them to be seated at my counter.

      1. I agree. But a law that creates a safe harbor for religious-based discrimination is just as wrong.

        1. Really? State enforced discrimination is the same as private citizens discriminating? That is …. Tulpa!

      2. Actually, what you’re implying to (Jim Crow law?) was a gov’t law for a certain race of people NOT to be seated at your counter. The law gov’t imposed, equal but separate, was rescinded by gov’t, it was not that the gov’t imposed a law to force people to be able to sit at your counter.

        1. I don’t think this idiotic law applies to what you’re implying.

        2. I think you have misread the CRA.

        3. I agree. My point is free association shouldn’t be prohibited by law. Nor should it be mandated by law.

        4. It was both. Certainly there were Jim Crow laws, which in themselves were enacted at local/state levels and required state/federal law to abolish them, but equally there were de facto behaviors, regardless of law, that were deemed to harmful to society to be legally allowed. Therefor we get the Civil Rights Acts of 57, 64 and 68

          1. The state created laws that prevented good people from doing the things necessary to change public opinion. You make non bigots criminals. Fugitive slave act onwards. So the state blunts any social movement that would’ve ended discrimination earlier and now you think that private citizens have to give up their right to choose their own clientele by ceding it to the state? The state is the oppressor in both situations. How hard is this to see?

            1. For Fiddledeedee ?


    4. You sound familiar.

      1. Kidzone Kapow or Mary Stack?

    5. What the fuck is a water bubbler? Is that like a water fountain in our country?

      And why are you so racist?

  28. Praise be to the gayness of lesbian transgenderism.

    When we are all tri-sexual, hexa-gendered AND octa-specied, the world be at peace.

  29. Making People Who Hate You Serve You Is a Really Bad Idea

    Who cares?

    “Because I don’t want to” ? THAT should be enough for anybody.

  30. I feel this article is missing another point. Besides the effect on yourself (i.e. the quality of service/product you receive), look at the effect on the business owner. I think it’s safe to assume that the owner is going to make a profit on the sale, so by forcing them to serve you you are also giving them more money than they would otherwise have. If these people hate you, why do you want to give them more money rather than to other people who don’t?

    1. I guess it takes a specific kind of hate, where it’s not really about getting the acceptance you want or rewarding behavior (e.g. serving gay weddings) you like, but really is just about the force itself. So basically it’s purely out of spite?

    2. It’s because the real world works exactly like a children’s PBS show. If you do something nice for somebody who acts mean to you, their heart will soften and they will learn to love you.

    3. So? hate is profitable?

  31. Shaming people who refuse to associate with others for contemptible reasons is a perfectly legitimate response. But forcing them into proximity may not produce ideal results.

    Compelling the union of people who distrust each other is a recipe for sowing resentment between them, as one group will invariably blame the other group for what has befallen on them.

    The greatest tragedy for liberty in the U.S. was confusing State-sponsored separation with the free expression of free people as they sought to maintain themselves within communities of their own free and voluntary construction. Forced integration forever POISONED THE WELL for truly voluntary integration which Markets and investment create. The damage may be substantial but I don’t believe it is irreparable. But as long as the State seeks to keep the wound open like a swarm of blowflies, the bridges that we seek to build will keep crumbling below us.

    1. Busing. Busing. Busing. I’ve heard you have to repeat something 3 times for people to remember it.

    2. Shaming people who refuse to associate with others for contemptible reasons is a perfectly legitimate response.

      Ya know, I just can’t quite get to “I think weddings are between a man and a woman” as a “contemptible reason.”

      I disagree with it, but I like to reserve strong language for things that deserve strong language.

      1. RC,

        It is because being pro gay has become one of the most important ways people signal their enlightenment. Since it is so important, people are constantly upping the anti with each other to show how gay affirming they are. So what started as “gays should be accepted” became “gays should get married” and now has become “anyone who thinks gay should not be able to get married is a horrible bigot”. It is a signaling arms race.

        1. How are you not signaling that you are by definition a horrible bigot if you think all gay people should be denied access to the same rights you enjoy?

  32. Pizza, Games, & Books: 3 Threads of the “Social Justice” String


  33. Will you cater my gay marriage? Yes? Ok never mind, will you cater my gay marriage? Yes? Ok, never mind. Will you cater my gay marriage? No? Then I will sue because I want you to cater my marriage.

    I don’t understand why anyone would want to do business with someone who does not want to do business with you. People want to force those who either don’t like them, agree with where they stand and don’t want their money to take their money.

    1. It’s a setup. The businesses are targeted and being rounded up and sent to slaughter.

  34. I encourage everyone to read the following and then reread this thread with the points the author makes in mind:

    How to Disagree

    1. I prefer the old way:

      “Lord Wenlock not having advanced to the support of the first line, but remaining stationary, contrary to the expectations of Somerset, the latter, in a rage, rode up to him, reviled him, and beat his brains out with an axe.”

  35. So I’ve been rolling this around in my head for a day or so:

    Adult A meets adult B for the first time and wants adult B to do X. Adult B says “No. I don’t want to do X.”

    It seems like there’s a finite set of situations where A should be able to force B to do what A wants. I can’t see any way that substituting:

    X=Wedding service

    makes sense. I think there are a few solutions to A, B and X that are legitimate but they are pretty sparse and involve a preexisting violation of someones rights. The only way I can see you could make this wedding thing work is to define X as a right.

  36. Do you really want somebody who hates you to photograph your special occasion? Or care for your child? Or serve you food of any sort at any place or time? There’s a good chance you’re just not going to get best efforts.
    Forcing their service is not the goal. Forcing them out of business through ostracism is the goal. But what the gay grievance mongers don’t understand is that when they force business owners to suppress their ability to overtly refuse service, the covert retaliation of the type 2Chill describes will be the result.

  37. My guess is that tolerance is growing and bigotry receding, despite the best efforts of poor winners to make the dwindling holdouts feel like martyrs to their lousy cause.

    This is in two parts because I ran off at the mouth. (1/2)

    I was positive about that once, but then my 11.5 yo XX and my 9yo XY started coming home from school with random comments I overhear. This is what I think is happening and why:

    1. They make fun of being “raciss.” If you say “black” (as a hue, not a skin color), they say, “You’re a RACIST!” then they laugh. They have no idea what “racist” means. They don’t know a time when people said the n-word, don’t know a time when people actively discriminated against anybody who wasn’t just socially awkward, weak, and ripe for bullying.

    2. Bullying. The anti-bullying campaigns are not working. The bullying is a) going underground and getting more passive-aggressive, hostile, and/or violent, and b) when it happens openly, it’s worse than I remember it being back in the day. They’re hardened to the bullying itself, jaded by the anti-bullying rhetoric. They’re not quite sure what’s bullying and what’s not, so they dismiss the whole thing and if they *get* bullied badly enough, suicide is always an option. “Badly enough” is up for wide interpretation.


    1. My guess is that tolerance is growing and bigotry receding, despite the best efforts of poor winners to make the dwindling holdouts feel like martyrs to their lousy cause.

      This is in two parts because I ran off at the mouth. (2/2) Cont from above.

      3. Feminist propaganda. Backlash. Hard. My XX doesn’t know a time when she wasn’t advantaged over boys. She doesn’t even think about it. Female privilege. It made her lazy. My XY doesn’t know a time when he wasn’t being told to siddown and shaddap. For a self-starting out-of-the-box thinker, that’s the exact wrong thing to do.

      So I’m looking at it from my own perspective (baby-buster [post-hippie pre-GenX, look it up]) and my kids’ (had ’em late in life). It’s backfiring for them and our kids. And I foresee the day it will be fashionable and a statement of privilege for girls my XX’s age to be able to stay home with the kids while the husband trudges out the door to work everyday. It won’t say anymore, “Don’t get down on me for making a choice; that is real feminism.” It will say, “I can afford to do this. I don’t HAVE to work outside the home.”

    2. My guess is that tolerance is growing and bigotry receding,

      Tolerance is growing? Could be, but we have a cohort of viciously intolerant people who have only gotten more and more aggressive. So, I’m not sure about that.

  38. From how Memories Pizza ws treated it equally problematic to make people you hate serve you.

  39. I’m thinking that if was forced to photograph the wedding of someone I didn’t want to be around that I would do the following:

    1) Prominently display a sign that says “If you are not satisfied with your purchase, you will get a full refund”

    2) Photograph the wedding with every picture out of focus or with bad exposure or with heads cut off, or with the worst timing to get everyone frowning.

    3) Pissed off customers get refund, with their special moment lost forever. I apologise and say I used the wrong lens, which would be true.

    4) Customers I want to serve get absolutely beautiful photos.

    Perhaps this isn’t the best idea, but it sure seems satisfying to imagine.

    1. Or, “Sorry, but I’m all booked up.”

      Just think of how many social **cough** problems this country has today that could be prevented by idiots keeping their stupid yaps shut.

      1. I think that all the time. Then I think, “They shouldn’t have to.”

        1. Yeah, well, I want a pony too.

          There are many times we’d like to tell people what we think of them, but choose not to out of etiquette or adverse consequences. Same thing goes here.

          1. I have a small business. I just tack on a PITA surcharge so high it will make them go elsewhere. Or else they actually bite and I get a lot more money for the same amount of work.

        2. The world is full of things that should be but aren’t.

          We will always have to bite our tongues from time to time for the sake of social harmony.

  40. The thing is, freedom of association?and disassociation?aren’t just abstract individual rights dreamed up as intellectual games. They’re practical knife fight-preventatives. If people can’t play nice, you want to keep them separated. If they’re willing to separate themselves, so much the better. Shaming people who refuse to associate with others for contemptible reasons is a perfectly legitimate response. But forcing them into proximity may not produce ideal results.

    Gottdamn, 2Chili, NICE.

    This is the only post that should have been run on this whole stupid fucking affair.

  41. But forcing people to do business with you? Putting yourself at the mercy of people who hate you? That’s always a risky idea.

    It’s the old joke/parable.

    The 3 people you don’t want to piss off:

    The guy who cooks your food
    The guy who cuts your hair; and
    The guy who fixes your car.

    1. Don’t forget to add – the plaintiffs’s bar.

      There are “civil rights lawyers” – experienced and skillful – who would *love* to smoke out discrimination by businesses who deliberately do inferior work because the customer belongs to a protected class.

      You *don’t* want to piss these guys (and gals) off.

    2. What? No gals?

  42. I have to say that this argument is getting old. I’m gonna throw some things on the table and if you guys don’t like ’em, just throw ’em on back.

    First, to me tolerance is a jew and muslim living side by side without killing one another. When asked the jew says the muslim is s fucking idiot and is worshiping a false god. The muslim says likewise about the jew. The two continue to do their respective things and all is good. No acceptance, no “Well I see your point.” Now if the two wish to go beyond that and be neighborly and marry their sons to the others daughters and celebrate Passover together, then fucking great but this acceptance being disguised as tolerance bullshit is getting pretty fucking old.


    1. Second, can the writers of these articles leave out the unnecessary signalling language? Personally, I do not think someone is a bigot because they refuse to partake in actions that they disagree with. Has no one here heard of “Hate the sin, love the sinner.”? I have yet to see (besides the pediatrician, which I find a little fucked up, it’s not the kids fault) a Christian owner say they wouldn’t serve a gay person in their business (how would they know unless the gay person makes a fucking show about it). They all are refusing to partake in the actions of the gay people, ex. weddings and such. Is it so hard to comprehend that someone can be ok with a person but disagree with their actions and as such refuse to participate in them? A lot of Christians find actions so against their beliefs that they refuse to participate and willingly die because of it (look at the Mid East, Africa, and history). I find this sort of standing up for what you believe in at all costs commendable and I wish more people would defend their principles in this way.


      1. To me these stories can be told in the following format. Person A refused to do business and sell their time and product to Person B for personal reasons. That’s it, that’s all there is to this. It’s simple as all hell but for some reason it keeps getting made into all this other contrary bullshit.

        To me this is all a simple issue to solve. Religious people feel that God ordains their marriage and they make their vows to God and the person they are marrying. The gov’t has no ordaining power and is just there to recognize the contract. Gay people want their contracts recognized by the courts for the privileges it brings (perfectly reasonable and understandable).


  43. Solution: The president needs to grow some fucking balls and tell both parties, “Religious people, we do not marry you, you fucking marry you by agreeing to a contract between the interested parties, we simply recognize the marriage contract as a condensed version of multiple contracts. Gay people, shut the fuck up. You can’t force acceptance and we will not force this acceptance for you. We will recognize your condensed contract but we will not force people to arrange this contract for you or any ceremony pertaining to said contract. We will no longer decide who has the power to marry someone and require all parties to see a lawyer to write up a contract or write a contract yourself. The contract needs to be notarized and submitted to your local courthouse or where the fuck ever. The ceremony could be performed by a fucking goat for all I care, just submit your contract and boom there ya go.”

  44. This meme again?

    “Yeah, if you don’t want to be sued for refusing service to a member of a legally-protected class, all you have to do is perform inferior work for them.”

    Doing inferior work because a customer is a protected class is *just as illegal* as refusing service altogether.

    And it can be detected by a good plaintiff’s lawyer with access to liberal discovery.

    “I see you did a great job doing these orders for straight weddings, but did an inferior job in these orders for gay weddings. Maybe it has something to do with your membership in the Yes on 8 committee?”

    Not to mention that fact that a Christian business owner who is ethical enough to risk his livelihood to avoid cooperating with what she deems sin, is probably ethical enough not to sabotage her own work out of spite.

    1. What is wrong with people? Is this a way to play “plague on both your houses” by mocking business owners who are honest enough to acknowledge, and act on, their religious principles.

      “Oh, all you have to do is lie and do a poor job, what’s your problem?”

      1. I’m sure it is wonderful to have the ability to shove your head up your own ass. But just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.

    2. Notorious, I agree that it could be found out pretty easily and could open the business owner to even more legal troubles.

      But, I don’t think it’s a question of ethics. I have no ethical obligation to do my best at an activity that someone is forcing me to do.

      1. Of course you don’t. But the law will say you do.

    3. I think you are missing the point quite badly. I honestly have no idea how you arrived at that interpretation. The point isn’t that people who object to being forced to provide services that they find distasteful or immoral or whatever should do things like that. The point is that it is ridiculous to want to force people to serve you when they don’t want to because 1. they might poop in your food and 2. why the fuck do you want to give them your money if they think that you or your lifestyle or your wedding ritual is abhorent? and 3. Why start fights that can be easily avoided?

      Seriously, where has anyone suggested that people should lie and do a poor job in this situation? All Tucille is saying is that sometimes people do, in fact, do that.

      1. If you’re not a member of a minority that tends to get discriminated against in daily life, it’s not seemly to pat them on the heads and calmly lecture that maybe it’s best if they avoid businesses that would treat them like shit.

        “Let’s just all get along–by researching the religious beliefs of the owners of all businesses we might frequent and ensure that we avoid the bigots” is a lovely sentiment, really. But patronizing suggestions for private behavior are totally beside the point.

        Government forces people to do something against their will either way you go on this issue. It is no more libertarian to require that armed government goons drag black and gay people out of businesses that happen to be run by bigots. That is a regime we rejected for a good reason, preferring enforcement of full access to public accommodations. You can’t get out of enforcing rights, especially a right against trespassing.

        1. Why do you keep bringing up this “dragging gay and black people out of stores” bullshit. What is your fucking obsession with black people?

          Why do you think that people have a right trespass on someone’s property and then force said person to perform an act for them? Why can you not hold your side to the standard of respecting someone’s property? Why are you such a fucking idiot? Can you tie your shoes? Can you dress yourself? Can you feed yourself without making a mess? Do you know where you are right now?

          Where the fuck is my sandwich that I asked you for the other day? I’ll remind you that I paid for the roads to your house so you couldn’t have gotten from your house to the grocery store with said roads. Therefore, everything in your house is also mind. Why the fuck are you taking so long with my sandwich?

          1. *without and mine.

          2. Everything is connected. So, you owe me.

            It starts out so complicated, but then it gets real simple, real fast.

            What’s not to love about that philosophy?

          3. Because property rights aren’t absolute, and the particulars are open to debate. Real-world experience demonstrated that enforcing property rights to the extent of dragging people from lunch counters because restaurant proprietors didn’t like their skin color was a bad use of government force. I keep bringing it up because you guys seem to think your preferred rights regime requires no government goons. It does. Arguably moreso than one that respects nondiscrimination.

        2. The only people who benefit from laws banning discrimination are bigoted business owners.

          If they were allowed to advertise their bigotry then customers would vote with their dollars, likely putting the place out of business.

          Instead the bigoted businesses get to hide behind laws that are supposed to help those they hate, but instead have the perverse effect of keeping them in business

          1. So you’re a bigot if you refuse to partake in a ceremony but stated that you would gladly serve anyone who walks into your store?

            Can you not disagree in peace with people now without being a bigot?

            1. Talk about missing the point.

              Fine. Find another word. The point is the same. When a business is allowed to discriminate, people find out. If people don’t like it, they stop going there.

              Prohibiting discrimination allows the business owner to hide behind the law, depriving customers of information that could influence their shopping decisions.

              1. No, I understood your point just fine. Just tired of the Internet’s favorite word and I just legitimately wanted to see what you would respond with.

                I agree with you.

              2. There’s a really long list of people I want businesses I frequent to discriminate against: smokers, drunk assholes, Nazis, KKK, people with screaming kids, people who shout into their cell phone while holding it 3 feet from their head…

      2. He just wants an excuse to whine.

        1. No, you miss the point – after the first couple multimillion-dollar awards against businesses who spit in gays’ food, ruin their wedding photos, etc., the message will be out that businesses will not only have to serve gay weddings, but to *like* it.

          Making people do what they’re told, and snap to it, is a key point of the SJW/gay activists – and they have the legal tools to punish any business which fails to give what the colleges call “enthusiastic consent” to gay marriage.

      3. “The point is that it is ridiculous to want to force people to serve you when they don’t want to because 1. they might poop in your food and 2. why the fuck do you want to give them your money if they think that you or your lifestyle or your wedding ritual is abhorent? and 3. Why start fights that can be easily avoided?”

        1) yeah, and get the satisfaction of suing the business for huge sums of money and getting them shut down by the Civil Rights Commissioin and Health Department. A result which, far from deterring SJW/gay activists would greatly encourage them to press harder until businesses STOP RESISTING gay marriage.

        2) The point is forcing them to take your money and provide services whether they want to or not – that’s called wielding power over others, and of course these activists want to wield power over others, that’s why they’re activists.

        3) Because to an activist, starting fights for the sake of Justice is like swallowing a spoonful of Viagra – they get off on it.

    4. Actually, inferior service can be allowable. How much of what a baker does is service — and how much is artistic skill?

      If anybody could bake quickly, easily and perfectly, we wouldn’t need bakers. We’d just make our own wedding cakes.

      Courts have ruled that service can be compelled, but they have also ruled that art cannot be — art is speech.

      If service can be compelled but art cannot be, then refusing to put any art into your service would be perfectly legal.

  45. If it’s not a problem for white heterosexual males, it’s not a problem for anybody. Libertarianism in a nutsack.

    1. If it doesn’t work the first hundred thousand times then, “Something more needs to be done”

      I buildz thuz roadz

      No one’z rightz are absolutez, ezcept the onez wez likez

      Progress means returning to tribalism

      All people are born slaves of the society and must serve said society

      Gov’t is what brings civilization and goodness (ignoring the fact that if a people were bad and needed to be restrained, wouldn’t that mean that their gov’t would be just as bad as the people?)

      -retard prog in a nutshell(who the fuck says nutsack?)

    2. If discrimination was legal, as a heterosexual white male I seriously doubt I would patronize a business that I knew engaged in the practice.

      As it is, I don’t know what’s in these peoples’ hearts because they can hide behind anti-discrimination law. So I don’t know not to give them my money.

      Your precious anti-discrimination laws aid bigots by hiding their bigotry and thus giving them more business than if it was in the open.

      You are helping those you hate.

      Not that I expect your feeble brain to like comprehend logic and stuff.

      1. The problem is that unless the person self identifies as gay, how could a business engage in such a practice? Do gays have some kind of secret identity card that they will produce when asked?

        So there will never be discrimination against gays the way there was against blacks for no other reason than you can’t tell who the gays are unless they tell you.

        1. I know what you mean, but on the other hand sometimes you really can tell.

      2. If discrimination was legal, as a heterosexual white male I seriously doubt I would patronize a business that I knew engaged in the practice.

        How generous of you. You’re missing the point that you have that luxury and the discriminated-against minority does not.

        Your precious anti-discrimination laws aid bigots by hiding their bigotry and thus giving them more business than if it was in the open.

        Similarly, laws against burglary are bad because they hide the true feelings of kleptomaniacs. Better let them steal so we know who they are.

        1. /sips Mountain Dew.

          Meh. It’s either listen to Tony or go take a shower.

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

  47. I used to they they served no purpose and needed to be eradicated, but now I’m really hoping those Westboro Baptist Church folks will take up forcing LGBT shopkeepers to render services for a steady stream of “God Hates Fags” weddings and other events. I hope the find gay-owned print shops and force them to print their odious posters and sue the crap out of every one that denies them their right to have posters printed because of their religion.

    This won’t happen, of course, because even if WBC did make such an effort, the shopkeeper would prevail. Because “Hate”.

    “No one has a right to hate.” IOW, you rejecting my view needs to be illegal, but my rejecting your views is just terrific because I’m enlightened an you’re not.

    A gay friend still eats at Chik-Fil-A: “They never did anything to me, and they make good sandwiches.”

  48. When you force people to do things (for you) that they dislike, the consequences are likely to be something you perhaps didn’t expect and won’t like. It simply isn’t worth it since with few if any exceptions there will be someone else who is willing to provide the service that you want.

    In the case of “Jim Crow” and racial discrimination, much of this was driven not by business people, but by local government which forced businesses to behave this way through various legal means.

    Without some of today’s restrictive laws that limit people’s choice, it would be very unusual for any individual not to have “other options” than dealing with a specific business. Without our prescription laws for example, it is likely that a business like would be willing to sell contraceptive drugs (at likely a lower price) than the local drugstore whose druggist for religious reasons doesn’t wish to sell certain types of medicine.

    In reality “government” is usually more the source of these problems than individuals are…

  49. I’m suddenly reminded of a Key & Peele skit.

    “Office Homophobe” also does this, with the Camp Gay thinking he’s being discriminated against by someone he brands as the titular homophobe – who turns out to be Straight Gay.

  50. “jack the prices up for them to the point that they go elsewhere”

    I call discrimination!

    Isn’t there a law or statute requiring we charge everyone the same? ;-(

  51. Of course in this case, I don’t think the people involved hate gays. They just think homosexuality is immoral and that they are putting their souls in danger.

    Hate the sin, love the sinner.

    Exception being the Westboro types, but that’s literally just an extended family and I’m not convinced they aren’t just trolling.

  52. If you make somebody bake you a wedding cake wouldn’t they just spit in it?

  53. Is there anyone at Reason who will acknowledge the possibility that someone who believes that marriage is exclusively a heterosexual institution (pretty much the opinion of all mankind up until about 20 minutes ago) might not be motivated by “hate” or “bigotry”?

  54. So the courts claim that art is speech and speech cannot be compelled, but providing a service is not speech?

    If anybody could bake a perfect cake or make a beautiful flower arrangement quickly and easily, we wouldn’t have bakers or florists.

    Most people have eaten a bad cake or seen an ugly flower arrangement. That right there is the difference between a service and a work of art.

    A baker or florist is both a service provider and an artist. You’re not just paying for A cake ot A flower arrangement, you’re paying for art. Whether it be a cake that tastes great and looks beautiful or a tasteful bouquet, that’s art. And art is speech.

    So you go compel a baker to provide you a service he or she really does not want to? How much do you want to bet that cake won’t have a scrap of artistry in it? Even leaving aside such ‘accidents’ as ‘mistaking’ the salt for the sugar, would you really want to eat a cake that an artist hated to make? Will it be beautiful or mediocre with just the service and no art?

    Will it be artisitcally delicious or serviceably bland?

  55. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ??????

  56. It is so sad that inalienable rights is a myth. Individuals, running a for profit business open to the pubic, is not a public business that one has no choice but to go there, like when dealing with the government. It is a private business and the person or persons running it should have the inalienable right, for whatever reason, to discriminate. That’s freedom and liberty. The government, forcing people to serve others that they would normally discriminate against–at the point of a gun, I might add–is pure tyranny.

    Government laws upholding and enforcing discrimination are wrong, as the government is supposed to serve all of us, whether we voted for the particular politicians in power or not. Government, like Justice, should be blind to ethnic, religious, racial, or sexual preference differences. But truly free people have the right to follow their own beliefs, even if those beliefs are based in ignorance and intolerance.

    As to Christians and their mistaken beliefs about marriage, they need to understand that their Bible, their God, allowed Jewish men at the time of Jesus to have as many wives as they wanted and could afford, plus have sexual access to any female slaves they had. Furthermore, their Bible documents human sacrifice to their God and father-daughter incest, not to mention murder, rape, and infanticide.
    (Biblical references provided upon request.)

  57. While I agree that it’s bad to force others to do business with you, we have had such laws for half a century, forcing Calvinists to serve atheists, misogynysts to serve women, lesbians to serve jocks, and even forcing homosexuals to serve Catholics and Mormons. The sky doesn’t seem to have fallen.

    Odd that this becomes and issue only when it is homosexuals being served by social conservatives hiding behind a “Christian” label. (Of course, given the persecution and violence homosexuals have suffered at the hand of such “Christians”, caution probably is advisable.)

    I’m all for freedom of association, but then let’s have it for everybody: eliminate all such forced association laws. But as long as homosexuals are forced to serve conservative Christians, the law should require the reverse as well, if only to make a point of how stupid forced association is.

  58. so lets make it like that:
    if you don’t like the customer – you do watever you want – be rude, play a joke whatever
    if you like the customer – you don’t take money from him. The joy of serving him should be enough.
    Sounds fair?

  59. “…forcing people to do business with you? Putting yourself at the mercy of people who hate you? That’s always a risky idea.”

    Tell that to Rosa Parks.

  60. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ??????

  61. What is this non existent freedom of association Reason keeps referring to?

    I was born in 1971 and we were always taught that we cannot discriminate against anyone in regards to race, ethnicity, creed, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. When people are rejected because a person just doesn’t want to be around, work for, or otherwise associate with said person or people, we have been taught that it is not only wrong, but illegal if in the public sphere.

    So I think for journalistic integrity we should stop referring to freedom of association as a right granted us in the bill of rights since nobody can legally exercise their right in the public sphere, thus making the right null and void.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.