Criminal Justice

Forcing Companies to Let Employees Wear Head Scarves Is Not 'Government Non-Interference'

Nor is it required by the First Amendment.

|

CNN

In an essay headlined "Supreme Court Unleashes Its Inner Libertarian," CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin says two cases decided yesterday "dramatically" illustrate "the libertarian roots of the Bill of Rights, especially the First Amendment." But neither ruling hinges on the First Amendment, and one of them has nothing to do with it. Nor can that decision reasonably be described as libertarian, unless the term has lost all meaning.

In Elonis v. U.S., which Damon Root discussed here yesterday, the Court said mere negligence is not enough to convict someone of violating a federal law, 18 USC 875(c), that makes it a crime to transmit "in interstate commerce any communication containing any threat…to injure the person of another." The case involved Anthony Elonis, who posted on Facebook rap lyrics that other people, including his wife and employer, viewed as threats of violence. Although Elonis raised free-speech claims, the Court did not address them.

Writing for the majority in Elonis, Chief Justice John Roberts says "it is not necessary to consider any First Amendment issues" because the case can be resolved based on the general principle that a defendant's mental state must be considered to convict him of a crime, whether or not that crime involves speech. "There is no dispute that the mental state requirement in Section 875(c) is satisfied if the defendant transmits a communication for the purpose of issuing a threat, or with knowledge that the communication will be viewed as a threat," Roberts writes. The Court declined to address the question of whether recklessness would be enough, since "neither Elonis nor the Government has briefed or argued that point."

Toobin not only misconstrues Elonis as a First Amendment ruling; he conflates the tolerance required by the First Amendment with endorsement, which is not the sort of mistake you would expect a free-speech fan to make. After quoting some of Elonis's lyrics—which included references to shooting his wife, cutting an FBI agent's throat, and gunning down a kindergarten class—Toobin writes, "That the court would effectively endorse these deeply disturbing rants illustrates the depth of its commitment to free speech." Defending someone's right to freedom of speech, of course, does not necessarily mean you agree with what he has to say. In any case, this decision explicitly was not based on freedom of speech.

The other decision that Toobin claims reflects the "libertarian roots" of the First Amendment is EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch, an employment discrimination case. The Court said it is possible for employers to violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans discrimination based on religious practices that can be accommodated without undue hardship, even if they are not aware of an applicant's need for accommodation. The case involved Samantha Elauf, a Muslim whose application for a job at Abercrombie & Fitch was rejected because her head scarf violated the clothing chain's employee dress code. 

Toobin's discussion of Abercrombie & Fitch is even more confused than his discussion of Elonis:

In recent years, the government's obligation not to interfere with religion—to allow the "free exercise" of religion, in the words of the First Amendment—has expanded into an obligation to accommodate religion. School officials must allow religious student groups to meet on school grounds, just like other student groups. If schools were going to allow movies to be shown on school grounds, they had to allow religious movies too. If universities are going to subsidize student publications, they have to subsidize religious publications by students as well. 

The question raised by this line of cases is when accommodation of religion becomes "establishment" of religion, which is also prohibited under the other part of the religion clause of the First Amendment. For example, as same sex marriage becomes lawful in most places, do states have to accommodate the religious beliefs of those florists and bakers who object to these ceremonies? That's a question for another day, but it's more relevant than ever because of today's A & F decision.

Toobin does not seem to recognize a distinction between prohibiting the government from discriminating against people based on religion and prohibiting private employers from doing so. Yet that distinction is important to libertarians, who he seems to think should be pleased by the outcome of this case. The distinction is also important in constitutional law, since the First Amendment applies only to government action. Private discrimination is illegal only if legislators decide to make it so.

The sort of accommodation to which Toobin refers when he mentions gay marriage—a religious exception to anti-discrimination laws—is likewise not constitutionally required, according to the Supreme Court's current reading of the First Amendment. In the 1990 case Employment Division v. Smith, the Court said the Free Exercise Clause does not apply to neutral, generally applicable laws that happen to make it difficult or impossible for people to practice their religion. Congress responded to that decision by approving the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which addresses the burdens that the Court said the First Amendment does not. Many states have adopted similar laws, which is the context of the debate to which Toobin alludes.

Toobin seems to be suggesting that requiring religious exceptions to employers' dress codes and requiring religious exceptions to laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual preference both raise Establishment Clause issues. If you read the clause as barring the government from elevating religion above nonreligion (as opposed to merely banning official support for a particular sect), there is some logic to that argument, since both policies give people privileges they would not have if they were atheists. But while letting florists and bakers turn down jobs they do not want to take embodies a libertarian principle, forcing employers to change their dress codes does not.

Toobin says the latter policy reflects "our strong national commitment to government non-interference in what Americans believe or what they say." Unless they believe their employees should not wear head scarves and communicate that expectation, in which case this commitment to noninterference somehow requires the opposite. Toobin describes that sort of meddling as "forcing the government to the sidelines." I don't know much about sports, but I am pretty sure that expression does not mean what Toobin thinks it does.

Advertisement

NEXT: Lindsey Graham: Hillary Clinton Would Tear Rand Paul Apart

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Forget it Jake, it’s Toobin Town.

    1. Picking on a Toobin judicial editorial is the equivalent of punching Terry Schiavo in the face.

      1. Stop punching down.

    2. For a man who knows a lot of fancy $20 words, he sure is dumb.

  2. Nor can that decision reasonably be described as libertarian, unless the term has lost all meaning.

    It’s pretty much lost most of its meaning by now. Can we have liberal back?

    1. Already taken back.

      1. I won’t cede them liberal anymore. It’s utterly inapt. Lefty is my go-to, but that wears thin. Progressive, too, with all its New Deal/eugenics taint, but as someone pointed out, how is it a movement that peaked in philosophical development in the thirties gets the sobriquet with “progress”?

        1. Just say prog. Sounds vaguely nasty.

          1. I have to go with the suggestion of Mrs. Hatred, of Leicester.

            Probably the best advice I’ve heard.

            1. “I’m Belgian”

              “I’m sorry.”

          2. I prefer Proglodyte.

        2. “how is it a movement that peaked in philosophical development in the thirties gets the sobriquet with “progress”?”

          Same way a bill requiring phone companies to store our data and turn it over to NSA upon request is called the “FREEDOM” Act, or the original bill to keep us under surveillance in the first place was the “PATRIOT” Act, or the bill that required us all to pay more into the health care system was called the “Affordable Care Act.”

          I could go on, but you get the idea.

    2. It really is a concerted effort on the left to rob language of any real meaning.

        1. I saw that Riven responded, and I wrote her back.

      1. Orwell said as much, did he not?

    3. Oh please, you big whiner. How do you think anarchists feel about having the term stolen by face-covering Marxist vandals at any kind of protest?

      Actually we don’t really give a shit. At least I don’t.

      Now Kill Hitler!

      1. Yeah, but Marxist idiots stole your term long before you were an itch in your great-great-great-granddaddy’s syphilitic lesions. That means you win…er, wait…I…win?

        1. Dr. Zorders: Jerri, I have some bad news. You have syphilis.

          Jerri: No!

          Dr. Zorders: Not only that, it appears your syphilis is infested with crabs that are carrying gonorrhea. Don’t you use condoms?

          Jerri: Look, doc, I go all natural. That’s why my prices are so high.

          Dr. Zorders: That’s pretty irresponsible. But, thanks to Penicillin, there’s no need to act responsible. Penicillin is nature’s condom!

      2. Didn’t anarchist originally refer to left-wing collectivists (though not Marxists, as I believe anarchism predates that)? Not that it really ultimately matters.

        1. *And by left-wing collectivists, I don’t mean all left-wing collectivists, just a subset that argued for a stateless society without hierarchy (of course I don’t think the society they advocate would actually be as they describe it in theory, but that’s beside the point).

          1. Yes, but there was no “left wing-right wing” at the time (late 18th c.). They simply said “screw this” and went off to live on farming communes in the New World.

            It didn’t really work out, mostly.

            1. One might argue that the Amish and the Menonites are such groups.

  3. How stupid do you have to be to conclude that the state dictating terms of employment, and who can and cannot be hired and why, is “libertarian”?

    Stupid enough to be a CNN legal analyst, I guess.

    1. I really can’t figure out what Toobin is talking about. Does he really think that A&F, a private employer, is analogous to a public university? He seems to believe most people won’t notice his clear conflation of the two.

      1. Yes he does. By trying to earn a profit, you give up any natural rights to the government. A business isn’t a collection of individuals freely contracting with each other, it’s a rapacious entity that must be tamed and controlled.

        This is what they believe.

        1. KKKORPORATIONS AREn”T PEOPLEZ!!!

      2. If like him you believed that jobs, education and authority proceeded from the State then your argument would be on solid ground.

    2. It makes sense if you think that the government can increase liberty by forcing people to behave. Minimum wage laws are libertarian because they give people more leisure, the CRA is libertarian because it forces lunch counters to be integrated, etc.

      1. And prison is libertarian because it gives you time to think.

        1. I think the people who invented the penitentiary thought something similar.

        2. Also because there aren’t any roads

        3. And because of all the pot , Mexicans, and ass sex.

          1. Winner

    3. His understanding of “libertarian” seems to be that the individual reigns supreme, even if the government has to force that on businesses. I can sort of vaguely understand how someone confronted with the concept of “individualism” might think that way for a while, but not someone who claims to be a seasoned political commentator. he must have been so absorbed in his little statist bubble for so long that anything other than statism is blurry. He reminds me of that famous map of the word from a New yorker’s perspective, where everything beyond Manhattan is mislabeled and indistinct.

      1. He squares the circle in his argument by ignoring that public accommodation laws are by definition unlibertarian.

        Free association is one of the foundations of libertarianism. And in a libertarian society it applies equally to all.

      2. It’s a widespread understanding. Hugh Downs on “20/20” asked John Stossel if the issue of allowing employers to disallow employees to smoke off the job put libertarian principles in conflict w themselves.

    4. It’s not stupid, it’s a nice, perfect insight into how people like him fundamentally cannot understand libertarianism, because all they understand is force. Part of their fundamental inability to understand stems from the fact that they cannot help but make ridiculous caricatures of those they consider their enemies. But the rest comes from their inability to understand that there are actually some people who don’t think you should just force people to do what you want when you have the power to do so.

      You have to understand, these people cannot understand that. Why wouldn’t you force people to do what you want them to do if you have the power to do so?

      1. This is what I mean when I say that religion has died but all the religious impulses survive. 150 years ago he’d be all for converting the heathens by force to save their souls. Now, well, he still is.

        1. Fuck you splitter!!!

        2. +1 The Turtle Moves

        3. hence the idea of prosecuting “climate deniers” for blasphemy.

      2. “It’s not stupid, it’s a nice, perfect insight into how people like him fundamentally cannot understand libertarianism, because all they understand is force.”

        For them, politics is *in whose interests* you claim to be acting when you’re pointing your gun.

        The idea that we could agree *not* to be pointing guns at each other is not part of their moral universe.

        1. Except libertarians support all those parts of government that involve actually shooting people, opposing all the rest of civilized society on the grounds that it employs metaphorical guns.

          1. And you’d name an example, but you just don’t want to embarrass us, right thread necromancer?

          2. Tony|6.2.15 @ 11:12PM|#

            Except libertarians support all those parts of government that involve actually shooting people,

            Citation needed, corpse-fucker.

  4. “Nor can that decision reasonably be described as libertarian, unless the term has lost all meaning.”

    Um, Jacob, I don’t know quite how to tell you this, but…………uh, we need to talk.

  5. …which is not the sort of mistake you would expect a free-speech fan to make.

    You don’t say.

  6. Progressives live in the Bizarro World (not giving to the poor is taking, not taking from the rich is giving, not providing for free is prohibiting, etc.). Is it any surprise they’d view a blow against a corporation (they’re not people, therefore they have no Constitutionally-protected rights) as a ‘Libertarian’ victory? Besides, corporations like Abercrombie and Finch are public accommodations, built by everyone else. How dare they tell their paid employees how to dress and behave in their stores! We are so doomed…

    1. a corporation (they’re not people, therefore they have no Constitutionally-protected rights)

      So… a search of Democratic Party Headquarters on orders of a Republican president would not violate any rights since political corporations have no rights.

  7. Toobin describes that sort of meddling as “forcing the government to the sidelines.”

    He’s saying that allowing the government to forcibly nullifying an employer’s dress code is taking government out of the game? That has to be a misquote. No one is that backward.

    1. Oh, wait, it took me a second reading to put two and two together and come up with Toobin’s answer of five. The game he’s referring to is freedom of religious expression, which the government forcing to be allowed in every aspect of life is the same as government not allowing-

      No, wait, I lost it again.

      1. Careful, FoE. You’re going to get yourself stuck in a loop, and you won’t have even needed Kirk to talk you there.

        1. When you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back into you.

      2. STE-RI-LIZE!

        1. You two aren’t of the body.

    2. it’s only because he views a headscarf as a common sense, minor accommodation. were the case about a burka he might be forced to do some critical thinking.

  8. It’s not a Toobin!

    -Jacob Sullum Schwarzenegger

  9. Toobin does not seem to recognize a distinction between prohibiting the government from discriminating against people based on religion and prohibiting private employers from doing so.

    The question one would ask Mr. Toobin is if he sees a distinction between private and government discrimination. I am willing to bet he judges the matter under the principle that discrimination is inherently sinful.

  10. “[…]unless the term has lost all meaning.”

    When proggies are at a loss to assign blame, that’s the default. It doesn’t matter, since most people listening to the proggie don’t know what it means, either.
    So it’s just sort of a throw-away line.

  11. For example, as same sex marriage becomes lawful in most places, do states have to accommodate the religious beliefs of those florists and bakers who object to these ceremonies? That’s a question for another day, but it’s more relevant than ever because of today’s A & F decision.

    I guess that depends on whose is being gored. Many or most of these decisions seem to be based on political expediencies.

    1. ugh — reason commenting does not geehaw well with Chrome…

      If a private company must accommodate the religious dress of its employees, then how can that same private company be forced into transactions that violate similar religious beliefs of the business owners? Are the employees entitled to more rights than the owners? Is employment treated differently than the sale of goods? Or are some religious beliefs treated differently than others?

      I see a danger in libertarians strictly holding to the view that if it’s a private actor, then he can ban, prohibit, deny, suppress whatever he wants, while our basic human freedoms as expressed in the bill of rights apply only to the government. If that’s the gist of the libertarian position, what happens in a privately-owned world where those private interests don’t allow firearms, free speech, religious freedom, etc?

      1. If that’s the gist of the libertarian position, what happens in a privately-owned world where those private interests don’t allow firearms, free speech, religious freedom, etc?

        Then people will be able to choose whether to conduct business with those private interests or other private interests where firearms, free speech, religious freedom, etc are allowed. Pretty simple, actually…without government coercion the choice of free association will expand.

        1. It’s actually not that simple sloop. Imagine a libertopia where 90% of all assets are owned by atheists who hate christianity. and the poor believer is kept from bibles or whatever. They have no natural rights to believe, say or preach how they want to because private companies don’t allow it?

          1. So, look guys, imagine that aliens showed up and caused all this horrible shit, though… like, magic or something, maybe they have a ray, I didn’t work out all the details yet, but something, y’know, and it causes all this horrible shit. As aforesaid. Doesn’t that prove me right, then? Right, guys?

            1. Mind = blown

              By the way, if you don’t watch Tim and Eric when stoned sometimes…you should start. Like with this.

            2. I’m examining your philosophy and find it wanting. And for this being about force, do you all think that if all things were owned privately, certain groups of private people would form their own police forces, armies, etc to impose their will on others?

              1. Cool story, brah. I’m sure you can sell the screenplay. I’m seeing a hot Asian lead, how about you.

              2. They might…on their own property. But on other people’s property they wouldn’t be able to.

                Would there not be an arbiter to rule on rights violations? Would others not be able to band together to prevent those aggressors from imposing their will?

                1. sloop-

                  who would be the arbiters? do you want to spend your time banding together to protect your land and assets? I sure don’t. As hard as I try, I cannot imagine a better world where everything is owned by private parties. That’s because those who have all the money — the big corps — will buy everything up and own it all and make all the rules.

                  Look, i fucking hate our government. But I do not hate what it was intended to be — a system of justice that protected people, their stuff and their rights from ANY person or thing trying to harm them.

              3. do you all think that if all things were owned privately, certain groups of private people would form their own police forces, armies, etc to impose their will on others?

                Go to school, Duke. Learn something.

                1. Heroic — yep, you and him are WAY smarter than Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. WAAAAAAAAY smarter.

                  If only our founders had just listened to you all.

                  1. Do you have anything serious to add to the conversation?

                  2. Yes, many people today are WAY smarter than people who lived 250 years ago. Those fools also believed in a labor theory of value.

          2. I fail to see where, in a free society, there would not be niche markets that would cater to the needs of the Christians in your example. Also, in a technologically advanced society, could they not just print their own bibles or whatever and distribute them as they pleased?

            I,just don’t see your example as being remotely realistic in any society that follows our current one, from an either technological or marketing standpoint.

            1. Much like kosher butcher shops.

              1. I thought they were all wiped out in the Great Halal War of 2021?

          3. Imagine a libertopia where 90% of all assets are owned by atheists who hate christianity.

            I can dream.

            and the poor believer is kept from bibles or whatever.

            Who keeps them from bibles and how would they do that? Hating christianity isn’t the same as prohibiting it. You are free to do as you wish on your own property and a private citizen has no authority to impose their will on anyone on any property but their own.

            1. Fd’A

              So poor people who don’t own property cannot practice their beliefs?

              1. Of course they can. In the commons or amongst like-minded property owners who invite them to do so (otherwise known as churches).

                You seem to think people will frequent establishments who impose their will upon others in a discriminatory fashion. Those types will be the first to go under as their competitors, who cater to everyone, capture market share.

                Hell, in your scenario, I’d start a church that catered to the religious, charge a small fee for attending and make a fucking fortune on the 10% who choose to worship. There is money to be made catering to the minority.

          4. I think 10% of US assets would still be more than enough for people to print bibles.

            But, yes, many HOAs and private roads would probably ban religious proselytizing and religious displays. So what?

          5. It’s quite believable that in such a world as imagined by Duke, the people who would otherwise have been the independence-minded sort who are libertarians in this world would not be libertarians, and would instead be for putting restrictions on employers. But we’re not in such a world, and in this world we’re libertarians who believe in such restrictions only on gov’t, not on private parties.

      2. This is about force, not discrimination. The question is whether or not someone has the right to use force to achieve utopia. Libertarians say no. Progressives and other moralizing busybodies disagree.

      3. Then you don’t associate with them. It’s really very simple, look.

        Your employer forbids you means of self-defense at your workplace. You quit.

        BOOM, problem solved.

        1. Or you just ignore them, and if the highly unlikely scenario of having to use your means of self-defense at that workplace ever arises, you don’t squawk when they fire you. Assuming that they aren’t grateful that you ignored them, depending on the scenario.

          1. No kidding.

            Hey, any lawyers want to chime in? Is there any sort of liability invoked by an incident of violence when the property owner took away your self-defense?

            1. I made an “A” in con law — my prof had degrees from harvard, columbia and ut. my admin law prof was taught admin law by scalia at chicago. i passed two states’ bar exams back to back, and i studied at home. oh, and i’ve litigated civil rights cases for and against the man.

              You will never, ever live in libertopia. It’s not ever going to happen and you need to deal with it.

              Just because an actor is private does not mean they cannot do harm — and if some private actors were left unrestrained, they would do great harm. I’ve litigated against giant corporations and have found them to be the most evil, malevolent forces I’ve ever encountered, and I deal with stategov and fedgov a lot. Private actors must be subject to some greater law than just freedom of association lest people who live in an imperfect world find themselves without the ability to speak, pray or arm themselves, or in some other pickle.

              If Libertarians ever want to be “a thing,” their philosophy needs to be further developed to include notions of justice for all who would live in libertopia. I’m fine living under a Jeffersonian country, minus the slavery.

              1. Oh, look. Almost a lawyer. He gets better and better.

                1. I have seen almost every episode of House, so if you want some medical advice let me know.

                  Chances are whatever is ailing you is Munchhausen, though.

                  1. Well, it’s not lupus, that’s for damned sure.

              2. Just because an actor is private does not mean they cannot do harm

                Ya think?

                SUP-er Genius, eh?

                1. And yet, Monsanto hasn’t starved 35M people and Walmart hasn’t created a killing field and Coke didn’t gas 6M Pepsi drinkers.

                  1. My god. BP killed 11 people at the Macondo well. GM killed over 100 people with faulty parts. Blackwater killed 17 and injured 20 people in Nisour Square massacre. All private and all recent.

                    1. Duke|6.2.15 @ 8:38PM|#
                      “My god. BP killed 11 people at the Macondo well. GM killed over 100 people with faulty parts. Blackwater killed 17 and injured 20 people in Nisour Square massacre. All private and all recent.”

                      And you think there’s a point buried in there?

                    2. Right. GM killed 100 people through negligence. Same with BP. How many die in the uS alone from deliberate action by agents of the State. Texas has executed more people than that since restoring the death penalty in what is some of the most defensible state-sponsored killings you can find.

                    3. Brett L|6.2.15 @ 8:44PM|#
                      “Right.”

                      And Blackwater was acting as a governmental agency, so we’re not hitting on all cylinders.

                    4. Oh, this is rich. A whole 128 people, you say? That’s a slow morning for Pol Pot.

                    5. The Heresiarch|6.2.15 @ 9:37PM|#
                      “Oh, this is rich. A whole 128 people, you say? That’s a slow morning for Pol Pot.”

                      Besides which, BP and GM were called on the carpet for the damages.

                    6. My god – are you saying i should sell all my stocks?!? PRIVATE BUSINESS IS A PARASITE!??

                2. Again, great responses proving you don’t understand political philosophy or common sense for that matter. I’m assuming libertopia is 100% privately owned — no courts, no government, no taxes, no constitution.

                  Where do rights begin and end amongst the private actors in libertopia? Is your supreme law simply “freedom of association?” Who defines and guards property rights? Who mediates disputes that arise between these private actors? What inalienable rights to people have in this free libertarian country? How do you balance those rights vs-a-vis each other?

                  1. Duke|6.2.15 @ 8:36PM|#
                    “Again, great responses proving you don’t understand political philosophy or common sense for that matter. I’m assuming libertopia is 100% privately owned — no courts, no government, no taxes, no constitution.”

                    You’re confused. That’s anarchy. No wonder you’re having problems; you don’t know what you’re talking about.

                  2. duke, how did common law arise? Peers mediating disputes. There is the a distinct noncompliance percentage, but you believe this would be more harmful than government. Others here disagree. Others here would need to have a long definitional discussion about “more harmful” before we could begin. You still haven’t addressed how a private entity is going to do more harm than a government who claims a monopoly on violence and will maintain it at much cost. (I would say all costs but I can’t prove that for all governments.)

                    1. Are you kidding me? I studied common law and it was and is the creation of law over time by COURT cases.

                      All I’m fucking asking for here is one g-damn consistent statement of philosophy from you guys — DO you want everything 100% privately owned or do you want SOME form of government.

                      From there, we can discuss the finer points of mediating disputes, property rights and personal rights. But as it is now, the only principle I see is that of freedom of association. And if that’s all you got, that aint enough to build a society on.

                    2. DO you want everything 100% privately owned or do you want SOME form of government.

                      You’re conflating libertarianism and anarchism.

                    3. There are several flavors of libertarian.

                      These are my tenets borrowed from several philosophies to include the NAP:

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

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

                    4. These are my tenets borrowed from several philosophies to include the NAP:

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

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

                      This isn’t based on anything. It just sounds good to you. You are making an exception to anarchism, that’s all. I can do that too, and wouldn’t have any more consistent ethical case than you, only a practical one. And surely as a grown person you can see how your ultra-simple formula for a moral society is probably quite impractical.

                    5. This isn’t based on anything.

                      It is based upon everything.

                      Those two tenets maximize liberty.

                      Tenet 1 maximizes liberty in that the only limit to your liberty should be where it infringes on someone else’s.

                      Tenet 2 maximizes liberty in that without a final say in force, powerful enough to enforce Tenet 1, I will certainly lose my liberty to the first group of thugs who are more heavily armed than myself. However, giving government any more power than to protect the rights of the individual allows the government to BECOME the thug and the taker of my rights.

                      So, once again, you diseased little man, you are completely incorrect in your assessment.

                    6. If government force is good for one thing you can’t automatically say it’s bad for everything else.

                    7. If government force is good for one thing you can’t automatically say it’s bad for everything else.

                      Yes, I can and I do.

                      I value liberty above all else. Equal liberty for everyone, and it should be allowed to exist to the maximum extent possible. Doing anything more or less than what is stipulated in Tenet 2 reduces liberty for someone.

                    8. Then your definition of liberty is so paradoxically restricted that it should be called something more clarifying: how about “freedom from government”? Because I can think of a thousand ways government programs increase my liberty relative to a state of nature.

                      But then basing your entire political philosophy around “freedom from this one specific thing but not anything else that happens in the world” would be ridiculous and stupid. So you have to soothe yourself by not thinking too hard about what “liberty” actually means.

                    9. lib?er?ty ?lib?rd?
                      noun
                      noun liberty

                      1. the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views.

                      2. the power or scope to act as one pleases.

                      Because I can think of a thousand ways government programs increase my liberty relative to a state of nature.

                      By stealing it from someone else. Your liberty is increased at the expense of someone else’s. Which makes you an immoral pig.

                      Getting free shit isn’t liberty, no matter how much progs attempt to torture the definition.

                    10. Being cuffed and booked for stealing your stuff is a restriction on my liberty in favor of yours. Taxes pay for that service, and you’re welcome. But taxes to pay for services that don’t literally involve imprisonment and shooting? Evil theft.

                      Why can’t you just defend programs on their merits instead of engaging in this futile toddler bullshit of trying to trick me into thinking that your preferences have some magical imprimatur?

                    11. But taxes to pay for services that don’t literally involve imprisonment and shooting? Evil theft.

                      No they decrease liberty as they do not protect the rights of the individual. They make government the thug that decreases one person’s liberty to give free shit to someone else.

                      Why can’t you just defend programs on their merits instead of engaging in this futile toddler bullshit of trying to trick me into thinking that your preferences have some magical imprimatur?

                      I judge all programs on their merits. The only merit that matters. Does it decrease someone’s liberty to provide it? If the program defends the rights of an individual, it is justified. If it doesn’t do that it is, by definition, reducing someone’s liberty and is an overreach.

                      It’s not magic, Tony, it’s logic.

                    12. “Being cuffed and booked for stealing your stuff is a restriction on my liberty in favor of yours.”

                      Ummm.. at what point were you entitled to steal from another? When was that “liberty” established? You are well within your rights to impose yourself, and steal another, but those assholes down at the police department will cuff and book you for it because taxes? What a bunch of jerkoffs… no wonder you’re outraged..

                    13. I studied common law and it was and is the creation of law over time by COURT cases.

                      Yes, you studied it, but you evidently didn’t understand it.

                  3. I’m assuming libertopia is 100% privately owned — no courts, no government, no taxes, no constitution.

                    You assume incorrectly. You are describing Anarcho Capitalism, a very small subset of libertarianism.

                    You know what happens when you assume?

                  4. OK, now that you’re asking real questions and not posing Sunday School questions, I’ll take a bite.

                    I’m assuming libertopia is 100% privately owned — no courts, no government, no taxes, no constitution.

                    No, that’s anarchism. Libertarianism still has a limited state.

                    Where do rights begin and end amongst the private actors in libertopia?

                    Libertarianism is based on the premise of self-ownership. You own yourself, therefore all rights stem from you. You have a right to free speech, but you can’t force me to listen to it. You don’t have it on my property. You have a right to life, but you don’t have the right to take wealth from me to sustain it. You have a right to practice religion, but you can’t force me to adhere to your faith. And so on.

                    Is your supreme law simply “freedom of association?”

                    No.

                    Who defines and guards property rights?

                    In a nightwatchman state, the state can act as the arbitrator and enforcer of contracts.

                    Who mediates disputes that arise between these private actors?

                    The state or agreed upon private arbitration. Same as now.

                    1. ..continued

                      What inalienable rights to people have in this free libertarian country?

                      The right to be free from force and coercion. Every violation of rights stems from that.

                      How do you balance those rights vs-a-vis each other?

                      The same way we do now, only without the state using it’s monopoly of force as the deciding vote. You want to work here, but we have a rule against wearing head coverings on the job, and your hair must be above the ear, no matter what your Hassidic or Sikh faith demands of you. You’re free not to work here and to seek employment elsewhere.

                      That’s the great thing about freedom. You have almost limitless choice and no one can force theirs onto you.

                    2. So your sticking point is the right to be free from force or coercion?

                      Let’s examine that. Can private companies coerce? if you say no, the common law of adhesion contracts would disagree with you.

                      Can private companies use force? if you say no, then private armies like Blackwater and those utilized by other countries would disagree with you.

                    3. Duke|6.2.15 @ 9:02PM|#

                      “Let’s examine that. Can private companies coerce? if you say no, the common law of adhesion contracts would disagree with you.”
                      Explanation, please, and I’m betting it’s once again your lacck of knowledge

                      “Can private companies use force? if you say no, then private armies like Blackwater and those utilized by other countries would disagree with you.”
                      False.
                      Blackwater was granted limited access to coercion by the government; it was NOT a private actor, and I’m sure your answer above is going to be equally false. Let’s see it.

                    4. Can private companies coerce?

                      Without cause? No.

                      Can private companies use force?

                      Against me without provocation? No.

                      Are you quite sure you’ve examined the philosophy? You seem to be very ignorant of it and suffer the impression that violent acts somehow invalidate a set of beliefs.

                      Here’s the flip side, chief: despite the bug up your ass you have against free enterprise, you don’t have the right to use force and coercion against private companies or actors either. See how that works?

                    5. Here Duke. educate yourself. Damn, I miss Donahue.

                      Plenty more there to learn even more.

                    6. JW|6.2.15 @ 9:13PM|#
                      “Here Duke. educate yourself”

                      See below. The slaver Duke is not here to learn anything; the slaver is here to correct our understanding of the great and good governments do in supporting the downtrodden among us.

                    7. The slaver Duke is not here to learn anything

                      I can only lead the poor, poor man to enlightenment. I cannot force him to receive it.

                  5. Read ANY book about anarcho-capitalism if you want answers to these simple questions.

                    Really, I’m quite sure you could pick one at random and find answers.

                    You could also spend a few minutes thinking about it and come up with possible solutions.

              3. Duke|6.2.15 @ 8:13PM|#
                ”'[…]I’ve litigated against giant corporations and have found them to be the most evil, malevolent forces I’ve ever encountered, and I deal with stategov and fedgov a lot.[…]”

                You’re either a liar or abysmally stupid.

                1. From there, what our law has done (at least in some cases) is to try to balance the relative harm and benefit of each actor. I realize this will be way over Sevo’s and Hamster’s head, but I will press on…

                  Here, a private company like Abercrombie (who should be selling safari rifles instead of ripped jeans) is not harmed very much, if at all, by allowing a worker to wear a hijab.

                  On the other hand, the worker is harmed a relatively lot by not being able to honor her faith.

                  And “big deal!” you say. Well, our common law has realized a little thing called disparities in bargaining power. Abercrombie, relative to the worker, has enormous bargaining power, while the worker has little if any. And so in a civilized society, we put the party with the great bargaining power out a little so that the one with little or no power is not deprived.

                  I will say this again — Libertarians around these parts need to do a better job of working out a consistent and logical system of justice to apply to these situations. Glib putdowns won’t work at this level. And what I’m talking about here are ANCIENT legal principles that have withstood the test of time.

                  1. You aren’t worth more than glib put-downs.

                    1. You aren’t worth more than glib put-downs.

                      I bet my net worth is more than yours.

                    2. Duke|6.2.15 @ 9:16PM|#
                      “I bet my net worth is more than yours.”

                      Yeah, slimy rent-seekers do quite well, don’t they? Are you proud of being a statist i\gnoramus? Were you born that way, or did it take long years of study?

                    3. You get the impression he wants “equality of outcome” in his…well, philosophies is being charitable, but you get my point.

                    4. You get the impression he wants “equality of outcome” in his…well, philosophies is being charitable, but you get my point.

                      Ah. You mean he has a small penis.

                    5. Well, I was going for “narrow minded”…I don’t need to hit the guy down South to make the observation.

                      Besides, the way he’s talking, he could totes afford that penile implant…

                    6. I’ve never played by Marquis of Fantailler rules. I think you have to have a minimum net worth before you play by Marquis of Fantailler rules.

                  2. I’ll answer, dipshit, and I’m sure it will be far beyond your pathetic ability to under stand,

                    Duke|6.2.15 @ 9:08PM|#
                    “From there, what our law has done (at least in some cases) is to try to balance the relative harm and benefit of each actor.”
                    Which is totally irrelevant.

                    “Here, a private company like Abercrombie (who should be selling safari rifles instead of ripped jeans) is not harmed very much, if at all, by allowing a worker to wear a hijab.”
                    Which is totally irrelevant

                    “On the other hand, the worker is harmed a relatively lot by not being able to honor her faith.”
                    Which is totally irrelevant.

                    “And “big deal!” you say. Well, our common law has realized a little thing called disparities in bargaining power. Abercrombie, relative to the worker, has enormous bargaining power, while the worker has little if any. And so in a civilized society, we put the party with the great bargaining power out a little so that the one with little or no power is not deprived.”
                    Which makes you nothing more than an apologist for those with the guns. Didn’t take long, did it?

                    “I will say this again — Libertarians around these parts need to do a better job of working out a consistent and logical system of justice to apply to these situations. Glib putdowns won’t work at this level. And what I’m talking about here are ANCIENT legal principles that have withstood the test of time.”
                    And I will say this again:
                    Fuck off, slaver.

                  3. How do you balance those rights vs-a-vis each other?

                    The same way we do now, only without the state using it’s monopoly of force as the deciding vote. You want to work here, but we have a rule against wearing head coverings on the job, and your hair must be above the ear, no matter what your Hassidic or Sikh faith demands of you. You’re free not to work here and to seek employment elsewhere.

                    That’s the great thing about freedom. You have almost limitless choice and no one can force theirs onto you.

                    You are inconsistent with yourself and you apparently want your cake and eat it too. You want the government to enforce your immovable and movable property rights, correct? Like in a real estate registry, with full title history, and in a court of law? Who employs the judges — the state?…Abercrombie?

                    But you don’t want that same government regulating any aspect of your company whatsoever? That won’t ever work and is rather puerile to think that it would.

                    1. Duke|6.2.15 @ 9:15PM|
                      “But you don’t want that same government regulating any aspect of your company whatsoever? That won’t ever work and is rather puerile to think that it would.”

                      Gee, look! The slaver thinks that making a statement is like arguing a point! Where have we seen such a display of stupidity before?

                    2. You are inconsistent with yourself and you apparently want your cake and eat it too.

                      Nope. you asked a question and I gave you one possible answer.

                      You want the government to enforce your immovable and movable property rights, correct?

                      No, I’m an anarchist.

                      But you don’t want that same government regulating any aspect of your company whatsoever?

                      Nope.

                      That won’t ever work and is rather puerile to think that it would.

                      I’m puerile? You’re the one who wants to simple-mindedly use violence to enforce violations of your moral code, not unlike Sharia law. That’s not only puerile, but craven and primitive.

                    3. Duke, I think the fundamental point of disagreement is why should the State get to enforce its arbitration via coercion, when no one else can? If you and I go to the courts in a civil matter, I have no recourse against coercion if the court decides against me, nor do you. I’m sure as a lawyer you would like to say that this rarely happens, but I disagree. More to the point, I disagree that even the state of anarchy is more dangerous/less safe than one of government. Nothing bears that out. The thing that you won’t admit is the thing most of us learned in playground fights — no matter how small the other guy is, if he can hit you back it might hurt. A lot. It is only through the state monopoly on violence that such things happen. Think about the Pinkertons and the miners. It was a pretty damn fair fight.

                    4. I’m sure as a lawyer

                      Pssst. He’s a paralegal with delusions of superiority.

                      I worked corporate law too. You don’t see me lording it over you peasants.

                    5. “Think about the Pinkertons and the miners. It was a pretty damn fair fight.”

                      If you’re referring to the Homestead Steel Strike, you need to read “Meet You in Hell”; it was not as commonly portrayed.
                      The Pinkertons tried three times to land without getting near the union mob, and the union mob followed them until there was little choice. The union thugs instigated the aggression and the Pinkertons simply protected themselves.
                      That book is written by Standiford, and I’ll bet he HATED to write that chapter; he is no capitalist tool.

                  4. Here, a private company like Abercrombie (who should be selling safari rifles instead of ripped jeans) is not harmed very much, if at all, by allowing a worker to wear a hijab.

                    Of course they are. They’ve been threatened with violence by the state, if they don’t comply. The plaintiff wasn’t harmed at all. A&F isn’t a monopsony of labor.

                    They’re being idiots, but that’s their choice.

                    Abercrombie, relative to the worker, has enormous bargaining power, while the worker has little if any

                    Really? She could have walked away at any time and applied elsewhere. She has equal bargaining power to A&F. I see head scarves being worn by employees in all sorts of businesses.

                    And so in a civilized society, we put the party with the great bargaining power out a little so that the one with little or no power is not deprived.

                    In a civilized society, you don’t use the state to enforce your moral code at the end of a gun.

                    1. In a civilized society, you don’t use the state to enforce your moral code at the end of a gun.

                      Really? Isn’t that what all states do no matter how civilized?

                    2. Tony|6.2.15 @ 10:30PM|#
                      In a civilized society, you don’t use the state to enforce your moral code at the end of a gun.

                      “Really? Isn’t that what all states do no matter how civilized?”

                      Well, I take it back about TV news casts being more intelligent than Tony.

                    3. Not all societies have condemned murder, at least not if the right person does it. A rule against murder is part of a moral code. Every law or absence of law exists because of one or more moral codes. A civilized society simply does not go overboard with it. That’s why a libertarian society (which would of course rigorously reflect one of the strictest moral codes I can think of) could not be civilized. You are not pure, you’re just simple.

                    4. Tony|6.2.15 @ 11:03PM|#
                      “Not all societies have condemned murder, at least not if the right person does it. A rule against murder is part of a moral code.”

                      So Tony doubles down to PROVE that he’s dumber than any TV newscast! Way to go, Tony!

                  5. On the other hand, the worker is harmed a relatively lot by not being able to honor her faith.

                    Your argument assumes she has some claim to the job in the first place. The job belongs to the business owner and it is his right to contract with whomever he chooses, for any reason he chooses.

                    Your premise is faulty. She isn’t harmed at all by not being given the job. She continues to have exactly what she had before negotiations started.

                  6. I will say this again — Libertarians around these parts need to do a better job of working out a consistent and logical system of justice to apply to these situations

                    We have a consistent and logical system of justice, you simply don’t like it.

                    Unfortunately, your “system of justice” is actually inconsistent, illogical, and unjust.

              4. I don’t know what this “I’m a lawyer who studied under Ivy League profs” has to do with any of this. But just in case you want to get in a dick-size contest, I Amjured con law from a Yale professor. I’ve litigated plaintiff employment cases, both federal and state, for both individuals and on a class action basis. I’ve got eight figures of settlements that tell me I know a thing or two about employment law. Not that that matters.

                Anyway, you need to define your terms. What is “harm”? Not everything that someone conceives as “harm” ought to be sanctioned by the state. If I build a business that out-competes yours and puts you out of business, you can say that I’ve caused you “harm,” but we don’t recognize it as an actionable injury. If I lie to my girlfriend and sleep with her sister, that may cause her great emotional “harm” but should I be locked up for it?

                As for your hypothetical 90 % atheist society, I’m curious if you can point to any state/nation where the private citizens, without any legislative help, were able to oppress a minority to the extent that that minority couldn’t move to greener pastures. Frankly, I can’t think of a single instance. But I can think of plenty of times government acted as “the most evil, malevolent force.”

                1. You guys can help yourselves, but HoD nailed it early on.
                  Duke the slaver is not here to learn at all; he is at best a troll, at worst a sock.
                  Let’s say he’s trolling; a friend read the first chapter of Atlas Shrugged and described it to Duke one drunken evening as a sophomore. He now knows all about libertarianism, and he’s certain he’s found the open seam. Just like every other pathetic piece of shit who shows up to lecture us about how we want babies on spits and ole people dead in the streets.
                  Again, you can help yourselves, but our newest asshole isn’t about to give up shilling for the guns.

                  1. It’s likely Tulpa. Maybe not, but the survey says, probably.

                    That’s all the feeding he gets from me in this lifetime.

                2. “I don’t know what this “I’m a lawyer who studied under Ivy League profs” has to do with any of this.”

                  argument from authority. Stupid people use it all the time.

                  Also, I can bench twice my body weight

                  1. Duke is also worth more than HoD! So, uh, well, uh…..

                    1. My penis is apparently bigger though. That must count for something.

                    2. Hamster of Doom|6.2.15 @ 10:45PM|#
                      “My penis is apparently bigger though.”

                      TMI, HoD.

      4. “I see a danger in libertarians strictly holding to the view that if it’s a private actor, then he can ban, prohibit, deny, suppress whatever he wants, while our basic human freedoms as expressed in the bill of rights apply only to the government.”

        The Constitution does not define freedoms, it limits what the government can do. If you choose to use the government to limit what individuals can do, you’ve thereby granted the government the freedom to trample freedom.
        So, by default, if someone wants to keep X people off their property, they should be able to do so without government interference.

  12. The more upsetting part of this story is the 8 to 1 decision. Toobin is a retard, so what? The real question is why did only Thomas disagree with the decision?

    1. I’m ok with the 8-1 decision. Let’s see if it’s used as precedent to expand free association.

      And to understand it, I suggest reading deeper analysis than Toobin’s. The decision hinged more on their never addressing her dress and how she might be able to comply to their dress code. It looks like they disqualified her without bringing up her ability to comply and the rest of her interview was exceptional. certainly not a 1A ruling here even if it’s being painted as one.

      1. I’ll have to go back and read the text in detail

      2. They were completely retarded and put it in writing that they were rejecting her over her head scarf after stating that she had a perfect interview.

        Sure they should be free to be retarded but they made it extremely easy for the court.

  13. I never realized how much Jeffrey Toobin looks like Patton Oswalt.

  14. Wait. I thought we were too busy demolishing the streets of L.A.? [Looks at monitor] WHO IS LETTING SOMALIA CRAWL OUT OF THE DARK AGES??? Jet-SON!

    Which department is overseeing the shredding the Establishment Clause and deploying Confusion Troops? They’re getting bonuses this month.

  15. Both the headscarf decision and the threats decision were horribly decided.

    1. The headscarf argument is retarded. A company is allowed to have neutral rules for the work place and if you happen to have personal beliefs that don’t allow you to abide by those neutral rules, then go work somewhere else. It isn’t discrimination if a company says ‘you can’t wear any headgear’ and this happens to include Muslim headscarves. What if I started a religion where people had to be shirtless at all time? Would a company be discriminating against me if they wouldn’t hire me because I never wore a shirt?

    2. The guy who sent the alleged threats sent a bunch of facebook messages directly to his wife regarding how he’d like to see her killed. Now, those may not have been actionable threats because he didn’t say ‘I am going to murder you’ but he did write a poem which he sent to his wife which actually said ‘is your restraining order thick enough to stop a bullet?’

    I question how this isn’t construed as a threat.

    I also think reason is being disingenuous when they claim Elonis was charged for ‘posting on Facebook rap lyrics that other people, including his wife and employer, viewed as threats of violence. ‘ The guy sent facebook messages directly to his ex-wife about how he’d like to see her killed AND posted public rap lyrics about shooting her. Taken in conjunction, that’s different from just making rap lyrics.

    1. I’m trying to understand how someone is harmed by a verbal threat.

      1. A believable one or mouthing off?

        I mean, if I pull out a loaded gun near you and say, “I could kill you whenever I want, and I probably will eventually” you’re saying that there’s no harm because I didn’t pull the trigger or make an imminent threat? Harm goes beyond physical injury or property damage. Any reasonable person would suffer a pretty big hit to quality of life in such a scenario, which could only be rectified by putting the threatener away where they couldn’t feasibly make good on their threats.

        So, it seems like the credibility of the threat (in addition to imminence) is the more relevant factor.

        1. I mean, if I pull out a loaded gun near you and say, “I could kill you whenever I want, and I probably will eventually” you’re saying that there’s no harm because I didn’t pull the trigger or make an imminent threat?

          That’s not a verbal threat. Try again.

          1. How bout the exact same statement without the gun but which any reasonable person would take seriously and in which the speaker intended that effect?

            1. Sure, that’s a verbal threat. Where’s the actual and real harm? Discomfort? Pained feelings?

              FWIW, as a teen, I had these two inbreed crackers threatening to seriously beat the shit out of me, over a misunderstanding, and they meant it. It was fucking scary for about a week. That was all it was. Scary.

              Happily, it ended without an any shit being beat, but it came very close.

              1. Well I just wonder why you distinguish between verbal communication and non-verbal communication (i.e. waiving a gun around). I mean there are certainly people equally threatening without actually being armed.

                1. Well I just wonder why you distinguish between verbal communication and non-verbal communication (i.e. waiving a gun around).

                  You have to draw a line somewhere. I view that line as brandishing a deadly weapon in connection with the threat.

              2. And I assume you think they government is coercive even though government agents aren’t literally pointing a gun at our heads come tax time. The force is threatened, and private actors can certainly do the same.

                1. And I assume you think they government is coercive even though government agents aren’t literally pointing a gun at our heads come tax time. The force is threatened, and private actors can certainly do the same.

                  Are you saying that you see no difference between a gubmint the force of law and police and armies and some slackjaw not closing the slit under his nose?

                  Seriously?

                  1. Actually I’m just asking because I’m curious. I’m very on the fence on this but lean towards there being legitimate threats of violence so long as the there is intent and a reasonable person would interpret it as a legitimate threat (the court in this decision declined to say whether intent mattered, which I think is retarded).

                    But of course there is a difference but only in degree. People pay their taxes because they reasonably believe the government will use violence if they don’t and the government certainly intends to do so. Just because, for example, a street gang isn’t even in the same universe as the government doesn’t mean that if a member visited you to let you know you better pay protection “or else” that that threat is any less coercive.

                    1. People pay their taxes because they reasonably believe the government will use violence if they don’t and the government certainly intends to do so.

                      One organized crime gang is the same as any other and I treat their threats as real.

                      I view incitement with the same skepticism.

                      If you’re stupid enough to listen to someone and act out violently, merely on his say-so, you have much bigger problems.

                    2. So why do they need to be an organized group instead of an individual for the threat to be real?

                    3. So why do they need to be an organized group instead of an individual for the threat to be real?

                      Again, no difference?

                      Is an arbitrary line? Maybe, but I’ll draw it at likelihood and reputation.

                    4. I agree, I just think it’s probably better if the likelihood and reputation are judged by a jury instead of a judge.

                  2. “Are you saying that you see no difference between a gubmint the force of law and police and armies and some slackjaw not closing the slit under his nose?”

                    Yep.
                    Some random thug may or may not ever use force regardless of the claims. With the gov’t, there is NO doubt whatsoever. NONE!

      2. Threats of violence are a violation of the NAP.

        1. You can threaten me all you want and call my mother names, but you haven’t committed aggression, yet.

          You’re just running your big, fat, stupid mouth.

          1. Yes a threat is aggression.

            1. OK, if you say so.

              1. Yes a threat is aggression.

                It would have to be to justify his preemptive killing of brown people.

                1. Well it is and it does. Once again, I win. Fear not, you only need to not be afraid.

                  1. Cytotoxic|6.3.15 @ 12:19AM|#
                    “[…]Once again, I win.[…]”

                    Once again you lose.

                  2. No, I only need to not be afraid AND act morally…which means only aggressing against those who’ve initiated aggression as opposed to killing all the innocents that happen to be in the blast radius when killing your “suspected” terrorists.

    2. “What if I started a religion where people had to be shirtless at all time? Would a company be discriminating against me if they wouldn’t hire me because I never wore a shirt?”

      What if you were a pharmacist whose religion forbade you from dispensing birth control?

      1. What if you were a pharmacist whose religion forbade you from dispensing birth control?

        If you’re an owner/operator of the pharmacy, you’re free not to stock birth control devices/pills. Of course then you’re foregoing the profits from selling those, but that’s your problem.

        If you’re an employee of a pharmacy which stocks birth control devices/pills and refuse to ‘dispense’ them (i.e. make a sale), I’m fairly sure the owner(s) will let you go find other employment which is more suitable for you.

    3. A company is allowed to have neutral rules for the work place…

      Bullshit. My wife will only hire Filipinos, I won’t hire anyone. I detest employees of any color or creed,

  16. Here’s the first paragraph of the legal action:

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/op…..6_p86b.pdf

    Respondent (Abercrombie) refused to hire Samantha Elauf, a practicing
    Muslim, because the headscarf that she wore pursuant to her religious
    obligations conflicted with Abercrombie’s employee dress policy.
    The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit
    on Elauf’s behalf, alleging a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights
    Act of 1964, which, inter alia, prohibits a prospective employer from
    refusing to hire an applicant because of the applicant’s religious practice
    when the practice could be accommodated without undue hardship.
    The EEOC prevailed in the District Court, but the Tenth Circuit
    reversed, awarding Abercrombie summary judgment on the
    ground that failure-to-accommodate liability attaches only when the
    applicant provides the employer with actual knowledge of his need
    for an accommodation.

    Zero in this:

    1. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit
      on Elauf’s behalf,

      Be gone.

      1. So they used A&F’s money to sue A&F.

  17. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccZjIraji1M

    Holy shit, how did I miss Chris Cuomo claiming that pictures of Mohammad are as bad as the N-word? That’s some weapons’ grade stupidity.

    1. I didn’t watch the vid, but it is just as bad. Neither actually harm anything but feelings.

  18. More finales than Days of Our Lives:
    “Greece bailout talks: an intractable crisis with three possible outcomes”
    […]
    Option one is that Greece leaves the euro, by accident or design.
    […]
    Option two is a Greek cave in.
    […]
    All that points to option three, a good old-fashioned euro fudge.”
    http://www.theguardian.com/bus…..e-outcomes

    Will Angela spurn the Greek suitor? Tune in tomorrow…

  19. From the comments:

    Because there is no constitutional right to freedom of business practices.

    This is a typical canard. If you’re doing business or engaged in any kind of commerce, your rights are suddenly suspended. If you have a private association, you are presumed to be able to exclude anyone whom you desire to exclude. But if that private association sells things, then forget it. You must accommodate anyone who wishes to join your association, for some reason.

    1. There are also no “constitutional rights”.
      Freedoms are limited only by harm caused to others; the constitution exists only to tell the government to bug off.

    2. Because there is no constitutional right to freedom of business practices.

      There is no constitutional authority to stop you. It’s not that I’m OK with my neighbor burning used tires in his back yard. But I do need a reason to use the government to stop that. In practice, it might come down the same thing, like getting a permit from your HOA or City Council, but the philosophical approach to the problem is certainly different.

  20. That’s why when you encounter one of these PrivilegeFlakes you either withdraw the position due to “cost cutting” or just don’t call them back and STFU about it which includes your sales floor mistress

  21. OT: Mark Steyn continues to be The Man. So I was pleased to see that my suggestion back in April that Bruce Jenner should be the Republican presidential nominee is gathering steam. For one thing, in her new identity, she’s way hotter than Hillary:

    http://www.steynonline.com/

    1. ” she’s way hotter than Hillary”

      Lowest bar ever.

      1. “Better to bone Brenner” should be a thing.

  22. As long as bakers and photogs are forced to cater to Gay Marriages, it’s not interference.

  23. As long as bakers and photogs are forced to cater to Gay Marriages, it’s not interference.

  24. prohibits a prospective employer from refusing to hire an applicant because of the applicant’s religious practice when the practice could be accommodated without undue hardship.

    Emphasis added. Like loss of income due to “brand diminishment”?

  25. I’ve done lots of cool n smart stuff that you can’t confirm since I’m posting anonymously. SO LISTEN TO ME! Personally, I like the new troll.

  26. At the risk of sounding smug, where is the conservative outrage over the A&F decision? The first reaction I saw yesterday was this at HotAir that ends with this piece of excrement:

    One interesting takeaway, though, is that the government is still ready and willing to uphold religious freedom.

    Which is a pretty good example that many conservatives who were outraged about the pizza place have no belief whatsoever in freedom of association and the free market.

    1. HotAir wants cake as much as Toobin does.

  27. My favorite part was where he claimed the court is innately libertarian.

  28. Are you all enjoying playing with Tulpa’s new character?

    1. Can’t you just let him have this, Warty? It’s lonely being Tulpa…

    2. I was just hoping Eddie would show up to defend the A&F decision.

      1. You think I support the decision?

        Clarence Thomas is even more Catholic than I am, and he *opposes* it.

        1. as do I.

          Not that I am worthy of being compared to Clarence Thomas, but I at least know enough to agree with his dissent.

          1. If you’re going to indulge in stereotypes, why not say, “I bet Eddie opposes the decision because an infidel Muslim benefited from it, huh, huh.”

            1. I didn’t say that, and if you truly support the rights of employers (or anyone really besides the government) to discriminate for any reason whatsoever (including race, gender, and religion), whatever their motivation, religious or otherwise, than you are fine with me.

              1. Yes I support that right outside of race discrimination, and even as to race discrimination, seeing what a can of worms the Civil Rights Act of 1964 opened up – the Griggs decision and the passage of a buttload of other “civil rights” acts – maybe Goldwater was right back in 1964.

                I agree that the govt should ban discrimination against employees for fulfilling their civic duty – eg, jury service, being a witness.

                1. Actually, I’m not so sure of the witness part, but jurors should feel free to serve without fear of being fired for it.

                2. Yes I support that right outside of race discrimination

                  Then you don’t believe in freedom of association.

                  1. Like many otherwise-reliable freedom-fanciers, I am ambivalent about private discrimination vs. black people in the Jim Crow era, in that it was closely associated with governmental discrimination and was so incredibly pervasive as to freeze black people out of many sectors of the economy.

                    But even so, as I discussed, I begin to think in retrospect that even the 1964 Act was a bad idea.

                    When I oppose most of the “civil rights” apparatus, setting myself against, at a guess, 90% of Americans, and still I’m not pure enough, that may have something to do with excessive purity standards.

        2. No I was just hoping you would because of the drama.

          And to be clear, Thomas only partially dissented on the grounds that A&F’s actions didn’t rise to a level of intentional discrimination or disparate treatment, not out of some defense of freedom of association.

          He says this for example:

          I do not dispute that a refusal to accommodate can, in some circumstances, constitute intentional discrimination.

          It’s merely a different statutory interpretation.

          1. Sure, but as a judge he has to apply the statute, he simply chose to give it as liberty-friendly an interpretation as possible.

            So I guess I’m a tad more radical than him.

            1. He could rule the statute unconstitutional.

        3. I’m saying this gently, Eddie. The attribute which leaps out first for some of us is not your Catholicism, but your, uh… sensitivity. At times. You’re funny much more often than touchy, which is why I don’t mind it, personally. But yeah.

          1. Sensitive? SENSITIVE? Why, you little…

            I mean, I’m not sensitive at all.

    3. You recon Duke?

      1. I know the mouse by its squeak.

        1. I was curious.
          Not sure Bo is a T sock, but there were smells of that twit also.

        2. The mouse is a rat.

    4. Sadly, not new.

  29. File under = ARE WE STUPIDER AS A NATION? OR IS IT JUST ME?

    The video of a gunman brazenly opening fire on another man in the Bronx in May, or another gunman caught on camera firing across the street at someone in Harlem in April, spread so swiftly online that it is fair to ask if a crime wave is on the horizon“”

    Get that?

    A video went viral…. like, REALLY FAST…..

    ….which naturally makes it *fair to ask*….

    …. IS IT A CRIME WAVE!?…..

    it actually gets even worse. Ace Reporter, Chris Cuomo – the failed-lawer scion of da Guvnor – asks the hardball questions about, “Do #BlackLives-*still*-Matter, or has something changed?”

    1. When I’m at the gym and they CNN on, it’s all I can do to not throw a 10 lb. weight through the set. It’s news for forgetful mouth-breathers. “Here’s what happened and here’s what happened again, for the next 45 minutes. And here’s a collection of the heads of grifters and upper class twits to scream back and forth at each other about it.”

      CNN jumped the Time magazine National Enquirer shark.

      1. National Enquirer broke the John Edwards story, has it declined so quickly?

    2. They’re comparing two data points in a number of cities?murders to date this year vs. last?and hiding the diminutive nature of all but Baltimore’s numbers using ominously high percentages. And Baltimore is going to be a pretty notable exception to any trendlines after the past few months. Judging by Milwaukee’s numbers, 2014 had a fairly low number relative to the last several couple and 2015 is on track to barely exceed 2013.

      And that’s just icing on the cake that is the exceptionally stupid line you bolded.

    3. “asks the hardball questions about, “Do #BlackLives-*still*-Matter, or has something changed?””

      Which is the reason I end up here instead of watching TV “news”; Tony, turd, trueman and commie-kid are more intelligent than the average newscast.

  30. “The Court said it is possible for employers to violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans discrimination based on religious practices that can be accommodated without undue hardship, even if they are not aware of an applicant’s need for accommodation.”

    No, the Court said the employee can win even without specifically asking for an exemption. The court reserved judgment on what the company has to know.

  31. If companies could deny employment based on religious dress then it’s conceivable that Muslim women would be at a serious disadvantage in the job market. If you guys had your way, the head scarf would be beside the point; employers could simply refuse to hire someone because she is Muslim (or black or whatever).

    Now, can the libertarian position on maximum “freedom of association” for employers relax given a practical reality in which there is systemic discrimination against a certain group? Or are they just fucked on the alter of the sovereign business place then scolded by you in turn for their lack of entrepreneurship?

    1. If companies could deny employment based on religious dress then it’s conceivable that Muslim women would be at a serious disadvantage in the job market. If you guys had your way, the head scarf would be beside the point; employers could simply refuse to hire someone because she is Muslim (or black or whatever).

      Doubtful but so be it.

      can the libertarian position on maximum “freedom of association” for employers relax given a practical reality in which there is systemic discrimination against a certain group?

      No.

      Or are they just fucked on the alter of the sovereign business place then scolded by you in turn for their lack of entrepreneurship?

      No. They can hire each other.

      1. Then I reject your policy on the grounds that it endorses the maintenance of existing inequities, potentially even a caste system. Interference in the market in this case is better for human beings than your alternative. And I get to make that simple choice even in an anti-government context, because neither of us wants to employ government goons more than the other. You would just have them ejecting people from places of business because of the color of their skin or their religion.

        1. Tony|6.2.15 @ 10:59PM|#
          “Then I reject your policy on the grounds that it endorses the maintenance of existing inequities, potentially even a caste system”

          So you reject it because you lie and chose to accept your lie as opposed to reality?
          I think there’s a term for people who do that. Why, yes there is: ignoramus.

          1. I don’t want to be mean, but there’s a reason people say “so simple even Sevo can understand it.”

            1. Tony|6.3.15 @ 12:13AM|#
              “I don’t want to be mean, but there’s a reason people say “so simple even Sevo can understand it.”

              Not to worry; ignoramuses like you constantly gripe about me; I don’t suffer fools well.
              Unfortunately, there are few things simple enough for Tony to understand them and you prove it every time you post, shitstain.
              Try as I might, I can’t keep it simple enough for you to understand…

        2. Shorter Tony: “WAH! I’m a retard with no attachment to reality! You have to indulge my baseless fantasies!”

          Interference in the market in this case is better for human beings than your alternative.

          Better for some, worse for others. You don’t get to decide.

      1. People spend a huge portion of their lives at their places of work. There is no good reason workers should have to check all of their freedoms at the punch clock. There is simply you, toadies for the interests of the already wealthy and powerful, doing everything you can to invent plausible-enough-sounding ethical horseshit that somehow, amazingly and totally unplanned, results in autocratic powers for business owners and whatever conditions for their serfs they see fit to bestow.

        1. So I guess you’ll have no problem with me coming over to your house and taking a shit in your living room.

          1. I’m the statist here.

            1. So do you have the right to tell me how to behave in your living room?

              1. The legal right, but it wouldn’t be sanctioned by etiquette unless you were my child.

                1. Tony|6.2.15 @ 11:49PM|#
                  “The legal right, but it wouldn’t be sanctioned by etiquette unless you were my child.”

                  Keep shoveling that bullshit, asshole.

                2. So you can legally tell me what I can and can’t do on your property, but business owners are different?

                  1. Are we talking about the real world or a hypothetical one? In the real world, yes it’s different. Understandably, there is more personal sovereignty in one’s home, but even that’s not, of course, absolute. You are entitled to own personal property with the proviso that you not murder people on it or dump its waste on your neighbor’s yard, among a number of other restrictions. Businesses are granted the privilege to use civilization to attempt to enrich themselves with those caveats and a few more. All for the sake of optimal public outcomes.

                    You come from the same ethical starting point, actually, you just define optimality different.

                    1. In the real world, yes it’s different.

                      No. Property is property.

                      You are entitled to own personal property with the proviso that you not murder people on it or dump its waste on your neighbor’s yard, among a number of other restrictions.

                      So, IOW:

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

                      Businesses are granted the privilege to use civilization to attempt to enrich themselves…

                      Business owners are people. Tenet 1 applies. If you can tell a business owner what he can do on/with his own property provided he isn’t violating other’s rights, I can take a shit in your living room.

                      You come from the same ethical starting point, actually, you just define optimality different.

                      Yes, you define optimally as favoring one group over another. So much for your love of equality.

                    2. Business owners have different obligations in their homes and in their places of business. Pedestrians have different obligations on a bike trail and on a highway. Having a home affects the members of the household, and there are definitely laws that govern their interactions. You can’t beat your wife to death, for example. Running a business affects your employees. You think employees should have no rights beyond what they enjoy in the home. Fine, it’s not one of those libertarian principles that self-contradicts. It’s just a question of whether you want to think about the actual relationships among human beings in the specific context or if you want to turn your brain off and imagine utopia springing from a conception of maximum liberty that seems to curiously apply minimum liberty to anyone who isn’t already on top.

                    3. You can’t beat your wife to death, for example.

                      You can’t beat your wife to death because of Tenet 1.

                      You think employees should have no rights beyond what they enjoy in the home.

                      The only RIGHTS an employee should have above Tenet 1 are those mutually and voluntarily contracted between the employer and employee.

                      It’s just a question of whether you want to think about the actual relationships among human beings in the specific context or if you want to turn your brain off and imagine utopia springing from a conception of maximum liberty that seems to curiously apply minimum liberty to anyone who isn’t already on top.

                      A person isn’t entitled to a job. No ones liberty is minimized in a voluntary contractual arrangement. The laborer gets money for providing a service and the businessman gets the service in exchange for the mutually agreed to price. No one got the better of anyone here. The laborer valued the money more than the providing the service. The owner valued the service more than the money. It is a win-win. Everyone gets what they wanted and no one is taken advantage of. If the laborer does not believe the wage is more valuable than performing the labor he won’t take the job. He is in the same position he was in before taking the job. NO liberty is lost.

        2. The modern service economy is just like serfdom. Why, if I am unhappy with the conditions my employer places upon me as a precondition of employment, I can find a different employer or start a business of my own. It’s just like feudalism, which, as we’re all aware, was simply the most free market time in history.

          1. KDN|6.2.15 @ 11:24PM|#
            “[…]It’s just like feudalism, which, as we’re all aware, was simply the most free market time in history.”

            Sarc? Stupidity?

            1. I though the preceding sentence made the sarc pretty obvious.

        3. Employees have the same rights as employers.

          We are free to fire our bosses whenever we want and replace them with a better one, and we are! All we have to do is quit.

          Quitting a job is the same as firing your employer, and you should be free to fire your employer for any reason you like. I’ve fired more than one boss in my time.

          I hired him to create opportunities for me to advance, and his performance was terrible in that regard. I paid him well to work for me, too–I paid him with my time and excellent work. But when it came down to it, no matter how hard I tried to correct him, he just couldn’t provide me with the opportunities to advance I expected. He didn’t meet my performance goals for him, so I had to fire him, and I replaced him with a different employer who did a much better job.

          There’s no reason why employers shouldn’t have the same deal we do–and if they did have the same deal, then wouldn’t the government force employees to keep working somewhere against their will?

          The only difference between employer and employee is the way they’re spelled and the medium of exchange. Employers pay employees in cash, and employees pay employers in labor. Both sides of that contract should be as effortlessly rescinded as possible. If you’re free to fire your employer for any reason you want, why should your employer be forced to keep you regardless of whether he wants you?

          1. Nice story but it ignores important details. Two parties having the same rights in principle doesn’t always translate to practice. The worker is just not as free to make a change as the boss, because her life probably depends on her job. To make the contract on equal footing, the threat of the worker leaving would have to threaten the boss’s livelihood equally. Either that or employment would have to be so abundant that losing a job leaves a worker with as much choice as her former employer maintains.

            Things are not this way, so applying a blanket principle as you do inevitably favors the more powerful party. This is what our liberal shtick is all about: recognizing existing power imbalances in places including and also outside of government. If people must work to live, then whether such imbalances affect people’s ability to work on a systemic scale is something worthy of public attention.

            1. Tony|6.2.15 @ 11:47PM|#
              “[…;]The worker is just not as free to make a change as the boss, because her life probably depends on her job.[…]”

              Well, shitstain, there’s a good chance the employer’s life depends on his hiring practices, but lefty ignoramuses have a hard time with that.
              Right, lefty ignoramus?

            2. “The worker is just not as free to make a change as the boss, because her life probably depends on her job.”

              I’ve been supporting myself since I was 14.

              You’re an idiot. I’ve worked my way into a management position everywhere I’ve worked since I was 18.

              Some people have more options than others. That’s always the case. There are start ups in Silicon Valley that are absolutely dependent on competing for employees.

              You’re actually creating fewer opportunities for Muslims. Employers are going to be more wary of hiring anyone with a Muslim sounding name or that looks Muslim than they ever were before, and Muslims finding work has not been a problem in the past.

              “The proportion of Muslim Americans who are employed in full-time jobs (41%) roughly mirrors the general public (45%) and has not changed since 2007. In addition, part-time employment remains fairly common among U.S. Muslims (18%). And one-in-five Muslims (20%) reports being self-employed or a small business owner, about the same level as in the adult population at large (17%).”

              http://www.people-press.org/20…..americans/

              The statistics are different with younger Muslims specifically, but younger Muslims are much more likely to be new immigrants. They’re dealing with work visa issues, maybe learning English, problems having their educational credentials substantiated overseas, etc.

              1. I’ve worked with lots of Muslims in Los Angeles, some of whom covered. They’re generally highly educated and make excellent workers, but they have those problems I listed above.

                Meanwhile, we’re talking about Abercrombie not wanting to hire an employee that covers? Abercrombie famously won’t hire white kids as salespeople unless they’re good looking enough. It’s part of their business model. They want salespeople that mimic the look they’re selling in their ads.

                Hooters probably doesn’t want to hire fat chicks or girls that wear hijabs while they work either. Why should the government force them to do so if it doesn’t work with their business model?

                1. The “substantially harms business” part I think is a reasonable and important nuance. We’re trying to smoke out invidious discrimination that harms people because of how they were born or how they choose to worship (if we must).

                  1. Tony|6.3.15 @ 12:12AM|#
                    “The “substantially harms business” part I think is a reasonable and important nuance.”
                    No, tony, it’s irrelevant. If your employer wants to hire mental midgets like you, they’d give me a pass and that’s just fine.

              2. So it’s to be a case-by-case thing depending on the relative lack of privilege of the group in question? Or do you still insist that even the creation of a permanent economic underclass in a laissez-faire employer-favoring system is a worthy price to pay for freedom?

                1. Tony|6.3.15 @ 12:06AM|#
                  “So it’s to be a case-by-case thing depending on the relative lack of privilege of the group in question? Or do you still insist that even the creation of a permanent economic underclass in a laissez-faire employer-favoring system is a worthy price to pay for freedom?”

                  Look, shitstain, if you really want to be taken seriously, try reality instead of some strawman supported by some lefty hypothetical.

                2. “Or do you still insist that even the creation of a permanent economic underclass in a laissez-faire employer-favoring system is a worthy price to pay for freedom?”

                  The machinery of capitalism is oiled with the blood and tears of the proletariat!

                  Give it a fucking break.

                  There has never been a more diverse society that has provided more affluence to more people than capitalist America. Muslims flock here from all over the world because of the employment opportunities.

                  You’re living in a dystopian dreamworld that doesn’t exist anywhere except in your head–and you’re trying to fix it by killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

                  You know why Muslims have so few employment opportunities in Europe?

                  A lot of it is because they have such ridiculously inflexible employment laws–like the kind you’re championing here. In places like France, it’s so hard to motivate and fire workers because of their inflexible employment laws, the unemployment rate among the native born and well educated French is a multiple of what we have here in the U.S. No wonder they have so much more trouble integrating Muslims immigrants in comparison to the U.S.!

                  1. I’m living in a hypothetical dreamworld in which your principles are implemented. I’m aware that in the real world there are significant government protections for workers and we’ve got along pretty fine despite them. And I’d suggest the problems of integration in Europe have to do with factors that dwarf their employment laws. An ocean is a filter. The immigrant population here that serves as an underclass is the one that got here by land.

                    1. Tony|6.3.15 @ 12:28AM|#
                      “I’m living in a hypothetical dreamworld in which your principles are implemented. I’m aware that in the real world there are significant government protections for workers and we’ve got along pretty fine despite them. And I’d suggest the problems of integration in Europe have to do with factors that dwarf their employment laws. An ocean is a filter. The immigrant population here that serves as an underclass is the one that got here by land.”

                      WIH does all that mean? Do you have a point or some worthless meandering?

                    2. “And I’d suggest the problems of integration in Europe have to do with factors that dwarf their employment laws. An ocean is a filter. The immigrant population here that serves as an underclass is the one that got here by land.”

                      This is only worth alluding to because it’s so stupid.

                      Despite the fact that so many in France have blamed the rioting on Muslims not having any employment opportunities in France, you think the reason real Muslims in France aren’t integrating is because they came by boat?

                      We can ignore your ignorance about how so many Muslims from North Africa, especially Algeria, came to France in the first place, but why would going there by boat rather than by foot make any difference?

                      P.S. Are you really so obtuse, Tony, that you think being economically successful has nothing to do with being successful integration?

              3. Ken Shultz|6.2.15 @ 11:59PM|#
                “[…]You’re actually creating fewer opportunities for Muslims. Employers are going to be more wary of hiring anyone with a Muslim sounding name or that looks Muslim than they ever were before, and Muslims finding work has not been a problem in the past.[…]”

                There are clear stats showing that French workers are more ‘productive’ than most others; it is a result of French labor law. No French employer hires anyone if it is possible to train the existing workforce to use new automation; hence, the per-employee production is wonderful while unemployment remains equally ‘wonderful’ (to lefties).
                So Tony wins, ’cause the bleever in the case gets hired! Those with a rag on their heads who apply henceforth are courteously interviewed and given the call back a month or so later. And Tony wins!
                And they lose and Tony can claim they now need support since Tony’s win means they lose and so on and so on.
                Tony, don’t you ever get tired of showing how abysmally stupid you are?

                1. I didn’t see your comment, Sevo, until I posted mine above saying more or less the same thing about France.

                  Great minds think alike!

                  1. I missed yours; now I see it.
                    Not sure it’s ‘great minds’ as much as accepting reality. Tony thinks the threat of legal action causes bakers to deliver (what I hope are cow-pie) cakes to gay weddings, but somehow the incentives to avoid hiring those who are ‘protected’ have no effect.
                    I’ll bet Tony is stupid enough to presume that raising the minimum wage won’t lead to higher unemployment, right Tony?

                2. I should add, Sevo…

                  I had a Muslim girlfriend. Almost converted to Islam so we could get married. I went to Mosque a couple of times a week. I know lots of Muslims from the Arab world, and they love coming here for all the economic opportunities.

                  Meanwhile, anybody that’s spent any time in Westwood (around UCLA) and heard that Persians are suffering economically because of the discrimination they face for being associated with Islam would laugh their heads off. Most of those people came in the wake of the Shah being deposed circa 1979, but they’re probably the most successful immigrant group in American history.

                  Then there’s their next door neighbors. If any ethnic group would have been discriminated against because of their religious beliefs, it would have been Jews. Not just because of the historical baggage, but also because employers don’t like to hear during the interview that you’re not willing to work past four o’clock on Fridays in the summer or on Saturdays.

                  I don’t know, I guess the progtards are running out of economic victims. The gays that are living on the West side of LA aren’t exactly having a hard time economically either. Between gays, Jews, and Muslims, we’re talking about the most economically powerful groups in Los Angeles–and they all live on top of each other in the wealthiest part of LA. And we’re supposed to feel sorry for them because they’re discriminated against in employment?

                  1. I’m not big on group identities anyway, but I don’t see much evidence that gays and Muslims are economically disadvantaged in Los Angeles.

                    Maybe in Laguna Beach?

                    LOL

                    1. Paging Playa!

          2. Here’s some interesting questions we should ask the progtards!

            Should it be illegal to quit your job because your new boss is a Muslim?

            Should gay employees be forced to work for fundamentalist Christian bosses?

            If you quit your job because your boss is…something you don’t like, should that be illegal?

            1. The notion that the employer-employee relationship contains an imbalance of power is both obvious and, apparently, not obvious enough to get you guys to the side of the liberals who understands that recognizing this fact necessitates some employer restrictions in order to manifest a fair market system.

              As you all call us communists you get things so comically wrong. We are here to save capitalism from its sometimes massively costly flaws. All it takes is an ability not to worship the market as the arbiter and producer of optimal outcomes.

              1. Tony|6.3.15 @ 12:09AM|#
                “The notion that the employer-employee relationship contains an imbalance of power is both obvious[…]”

                No, it is completely and totally false.

              2. Re: Tony,

                The notion that the employer-employee relationship contains an imbalance of power is both obvious

                The notion that you lack self-awareness is both obvious.

                There is no imbalance. Each party gets what each party wants. In fact the potential employee has MORE choices than the employer, since the employee can always choose to stay home, mooch from someone else, live with his (or her) parents, etc. The employer still has to determine if the person he or she hired is the right choice for the job.

                As you all call us communists you get things so comically wrong.

                You’re incorrect. I call you people little Marxians.

                We are here to save capitalism from its sometimes massively costly flaws.

                After 120 million died because of Marxian central-planning flaws, I guess you have plenty of time on your hands.

        4. Tony|6.2.15 @ 11:07PM|#
          “People spend a huge portion of their lives at their places of work. There is no good reason workers should have to check all of their freedoms at the punch clock.”

          Which, of course it totally irrelevant.
          It’s true; they can work for those who agree with them! What a CONCEPT!

        5. Tony! You’re back!

          We’ve missed you!

    2. In one breath, SJW take great pride in their ability to cow corporations into retracting sponsorships, pull ad campaigns, and change policy decisions through concerted pressure involving social media, editorials, and good old fashioned solicited policy feedback. And in another breath, decry those corporations as tyrannical, monstrous leviathans beholden to no one, not even their shareholders.. and only the forceful yet even-handed bureaucracy of government can bring them to heel, bending the constitution to impose law is accepted as collateral damage.. because there’s simply no other way.

  32. I think they should make all employers WEAR headscarves, both women and men, AND all employers should have to bake free gay wedding cakes for their employees–regardless of whether they’re in the bakery business.

    I also think all employers should be forced to pipe Billy Thorpe’s Children of the Sun through loud speakers on a continuous loop–except for during the call to prayer.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XR2oct3zeTM

    All employers should be forced to offer their employees tuning fork therapy from an accredited Scientologist during work hours, free of charge, and the government should force employers to celebrate each and every Wicca holiday by choking a chicken while repeating some kind of sacred Wicca chant.

    Oh, and not celebrating Kwanzaa should be a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Get down with the umoja, or be treated like a racist. I’d say the choice is yours, but it really shouldn’t be. I mean, employers are supposed to work for their employees–that’s what the First Amendment is all about.

    1. Huh, huh, you said “choking a chicken.”

      Huh-huh, huh, huh-huh.

    2. Ken, re: your question in the other thread about how long Shrill can keep her head down:

      Suthenboy|6.2.15 @ 9:20PM|#
      “Interesting. ON the way home tonight I heard Mark Levin claim that tomorrow morning the Washington Post is going to headline with the Hildebeast and smoking gun evidence that she was selling public services for private gain while SOS”

      I have to admit skepticism as to whether that slime bag allowed evidence to remain, but certainly none that she did so.

      1. Disposing of soooo many closet skeletons, perhaps she dropped a femur or two…

      2. It’ll be interesting to see if she ignores it.

        At this point, I think she’s just hoping to discourage other challengers from running.

        For most progs, if a tree falls right in front of their own lying eyes, it doesn’t make a sound unless it helps keep a Democrat in the White House.

        And I still say…if you just judged by her behavior, you might think she doesn’t really want to be president–not if it means giving up the chance to make money on the sly through her foundation. When people want to be president, they give up all that stuff.

        I remember when H. W. Bush was running, he put all of his assets into a blind trust. He genuinely didn’t know what his investments were or how much he was worth. If, like Clinton, you’d rather maximize your money making opportunities as SOS, then you’re telling me that you don’t really want to be president. And the last announcement I saw from the foundation said that they weren’t going to stop taking new donations from foreign countries–even still, like right now! If you’d rather take foreign donations–even as you’re running for president–then despite what everyone in the press is saying, I’m skeptical that you really want to be president.

        Who wants to president but would rather take foreign donations and hand her opponent a damning issue on a silver platter? That’s the kind of issue that makes a difference!

        1. BTW, just did a search for ‘leaks’; nothing. Is Levin reliable?

          1. We’ll find out tomorrow morning.

  33. Re: Tony,

    If companies could deny employment based on religious dress then it’s conceivable that Muslim women would be at a serious disadvantage in the job market.

    Thank God for government to be there to guarantee someone else’s money to rent-seekers.

    If you guys had your way, the head scarf would be beside the point; employers could simply refuse to hire someone because she is Muslim (or black or whatever).

    Or a dwarf. Or whatever. It’s not your money.

    Now, can the libertarian position on maximum “freedom of association” for employers relax given a practical reality in which there is systemic discrimination against a certain group?

    A group of what? Only individuals step on this good Earth. “Groups” don’t have rights because they don’t exist.

    Or are they just fucked on the alter of the sovereign business place then scolded by you in turn for their lack of entrepreneurship?

    You talk as if people don’t really have rights. Or as if words had different meaning than the usual. That can only tell me you forgot to take your Thorazine. Did you?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.