Gay/Lesbian Issues

The LGBT Equality Bill Won't Pass, but It Shows What's After the Marriage Fight

Calls for a drastic increase in what counts as a public accommodation under federal law.

|

Please rise for the national anthem: "You Make Me Feel (Mighty Real)"
Credit: -Marlith- / photo on flickr

Forget the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). Gay activists and Democratic politicians have been fighting for the passage of ENDA for decades now and have failed. The act would have extended federal workplace non-discrimination laws to gays, lesbians and transgender people.

You might think that now would be the perfect time to try to get it passed, given the victory in the marriage recognition battle. You would be correct, but apparently some have decided not to stop there. Yesterday, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Rep. Dave Cicilline (D-R.I.) introduced the Equality Act, which aims to address pretty much every avenue of private or public discrimination against LGBT folks and outlaw it.

The Equality Act (pdf) would actually amend existing laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act to insert sexual orientation and gender identity in every area where discrimination is forbidden by federal law. That means it includes what ENDA intended to accomplish, but also adds federal discrimination protections in public accommodations, federal funding, housing, credit, and jury service. It has received the public support of Apple and gay marriage litigators David Boies and Ted Olson.

But there's even more! The Civil Rights Act of 1964 actually has a very limited view of what a public accommodation is. It includes hotels, restaurants or places that serve food, gas stations, and several different types of entertainment venues. That's actually all. State-level public accommodation laws tend to be much broader. Note that even if we added sexual orientation to the federal public accommodation laws, they wouldn't cover florists or photographers or wedding venues. Depending on how the food section is enforced, it might not even cover bakeries refusing to make wedding cakes.

The Equality Act seeks to massively broaden the federal definition of public accommodations. It expands the definition of what counts as an entertainment venue, then adds these two sections:

"(4) any establishment that provides a good, service, or program, including a store, shopping center, online retailer or service provider, salon, bank, gas station, food bank, service or care center, shelter, travel agency, or funeral parlor, or establishment that provides health care, accounting, or legal services;

 "(5) any train service, bus service, car service, taxi service, airline service, station, depot, or other place of or establishment that provides transportation service;"

These additions turn every single business that serves consumers in any fashion into a public accommodation. Get screwed over by a taxi driver? Accuse him of a being a bigot and send the feds after him!

Obviously, since gay activists can't get ENDA passed, they're not going to get this passed, certainly not through a Republican legislature, even if several GOP legislators are growing warmer toward gay issues. After the Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay marriage recognition, support for gay marriage actually dropped slightly, and more people opposed the Supreme Court's decision than supported it. Support for gay marriage recognition nevertheless still outnumbers opposition. The same poll showed more support for protection of "religious liberties" that result in some businesses refusing to provide services to gay couples. By contrast, the Equality Act also declares that the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act may not be used as a justification for violating anti-discrimination laws.

How to parse the contradictory responses in polls? Well, certainly the way questions are worded matter, but it also seems clear that there are a significant number of citizens who, like libertarians, acknowledge the difference between government and private behavior. It is not contradictory to say that the government must recognize a gay couple's marriage but that a private business owner should not be forced under penalty of law to serve them. Gay marriage recognition extends rights and privileges to the couples without taking away anybody else's liberties. The same cannot be said for public accommodation laws.

Is there anything in this legislation for libertarians to support? Certainly anything that puts an end to discrimination by the government itself is worth notice, so the parts of the law that prohibit discrimination in jury service or government funding are appropriate. If they stripped those parts of the legislation out and attempted to pass them separately, they could even possibly get a bill through a Republican Congress.

But I suspect that's not the point. There's an election, people! We can't have some sort of bipartisan win on LGBT issues! The reason for creating such a massive antidiscrimination law that cannot possibly pass, with such heavy measures when there is little actual evidence of widespread discrimination any longer, is to get Democrats on the record of supporting new LGBT protections and the Republicans on the record opposing them. And that's how, now that the marriage battle is settled, the left will try to keep the LGBT vote.

NEXT: This Student Was Expelled for Speech. He Just Won a $900,000 Settlement—A Mere 8 Years Later.

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. Expanding “public accommodation” is really about expanding victimhood. It’s the only thing Americans know how to manufacture.

    1. ^^ this

    2. Don’t worry. Soon enough we’ll have the Oppressed Victims Union, and Local 503 will wind up pushing things too far, killing some politician, and there will be a public backlash.

      1. By the time it gets that far, politicians will be in the union and it will be the call to repeal 2A.

    3. It’s the only thing Americans know how to manufacture.

      Wow, America! You just got #REKT!

    4. Can I sign up? AssHihn victimized me by posting statist Republican bullshit on Reason, causing my eyes to glaze over.

  2. The public accommodations doctrine is an affront to individual liberty, freedom of conscience, freedom of contract, and freedom of association. It is immoral, no matter how well intentioned. It provides the government with a vague and arbitrary avenue with which to increase government power.

    Lovers of liberty must calmly and clearly describe the evil of this doctrine to people no matter how huffy and condescending they become.

    1. The public accommodations doctrine is an affront to individual liberty, freedom of conscience, freedom of contract, and freedom of association. It is immoral,

      Indeed, it is all that.

      Lovers of liberty must calmly and clearly describe the evil of this doctrine to people no matter how huffy and condescending they become.

      Lovers of liberty, however, can disagree on what the best way forward is.

      I think the only way to end these infringements on freedom of association is to make sure that a majority of people across the political spectrum feel the pain. That means, in particular, Christian conservatives, who have been using the First Amendment to carve themselves special and undeserved exemptions from government coercion that no other private group or association enjoys; that’s why they don’t give a f*ck about anybody else’s 1A rights.

      There is nothing special about religious beliefs or association, relative to any other private belief or association; therefore, these exemptions should go. Maybe then Christian conservatives will come around and join the libertarian wing of the Republican party on social issues. If not, they reap what they sow.

      1. That means, in particular, Christian conservatives, who have been using the First Amendment to carve themselves special and undeserved exemptions from government coercion that no other private group or association enjoys; that’s why they don’t give a f*ck about anybody else’s 1A rights.

        I’m actually curious, which rights are they enjoying that everyone else doesn’t already have (whether or not the government recognizes it is another question entirely).

        Yes, you are right that if the government recognizes 30% of one group’s rights and only 10% of another, the 30% group will care less about the rights denied the 10%. But the solution to this is NOT to bring everyone down, it’s to woodchipper up some tyrants defang government so they stop oppressing everyone.

        If half the people are free and half are slaves, should you enslave everyone to solve it?

        they reap what they sow

        They already are. But that doesn’t mean we should be helping the evil to expand. Why, what will happen if we do what you want is we’ll get half of what we ask for… more tyranny for everyone.

        1. I’m actually curious, which rights are they enjoying that everyone else doesn’t already have

          Religion is a protected class under most civil rights laws. In addition to that, religious organizations receive special treatment from the IRS, under labor law, etc., and they receive massive government handouts.

          But the solution to this is NOT to bring everyone down, it’s to defang government so they stop oppressing everyone.

          It is part of the solution, because Christian conservatives right now are opposed to a lot of libertarian ideas; they are opposed to it because they are themselves exempt from government coercion.

          That’s not hypothetical, that is the actual situation in some European countries: churches are mostly exempt from government coercion (no taxes, no financial reporting, no labor laws, self-government, etc.), get tons of money (“for building maintenance and charitable work”) from the government, and are thoroughly in bed with politicians. They push more and more liberty-destroying laws because they don’t affect them. And at the same time, they become more and more corrupt (child abuse, financial corruption, etc.) internally.

          Carving out a special niche of freedom from government coercion for churches is an extremely bad idea; it just doesn’t work.

      2. As an ordained Southern Baptist minister for the past 13 years, I have to agree. While part of me thinks any exception to government coercion is good as it at least carves a little bit of freedom and keeps government at bay. But, for the first maybe EVER Christian conservatives started to sound a whole lot like libertarians when it came to gay marriage. Because we saw what power given to the “wrong” people can do. We’re rightly afraid that government defining marriage will lead to anti-discrimination laws like the one mentioned above. If ENDA passed it’s just a small step after that to include religious institutions.

        But, if we can stop obsessing over who does what with their free time and we can stop being in the back pocket of ever warhawk politician, then having the evangelical vote for libertarians would be a major boost for freedom.

        Unfortunately, that won’t happen until it is too late.

  3. The clearest path to restablishing their freedom of action under the Civil Right Act of 1955 would be for smokers to march on the Capitol to decare as the long oppressed gender of cistobaccans.

      1. Just don’t call them “Ciggers”.

        1. OK, we’re done…you can shut down the internet for the day.

            1. Yup – we are done here for today.

  4. Lawyer’s Welfare Act of 2015.

  5. No, really, all they ever wanted was to able to marry and confirm their commitment to each other like opposite sex couples.

    1. I know. They just wanted dignity and the right to sue the living fuck out of anyone they didn’t like. Is that so wrong?

      1. Hey, you’re not really free if you can’t use the armed goons of the state to force social acceptance of your lifestyle.

        1. Those pitiful sister wives . . . If they were married to an Alpha Lesbo, they’d get plenty of state protection.

          But they are married to a guy. A white guy.

          So, fuck them!

    2. No, really, all they ever wanted was to able to marry and confirm their commitment to each other like opposite sex couples.

      No, that’s not “all they ever wanted”. These activists were quite clear that they wanted to be a protected class, just like religion, gender, and ethnicity. If you didn’t get that, you must have been deaf.

      And as long as religion is a protected class, it seems hypocritical for the religious to complain that their liberties are being infringed upon by another group getting protected class status. If a homosexual can’t legally discriminate based on religion, then a Christian shouldn’t be allowed to legally discriminate based on homosexuality.

      1. If a homosexual can’t legally discriminate based on religion, then a Christian shouldn’t be allowed to legally discriminate based on homosexuality.

        It’s weird that all those Christians exercise their free speech rights in front of abortion clinics when they have every right to do so inside.

        It’s almost like justice should be blind to birth, race, gender, or creed but not to the actions you do and the choices you make.

        Unfortunately, I’m told *only* homophobic/moronic old-timers raise questions about whether homosexuality is an action/choice or belief system/lifestyle though…

        1. Thought-crime.

        2. Unfortunately, I’m told *only* homophobic/moronic old-timers raise questions about whether homosexuality is an action/choice or belief system/lifestyle though…

          The question of whether homosexuality is a choice or not may matter to you, it doesn’t matter to most gay folks. We don’t have to justify our choices to you or anybody else.

          If you are concerned about morally reprehensible choices, you would do better to reflect on your choice of religion, because conservative Christianity is an intrinsically immoral belief system. I mean, apart from the deep theological errors it embodies, just look at the symbols and rites it uses: bloody corpses nailed to the wall, eating the transsubstantiated flesh and drinking the blood of a human, and proclaiming that any kind of perversion and crime is OK as long as God decrees it so.

          It’s almost like justice should be blind to birth, race, gender, or creed but not to the actions you do and the choices you make.

          This has nothing to do with justice, it has to do with freedom of association. Conservative Christians currently have the right, and largely seem to insist on keeping the right, to interfere with the freedom of association of others; there is no reason why others should therefore respect their right to freedom of association.

  6. Let’s expand this accommodating stream of consciousness to other behaviors or chemicals enjoyed by consenting adults and I’ll buy your fucking equality bullshit.

    1. Agile Cyborg at his most intoxicated makes more sense than Russell Seitz at his most sober.

  7. Well, anybody who said the gay marriage debate was just the camel’s nose in the tent must be feeling PRETTY STUPID right about now…

    /smug progface

    1. Being warned about the foreseeable consequences of something and supporting it anyway doesn’t make you responsible for them. At least not if it concerns the gays

      1. Well, this is why I am an absolutist on 1 and 2 amendment issues. They won’t stop – they will NEVER stop. Compromise only encourages them. And yet, we never really push back, say, and demand a repeal of the NFA, for instance.

        We should adopt their very tactics- basically, never arguing in good faith and never seeking anything less than total subordination to OUR (2A) agenda…

        1. You are right. It never ends. A lot of straight couples never get married. I never understood why getting a marriage license was some kind of overpowering civil right worth all of this nastiness. If gays were having immigration issues or found it to burdensome to write a will, then they should have addressed those issues not created a constitutional right to marriage licenses. If there were courts that would not enforce contracts between gay couples, make them do so.

          The whole thing had a horrible unlibertarian flavor. Most of the bitches about being denied marriage came down to gay couples not wanting to assume responsibility for their own affairs. And to the extent it wasn’t, straight couples who didn’t get married had the same issue. If you don’t like it that a gay couple can’t give survivor benefits for their retirement to their partner, then the solution is to let everyone give such benefits to whatever person they want. Instead, they just declared a right to marriage and let the gays in on the special benefit.

          1. “Instead, they just declared a right to marriage and let the gays in on the special benefit.”

            What “special benefit” do gay couples have that “straight couples” don’t, LEGALLY speaking?

      2. Are you going to be responsible for every overdose death if they finally call off the WOD?

        THEY WARNED YOU, JOHN.

        1. God doesn’t hate drugs, so it’s okay.

          1. See below Frank. You made your choice. Be honest and live with it. If you regret it or don’t like it, too fucking bad. You are not going to be allowed to forget you made it.

            1. Fuck off John, you’re a theocratic retard.

              Equal protection under the law and public accommodation are two entirely different issues. Arguing with you about it is an exercise in futility as it amounts to arguing with your immoral god, but your butthurt is fun to watch. I rather enjoy watching you turn yourself inside out in attempts to come up with justifications to make law square with your old book.

              Entertainment is about all you are good for anymore as you’ve become as big a troll as Tony or Bo. Well done.

        2. In a sense yes Niki. I freely admit legalizing drugs is going to cause some people to abuse those drugs and kill themselves. That is a price I think is worth paying in order to end the harms associated with the drug war.

          That is the honest answer. The dishonest answer is “well yes I wanted to legalize drugs but I didn’t want this to happen”. Sorry, any honest advocate for ending the drug war needs to acknowledge it comes with a cost and admit they are willing to pay that cost.

          Same here. Any honest advocate for gay marriage who wasn’t willing to make their support contingent on repealing the public accommodation laws needs to admit that fucking people who objected to gay marriage was a price they were willing to pay to get the good they say in gay marriage.

          Libertarians who supported gay marriage without first demanding repeal of the public accommodation laws viewed religious liberty as a price worth paying to get gay marriage. Any Libertarian who tells you differently is a liar and a coward.

          1. And how do you square that with the fact that public accommodation laws were successfully used prior to gay marriage being recognized by the states in which those lawsuits were filed (and won)?

            1. Because gay marriage just made those laws applicable to a wider set of circumstances. A large part of the reason for getting a marriage license is to be able to force private parties to recognize your marriage. Government marriage is the original public accommodation laws. So if you object to public accommodation laws, you should object to government marriage, which Libertarians used to do, until they decided getting gays in on the act was the most important thing in the world.

              1. Everyone knows at this point that gays never needed a government marriage license to do this. There’s zero evidence that marriage licensing has made this worse.

                1. Oh yes there is Nikki. They are already talking about suing churches and anyone who won’t host a wedding. And now every employer who gives spousal benefits now has to extend that to married gay couples. And moreover, the EEOC has already read the Supreme Court decision to mean gays are covered by the CRA, something I told you guys would happen.

                  Sorry Nikki, you supported something that screwed these people. I don’t know why you have such a problem admitting to it. You hate religion and religious people with a passion. Why do go to such lengths to deny that you supported something that screwed them. I would think you would view it as a positive.

                  Regardless of how you view it, that is what happened. It does no good to pretend otherwise.

              2. So if you object to public accommodation laws, you should object to government marriage

                I do object to government marriage. But I object even more to government marriage defined and implemented based on religion, as I object to any other special privileges granted based on religious beliefs and not on non-religious beliefs.

                1. But I object even more to government marriage defined and implemented based on religion,

                  Straight marriage isn’t defined by religion. Have you ever heard of a civil marriage? It is one thing to be hateful. But to allow your hate to believe stupid and untrue things is to become a hateful idiot.

                  1. But to allow your hate to believe stupid and untrue things is to become a hateful idiot.

                    People like you speak out of both sides of their mouth, on the one hand justifying the one-man-one-woman rule with “tradition”, which translates into the choices imposed by Christian churches, and then on the other hand pretending sweet innocence and saying “oh, it’s all secular”.

                    I don’t know whether you’re hateful, but you’re certainly a fool if you believe that crap.

          2. Maybe some people will start abusing drugs if they are legalized, but plenty of people do that now when they are illegal. I had a friend who’s whole life was a slow motion suicide. Legal, illegal…didn’t matter. It took him 40 years, a testament to the resilience of the human body. But he was going to kill himself that way regardless.

            1. I agree. I am assuming for the sake of argument that legalizing drugs would result in at least some people to overdose and die who would not had drugs remained illegal. And any person who advocates legalization needs to admit that that cost, whatever it is, is worth paying to end the harms of the drug war.

              1. Yes. Once you recognize life is full of trade-offs, that concession must be made. I’ve made that argument with folks who don’t want to end the drug war. What about drug abuse and overdoses, they ask. I say I am willing to accept that because that happens now under the system they are defending. Usually their answer is, well if we just fought the WOD harder…and I give up.

                1. Yes. Life is about trade offs. Libertarians are normally good about admitting that. They just are not here because they can’t admit that they were happy to fuck people they hate to help people they liked.

                  1. They just are not here because they can’t admit that they were happy to fuck people they hate to help people they liked.

                    I think gay marriage is useless and even harmful to gay men.

                    However, yes, the fact that it pokes a finger in the eyes of churches and religious believers is a politically good thing, because it may finally get those people off their privileged, self-righteous asses and start standing up for liberty instead of fighting it.

                    1. Win Bear,

                      You are a nasty hateful bigot. You are however, an honest one. So you have that.

                      The right to freely exercise your religion is a liberty. Rights and liberties are more than just shit you like done by people you like. You use the terms but you really don’t know what they mean.

                    2. The right to freely exercise your religion is a liberty.

                      The right to freely exercise your religion is no different from any other right to private association and private belief; you live under the delusion that it is special.

                      You are a nasty hateful bigot

                      I’m a nasty, hateful bigot in the same way you are: I think conservative Christianity is intrinsically evil and immoral; it’s a choice you make, and it’s a choice you can change if you decide to turn away from evil.

                      And having grown up in a country that was run by conservative Christians, and having had my ancestors chased all over Europe by Christians over the past few centuries, I think I have a better perspective on what Christianity is and is not, and what it does when it gets into government, than you will ever have.

                      You use the terms but you really don’t know what they mean.

                      No, I’m afraid it’s you who doesn’t understand what “liberty” means. It doesn’t mean “special privileges for religion right now, and liberty for everybody else whenever libertarian utopia arrives.”

        3. Are you going to be responsible for every overdose death if they finally call off the WOD?

          THEY WARNED YOU, JOHN.

          You know. Less than a decade ago, if I’d made the exact same equivocation I’d have been soundly and dejectedly labelled a homophobe (I know because I *did* make the equivocation with smokers).

          Homosexuality isn’t a choice Nikki!

    2. So, thanks to the negligence of their opponents, liberals control the terms of every debate by always demanding “more” while never defining “enough”. The predictable result is that they always get more, and it’s never enough.
      …Joseph Sobran

      1. That is about the size of it Homple.

  8. I think most people are tired of fighting about this and think the gay marriage decision will make the entire thing go away. I doubt that conservatives pushing for a constitutional amendment to end gay marriage would be very popular right now. In the same way, gays demanding CRA protection and the right to sue anyone who objects to their lifestyle is not going to be popular either. Most people consider the issue settle and want it to go away.

    As you point out, this bill isn’t going to be passed and is is not popular and likely never will be. All pushing for it will accomplish is to make gay activists look like petty sore winners and bullies.

    1. “Most people consider the issue settle and want it to go away.”

      This is a two-edged sword, since one way to make the issue go away is to give them everything they want in hopes they’ll shut up. That’s been working so far for the activists; why should they stop now?

      It’s how some harried, stressed-out parents deal with a child’s tantrum. “OK, I’ll get you your candy bar, just stop screaming, it’s giving me the worst headache!”

      Now imagine that in addition to making a loud noise, a child was in a position to drive you out of your job. Why not make the screaming and the threats go away by giving in to the activists?

      1. And the comparison is particularly apt given that many of these gay-right folks, with their activism, are trying to get back at their parents.

        1. Choose to go fuck yourself, Eddie.

          1. This is what I’m talking about.

            Why would a normal person endure the screams of the sarcasmics of the world, when they could just give sarcasmic and his confederates a pacifier and get him to stop?

            1. Oops, SugarFree, not sarcasmic.

              Sorry about that.

              1. It’s OK. You’re a supercilious piece of shit either way.

      2. It won’t make them go away. I realize that. But I think people are not going to be happy when it doesn’t. People are tired of this. The gay activists are making a big mistake pushing for this.

        1. Maybe in the abstract people will think, “gosh, this is annoying,” but what will they do concretely?

          What are they going to do, contribute to an “anti-gay” initiative or politician? Campaign finance laws will make those donations public, and the activists will then go after your job. Likewise with any public stance.

          Far better to keep one’s head down, just tossing the activists some bones, in hopes that eventually one will be let alone.

          1. Far better to keep one’s head down, just tossing the activists some bones, in hopes that eventually one will be let alone.

            I have a much better idea: churches and religious conservatives should put their special protected class status under the CRA and other laws on the table; you know, actually take a libertarian position.

      3. to make the issue go away is to give them everything they want in hopes they’ll shut up

        If you think that opposition to the privileges churches and religion enjoy in the US is only coming from homosexuals, you are rather mistaken.

        1. It is not a privilege you half wit. It is a right. The 1st Amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. And yes, there are few nasty bigots like you who would like to see that written out of the Constitution. You however are not the majority. Most people support the right of religious people to be left alone.

          1. The 1st Amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion.

            The First Amendment doesn’t give religions any special rights over any other kind of private association. So, if non-religious organizations are forced to accept homosexuals, forced to pay for abortions, or whatever, then so should religious organizations be. Pretending to believe into some invisible spirit doesn’t and shouldn’t give you special legal rights.

            You however are not the majority. Most people support the right of religious people to be left alone.

            The majority seems to be slowly whittling away at the special privileges religions are enjoying; if they weren’t, we wouldn’t be having this discussion in the first place.

            Of course, the other route of attack on these special privileges is that more and more private organizations simply declare themselves to be religions, which also leads to pointing out the absurdity of giving people special rights based on what kinds of absurd beliefs they claim they hold.

  9. “” funeral parlor””

    For refusing to serve dead gay people?

    1. Maybe they’re just trying to keep Tony out. Ya know, because he’s a corpse fucker.

      1. I had no idea Tony was into cold packing.

        1. +1 set of Black Wings

      1. +1 Heathers

    2. “” funeral parlor””

      For refusing to serve dead gay people?

      Might be a backdoor way of going after churches, by exposing the types of places fledgling churches like to rent to liability for renting to “discriminatory” institutions…

      1. Well, Paulbotto, back in the early days of the AIDS crisis many families had trouble finding funeral homes who would accept the bodies of people who had died of AIDS. So, yes, that was actually a thing.

        “Going after churches…” Uh-huh. Here, let me introduce you to Eddie. You two can comfort one another and heterodyne off of each others Christian Persecution Syndrome.

        1. Let us turn the whole country into a socialist fairyland by the joint operation of the army and people!

          1. Shit, that was meant for “Tony”. Sorry, Tonio.

        2. “So, yes, that was actually a thing.'”

          Does the fact of past discrimination make a Federal Law NOW more, or less important?

          1. The point, Gilmore, was that socons dishonestly pretend that there has never been actual discrimination against gay people, at least the “normal” ones. You may not like it, but that sort of thing leaves a legacy of resentment and mistrust. Just like black people have.

            1. Way to completely pretend i asked a different question.

              I asked how the fact that “way long ago” people were paranoid about AIDS means that a Federal Law NOW is a super-great idea?

              Or isn’t it?

              1. No, I didn’t do that. You’re projecting. I simply chose to not respond to your question.

            2. Additionally –

              Do you think business owners *EVER* have the right to refuse service to someone?

              1. Gilly, I answered that over an hour before you asked that. Also, documented many other times on here. Cheers!

                Tonio|7.24.15 @ 12:44PM|#

                You could require that all weddings performed there be officiated by the clergy of the church. You could rent the hall only to church members.

                I’m not a fan of public accommodation laws, but the religious are, as always, engaging in the worst sort of hysterical projection about this.

        3. “Well, Paulbotto, back in the early days of the AIDS crisis many families had trouble finding funeral homes who would accept the bodies of people who had died of AIDS. So, yes, that was actually a thing.”

          It was because the corpses were a non-well-understood type of HAZMAT, not that their former occupants were gay.

          1. What does the word “disproportionate” mean, Homple?

    3. “Ashes to ashes, dust to dust, lawsuit to lawsuit…”

  10. “since gay activists can’t get ENDA passed, they’re not going to get this passed, certainly not through a Republican legislature”

    I would think that would be exactly the point of doing it now.

    i.e. not that they want to ‘win’, but that they want to make sure to highlight who’s preventing them from winning, because they’re Dicks

    1. “The reason for creating such a massive antidiscrimination law that cannot possibly pass, with such heavy measures when there is little actual evidence of widespread discrimination any longer, is to get Democrats on the record of supporting new LGBT protections and the Republicans on the record opposing them. ‘

      I guess I should finish the article before commenting next time.

      or, for the first time ever

      1. You’re forgiven. I mean, since when have progs ever cared about what’s “on the record”? They’ll happily lie and their base will happily support them anyway.

        1. How is that different than the cons?

          1. I think you’d struggle to find any comparable law that SoCons vote for knowing it *will not* pass, but would not vote for it they thought it would.

            Possibly something abortion related. But even then I doubt it. You could give it a try?

    2. But highlighting who is preventing you from doing something, isn’t a very successful strategy when the majority of the country agrees with them.

      1. It’s good for rallying the base. Which I think they desperately need at this point.

        1. ^^ whole point

    3. Oh wait and Harry Reid stopping all the voting in the Senate to protect Obama was not the same thing…

      Laws would have been passed puting the president on record of his beliefs…

      Had this happened we probably would have a different President now… Someone who would be working to bring us together not seperate us further…

      1. we probably would have a different President now… Someone who would be working to bring us together not seperate us further.

        BAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHA!!!

        Yes, it’s all Obama’s fault! America was this great place until 2008 when Satan himself took office and singlehandedly ruined America!!!

        More likely, we’d have a different President doing the same stupid shit Obama does for slightly different reasons.

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

  12. Our rights shouldn’t be a zero-sum game, but it should be noted that to progressives, forcing people to sacrifice their individual rights for the greater “good” isn’t just a marginally good thing. It’s what being a progressive is all about.

    Eventually, the joke is going to be on the progressives, too. Eight years from now, we may find ourselves here arguing for the defense of gay people’s rights in the face of persecution by social conservatives again.

    There’s always a temptation to project the present into the future and imagine that the future is going to be just like today only more so. It almost never works out that way.

    If you thought fundamentalists and evangelicals were paranoid and thought of themselves as a persecuted minority before, just wait and see what happens when they really become one. Meanwhile, all those immigrants coming into the country from the south are more socially conservative than the people in their home countries–never mind the progressives here in the U.S.

    Some gay rights activists are going to sue an evangelical church for refusing to marry them, and a fundamentalist church somewhere, and a Catholic church, and then a mosque…

    That there has been so little in the way of religious conflict in the United States for a couple hundred years is remarkable.

    1. Eight years from now, we may find ourselves here arguing for the defense of gay people’s rights in the face of persecution by social conservatives again.

      Unlikely. What you are going to see is gay people facing real threats to life and limb from Muslims. If what is happening in Europe is any indication, and it often is, you will see the left telling the gays to get back in the closet and quit being so racist and offending Muslims by being so public with their lifestyles.

      At that point, who is going to be around to defend the gays? Likely the evil right. The irony is going to be quite thick.

      1. U.S. population would be declining right now if it weren’t for immigrants.

        The immigrants coming here aren’t particularly principled on the right to be gay, and they’re more religious–even more evangelical–than the U.S. population as a whole.

        One of the reasons why gay people need to be so public, with pride parades, etc., is that they’re one of the few minorities who can be forced back into hiding. They’re not like other immigrants, who have children form communities, and impact the demographics that way.

        What we’re seeing right now is simply the baby-boomers having come into their own. Their parents are gone, certainly from leadership positions, anymore, and society is reflecting their values. But they won’t be around forever. Meanwhile, Latinos continue to arrive and have children, and take their children to church…

        It was one thing to persuade Christians to tolerate gay people. Quite another thing if and when gay rights activists turn LGBT into a threat to those Christians’ rights to freedom of exercise. If and when that happens, the future isn’t going to be like today only more so–there are going to be a lot of legitimately aggrieved Christians. And without all those baby boomers running things, yeah, who’s going to protect LGBT rights from the religious?

        I guess they’ll always have the libertarians, but we can’t do much more than complain.

        1. I posted this on the AM lnks, but it is relevant to your point. Even within the left, elements of the gay community, especially gay white men, are being told to go back in the closet or at least shut up.

          http://www.breitbart.com/big-g…..-everyone/

          The left never cared about the gays and just used them as a tool for power. And you are right, gay rights is mostly something leftist white people like. The rule in the rest of the world is quite different. And as the demographics change and the left needs to attract different people than just leftist white people to get power, the gays are going back in the closet.

          I think the gay marriage decision will be seen as the high point of gay rights in this country. That is a very sad thing to say but I fear it is true.

      2. “At that point, who is going to be around to defend the gays? Likely the evil right. The irony is going to be quite thick.”

        Say what you will about the Right, they have a huge flag-waving contingent. Anything that the beard-wearing death-to-American types are against, many on the right will automatically be for.

        And, yes, that may well include gay culture.

        Recently someone linked to an article about a right-wing group in Sweden staging a gay-rights march in a Muslim area, to the accompaniment of cries of “racism”! from the lefties. They’re applying the same logic as gay-rights types who march in Christian areas.

        1. Anything that the beard-wearing death-to-American types are against, many on the right will automatically be for.

          Wow, Eddie, that’s exceptionally delusional even for you. I’ll believe it when the Duck Dynasty types start flying rainbow flags.

    2. They won’t touch a mosque. Muslims are even more of a protected class to proglodytes than gays are. After all, they’re the “religion of peace” to them.

      1. Haven’t heard of any instances where a gay couple went to a mosque and requested a marriage, or demanded that a muslim restaurant cater their gay wedding. Liberals have that in common with mass shooters. They like their targets soft.

        1. Wow, Rhino, that’s some profound stupidity on display there. Your parents must be so proud. You think that gay people just pick a religion at random and ask that church (or whatever) to marry them? Religious people generally stick to their own, or closely affiliated denominations. Given the well-known hostility of islam to gays it’s not surprising that the only gay muslims are those that grew up in the faith.

          There are muslim restaurants? Really? I’m sure there are many restaurants owned by muslims.

          Also, not all gays are liberals. But most socons remain idiots.

          1. Yes, Tony, that is why they pick fundamentalist Christians. Try to at least make a feeble attempt to think about what you’re saying before you display your stupidity to the world.

            1. Are you perhaps confusing me with someone else?

              Which of my points did you find objectionable, and why?

          2. “You think that gay people just pick a religion at random and ask that church (or whatever) to marry them? ”

            Presumably, yes (not “gay people” broadly, of course, but the specific gay people who are going to make the news for filing a lawsuit against a church). A gay believer in anti-gay religion isn’t going to ask for a wedding, they’ll ask for forgiveness. A gay believer in a gay-friendly religion won’t have any problems asking for a wedding in a first place, so they won’t make the news either.

            It’s the guys who decided that they’ve found a legal means of fucking over the religions with which they have bad blood that people are going to be talking about. I mean, they won’t pick religions “at random” (the religion will be vocally anti-gay, but not likely to cut the throat of a gay person in broad daylight for slighting their faith), but then that isn’t what you meant really.

      2. Haven’t heard of any instances where a gay couple went to a mosque and requested a marriage, or demanded that a muslim restaurant cater their gay wedding. Liberals have that in common with mass shooters. They like their targets soft.

        1. Not a gay couple, but I have watched a video of a conservative going into a Muslim bakery and being refused to make a gay wedding cake.

          1. And nothing else happened.

      3. We had that discussion yesterday.

        Suffice it to say, progressive support for Muslims is mostly about a) a reaction to Bush era scaremongering and b) a means to tweak the noses of fundamentalists.

        If fundamentalists legitimately came out big against gun rights, progressives might start defending every mass murderer that came down the pike.

        1. Ken,

          The left is Europe is siding with the Muslims. I see no reason why the wont’ side with them here.

          1. For all the reasons they don’t like fundamentalist Christians.

            The memory of the Bush era will fade.

            1. The Euro left hates Christians too Ken. The Left has a victim pecking order and gays are below the Muslims.

            2. Progs hate Christians. That’s why they love Muslims. I don’t think it has anything to do with the Bush era. The progs have already forgotten that. “If Bush wins in ’04 I’m going to Canada!!!!!!”

              1. Look, Eddie, another friend for you!

    3. Our rights shouldn’t be a zero-sum game,

      Negative rights aren’t a zero-sum game.

      Whether positive rights are a zero-sum, or negative-sum, game is about the only interesting question.

    4. Overall Ken,

      I think you raise valid points. Even today, gay marriage is not supported by at least a large majority of the country. And before this it has all been about nice Volvo driving suburban gay couples getting married. Pass this law and it will be about suing churches and businesses into bankruptcy for daring to object. I don’t think that fight will be quite as easy or popular.

  13. No, this won’t pass at this time, but it’s a brilliant sticky trap laid for socon politicians. This will ultimately benefit libertarians because each socon that shakes out of Team Red is an oppo for a libertarian-leaning successor.

    1. How is it a trap? The majority of the country doesn’t support these laws. And the voters in any district or state that elected a SOCON politician is likely to oppose it by a huge majority.

      How exactly does this work? Especially after years of fighting about gay marriage, aren’t most people just going to think the issue has been resoleved and look at gays as just being bullies who never accept victory?

      Maybe if you pushed for this in ten years, it would be different. But to push for it now, especially when a very significant number of people in this country don’t support gay marriage and are having it shoved down their throats by court decree, seems like a pretty bad idea.

  14. “… even if several GOP legislators are growing warmer toward gay issues”

    Was anyone else reminded of Senator Graham?

  15. I have a dream that one day, all little boys and little girls will be members of a protected class.

  16. Public accomodation would no doubt include a banquet hall that a church rents out for wedding receptions. You can’t refuse to rent it to the gay wedding.

    1. That is the entire point. They want to run all churches out of the public square. Churches will be allowed to live by their beliefs so long as they restrict it to their members and never do anything, including charity, that involves the public.

      1. But any comparison to political philosophies that consider religion and the traditional family to be the enemies of progress would be grossly out of line, just crazy conspiracy talk.

    2. You could require that all weddings performed there be officiated by the clergy of the church. You could rent the hall only to church members.

      I’m not a fan of public accommodation laws, but the religious are, as always, engaging in the worst sort of hysterical projection about this.

      1. I’m not particularly religious so I’m not projecting anything.
        Just predicting one of the lawsuits to come.

        1. I didn’t mention you in particular.

          1. Sorry I guess I don’t understand how threaded comments work.

  17. In other words, Gay Rights is about to become just like Feminism. Achieved its stated goal and then continues on a never ending dig for more privilege and political power, resorting to lies and half assed biased “studies” to justify it’s own existence.

    1. As late as the 1970’s, a woman needed her husband to sign a contract or get a credit card. So one can understand the protests and the politics of equal rights. 40 years late, what is feminism fight for ?

      1. I’ve heard the claim about credit before, but when I looked into it it was always unemployed women who couldn’t get credit. Just like anyone else without a source of income couldn’t get credit.

        1. My wife’s mother couldn’t get a credit card when she was widowed, and she was half owner of their business. The bank wanted her brother in law to vouch for her.
          So that’s at least one example.

    2. Yes. I think a lot of people viewed gay marriage as a way to finally solve the issue and fully accept gays into society. When gays move on to this, a lot of people are not going to be happy about having been lied to.

    3. How much less privilege than what straight people already enjoy is appropriate for gay people? Ballpark?

      1. What you’ve just said… is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever seen. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having seen it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul…

      2. Since answering that question would require me to buy into your concept of privilege I say none. It’s fucking bizarre to collective people and rank them according to their attributes. What’s so difficult about seeing people as individuals?

        1. What’s so difficult about seeing people as individuals?

          Tony is a fucking moron with no principled set of values.

        2. What’s difficult is the stone hard fact that everything else being equal, merely being born straight or white or male gifts a person with privileges people with other traits do not enjoy in this society. Seeing everyone as individuals is the ultimate goal. But we have to see that groups have systemic disparities in privilege before we can get there. Collectivization is what the bigots have done. It’s not me setting white heteros apart; they gladly did it themselves.

          1. So to follow your line. If we want individuals and individual rights to be respected we need to keep dividing ourselves into groups based on our differences ad infinitum until we are at the individual. Correct? I think my way is faster, less tedious, and generally leads to more freedom but at least we agree on the end goal.

            1. The divisions were created by the oppressors. They once divided out the Irish. Wasn’t that silly? Now they don’t, and now individual Irish white guys can be seen as individuals.

              1. But we never had Irish protection laws.

                1. Nor do we have gay or black protection laws.

          2. See? A fucking moron with no principled set of values.

      3. I know this is pointless, but fuck it.

        “Privilege” is a term that is misused and overused by people too lazy to consider other people as individuals.

  18. I think I mentioned this in another thread not long ago but I damned near wanted to ask one of those Equality Rights canvassers that since gay people now have the “right” to marry each other, your fight is done and your group acheived all of your objectives. I didn’t because I didn’t want to cause a fight but it’s kind of scary how these organization won’t disband despite basically completing their objectives. That right there showed me that they are preparing for the next phase and that is forcing people to accomodate their lifestyles and destroy those who they believe are against them.

    1. Might be because those people spent so long convincing themselves that they are victims that, once they acheive equality, any disparity they see after that must be because they are still victimized and they cannot fathom other causes such as their own choices. It must be their tin foil hat conspiracy villian, “society.”

      1. That is exactly it. And if you are a small minority that has historically been despised to the point of outright criminalization, pushing too hard and never quitting after you already have the right to live openly and even marry, is probably not a good idea.

        1. And even marry!

          1. Yes, and I doubt that is going to work out very well as you figure out government marriage sucks, and half the reason you liked being gay in the first place was because you didn’t like a conventional life. Only a true nut like Andrew Sullivan could be crazy enough to think most gay people would embrace the stable suburban married life if only they could get marriage licenses.

            Give it 30 years and gays will wonder why the hell their older fellow gays wanted to get married so badly.

            1. Your concern is appreciated. Maybe one day you’ll figure out that you do not own this country and get to make all its rules and tell other types of people just how much freedom they should be happy with.

              I do like that aspect of being gay, but you can’t deny a constitutional imperative because oppression has its minor perks.

              1. Tony|7.24.15 @ 12:45PM|#

                Maybe one day you’ll figure out that you do not own this country and get to make all its rules and tell other types of people just how much freedom they should be happy with.

                The lack of self-awareness is breath taking.

                1. Dammit, forgot to refresh.

                2. The lack of self-awareness is breath taking.

                  And yet (un)surprisingly frequent. It’s what happens when you argue from personal preference rather than ideas or principles.

              2. Maybe one day you’ll figure out that you do not own this country and get to make all its rules and tell other types of people just how much freedom they should be happy with.

                Oh! The lack of self-awareness! It’s killing me!

            2. Actually, John, I think the saddest part of all of this is that a group that used to be radical is now taking up all the boring bourgeois institutions of the rest of America. Who but the bourgeois would revel like this in the embrace of the state?

              1. I agree Nikki. I find that very sad. I always respected the sheer audacity of gay culture. They were people who just didn’t give a fuck what society or even their families thought of them. There was before all of this a real subversive nature to it that I always respected and liked.

                I am really sorry to see that end.

                1. It’s not ending. It’s just becoming mundane. What used to qualify as audacity is now just part of the larger culture.

                  1. True waffles. And the upside to that is that being an unreconstructed heterosexual male is now subversive. And damn that gets more fun every day.

                    1. And the upside to that is that being an unreconstructed heterosexual male is now subversive.

                      How fun for you. Which powers and privileges are you willing to give up to authentically enjoy this newfound state of subversiveness? Cuz I don’t get the impression you’re even willing to meet gays halfway. You think losing an iota of absolute dominion is to be oppressed.

                    2. Ah, I love being able to just sit on my ass and succeed in life anyway because I was gifted with vast powers and privileges on my 13th birthday merely because I am a white heterosexual male. I even got a decoder ring!

                      Tony really I an idiot.

                    3. All of them Tony. The world kisses my ass every day and I love it. I speed, I talk on my cell phone while driving, I drink, I happily chat up attention starved young women because none of their sorry male peers have the balls to do it, and do whatever else I want and enjoy every minute of it. The world is my fucking oyster Tony. And knowing people like you wake up miserable and thinking they are victims makes it all just that much more enjoyable.

                    4. You don’t need to remind me that you’re a psychopath John. Enjoy your unearned privileges. I’d expect nothing less of anyone. Life is short. I just don’t see what you get by insisting that people born with fewer unearned privileges should in addition have fewer actual legal rights than you.

                    5. Tony World:

                      White male born to poor coal-miner in Appalachia = ‘Privileged’

                      Black female born to well-to-do optometrists in Manhattan = ‘Underprivileged’

                    6. White male born to poor coal-miner in Appalachia = ‘Privileged’

                      Black female born to well-to-do optometrists in Manhattan = ‘Underprivileged’

                      At least you understand the concept that people can be born with unearned privileges. It’s a start.

                      Aptness requires that we compare a white male born to a poor person and a black person born to an equally poor person, and the same for rich offspring. That’s why I said “all else being equal.”

                2. “I am really sorry to see that end.”

                  May I ask why?

                  1. Susan,

                    Because I thought it was an interesting an vibrant culture that was worthy of respect. I find what is replacing it to be drab, conformist and less worthy of respect.

                    There is certainly nothing I can do about it, but that doesn’t mean I can’t lament the change.

                    1. Begging your pardon but you really don’t strike me as the type who’s interested in vibrant cultures. Hell, I don’t respect it all that much and I’m far closer than you. I’m sure there are some uncharitable interpretations I could make but I’ll just admit that sometimes you just surprise me and leave it there.

                      As far as wailing laments go, I don’t. I think the people that do are either nostalgia-blinded oldsters or (much like the bitchy swish you’re so fond of quoting) people who never really lived through it and have a highly romanticized view of it. That is a subject for a conversation I don’t have the time to get into, though.

                    2. Begging your pardon but you really don’t strike me as the type who’s interested in vibrant cultures.

                      That is because you are a closed minded bigot who thinks that anyone who doesn’t look and act like you could never be as open minded as you. Seriously, Susan that is what you are.

                      Why would you think that? Because I think people have a right to object to gay marriage? Of course because it would never occur to you that someone could passionately defend the rights of people to do something they wouldn’t do themselves.

                      Because I am Christian? Of course because every Christian is a narrow minded teetotaler who hates the gays because the bible told them. Yup, you have me Susan. iI am just like Sheldon Cooper’s mother. Totally just like her.

                      You are a close minded bigoted person Susan. You just don’t’ realize it and get away with it because your close mindedness fits popular stereotypes. And that is a sad way to be. You owe yourself better.

                    3. Who’s Sheldon Cooper?

                    4. He is a character on a sitcom. He has a mother played by Lorrie Metcalf who is this perfect stereotype of the hick evangelical.

                      Forgive me for my popular culture reference.

                    5. You’re an odd duck John. Most in your cohort spent most of the gay rights movement bitching about crass displays of assless chaps on public streets and turning that into an excuse to continue oppressing gays. You would deny equal rights because you respect the assless chaps and don’t want to see them go!

                      Things seem to have changed rapidly, symbolized perhaps by the gay bar just three blocks from my home. When I was young and just going out, they had recently shut down the sex dungeon. Now, in the past few months, you can’t even smoke inside anymore. This has been a truly lamentable development. And also the lamest excuse I’ve ever heard for denying people equal rights.

                    6. Tony,

                      I have no problem with crass displays of assless chaps. I just don’t see how getting a marriage license and the right to be fucked in divorce court has anything to do with equal rights.

                      If the day comes where gays are in danger of being jailed or killed, or otherwise not left alone, I will be the first one to defend them. If that day comes, I will likely be defending them against some of the very people who called me a bigot for thinking there is no right to gay marriage and an absolute right to object to it.

                    7. One thing you’ll have to explain to me one day is the conservative’s insistence on obfuscating his true motivations. You clearly have a Jesus-shaped stick up your ass on this issue. You can’t get to equal rights for gays with respect to marriage because someone you mistook for an authority on God’s opinion told you He forbids it. Why not just say so, if that’s what you believe to be true? If you’re afraid of ridicule, I’ll teach you how to have a thick skin. You already have it, complete with the requisite superior attitude. Be passionate about what you believe to be true. Nobody’s gonna throw you in jail for believing gays should be second-class because that’s what God demands.

                      It’s like this on so many issues. Conservatives twisting themselves in knots in order not to reveal what they really think. Liberals don’t do that, you know. It’s freeing.

                    8. Tony,

                      It has nothing to do with God. I has to do with people’s absolute right to believe what they want and act on it. God could not care less if you get a marriage license or no longer have to write a will.

                      That is what you don’t get. You can’t understand that someone could have the right to object to how you live and say they don’t want to be a part of it or having anything to do with you.

                    9. A clearer demonstration of my point I couldn’t have asked for. You know perfectly well that nobody is agitating to remove people’s 1st Amendment right to believe whatever they want about gay people. You know this goddamn perfectly well. You’re lying again. If it doesn’t have anything to do with Christianity then you have nothing but this idiotic strawman you obviously don’t actually believe in. I just don’t buy it.

            3. 30 years? They’re going to realize that in less than 3 if they haven’t already. I don’t even think most gays want to get married. It conflicts with their decadent lifestyle.

              1. I agree Arisuka. And more than anything, government marriage sucks. It is mostly just a set of enforced contract provisions that make sure each party gets a forced share of the other party’s stuff. That is great if you are the party with less stuff but it sucks if you are the party with more.

              2. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Arisuka. Your ill-informed opinion means so much.

                1. Thanks for reminding the board Tonio that there are hateful ignorant gay people in the world not named Tony. In fact, Tony seems like a nicer and more fun guy than you do. You are slightly less leftist but much more humorless and nasty than Tony. I think if I had to choose, I bet a night hanging out with Tony would be a thousand times more pleasant than putting up with your smug, bitter, puritanical ass.

                  1. It is now hateful and ignorant to point out that gays actually can’t be pigeonholed into the stereotypes that inhabit some peoples’ heads. Astonishing.

    2. You didn’t ask the question because you knew that would make You the bad guy. These groups leverage the fact that most of us don’t want to cause a fight. But eventually the only way to stop a bully is to bloody their nose. Then you’re being a big meanie.

      1. Sorry to mention Trump but I suspect the reason why the media and his opponents hate him so much is because the man doesn’t give a shit and not easily pressured. The media and the left biggest weapon is making people too scared to fight back but what happens when they meet an opponent who could give two shits?

        1. That’s why Chris Christie worries me. I see the ads where he’s all tough and full of bluster. “I say what I mean and mean what I say !” I see the ad and think…but you didn’t say anything. Because there is no actual discussion of the issues, people respond to the bluster, without a thought to what the man actually stands for or where he would take us.

    3. Um, Ed, except that the biggest organization did disband. Not that I expect an actual fact like that to put a cork in your screeching.

  19. Get screwed over by a taxi driver? Accuse him of a being a bigot and send the feds after him!

    And don’t forget that minorities are exempt from the normal burden or proof. Why just yesterday I successfully accused my asshole neighbor of killing my dog, and I didn’t even have a dog.

    There are two realistic choices here. A regime in which sexual orientation is left out of federal antidiscrimination law, or one in which it is included alongside race and religion. As with marriage, a thoughtful libertarian can be OK with treating gays as equal to everyone else, even if they idealistically oppose marriage (very sincerely of course).

    But you can legitimately oppose expanding the federal definition of public accommodations. Fine with me. Of course you can’t say it’s less government, for reasons I have often explained: you’re simply paying cops to expel gays from the shops of bigots rather than to enforce access. You gotta pick a team, and you can always be counted on to pick the powerful over the less powerful, and slap a decal on it that reads “freedom.”

    1. “You’re simply paying cops to expel gays from the shops of bigots rather than to enforce access.”

      You’re paying cops to protect the rights of gays, too, Tony.

      There’s no reason why a gay caterer should be forced by the police to serve homophobic customers either.

      1. A more correct analogy would be the right of gays to exclude straights, say from a gay bar. A tempting offer. (Attitudes and actions are not protected in these laws, only the ways in which people are born [or the religions they choose, if we must]).

        “There’s no reason…”

        Sure there is. The reason is that a decent society prefers to enforce nondiscrimination than to have cops drag minorities from lunch counters. We tried that and found it repellant. Well, some of us.

        1. And if decent society decides that you’re either going back in the closet, or to jail, then you’ll just lie down and accept that right? After all, your undefined entity owns all of us, apparently.

        2. Meh, excluding straights from a gay bar seems like a lot of work. Plus, where are all the bars that exclude gays? I’ve never been in one.

          1. I would not go to gay bar that excluded straights – bringing my straight friends there has always been half the fun.

            1. “I would not go to gay bar that excluded straights “

              Sure.

              But do you think such a place should be able to exist?

              1. Yes. Let it succeed or fail based on word of mouth rather than government force.

        3. nondiscrimination

          What if I discover that a customer has accepted services, but intends not to pay for said services? Can I “discriminate” then?

          To use a more extreme example: Should a Jewish baker be able to decline to serve a neo-nazi?

          1. Yes, because only groups that ‘Tony’ approves of should be allowed to force others to labor on their behalf.

          2. Yes and yes. Do try and understand the actual law before arguing against it, how about?

            1. Holy fuck, I didn’t think he would actually confirm what I said about him.

            2. Do try and understand the actual law before arguing against it, how about?

              I understand the law. I was arguing principle. I distinguish the two. And I know you do not have principles, Tony, but do try to understand the concept.

              1. You don’t appear to understand the social problem being addressed by antidiscrimination law. Their authors didn’t stick their hand into a bag and draw a random assortment of characteristics to protect.

    2. As with marriage, a thoughtful libertarian can be OK with treating gays as equal to everyone else, even if they idealistically oppose marriage (very sincerely of course).

      The libertarian position is that the government should not regulate/define private romances at all and should only enforce marriage/civil union to the extent that it is a contract. Additionally, the government should not provide special treatment in the tax code because of marital status.

      you can always be counted on to pick the powerful over the less powerful

      This is a bit disingenuous. Who fits these roles of power in a world where people can sue one another into poverty because they were slighted? If I own my body, I necessarily own its labor and the results of its labor. I should be able to sell my labor or not sell my labor at my own discretion. Anything less is state enforced slavery.

      1. Being black, if some asshole decided to not serve me I would be furious, probably tell a few people, but then find another restaurant that will take my money. I would never in my wildest dream try and use the govenrment to force the asshole to serve me. Why would in the hell would I want to eat in someone’s place where they hate me anyway?

        1. Because you’re unable to find pleasure in using the force of government to ruin someone’s life for their bigotry. When you tolerate intolerance you create danger to the common good.

        2. Why would in the hell would I want to eat in someone’s place where they hate me anyway?

          Amen! And even more, I would want every possible indication that the people hate me before I step into the restaurant. Forcing bigots underground does no good.

        3. Re: EdWuncler,

          Why would in the hell would I want to eat in someone’s place where they hate me anyway?

          I have always thought that a place that does not want to cater to most paying customers is probably not that good, anyway. Besides, you can perfectly discriminate your customers by raising your prices. This “Public Accommodation” concept turns into a big crock by that fact alone ? NO ONE can accommodate “The Public.”

      2. I should be able to sell my labor or not sell my labor at my own discretion. Anything less is state enforced slavery.

        You can also be counted on to appropriate the evils done to minorities for yourselves! Slavery, really. What about if you want to freely sell heroin to a toddler? Does any restriction on that make you a piece of property owned by another human?

        1. Reading this has convinced me that you are indeed a moron.

          1. You know how some people say they don’t see color? Tony’s just the opposite. He’s literally incapable of seeing injustice unless it falls down the progressive stack. So all that slavery done by most every group in history, to most every group in history is completely invisible, except for the portion comprising white-on-black slavery in the new world.

        2. Holy shit, ‘Tony’s’ descent into total incoherence continues apace.

        3. You’re confused because you’re unable to apply the principle of self-ownership to others. This is because, as a sociopathic egotist, you lack empathy. You cannot perceive others as real people, so you can’t understand that, in your example, the toddler is also a free person with the right to not buy heroin.

          Or you’re just a disingenuous asshole who refuses to debate in good faith.

          Or both, I guess. Whatever blows your skirts up.

  20. Transactions should always be voluntary on the part of all participating parties. Otherwise private property and self-ownership do not exist.

    1. private property and self-ownership do not exist

      Hmm…nailed it. Perhaps they don’t really exist. Or at least they erode if not zealously defended.

      1. zealously defended

        Yeah, by armed government goons. Be on one side or be on the other, but it’s rather audacious to claim that the purposes for which you employ government goons is to further less government.

        1. Why does government exist at all if not to protect my life and property?

          1. I’m not the one with a philosophy defined by its opposition to government…

            1. defined by its opposition to government

              I wish progs would at least TRY to understand their philosophical opponents. Libertarianism is not defined by “opposition to government”. It is defined by a principle against the initiation of force.

              1. Unless a kid steps onto your lawn, then you can initiate force by blowing his head off. Or do you conveniently redefine force to include the kid’s moving his feet to a portion of land some bureaucrat drew an imaginary line around?

                1. Re: Tony,

                  Unless a kid steps onto your lawn, then you can initiate force by blowing his head off.

                  Moral of the story: Don’t step on other people’s lawns.

                  I tell my kids that they should never step on other people’s lawns. Or do you think “freedom” means “free to step on other people’s lawns”, Tony?

                  1. Freedom should always have a referent. Freedom to do what? You think people shouldn’t have freedom of movement that extends to stepping on land that a bureaucrat has drawn an imaginary line around. And you think you should be able to explode the head of anyone who doesn’t heed that imaginary line. But you’re against initiatory force.

                    1. I got this guys. This one’s easy. The answer is: Freedom to do whatever you want to do as long as it doesn’t violate the rights of another individual. And by right we mean right to live without anyone touching your property or doing violence to you physically unless you give consent. (It does not include right to feel offended about stuff.)

                      So, I’ve answered your simple question. A baby could’ve answered that question. But, anyway, quick question: if these lines these bureaucrats draw are imaginary, is it okay if I go into your favorite place and wreck everything in it? Because what you seem to imply is that nobody really owns anything soooo…

                    2. Only a baby should be answering this question.

                      How does this address pollution? Poverty? Ignorance? Any other problem that humans face collectively that isn’t trespassing or physical violence?

                      You are freedom minimalists.

                2. Hey Tony. Why do you want to force Christian churches to perform gay marriages at gunpoint?

                  See, I can completely mischaracterize a position, too. Although, in your case, that’s probably not a mischaracterization.

                3. redefine force

                  The only people who redefine words until they are meaningless are progressives and you know it. Also, your example still sounds like murder to me, as it contains no initiation of force/aggression against the landowner. Not everyone harbors the violent tendencies that proggies do.

  21. All this to accommodate a tiny minority based soley on behavior.

    1. “based soley on behavior.”

      which is a point that was discussed in a previous thread.

      Unlike race, which is an unavoidable, apparent fact – in most cases, a business-proprietor has no way of actually knowing someone is gay or not.

      Which makes claimed ‘discrimination’ by businesses pretty unprovable.

      The case example was Rhywun saying he’d been kicked out of cab for ‘being gay’. When asked how the driver determined this… well, it was because he had his head in his buddy’s lap. (but no hanky panky).

      Is that really discrimination? The presumption being that cab drivers are *totally kosher* with heterosexual blowjobs going on in the back seat?

      Similary – In the case of the “Anti-Gay” pizzeria, I asked, “how does that work, again”? Do they answer phone-calls with “Can I take your order, unless you’re a fag?” Given that they presented zero actual barriers to gay people eating their food, i wondered how you could call them “discriminatory”, despite their hypothetical aversion to catering gay weddings.

    2. Oh, look, everyone, a Utilitarian! Remember, Sui, the individual is the smallest minority their is. And remember, religion is a behavior, too!

      1. You never answered my question above.

        1. I only point this out because you still seem to want to snipe at people and call them names rather than defend the thing you seem to be pretending to defend.

  22. Re: Tony,

    There are two realistic choices here. A regime in which sexual orientation is left out of federal antidiscrimination law, or one in which it is included alongside race and religion.

    There’s a third realistic option: Not obeying anti-discrimination laws at all which are impossible to obey, anyway.

    you’re simply paying cops to expel gays from the shops of bigots

    Who needs cops, again? My Winchester two-barrel can do the job faster.

    you can always be counted on to pick the powerful over the less powerful, and slap a decal on it that reads “freedom.”

    Because “freedom” in Marxian-speak means “not cocooned from the vicissitudes of life”. Or pussy-think.

    Got it. By the way, Colt made all men equal. Just so you understand that his “law of the Jungle” stuff only exists where people are precluded from self-defense, not the other way around.

  23. Re: Tony,

    You don’t appear to understand the social problem being addressed by antidiscrimination law.

    Laws are not meant to make Man virtuous and perfect, Tony. Whatever social problem you think those laws address is irrelevant. Only culture can affect society, not laws. In fact, people react differently when they’re threatened by laws rather than convinced by speech or arguments.

    Their authors didn’t stick their hand into a bag and draw a random assortment of characteristics to protect.

    Anti-discrimination laws do not protect “characteristics”, in case you haven’t figured it out. What they do is to unduly transfer ownership of property from the rightful owners to the State under the guise of protecting certain persons corralled into an arbitrary group. That is what they do, nothing else.

    1. You’re a radical loony and your opinions are irrelevant to the real world. Carry on having them if you must, but trying to win a debate with premises that only crazy people have seems kind of pointless.

  24. It doesn’t ‘broaden’ anything. It just extends the same law that prohibits me from refusing you service because you’re a black person, or a woman/man, or because you’re a Jew/Christian/Muslim, to now it being illegal to refuse service to you if you’re a Jew/Christian/Muslim/Gay person. Big whoop. Like the original law was really inforceable.

  25. It doesn’t ‘broaden’ anything. It just extends the same law that prohibits me from refusing you service because you’re a black person, or a woman/man, or because you’re a Jew/Christian/Muslim, to now it being illegal to refuse service to you if you’re a Jew/Christian/Muslim/Gay person. Big whoop. Like the original law was really inforceable.

  26. I got the felling then it might be more of a phyrric victory for LGBT groups and they’re only used by left groups as John mentionned in his comment.

    On a slightly off-topic sidenote. I spotted this blog post who could bring some possible upcoming unintended consequences. http://voxday.blogspot.ca/2015…..inbow.html

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.