Gay Marriage

The RNC Appears to Be Pushing Away Anti-Gay Posturing

Resolution challenging Supreme Court marriage decision rejected.

|

Already brainwashing the children!
Credit: thedailyenglishshow / photo on flickr

We don't know whether the Republican candidates will truly tackle gay issues in tonight's debates on their own or whether gay marriage might come up primarily in the context of complaining about the power of the Supreme Court and whether it should be reined in. No doubt Sen. Ted Cruz, at least, will have much to say.

What we can say, though, is that the Republican National Committee (RNC) seems reluctant to keep propping up rhetoric in opposition to gay lives. The RNC just rejected a couple of anti-gay resolutions. From Time:

The first resolution, introduced by embattled Michigan national committeeman Dave Agema, would have encouraged "schools that are teaching the homosexual lifestyle in their sexual education class also include the harmful physical aspects of the lifestyle." The second, which would have encouraged Congress and states to pass laws in an effort to nullify June's Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide, was introduced by Louisiana national committeeman Ross Little, Jr. 

Agema's on the outs with the RNC already for racist and homophobic social media postings, and RNC Chair Reince Priebus has been calling for him to resign. His resolution had no chance anyway. The rejection of the second resolution is more interesting, as it indicates that party leadership is not exactly willing to keep pushing back on the Supreme Court's ruling mandating gay marriage recognition.

The real test, besides how candidates discuss gay issues this evening and how primary voters respond to them, will be what the Republican Party ultimately includes in its platform next year. The RNC may want to drop the matter entirely, given that it no longer appears that running against the gay community is a winner in general elections. The Democrats seem to actually want to keep gay issues as an election topic, with members of Congress introducing the Equality Act, legislation that would add sexual orientation and gender identity to just about every federal antidiscrimination regulation.

Advertisement

NEXT: Michigan Teen Facing 25 Years as a Sex Offender Might Get a Reprieve

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. Good. Focus on economic freedom, Stupid Party.

    1. Yes, they need to work on the repeal of Civil Rights laws which require people to provide services and sell property even if they don’t want to sell it to homosexuals and so-called minorities.

      We went from a bad system of some governments telling people they could not associate to an even bigger one of the Federal government saying people must associate.

      1. Oh, absolutely. The quintessence of economic liberty is the freedom to trade – and not to trade – with whomever you want for any reason.*

        *Barring, of course, some voluntarily-entered prior agreement.

        1. But not if it involves the GAYZ!! They are special. It is just like government marriage was really bad until reason realized that it benefited the GAYZ.

          1. How often do you remind your wife that, on principle, you loathe being married to her?

            1. It’s raining (straw) men!

          2. GAYZ? Isnt he married to Beyond Say or something?

        2. So if any group is excluded from trading because of discrimination, fuck their economic liberty?

          You guys never seem to realize that you’re always advocating on behalf of the powerful, who don’t fucking need the help.

          1. Excluded by whom? If I choose not to trade with you because I don’t like you, then I’m infringing on your economic liberty?

            Tony doesn’t understand basic liberty. News at 11.

            1. The government goons either haul you to court for discriminating or they haul the targets of your bigotry out of your shop–not for trespassing, as the door is open to customers. They are enforcing your discrimination. Scale up enough and we get apartheid. Even if the right of shopowners to discriminate against customers were worth something, any reasonable person should agree that if it is happening enough in society then the liberty of those excluded from participating is more worth using taxpayer money to enforce.

              1. The government goons either haul you to court for discriminating or they haul the targets of your bigotry out of your shop–not for trespassing, as the door is open to customers.

                Anybody who isn’t welcome on any property is a trespasser, regardless of who is welcome on the property, Tony.

                I understand that you believe businesses are some kind of communal enterprise, that “you didn’t build that”, that the collective always trumps the individual, that there is no feeling more gratifying than watching a highly polished jackboot grind your enemy’s face in the dirt.

                We just disagree on all that.

                1. Tony has no principle other than expedience. If it’s expedient to see business owners fined for exercising their consciences, so be it. It means he and Dunham and other brainless socialist twerps get the tingles up their leg about ungoodthinkful citizens getting their comeuppance.

                  1. How are you not every bit as “expedient” by favoring absolute property rights? Lemme guess, those rights are special and from nature.

                    1. You’ve no problem forcing business owners to associate with people they’d rather not, by recourse to ruinous litigation if necessary. You’ve a problem with business owners expelling people they’d rather not by force of law and gendarmes if needs be. Explain to me how you’re maintaining the principled line on anything other than having your progressive sensibilities offended.

                2. It’s a rights claim, meaning a claim to the use of government goons to enforce your will. That’s what property is after all–imaginary boundaries drawn and enforced by government. It’s not illegitimate, just don’t say you’re for more freedom or less government. You’re favoring one person’s freedom over another’s. So am I, I just think my balance is nicer.

              2. I don’t see government enforcement of law as a “right” so much as a good idea. But it is only a good idea if what it is enforcing is an actual right.

                And it’s pretty damn simple to understand that the right to exclude is a fundamental human right.

                If you get discriminated against by a private actor for a stupid reason, too fucking bad for you. Grow up.

                1. Things become less simple (and nobody ever promised life was simple) when you observe actual society functioning, and you see that in parts of the country an entire race of people simply cannot participate in the commerce of their communities because of discrimination. All of a sudden the right to exclude has led to widespread negative consequences, not just to the minority but to everyone who would benefit from their inclusion in capitalism.

                  But I suppose if you were around in the civil rights movement era you’d be telling all the blacks “too fucking bad, grow up,” then now perhaps whining in your old age that history sees you as the loser and the villain.

                  1. Of course they become simpler when you observe actual society functioning, and you see in parts of the country that business owners tried to fight against that GOVERNMENT ENFORCED discrimination.

                    But fuck, you have to get your Southern hatred on, facts be damned.

                    1. Wouldn’t it always be government enforced discrimination if you’re basing it on property rights?

              3. No its not worth it. The problem can be fixed, FOR FREE, by letting culture and society deal with it. And nobody will be shot!

                1. Except the blacks who insist on going into shops they’re not welcome in and who refuse to leave on principle. They’ll get shot, and government will shoot them.

                  One day perhaps you’ll realize that you’re not actually in favor of freedom, you’re for the freedom of some at the expense of others, and you always side with the already powerful.

                  1. Stop fisting kittens, Tony. They don’t like it.

          2. When I think of power, I think of florists and bakers and pizza makers.

            1. Yup. All those Models, World Champion Athletes, Actors and Actresses, and Rock Stars who, for the last half century, have lost their careers for coming out of the closet… those are the poor oppressed minority people whom I weep for.

            2. To Tony, since socons dominated the body politic in the past, then even when they don’t now they should still be considered “the powerful.”

              Will there ever be a day when a white male wrongthinker isn’t a part of “the powerful”?

      2. they need to work on the repeal of Civil Rights laws

        Not that I disagree, but this would keep the Republicans out of the White House for a generation or more. Find another solution.

        1. ^This, this, a thousand times this. But the screechy socons want conservatism to die on this hill. And it was them who got us into this mess in the first place by their ongong hostility to all things gay (including private contracts such as in Virginia), and now they want to double-down on the idiocy.

    2. But that’s hard. Stoking people’s fears is easy.

      1. I know. It is not like people are being sued out of business over this or anything.

        1. The actual marriage ruling isn’t responsible for the suits. To the extent it affects religious freedom it will mostly be for religious people in government positions, like judges and clerks. It’s too popular to repeal via amendment, so that’s pretty much that. As you say, focusing on preventing further erosion of religious and association rights is a better way to go. The Republicans already lost this one, there’s not much political sense in stewing in it.

          1. They will lose the religious liberty too. Popular culture is too powerful and most people are too cowardly to stand up to it. They won’t lose it immediately but they will lose it. Think about it, do you have any faith that anyone is going to stand up for religious people in the popular culture or media? I don’t.

            You can sense the inevitability of it in the rhetoric of the gay marriage proponents. They always say “for now” and how the other side is “free to speak” and never of course free to act.

            Who is going to act? Ultimately, people are either going to have to be willing to go to jail or be run out of business of give up on their beliefs.

            1. They will lose the religious liberty too.

              I think you’re right, but it’s the right hill to die on rather than trying to relitigate the gay marriage case.

              1. Sure it is. It is the right thing to do period. But as you can see on this board half of the people who claim to be “libertarians” won’t die on it. The thing is that the one people who will retain their religious liberty is likely to be the Muslims. And when the time comes that they become enough of a political force in the Democratic Party, the gays are going to go back in the closet. And honestly, I can’t say I will give a fuck. They don’t seem concerned with anyone else’ rights.

                1. This is the definition of privilege. You expect other libertarians to flip their shit on command because this is your issue, when other people’s civil rights have been shit all over by the state for years. You just can’t see that we were already as upset as you are now.

                  1. Just what issues have I not been upset about? Last I looked there is no one on this board who complains more about the drug war and police abuse.

                    What issue have I ever not supported civil rights on other than to say there is no Constitutional right to government recognized marriage? Name one and provide a link. Otherwise take that back or just admit you are projecting your own attitudes onto me.

                    1. Do you stink up every single thread, no matter how tangentially related, with comments about how wrong it is that non-Christians aren’t legally allowed to fire someone for being Christian? Was that your No. 1 issue before Obergefell went to the Supreme Court?

                    2. Is that an issue Nikki? Are there people out there claiming they want to do that? has there ever been a thread about that subject? I have never said people shouldn’t and am restating that now. Moreover, I have never supported the CRA and would be fine with its repeal.

                      So again, exactly how do I not support people’s civil rights? And more importantly, why does it hurt you so much to support this guy’s civil rights that you feel compelled to change the subject and engage in ad hominem?

                    3. Is that an issue Nikki? Are there people out there claiming they want to do that?

                      Of course it’s an issue. Why wouldn’t it be? People’s rights are being violated. Do you need a gay marriage thread to bitch about that?

                      And more importantly, why does it hurt you so much to support this guy’s civil rights that you feel compelled to change the subject and engage in ad hominem?

                      What guy’s? Who are you talking about? Do you think this post is about someone’s civil rights being violated?

                      You are the one changing the subject. You’re posting about the CRA and public accommodations on a post that has only tangential relation to either, and you have no interest in discussing Agema or the actual issues the RNC is dealing with because of people like him.

                      And I’m not engaging in ad hominem. I’m saying that you are fucking blind to the fact that all that’s happening is Christians are starting to deal with the same bullshit others have been for years, therefore blind to the fact that it makes no sense for everyone to be suddenly and newly as upset as you are.

                    4. You are the one changing the subject. You’re posting about the CRA and public accommodations on a post that has only tangential relation to either, and you have no interest in discussing Agema or the actual issues the RNC is dealing with because of people like him.

                      It is totally related. The gay marriage fight is over. And the next fight is going to be that. So the GOP doing this is nothing but a tactical retreat to better ground on which to fight. That is a totally pertinent point. You just hate it because you find the position incredibly distasteful but also required by your professed ideals.

                    5. What position do you think I find distasteful, John? Do you think I don’t think people should be able to refuse service to gays? I absolutely do.

                    6. Yes, the gay marriage fight is over. We won. And now you’re doing your level best to convince everyone that any opposition to anti-discrimination laws exists solely because of your hatred of gays and your paranoia about “the gay agenda”.
                      Thank for your help, but no thanks.

                    7. there is no Constitutional right to government recognized marriage?

                      Who here has claimed that there is? Who here has said business should be forced to serve gays? You take whatever happens in the world and blame the people that comment here as if we have any control over the Supreme Court or congress.

                    8. Who here has claimed that there is?

                      Anyone who thought SCOTUS got the issue right? And regardless. even if everyone agrees with me about that, bravo. It doesn’t mean Nikki’s allegation against me is correct.

                    9. Anyone who thought SCOTUS got the issue right? And regardless. even if everyone agrees with me about that, bravo. It doesn’t mean Nikki’s allegation against me is correct.

                      I don’t speak for everyone but I think SCOTUS got the right result with the wrong rationale. It should have been ruled equal protection, not a constitunial right, either way gays got to marry.

                    10. Florida Man,

                      I hate to get into this because it will light the Frank signal and cause him to give his idiotic views on equal protection. So, I will only say this, unless you believe that the government must give marriage licenses to every single person regardless of age or mental competence, then saying “equal protection” means there is something about gays that makes them a “protected class” and I seriously doubt you would like the implications of that.

                      Kennedy understood that and that is why he didn’t rule on equal protection.

                    11. John,

                      I’m landing now, so I don’t want to just give a last word response.

                    12. You’re right, they should have ruled on the Full Faith and Credit. If marriages (gay or straight) are recognized in one state, they should be recognized in ALL states.

                    13. It doesn’t mean Nikki’s allegation against me is correct.

                      The only proof anyone needs my allegation is correct is the insane number of comments you post every day about this issue, which magically only started happening when religious people’s rights to discriminate were imperiled. You are a fish who only just found out you were swimming in water, John.

                    14. Nikki,

                      I have been posting about gay marriage for years. And I post about a lot of other things too. And why does my posting bother you so much if not because it pisses you off that you have to defend these peoples’ rights and don’t like me reminding you of that fact?

                    15. The only proof anyone needs my allegation is correct is the insane number of comments you post every day about this issue

                      Trolling?

                    16. John, let’s suppose there is even a conflict between these two things. Do you really think the right to not bake gay wedding cakes trumps the right to get married and enjoy the same benefits of marriage as anyone else?

                      You really think that if we have to choose between the religious liberty of a few anti-gay Christian bakers and the equal rights of millions of gay people that we should choose the anti-gay Christian bakers?

                    17. Hazel,

                      Do you think the right to be married has anything to do with your right to force people to recognize your marriage? Are you not married unless everyone agrees you are?

                    18. Only the government should be forced to recognize gay marriages. But if it’s a choice between forcing everyone to regonize gay marriage and letting the government discriminate against gays, then I would rather force everyone to recognize gay marriages. Just like I’d rather have public accomodation laws than Jim Crow.

                    19. yeah Hazel, you are done with the government killing people’s free exercise rights so gays can get a fucking piece of paper and not have to write a will or a POA. I will give you credit for being honest enough to admit you really don’t care very much about freedom of religion. Understand, gays were free to live openly as married couples as it was. And they were free to enter into contracts and leave all of their possessions to each other. And also, to the extent that they couldn’t do things like get green cards or survivor benefits, that all could have been solved through civil unions. Yet, you still think court mandated marriage recognition is more important than the right to free exercise. That is of course your right to think that and it is a value judgement. But it says just how little you value freedom of religion.

                    20. The rights conferred by marriage cannot be duplicated purely through private contracts. Especially when it comes to inheritance taxes. And if the government has to change a host of laws to recognize civil unions for immigration and taxation purposes, what effective difference is that from legal recognition of same-sex marriage? Other than that you’ve got some psycho obsession about the word “marriage”.
                      If all religious people care about is whether they have to use the word “married” or not, then they still don’t deserve preference over treating people equally under the law.

                    21. The rights conferred by marriage…

                      There is not a single right conferred by civil marriage. There are a variety of privileges, and you would do well to learn the difference.

                    22. You really think that if we have to choose between the religious liberty of a few anti-gay Christian bakers and the equal rights of millions of gay people that we should choose the anti-gay Christian bakers?

                      If you’re going to try to make a utilitarian argument, you should know that 2-5% of the population is gay, depending on which estimates you prefer, while 83% of the population identifies as a Christian of one kind or another (and a further 4% are Jewish or Muslim). This is precisely why you should try to avoid utilitarian arguments.

                    23. PM, but only a tiny minority of Christians actually wish to discriminate against gays.

                    24. Also, it’s not really a utilitarian argument. Equal treatment by the law is more fundamental than freedom of religious practice.

                    25. Really Hazel? Even if the “unequal treatment” results in very little actual harm or harm that can’t be alleviated in other ways?

                    26. So, in your mind, being forced to bake a cake for a gay couple is a worse infringement on your liberty than not being able to sponsor your spouse to live in the US with you?

                      In your mind, having to cater a gay wedding is a fate worse than your spouse losing hundreds of thousands of dollars in inheritance taxes because the federal government doesn’t recognize your marriage?

                      if we’re really going to compare harms here, let’s put things in perspective.

                    27. Some of those things are rights, some of those things are privileges. Infringement of rights is worse than withholding of privileges (which shouldn’t exist to begin with).

                      if we’re really going to compare harms here, let’s put things in perspective.

                      Hurr durr, I’m not a utilitarian…

                    28. Granted, I don’t think anyone should have to “sponsor” a spouse to immigrate at all. The spouse should just be allowed to come here and work without getting anyone’s permission.

                      But if we’re going to have a kafkaesque byzantine immigration system, then it should treat gay couples equally. And being able to live with your loved ones trumps being forced to bake a cake any day, in my book.

                    29. And being able to live with your loved ones trumps being forced to bake a cake any day, in my book.

                      Yes, you’re a utilitarian, and your subjective valuation of equal government privileges is higher than your subjective valuation of freedom of conscience, freedom of association and freedom of religion. It’s an unbelievably shitty moral system, but I fully understand it (I identified your view before you articulated as such). The important thing you should know about that philosophical paradigm is that not everyone weights the same values equally, and all it takes is a majority that disagrees with you to turn your own logic against you.

                    30. Why can’t they both be bad infringements on your liberty?

                    31. Equal treatment by the law is more fundamental than freedom of religious practice.

                      Wow. Utilitarianism is the least of your problems.

                    32. Answer me this: if the government can arbitrarily treat some people unequally based on any criteria it wants, how could freedom of religion even exist?

                      You could just be arbitrarily thrown in jail or given an extra harsh sentence because the judge doesn’t like Christians, or Jews, or whatever. Equal justice is the broader, more universal principle. It’s the foundation that other rights require to even function. There aren’t ANY rights if they aren’t going to be enforced equally.

                    33. You’ve got it exactly backwards. Rights preexist government, and the only legitimate function of government is to secure rights. As I just said above, infringing on rights is always worse than withholding privileges, because privileges are an illegitimate use of government in the first place. What you’re talking about – weighing various different practical harms or benefits as they pertain to favored or disfavored groups – is the precise, textbook definition of utilitarianism. Your viewpoint here is 100% identical to Tony’s, even if you two don’t necessarily agree on particular ends. That’s the great thing about utilitarianism. The subjective weighting of good and harm allow you to reach pretty much whatever conclusion you wish.

                    34. “All men are created equal…” comes first in the declaration of independence, before we get to the inalienable rights part. Equality and universality is a principle that qualifies whether a right is legitimate or not. There is no “right” that only white men have. There are no rights that only straight people have. Any rights that exist must apply equally to gay people, and when government seeks to enforce those rights it must start by applying each and everyone one of them equally. It cannot enforce only the rights of religious people, and ignore those of gays.

                    35. You apparently have no comprehension whatsoever what that phrase means in the context of the DoI. All men being created equal, endowed by their creator with the same inalienable rights, is intended to establish that men’s rights exist outside of government. That’s the entire reason for the DoI – to sever the ties to a government not recognizing those rights. The purpose of the government, according to the people who wrote the document from which you quote, was to secure rights that exist outside of the government. If you seriously don’t understand what natural rights mean in the context of the Enlightenment and the American revolution in particular, you need to go do some homework before you can really even approach the subject intelligently.

                      There is no “right” that only white men have.

                      You’re correct, but you don’t seem to understand why. Rights are universal by definition. They can be recognized or not recognized by any particular government in any particular place at any particular time. For instance, black people in 1790 had all of the rights to which any human being is entitled. But the government refused to acknowledge them, and did a grave injustice by doing so. Blacks didn’t suddenly become human beings with natural rights when the government finally stopped allowing them to be treated as property. They were always human beings and always entitled to the attendant rights.

                      (cont’d)

                    36. The other place you veer off the road is when you continually conflate rights with privileges. Forcing another person to serve you a meal, for example, is a privilege. Acting in accordance with your conscience is a right. The difference is that one requires action on the part of another, and one requires no action on the part of another – only non-interference. Rights require only non-interference. You don’t have a right to health care, for example, because that is appropriating someone else’s labor.

                      A very excellent basic primer on these concepts can be found here:

                      What Is Classical Liberalism?

                    37. How the hell do you get there? Freedom is freedom. Here is a clue:
                      If there are gradiations, it isn’t freedom.

                    38. Really? What if only white people’s rights were enforced? Would that be “freedom”?

                    39. Damn good point. Utilitarianism fails with regards to minority rights.

                    40. Some of those things are rights, some of those things are privileges. Infringement of rights is worse than withholding of privileges

                      Rights preexist government, and the only legitimate function of government is to secure rights

                      Eloquently and succinctly well said, PM.

                2. But as you can see on this board half of the people who claim to be “libertarians” won’t die on it.

                  That’s a bald-faced lie.

                  …from a moron.

                  1. Nikki and Crusty won’t die on it. You claim to but I seriously doubt you mean it.

                    And you are incapable of abstract reasoning Frank. I seriously think you have some kind of brain damage.

                    1. You claim to but I seriously doubt you mean it.

                      Yes, moron, I’m lying to you. When I tell you that I believe your rights are just as important as someone else’s, I don’t really mean it. Because I’ve every reason to lie, and who knows MY mind, better than JOHN does?

                      John, you’ve become the village idiot.

                    2. You are not lying Frank. I have no doubt you honestly believe it. I just think you will fold like a chair and rationalize changing your position once holding it becomes unpopular.

                      I don’t think you are a liar Frank, I think you are a coward. There is a difference.

                    3. Okay, John…

                      I’m stupid.
                      I’m a liar.
                      And now I’m a coward.

                      Got it. Whatever you say.

                    4. No Frank, I said you were not a liar. I just said you were stupid and a coward.

                    5. John – the Donald Trump of the reason commentariat.

                      Can you read my mind next, John? I’ve been confused about a few things and need some clarification.

                    6. No Sparky, I can’t read your mind. I could maybe if I was stoned but otherwise i doubt I could read something that confused.

                    7. Awww shucks…

    3. Totally off topic, but a pleasure to see:

      http://www.slate.com/blogs/the…..happy.html

      Eleven bounty hunters looking for a fugitive Tuesday night mistakenly targeted the home of Phoenix police Chief Joseph Yahner while following a tip they received via social media, police said.

      1. But of course, the owner of a bail bondsman company says that mandatory licensing will solve the problem. It is really hard to find a “good guy” in this story.

  2. Just lie back and surrender to the Gay Agenda?
    Ok.

    1. More bend over than lie back, I think.

      1. Damn your nimble fingers!

        1. That’s what she he said?

      2. Missionary buttsex is a thing.

    2. …. I believe that in the case of the gay agenda, it’s lie on your tummy… 😉

      1. Sodomy is superior. Didn’t you know that?

        1. Sodomy is superior

          Yet another in the long litany of great band names dreamt up by the Reason commentariat.

  3. There is no point is fighting about the court decision. The next issue is religious freedom and public accommodation. There, the Republicans stand a better chance of winning.

    When asked which was more important, by a 4 to 1 ratio, voters said protecting religious liberty (31 percent) over protecting gay and lesbian rights (8 percent),” said Caddell, who added that most of the rest said both are important.

    The potential for a war is great, since a top Obama official suggested during the recent same sex marriage case that the administration could force groups opposed to gay weddings on religious ground to buckle under. There have been several standoffs and legal cases pitting businesses against gay rights groups.

    On that issue, Caddell found very little support for the Obama administration’s meddling in the affairs of religious-affiliated groups and businesses.

    http://www.washingtonexaminer……le/2569587

    Whether that support remains once the gay rights community and the media crank up the “you are with us or you are a bigot” rhetoric remains to be seen. My guess is that the support likely crumbles and we see the free exercise clause read out of the 1st Amendment. I would like to think people are tired of this shit and will finally punish the left but it has never happened before and the gays in particular have never once failed to stomp their enemies. I can’t see it happening now.

    1. If only the public could understand private property rights and how they benefit both those who are opposed to gay marriage and those who support it.

      But then that would hamper the government’s efforts to divide the public.

      1. Or at least realize that giving the government the power to stomp people they hate is also giving the government the power to stomp them.

        Expanding the CRA to gays is going to be even worse than the original CRA. At least the CRA applied to everyone. You know as well as I do, however, it will never be applied to Muslims and no gay will ever sue a Muslim owned business or a Mosque for discrimination. It will only be applied to those who are civilized enough not to just behead anyone who sues them.

        1. When will the gay and Muslim domination of American society end!?!

    2. I’m pessimistic about that. Most people in this country seem to think that public accommodation laws are the only thing standing between 21st century America and a return to chattel slavery.

      1. People don’t seem to understand that Jim Crow had to be enforce by law because businesses don’t make money by discriminating against their customers.

        1. I’ve actually heard people refer to “laissez-faire Jim Crow laws.”

        2. Yeah you can make money by discriminating. Fancy Restaurants keep out the slobs and bums and get to charge more money for being exclusive. Plenty of bars set up policies to keep out people who could cause trouble because their custimers don’t want trouble

          But so what, restaurants owners are not slaves, they should not be required to serve others.

          1. I think in the past it was definitely possible to successfully run a business that discriminated based on race. I’m not sure that is true today, given popular culture.

            Even so, being free means being able to do things another might find deplorable. It’s why fighting for freedom is always an uphill battle.

            1. You can in certain places. Bob Jones seems to stay in business. But it is rare and likely to be more often by discriminating against whites than the opposite.

            2. Even so, being free means being able to do things another might find deplorable. It’s why fighting for freedom is always an uphill battle.

              Mencken said it best:

              The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.

            3. Oh it’s possible in a few cases. There are barbershops that are basically exclusively black. And I’m pretty sure there’s some redneck bars that would like to ban blacks. But like you said,so what? Why would I want to give my money to someone who hates me?

              1. Because, as the wedding cake debacle demonstrates, it’s not about buying a cake or a beer or a haircut.

                It’s about punishing someone for being ungoodthinkful.

            4. It may have been possible, but people clearly weren’t in favor of it–if they were, why pass a law forcing people to do it?

              1. Some people weren’t in favor of Jim Crow, but I have a hard time believing just as many weren’t fine with it or even quite supportive of it.

                I know we like to accuse politicians of ignoring the common man or whatever, but sometimes elected officials do reflect the will of the people, or the will of at least a slight majority. It is, of course, why I view democracy strictly through a utilitarian lens: does democracy benefit liberty more than any other governmental system?

                I don’t fight for democracy per se; I fight for a system that is most conducive to individual liberty.

          2. I said “their customers.” It’s one thing to cater to a certain market, but it’s another to further discriminate once you have chosen a market to cater to.

            1. I guess I was thinking of arbitrary discrimination, which I think is different from choosing a niche market.

        3. People see old file footage of “We Serve White Customers Only” and want to believe that was they way all white business owners felt.

          Of course there were some restaurants and bars and barbers whose proprietors felt that way, but that wasn’t the defacto attitude of banks, grocers, plumbers, electricians, etc.

          But the important thing to remember is that accommodation businesses – bars, barbers, restaurants, hotels – have always been and will always be market segmented. Jim Crow laws aren’t even necessary for those businesses that cater to the locals. Hotels and some restaurants are about the only businesses where Jim Crow was even noticed because it was essentially locals forcing their culture onto visitors.

          in effect, if not purpose, Jim Crow prevented national accommodation chains from existing, “regional” were about as large as chain operations got. Fast-forward to 2015 where national accommodation businesses like McDonald’s and Chik-Fil-A are under constant attack – for reasons just as idiotic as Jim Crow.

        4. RE: Tony.

          (This applies to Dark Lord’s comment too.)

      2. And there is no class of people other than Muslims who are more beloved and protected and idolized than the gays. This is gays versus religious people. It takes quite an optimist to think the gays won’t win or won’t happily stomp on the faces of their enemies once they do.

        1. And I wonder why oh why gays want to stomp on people like this:

          The first resolution, introduced by embattled Michigan national committeeman Dave Agema, would have encouraged “schools that are teaching the homosexual lifestyle in their sexual education class also include the harmful physical aspects of the lifestyle.”

          1. Yes Nikki, I know civil rights only extend to people that are popular and hold acceptable views. That was the entire point of the BOR, to ensure that only those with acceptable views were entitled to civil rights.

            The Gays are going to engage in a righteous jihad to cleanse the nation of people like this guy. Don’t worry, I am sure it won’t get out of hand or anything.

            1. Yeah, that’s really fucking responsive, John.

              1. How is it not? Yeah they holds crazy views. So fucking what? Is it too much to ask that the gays understand the 1st Amendment applies to people who don’t like them?

            2. The Gays are going to engage in a righteous jihad to cleanse the nation of people like this guy.

              Paranoid much?

              1. Again, Crusty, did I imagine those people who were sued into bankruptcy?

            3. The Gays are going to engage in a righteous jihad to cleanse the nation of people like this guy.

              There’s probably one under your bed right now!

              1. IN his bed. That would explain his obsession.

          2. Agema is an asshole.

            That being said, are you going to do the difficult but principled task of standing up for people who are losing their livelihoods simply for refusing service to gays?

            1. Yes. Everyone should be able to refuse service to whoever they want.

              BTW, in case people didn’t notice, it’s not legal to refuse service, refuse to hire, or to fire someone for being a Christian. Were you this upset about the violation of my rights to free association ten years ago?

              1. If you want to end the CRA, feel free. Of course there is this thing called the 1st Amendment that would prevent the government from doing that. It sucks that it is there I know. But sometimes life is like that.

                1. The first amendment prevents the government from repealing the CRA? So it was never legal for private parties to discriminate against Christians?

                  And guess what, John?even if it wasn’t, it should have been. WHY WON’T YOU DIE ON THE HILL OF THE RIGHT I CARE ABOUT MORE THAN YOU DO?!?

                2. Of course there is this thing called the 1st Amendment that would prevent the government from doing that.

                  You think the proper interpretation of “the Free Exercise thereof” should prevent private businesses from refusing to associate with religious people, John?

                  That’s bullshit.

                  1. You think the proper interpretation of “the Free Exercise thereof” should prevent private businesses from refusing to associate with religious people, John?

                    Not at all. It does however prevent the government from doing that. The BOR doesn’t apply to private individuals.

                    1. Not at all. It does however prevent the government from doing that. The BOR doesn’t apply to private individuals.

                      OK. I think you, Nikki, and I are in agreement, then.

                      When Nikki wrote “Yes. Everyone should be able to refuse service to whoever they want,” I’m pretty sure she wasn’t talking about the government, but about private individuals. It’s why I was confused when you wrote back, “If you want to end the CRA, feel free. Of course there is this thing called the 1st Amendment that would prevent the government from doing that.”

                    2. Yes See Double you. That sentence was ambiguous. I meant the BOR prevents the government from discriminating not repealing the CRA.

                    3. So why weren’t 50% of your total comments up to this point about how wrong it was the you can’t fire someone for being black? Or that you can’t refuse service to Jews? Business owners’ rights have been continuously infringed in this way for decades.

                    4. o why weren’t 50% of your total comments up to this point about how wrong it was the you can’t fire someone for being black?

                      For the same reason they are not about the Chiefs chances this year, that is not what we are talking about.

                    5. For the same reason they are not about the Chiefs chances this year, that is not what we are talking about.

                      So you think you’re confining yourself to relevant posts? Come on, John. Everyone knows that’s not true.

                      And even if it were true, you still aren’t addressing the fact that it makes no sense to expect everyone to be as suddenly worked up as you are. You are a fish who only just found out he was swimming in water.

                    6. And even if it were true, you still aren’t addressing the fact that it makes no sense to expect everyone to be as suddenly worked up as you are.

                      I don’t expect that at all. I fully understand you don’t give a fuck and are happy to see these people get stomped and freedom of religion ends. I just think you might want to rethink that.

                    7. I want freedom of religion for everyone, all the time. Let me know when you start believing in religious freedom for Bob Jones.

                    8. Bob Jones is free. Has the government closed his college down?

                    9. So you’ll be okay with all churches having to pay taxes? They’ll still be free.

                    10. Sure Nikki as long as you are okay with them entering politics. I don’t think you are going to like that bargain very much but I am fine with it.

                    11. lol

              2. Ten years ago I was barely in high school, but yes it is ridiculous and a violation of freedom of association.

          3. And I wonder why oh why gays want to stomp on people like this:

            That plan is lacking in a lot of detail, but if schools are, in fact, “teaching the homosexual lifestyle” in the context of sex education, it probably wouldn’t be a half bad idea to let the students know that:

            For all men, the leading causes of death are heart disease and cancer. However, among men who have sex with men (MSM), there are higher rates of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), tobacco and drug use, and depression compared to other men.

            I thought that was actually the kind of thing that comprehensive sex education advocates wanted to make a priority.

            1. Yeah, no one ever learned in high school that homosexuals and drug users are at greater risk of HIV transmission.

              How much time did your health class spend on maternal morbidity and mortality, on the other hand?

              1. I know. Those poor girls go out and have children and end up being normal well adjusted human beings. The horror. If only you were there to teach them the horror associated with all that.

                1. Except for the ones who end up maimed, of course.

              2. So essentially then, you think gay people are justified in wanting to curb stomp this guy for blathering about something that’s already covered in high school sex ed? It was your point, not mine.

                (FWIW, sex education at my school was a bit on the ‘old school’ side. We didn’t even learn about bestiality, sadomasochistic sex play or oral sex with braces, let alone maternal morbidity!)

                1. Yeah, I have no idea why gay people might think this guy…

                  In recent years, Agema posted an article on his Facebook page that describe gay people as “filthy,” followed with posts supporting Russia’s anti-homosexuality laws and questioning whether Muslim-Americans have ever contributed to American society. The latest effort to unseat Agema began on New Years Day, when Agema reposted an article from a white supremacist magazine that he called “very interesting.”

                  …would have something “controversial” in mind, or why they’d want to curb-stomp him. No idea.

                  1. Well Niki, that guy is wrong? So what? He can say it can’t he?

                  2. To the extent that you think it’s okay for one individual or group of individuals to “stomp” another because of the “controversial” things they say, it makes more sense when you provide this quote as a justification than the last one. I don’t know why you went for the weaksauce to begin with when the adjacent quote was right there.

                    1. Saying I understand why someone wants to stomp someone != saying it’s okay to stomp someone.

          4. Ah, so, since the people involved are icky, fuck their rights.

            I think I understand. How could John possibly ever doubt your commitment to religious liberty?

            1. Wow, did I say “fuck their rights”? Crazy. I don’t remember saying that.

            2. Is it really so hard to respond to what people actually say and not to what you imagine they were thinking? If you aren’t John, anyway. Seems to be impossible for him.

          5. Geez, Nikki, are you really complaining about a requirement that schools teach both the risks and benefits of something?

            1. You tell me, RC. Did I complain about that?

              1. Sounded like you were in agreement that the guy proposing that the downsides of gaiety be included in their rah-rah yay gay curriculum should be stomped.

                Maybe I misread. If so, my apologies.

        2. This is gays versus religious people.

          Perhaps in your unprincipled mind that’s what it comes down to.

          Christ, you are a fucking moron.

          1. Frank, you are the most literal minded person I have ever seen. You can’t grasp anything that goes implied or anything that is not spelled out in the most explicit terms.

            Of course this isn’t in the abstract about one group versus another. But it is, however, in the political context that is exactly what it is and how most people are going to view it. That is my point.

            Did you suffer some kind of head injury or have some kind of learning disability? Have you gone to a neurologist and been checked out? Seriously, you seem to have no ability to think abstractly. I have never seen anyone quite like you.

            1. John, you are a butthurt moron.

              You can’t even imagine the right answer is being in favor of gay (negative) rights AND being in favor of religious (negative) rights at the same time. Gotta be one or the other.

              And I’m the one who can’t think in the abstract.

              You are a fucking idiot.

              1. You can’t even imagine the right answer is being in favor of gay (negative) rights AND being in favor of religious (negative) rights at the same time.

                What the hell are you babbling about now? You have gone from stupid to incoherent. Let me put the issue in as simple of terms as I can. No one has a right to force someone to associate with them and everyone has the right to free exercise of their religion and to freely associate with whomever they choose.

                There is no such thing as a “negative or a positive” right. There are only rights. And there is no right to force someone to associate with you.

                I don’t know how to put it any simpler. And I seriously think you should go and see someone because your reading comprehension and abstract thinking skills are seriously compromised. You can’t understand equal protection and you can’t seem to grasp this either.

                1. There is no such thing as a “negative or a positive” right. There are only rights.

                  Um, wrong. There is indeed a difference between rights that simply obligate that others do not interfere, for example the right to carry a weapon for self defense, and rights that obligate others to do something, for example the right to breathe smoke-free air.

                  1. Sarcasmic, I don’t recognize the “right to breath smoke free air”, only the right to be compensated for any damages the actions of others cause you.

                    I don’t recognize positive rights. But yes, some do.

                    1. John, I think you and sarcasmic are in agreement. You don’t recognize positive rights since they are not rights, therefore what sarcasmic is calling “negative rights” are simply rights.

                    2. I don’t recognize positive rights. But yes, some do.

                      Most people do, unfortunately.

                    3. Just for the record, I’m not big on positive or negative rights myself.

                      A right is the right to make a choice.

                      We have the right to choose to own and carry a gun.

                      We don’t have the right to violate someone else’s right to make a choice by threatening to shoot them if they don’t empty the cash register.

                      We have an obligation to respect the right of other people to make choices for themselves.

                      Positive and negative rights seems more like the right to make choices and the obligation to respect other people’s right to make choices for themselves.

                      People get to choose what they write, say, read, their own religion, whether to own a gun, to make informed choices when they’re accused of a crime, etc., etc. And we’re all obligated to respect their right to choose whether to own a gun, their own religion, to choose not to testify against themselves, to respect their right to choose what they read, and say, etc., etc.

                      Isn’t that all we’re talking about when we talk about negative and positive rights?

                    4. Isn’t that all we’re talking about when we talk about negative and positive rights?

                      I don’t think you’re getting the distinction.

                      A negative right only requires that others do nothing, while a positive right requires that others do something.

                      A negative right to carry a gun doesn’t put any obligation on others.

                      A positive right to breathe smoke-free air puts an obligation on smokers to go outside.

                      A negative right to free speech doesn’t put an obligation on others.

                      A positive right to health care puts an obligation on health care providers to provide care and upon someone else to pay for it.

                      Negative rights require no action.

                      Positive rights do.

                    5. I think everyone does have an obligation to respect your rights. And that obligation is what you’re talking about when you say “negative rights”.

                      I think everyone has a right to make choices for themselves, and I think that’s what you’re really talking about when you talk about “positive rights”.

                      Every right has a flip side obligation. When you say you have the right to speak your mind, you are also asserting that you have an obligation to respect other people’s right to speak their minds.

                      They’re flip sides of the same coin–not two different things. Your rights don’t exist if other people aren’t obligated to respect them. Your rights can still be violated or ignored, but there are no negative rights without positive rights or visa versa. They’re really just different implications of the same thing.

                    6. No Ken. Sarc is correct.

                      A negative right is one where no action is required on the part of another in order for you to exercise that right. Examples:

                      Free speech
                      To breathe
                      To worship as I choose
                      To sit around in my underwear and scratch my balls.

                      I can do all these things without demanding any action (or funding) from anyone else.

                      A positive right requires something from someone else to be exercised. Examples:

                      Free health care
                      To be protected by the police and military
                      To a trial
                      To be served at a lunch counter

                      All these things require the action of others either directly or indirectly through taxes. Negative rights cost nothing other than to be left alone. Positive rights are entitlements.

                    7. Fd’A, I would quibble with your definition a bit.

                      Negative rights still need enforcement when someone interferes with you. So it helps to have police and courts that are paid for by tax dollars. You know, to protect individual rights.

                      However if no one interferes with you, then there is no need to call upon the police and courts.

                      So they still require action of others paid for by taxes.The difference being that the enforcement of negative rights is reactive, whereas the enforcement of positive rights is proactive.

                    8. They’re really just different implications of the same thing.

                      Not at all. Negative rights only require that someone do nothing. Don’t take someone’s gun away. Don’t silence them.

                      The enforcement of negative rights is reactive. Don’t do anything and there’s nothing to enforce.

                      Positive rights require that someone do something. Take that cigarette outside or else. Provide medical care or else.

                      The enforcement of positive rights is proactive. Do something or force will be used.

                      One requires inaction, the other action.

                      Unless you’re arguing that inaction and action, reactive and proactive enforcement, are the same thing.

                    9. You’ve created an internally consistent model that doesn’t necessarily jibe with the world outside of it and makes things far more complicated than they need to be.

                      “Negative rights only require that someone do nothing. Don’t take someone’s gun away. Don’t silence them.”

                      That’s what I’m talking about when I say that other people and the government are obligated to respect your rights.

                      “Positive rights require that someone do something. Take that cigarette outside or else. Provide medical care or else.”

                      Positive rights are my right to make choices for myself.

                      Notice that your right to make choices for yourself and other people (and the government) being obligated to respect your right to make choices for yourself–are not fundamentally different concepts. In fact, they’re the same thing.

                      There is a fundamental difference between legal rights and natural rights, but that’s IMHO, at least partly, predicated on the fundamental difference between ethics and law.

                    10. Ken, I think the concept of “positive rights vs. negative rights” came about with the advent of philosophical positivism.

                      When someone speaks of positive rights, he is not referring to rights that come from reason, but to rights that come from government fiat.

                      The public is very familiar with positive-rights jargon, like when one says the CRA created a right not to be discriminated against by private persons on the basis of race, sex, etc.

                      In order to persuade the public of their confusion of what rights actually are, it has become necessary to distinguish between positive and negative rights.

                    11. I don’t think the public understands the difference between positive and negative rights at all–if anything, this jargon makes it more confusing for average people.

                      A right is the right to make a choice. Society is obligated to respect your rights.

                      That has many implications, but it isn’t confusing. And it’s saying the same thing.

              2. So you support religious freedom by endorsing the creation of opportunities to sue religious people over their beliefs. Interesting.

                1. “So you support religious freedom by endorsing the creation of opportunities to sue religious people over their beliefs. Interesting.”

                  I don’t understand how you got from where I am to there.

                  But I’d like to understand.

              3. You can’t even imagine the right answer is being in favor of gay (negative) rights

                To be fair, civil marriage (gay or straight or otherwise) is not a negative right.

                1. SSM is about equal protection under the law under 14A.

                  If you are going to legislate marriage (which I question the rightness of), you make the legislation the same for everyone.

                  14A gives the government the power to enforce that concept. One could argue that the concept of equal protection is a negative right. It’s enforcement, by government, is a positive right (entitlement) granted by the Constitution as it requires the action of another to recognize it.

                  You have the negative right to marry whomever you choose. You don’t have a “right” to government entitlements associated with that marriage. HOWEVER, government doesn’t have the power to write law that grants entitlements to one group and not another.

                  (And yes, I’m fully aware of the ramifications of that last statement.)

                  1. Yes Frank, that is why the government has no right to deny marriage licenses to minors and people who are mentally incompetent. Totally because “equal” means everyone or no one or nothing else. In half wit land maybe.

                    Again, go see a neurologist. You have serious issues with abstract thinking.

                    1. John, this is you caring only selectively about people’s rights. Why on earth you would trust the state’s determination of mental competence is beyond me. You don’t care about the rights of people unpopular with the state.

                    2. Nikki,

                      I am not an anarchist. Sorry but I am just not. So yes, the government has to make distinctions or it can’t be a government.

                    3. I am not an anarchist. Sorry but I am just not. So yes, the government has to make distinctions or it can’t be a government.

                      So, you’re saying, “I care about some things more than people’s civil rights.”

                      You’re saying you don’t give a shit about some freedoms. But I’m the one with the religious liberty problem.

                    4. Yes Frank, that is why the government has no right to deny marriage licenses to minors and people who are mentally incompetent.

                      So…maybe…just maybe…if the government cannot write legislation that doesn’t pick winners and losers…they shouldn’t be involved in the subject to begin with.

                      But I’m just the guy who can’t comprehend the abstract…

                      Writing marriage law IS NOT A LEGITIMATE FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT TO BEGIN WITH…dipshit!

                      that is why the government has no right to deny

                      Government doesn’t have rights. It has powers granted it by the Constitution. I’ve read the document, several times, and I find no enumerated power to legislate marriage.

                    5. So…maybe…just maybe…if the government cannot write legislation that doesn’t pick winners and losers…they shouldn’t be involved in the subject to begin with.

                      Since every single law requires that, then you are saying there shouldn’t be a government. That is one position but I don’t think it is the position you mean to take.

                    6. Since every single law requires that, then you are saying there shouldn’t be a government.

                      False.

                      e.g.

                      One may not take the life of another except in self defense.
                      One may not steal.
                      One may not rape.

                      None of these apply any differently to any individual or group. They apply to all individuals equally. What you mean to say, John, is that every single law, that does something other than protect the rights of the individuals, requires that.

                      The only legitimate function of government is to protect the rights of the individual.

                      But, if you think government should be in the business of picking winners and losers, you’re right. Is that what you believe, John?

                  2. HOWEVER, government doesn’t have the power to write law that grants entitlements to one group and not another.

                    You may think it doesn’t but government sure seems to think it does.

                    1. You may think it doesn’t but government sure seems to think it does.

                      This stems from a flaw in our legal system. The notion that you must first claim damages from a law before you can challenge its constitutionality is an affront to liberty. If no one challenges it it’s good to go and more law is built on top of it. In my opinion, 14A means exactly what it says. It was designed to be a restriction placed upon government to only write law that can be applied to all, equally.

                      The fact that 90% of the law in this country doesn’t comply with that notion, is evidence to my point. And think of the shitstorm it would take to unwind the precedent and restore our liberty.

                      A solution, for future constitutions, would be to make judicial review a required step in the legislative process.

                    2. The fact that 90% of the law in this country doesn’t comply with that notion, is evidence to my point.

                      I agree completely.

                      A solution, for future constitutions, would be to make judicial review a required step in the legislative process.

                      Not a perfect solution but it would certainly address your point;

                      the notion that you must first claim damages from a law before you can challenge its constitutionality is an affront to liberty. If no one challenges it it’s good to go and more law is built on top of it.

                  3. We’ve had this copy-paste argument a million times, but suffice it to say that marriage is the only set of benefits where the 14A has ever been applied that way (and is still not applied in a way that is even anything resembling “equal”). And your negative right to marriage is completely separate from your positive right, or privilege, to obtain government recognition of such and obtain benefits on that basis. I don’t think there’s any controversy among anyone who even pretends to be a libertarian about your negative right to marriage, it’s the privileges associated with the positive right of government sanction that are controversial.

        3. I should clarify, I’m a short term pessimist, but a long term optimist. The mob hates religious people right now, but people don’t just lie down and take bullshit forever. Especially people who tend to be armed. But what happens in the backlash to all this, I have no idea.

          1. Maybe. AT some point the whirlwind tends to turn back on the people who start it. That really isn’t a very optimistic end though. It would be better if we just left each other alone in the first place.

          2. Maybe they’ll just start to sue gay business proprietors out of business.

    3. Yes, you’re correct there is no point in fighting about the court decision. Moreover, any appearance that you are trying to fight the court decision will just convince people that your stance on religious freedom and public accomodation is just a mask for the gay hate.

      You have to enthusiastically embrace the court decision as the correct thing to do (which it is) at every opportunity, and THEN add that you don’t think people should be compelled to bake cakes or cater gay weddings if they don’t want to.

      Live and let live is a much better argument than “The gayz and their gay agenda are out to get us !!!!1111! ” *ahem*

      1. Why can’t you fight the court decision based on the fact that it was terribly reasoned? Or is the immediate outcome all that mattered?

        1. The “it’s terribly reasoned” thing is a bit of cognitive dissonance by libertarians who are desperately trying to maintain their alliance with social conservatives.

          1. Bullshit, Hazel. It is genuine and appropriate concern over the most powerful court in the land establishing shitty precedent to get what it wants.

  4. The gay menace knows no bounds.

    1. Of course not. I mean the worst thing that can happen is a bunch of people you hate get sued out of business and we no longer have a right to free exercise. And what exactly is the downside of that? Especially when it is compared to the upside of THE GAYZ@!!

      1. I mean the worst thing that can happen is a bunch of people you hate get sued out of business

        That train left the station 50 years ago.

        and we no longer have a right to free exercise

        …in John’s imagination.

        1. and we no longer have a right to free exercise

          …in John’s imagination.
          Reply to Comment

          So I just imagined those businesses being sued out of existence because they have religious objections to gay marriage?

          Oh no I get it, freedom for people you hate means they can do what they like as long as they don’t say or do anything. Right?

          1. So I just imagined those businesses being sued out of existence because they have religious objections to gay marriage?

            No, you imagined that “free exercise” is the thing under threat. That was a lightspeed goalpost shift.

            1. Free exercise is under threat and has been for a long time. This is just the latest incarnation of it.

              While I think John is being too hyperbolic, I agree with him up to a point that many commenters here are pretty damn non-nonchalant about things like the EEOC expanding its jurisdiction and some religious business owners being fined by the government and even bankrupted by lawsuits.

              1. We’re not nonchalant. We’re just more used to getting fucked in the ass.

              2. That’s not a free exercise issue. A business is not a church, and commerce is not a religious practice. Except in John’s mind.

                Now, if you want to argue that forcing businesses to serve people that they don’t want to serve violates people’s rights to free association, that’s a different matter, but libertarians have been all over that one for half a century. It only concerns John when there’s Sodomites involved.

                Nothing whatever to do with “free exercise.”

                1. Yeah Old man, if you just think “free exercise” means do what you like but keep it private and only do it in church, sure, what is the big deal?

                  If you define a right down far enough, you can always claim the government isn’t violating it. Meanwhile, in the real world religious exercise means your ability to live your life by your beliefs not just do things in government recognized zones.

                  1. Yeah Old man, if you just think “free exercise” means do what you like but keep it private and only do it in church, sure, what is the big deal?

                    Moving goalposts, check. Strawman, check.

                    1. No old man, you moved the goal posts. You are claiming this is no big deal since as of yet no churches have been sued. Well there is more to free exercise rights than churches.

                      No rethink your comment and try again.

                    2. You are claiming this is no big deal since as of yet no churches have been sued.

                      That’s right, no churches have been sued. No synagogues have been sued. There’s 50 years of precedent since the CRA, and not one goddam suit against a synagogue that doesn’t allow non-jews, nor a church that doesn’t allow certain races.

                      So, why will this suddenly happen because this involves a group against whom you happen to be bigoted?

                    3. That’s right, no churches have been sued. No synagogues have been sued.

                      And the answer is so what? That only is dispositive if you think free exercise protects only what you do in church and nothing else. And to that I say “yeah if you just define the right down fair enough you can defend any government action as not violating someone’s rights.”

                    4. There’s 50 years of precedent since the CRA, and not one goddam suit against a synagogue that doesn’t allow non-jews, nor a church that doesn’t allow certain races.

                      The reason being that the CRA (in addition to the 1A) protects religion as well as race. And very few churches racially discriminate. A specific “ministerial exemption” to non-discrimination law for church employees was carved out just two years ago in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

                      On the other hand, there have indeed been sexual-orientation related suits against church-affiliated institutions (predating Obergefell):

                      First gay-marriage suit hits Catholic institution

                      Lesbian daycare workers told to ‘change their lifestyle’ before both were fired for being gay are now set to sue

                    5. *correction, three years ago.

                2. That’s not a free exercise issue. A business is not a church, and commerce is not a religious practice. Except in John’s mind.

                  I disagree. I guess I have a broader interpretation of “Free Exercise” than you do, OMWC.

                  In fact, I think the Free Exercise Clause is really about freedom of conscience, notwithstanding the last two hundred years of SCOTUS precedent. Tasking the government with making clear-cut distinctions between a “business” and a “church” leads to less liberty, not more of it.

            2. How is free exercise not obviously next up on the chopping block? It’s not currently explicitly imperiled as John’s arguing, but until recently neither was the freedom of conscience. Extending public accommodation protections to include sexual orientation, a hot-button issue for religious conservatives, effectively precludes conducting one’s livelihood in accordance with one’s conscience. You’re really going to argue that we’re not a step removed from doing the same to religious exercise?

              1. until recently neither was the freedom of conscience

                Um, what? There can be no freedom of conscience under the state. I don’t get to choose which laws apply to me, or what my taxes pay for, or what the state does in my name.

                1. I don’t get to choose which laws apply to me, or what my taxes pay for, or what the state does in my name.

                  In theory you do. In practice, well…

                2. You most certainly have the freedom of conscience, whether or not the feds choose to recognize it. Recently they chose to recognize marriage between gay couples, or at least prevent states from refusing to recognize it. Does that mean gays won the right to marry? No, of course not. They always had that right. They didn’t have the right to a license acknowledging that right, which is what Obergefell settled. Gay couples could exercise their conscience as they wished without special permission from the government. I’m glad the licensing question is settled even if I’m upset it was done judicially rather than legislatively.

                  Seriously, if we were discussing speech rather than conscience or religion, would you be content seeing it infringed in narrow and punitive ways?

                  1. Seriously, if we were discussing speech rather than conscience or religion, would you be content seeing it infringed in narrow and punitive ways?

                    In the brave new world, it’s the fucking anarchist who is okay with rights being infringed.

                    I care exactly as much about new infringements on people’s religious liberty as I cared about old infringements. Not more. John and others demand that it be more, because suddenly they woke up and realized the state could fuck them too.

                    1. Fair enough. And as a fellow atheist (I suspect), I agree in principle. In practice, at this point in time we’re having to come to the defense of a group we’ve found and find repugnant. The Mencken quote above applies. But that’s the problem with a political arrangement characterized by competing groups rising into and falling out of favor.

                    2. I care exactly as much about new infringements on people’s religious liberty as I cared about old infringements.

                      It would take a principled anarchist to fail to distinguish degrees of infringement or restriction. By that logic, sending political dissidents to the gulag is of no real concern because of campaign finance restrictions.

                    3. It would take a principled anarchist to fail to distinguish degrees of infringement or restriction.

                      Wah, wah, someone has different priorities than me!

                    4. Wah, wah, someone has different priorities than me!

                      Not what I said, not the subject under discussion. If one violation of liberty absolves all future violations of liberty, you pretty much doom yourself to escalating misery. The present issue is not important, unless you’re saying that you only apply that rubric to this particular issue (which I think is actually the opposite of what you were saying).

                    5. I never said anything was “absolved.” The CRA is replete with violations of liberty. Everything about public accommodation law is a violation of liberty. But don’t expect me to be super duper upset about this tiny incremental change. For John, not screaming about it incessantly apparently means being okay with it. But for some reason he’s not screaming incessantly about every single civil rights violation there is. Does that mean he doesn’t care about them?

                    6. You said you don’t care about new rights violations, which is a distinction with precious little difference. Every new rights violation comes on top of the previous one, so they do have a cumulative effect. It’s fine that you don’t care (although I do think John has a point that you actually do seem to care quite a bit depending on whose ox is being gored), but it’s also fine that some people might be more upset with the latest rights violation than the last one. Some people have a different pain tolerance, some people may not be aware of the prior rights violations until the latest one becomes an issue, etc.

                    7. You said you don’t care about new rights violations, which is a distinction with precious little difference.

                      No, I did not. This is what I said:

                      I care exactly as much about new infringements on people’s religious liberty as I cared about old infringements. Not more.

                    8. I care exactly as much about new infringements on people’s religious liberty as I cared about old infringements. Not more.

                      Which is to say you don’t care at all. All you are doing here is saying “well so what the government violates everyone’s rights”. That sounds good and it gives you a fig leaf but by degrading the issue to “just another one of those things government does” you are effectively giving yourself a reason not to care.

                      Funny, you don’t seem to use that trick on any other issue. I have never once heard you say “welcome to what the rest of us suffer” on a drug war thread. Yet you do it here.

                      Nice try Nikki, but your act is pretty transparent.

                    9. I have never once heard you say “welcome to what the rest of us suffer” on a drug war thread.

                      Is the drug war new?

                      And actually, John, I do make this point elsewhere.

                    10. No Nikki but the threads are always about how it is getting worse. Yet someone you seem concerned and never dismiss it as “just another thing”. Just admit it Nikki, you don’t believe in freedom of religion.

                    11. Yep, I don’t believe in freedom of religion. That’s why I believe freedom of religion protects peoples rights to discriminate against gays and against blacks. Do you believe in that now too?

                  2. And anti-gay Christian bakers always had the right to refuse to bake gay wedding cakes. The government just currently chooses not to recognize it.

                    1. And anti-gay Christian bakers always had the right to refuse to bake gay wedding cakes. The government just currently chooses not to recognize it.

                      Poor analogy.

                      A better analogy would be the government refusing to do business with such bakers a la contracting.

                    2. Equal tax treatment is not a special privilege.

                    3. And anti-gay Christian bakers always had the right to refuse to bake gay wedding cakes. The government just currently chooses not to recognize it.

                      It’s ironic that you only manage to get this correct when you’re trying to be sarcastic. That is precisely the issue.

              2. You’re really going to argue that we’re not a step removed from doing the same to religious exercise?

                Yes, I would argue exactly that. No-one has sued a synagogue for refusing to allow bacon at the seder.

                1. Then you noticed the issue is tainted by political patronage. If and when Jews or Muslims fall out of favor, they can look forward to political infringements, too.

              3. How is free exercise not obviously next up on the chopping block?

                Yeah, there was that suit against Nation of Islam because they didn’t allow Asians or whites.

                Riiiiight.

                Do gays really scare you that much?

                1. Yeah Old man, just because the grievance mongers won’t sue each other totally means they won’t sue at all.

                2. No. I’m not a bigot. I just happen to be militantly individualist and I sympathize with Christians being punished for their unfortunate beliefs. Fill in the blank for whatever politically disfavored group you like. That’s going to change over time, but such is the burden of principled opposition, isn’t it?

            3. Free exercise has never been properly protected. Until you are allowed to do anything at all that doesn’t directly violate someone else’s rights, there can be no real religious freedom.

      2. Shorter John:
        “We can’t have gay marriage because it might mean that some christian conservative will be forced to bake gay wedding cakes.”

        1. Wel, in the real world context of our unfree association laws, how is that not true?

          1. John is just a rather unfortunate ambassador for a principle which really should be, and probably isn’t, a foreign notion for most libertarians.

            1. I am not unfortunate at all. I just don’t care and very much enjoy throwing these peoples’ hypocrisy in their faces. They hate it but fuck em. They only hate it because I am right.

            2. The reality is we live in a world with public accomodation laws. So what are we supposed to do? Wait until public accomodation laws are repealed before we can let gay people have equal treatment under the law? Seriously?

              This is just like the idiotic argument that we have to repeal the entire welfare state before we can liberalize immigration laws.

              Millions of people are supposed to suffer under unjust laws until we acheive a perfect libertarian state when it comes to marriage or welfare. Right.

              Seriously now, fuck that. No really. Not only is there zero chance of that happening in my lifetime, but we ought to take every incremental improvement in net liberty we can get.

              Nevermind that I would hardly expect the millions of people who are actually living under such injustices to sit still for that bullshit.

              1. With so many wrongs we’ll eventually do something right!

              2. Wait until public accomodation laws are repealed before we can let gay people have equal treatment under the law? Seriously?

                Sure. As long as gay people can get married and enter into contracts, why not? It comes down to there being no perfect solution. The choice is have gays live with civil unions or give them government marriage and totally fuck religious free exercise. You choose the latter because you really don’t care that much about freedom of religion. I choose the former because I really don’t think government marriage is that important or that having to make a will or a POA is that big of an imposition.

                1. How would gay civil unions not fuck religious free exercise in exactly the same way?
                  Do you think gays wouldn’t have marriage ceremonies? That they wouldn’t order cakes? That the state would suddenly say “well it’s not REALLY a marriage so therefore it’s ok to not bake them a wedding cake”?

                  Get real. Even if you could adjust all the laws to create an entirely parallel insitution of civil unions with exactly the same legal rights and priviledges, people would just start calling it “marriage” anyway. The anti-gay Christians would be left mumbling something under their breathe about how they weren’t really Married” and doing all the same stuff anyway.

                  God, is all this really about giving anti-Gay christians a psychological “out” so they can pretend they aren’t really baking gay wedding cakes????

                  1. How would gay civil unions not fuck religious free exercise in exactly the same way?

                    Because they wouldn’t require private parties recognize them. Only the courts and the government would have had to. They would have solved all of the problems you mention except the problem of the private party that doesn’t want to recognize the marriage. That is why they are civil unions and not marriages.

                    That the state would suddenly say “well it’s not REALLY a marriage so therefore it’s ok to not bake them a wedding cake”?

                    Yes, that was the entire point of having civil unions and the gay rights activists had a fit and would not agree to support them.

                    Get real. Even if you could adjust all the laws to create an entirely parallel insitution of civil unions with exactly the same legal rights and priviledges, people would just start calling it “marriage” anyway. The anti-gay Christians would be left mumbling something under their breathe about how they weren’t really Married” and doing all the same stuff anyway.

                    As long as they are not forced to recognize the marriage, I don’t care. I care about protecting their rights not the preferences.

                    1. Because they wouldn’t require private parties recognize them.

                      Which would last all of thirty seconds until states passed laws requiring private parties to recognize them.

                      Also the anti-discrimination laws are already in place – there’s no way in hell that the exact same arguments and court cases wouldn’t be happening if we called them “civil unions”.

                    2. Which would last all of thirty seconds until states passed laws requiring private parties to recognize them.

                      If you are telling me that states would transform civil unions into marriages, maybe they would. But that just means the states would be wrong not that civil unions were not the proper solution.

                      Also the anti-discrimination laws are already in place – there’s no way in hell that the exact same arguments and court cases wouldn’t be happening if we called them “civil unions”.

                      And those laws as a general rule don’t cover gays. They do, however, cover married people and that is the problem. Again, all you are saying is “your solution would be subverted by the very people I claim to defend”. So what? That just says the gay rights advocates have no respect for other people’s rights. That does not mean that I am not correct and saying civil unions were the proper solution to this issue.

                    3. But that just means the states would be wrong not that civil unions were not the proper solution.

                      Wait a minute John, are you saying it’s ok for anti-discrimination laws to exist, as long as they don’t apply to gay marriages?

                      What if a Muslim doesn’t want to recognize a Christian marriage or vice versa?

                      Why should the state go out of it’s way to create this entire parallel institution, just for the gayz, just so Chriistians don’t have to recognize gay marriages, when it ISNT going out of it’s way to allow Christians to refuse to recognize jewish or Muslim marriages?

                      If you REALLY care about religious freedom, you should be against all anti-discrimination laws, and not fighting to create a special niche that singles out gays as the only group that can be discriminated against.

                    4. Wait a minute John, are you saying it’s ok for anti-discrimination laws to exist, as long as they don’t apply to gay marriages?

                      No. I am saying if we can’t repeal them, we should have at least not expanded them to cover gay couples. Civil unions were a work around that would have given gay couples their marriage goodies without expanding the coverage of civil rights laws.

                      What if a Muslim doesn’t want to recognize a Christian marriage or vice versa?

                      Good for them.

                      Why should the state go out of it’s way to create this entire parallel institution, just for the gayz, just so Chriistians don’t have to recognize gay marriages, when it ISNT going out of it’s way to allow Christians to refuse to recognize jewish or Muslim marriages?

                      Because no one has made such a claim. Christians are not claiming it violates their conscience to recognize a Muslim wedding. They can’t make a good faith claim that it violates their beliefs the way they can with gay weddings.

                      Even if they could, yeah, that is a problem with government marriage. Expanding that wrong 10 fold by letting gays in on the action is not the proper solution.

                    5. Because no one has made such a claim. Christians are not claiming it violates their conscience to recognize a Muslim wedding.

                      So what? Because anti-gay bigotry exists in a religious context, we’re supposed to carve out special niches in the laws to let anti-gay Christian bigots discriminate?
                      If we’re going to have a system that lets some people not recognize the marriages of other groups they don’t like, then that system should apply universally to every possible form of discrimination, not just the ones that are currently practiced by Christian conservatives.
                      You’re talking about creating an entire special form of marriage just for gay people, just so that Christians can discriminate against them freely, instead of creating a system that lets any religion discriminate against anyone.

                    6. Also the anti-discrimination laws are already in place – there’s no way in hell that the exact same arguments and court cases wouldn’t be happening if we called them “civil unions”.

                      You know how we know this for sure? Bakers and florists were getting sued over this in states that did not recognize gay marriage at the time.

                  2. God, is all this really about giving anti-Gay christians a psychological “out” so they can pretend they aren’t really baking gay wedding cakes????

                    No. It is about religious colleges not having to let gay couples live in married student housing and about churches that rent out their halls for functions not having to rent out to gay weddings or have to no longer rent them out to anyone not in the congregation. It is about churches or religious people who object to gay marriages not having to include gay spouses on their employer provided insurance if they don’t want to. It is about those things and a lot more.

                    1. No. It is about religious colleges not having to let gay couples live in married student housing and about churches that rent out their halls for functions not having to rent out to gay weddings or have to no longer rent them out to anyone not in the congregation. It is about churches or religious people who object to gay marriages not having to include gay spouses on their employer provided insurance if they don’t want to. It is about those things and a lot more.

                      Whether it is called “marriage” or “civil union” wouldn’t make the slightest difference in any of those cases. The anti-discrimination laws already exist. The courts would interpret those laws in the same way and treat civil unions as interchangeable with marriages.

                    2. Whether it is called “marriage” or “civil union” wouldn’t make the slightest difference in any of those cases. The anti-discrimination laws already exist. The courts would interpret those laws in the same way and treat civil unions as interchangeable with marriages.

                      Yes they would. They were written not to. That is the entire point. Are you this stupid or just this dishonest? Seriously, all you are doing is lying and pretending civil unions are not what they are.

          2. It’s certainly true. it’s just the right to not bake a cake is WAY WAY less important than the right to get married to a person of your choice.

            Just to being with one is an isolated action, the other affects your entire life.

            1. it’s just the right to not bake a cake is WAY WAY less important than the right to get married to a person of your choice.

              Interesting.

            2. Well, Hazel, it seems it’s all about how one frames things.

              I would think your right to not associate with someone is way more important than getting very specific state benefits that could have been made via contract anyway.

              1. They can’t be made equal purely via private contract. Inheritance taxes and immigration law are two things you can’t change in a private contract.

                1. They can’t be made equal purely via private contract. Inheritance taxes and immigration law are two things you can’t change in a private contract.

                  Why not change those laws? Do you think it is okay when unmarried straight couples don’t get those benefits? How about instead of erasing he 1st Amendment we just get rid of inheritance taxes altogether and stop giving immigration preferences to family members? Or does that not appeal to you because it deprives you of the ability to stick it to people you don’t like?

                  1. Because it’s a lot harder to change those laws than to simply recognize gay marriages.

                    The only people objecting to this seem to be this wierd group of people who have some sort of irrational obsession about the word “marriage”.
                    If you’re willing to grant all the same rights and priviledges to gay couples as straight couples, why obsess over the word?

                    Also, do you really think public accomodation laws wouldn’t apply to gay non-marriage “civil union” ceremonies? Nobody’s going to stop gays from calling themselves married, wearing wedding rings and ordering wedding cakes with two grooms on top, are they?

                    1. Because it’s a lot harder to change those laws than to simply recognize gay marriages.

                      So what? Changing them doesn’t violate people’s rights. Since when is “it is hard” justify not doing the right thing?

                      The only people objecting to this seem to be this wierd group of people who have some sort of irrational obsession about the word “marriage”.

                      And those people have rights that should be respected. Just because you think they are weird and there are not many of them doesn’t mean they don’t have rights. If you don’t understand that and think it is okay to trample on people’s fundamental rights is okay as long as they are weird and unpopular and doing so is convenient for getting what you want, then you need to stop calling yourself a libertarian or any kind of classical liberal at all.

                    2. John gets even dumber:

                      “We can’t have gay marriage because if we did, Christian conservatives would have to use the word ‘marriage’ in a way they disagree with.”

                    3. What do you even mean Hazel? Is this your way of admitting I have won the argument? Your response makes no sense. Yeah, I get it you are pissed I made a point you don’t like but can’t respond to. But could you please just say “you are right”? Maybe?

                      You know good and well this is about forcing people to participate and recognize marriages that in violation of their religious views. Stop lying and saying it is about words.

                    4. John, my point is that your idea oif civil unions would ultimately be functionally identical to marriage in how the law treats it. The only difference would be the name.

                      The anti-discrimination laws aren’t going away and there is no reason to think they wouldn’t be applied to “civil unions”.

                      So you’re just arguing over whether Christian conservatives have to mentally deal with it being called “marriage”.

                    5. John, my point is that your idea oif civil unions would ultimately be functionally identical to marriage in how the law treats it. The only difference would be the name.

                      Which is not true. It would differ in the all important regard that private parties would not be required to recognize them. Which part of that do you not understand?

                      The anti-discrimination laws aren’t going away and there is no reason to think they wouldn’t be applied to “civil unions”.

                      No. They would not. That was the entire point of civil unions. They were not marriages. They just gave gays the ability to get the government to treat them like they were married.

                      All you are doing here is saying civil unions won’t work because I think they are like marriages. How many more times can you dodge the central point here?

                    6. No. They would not. That was the entire point of civil unions. They were not marriages. They just gave gays the ability to get the government to treat them like they were married.

                      Nonsense. The day civil unions got put in place, someone would try to order a wedding cake for a gay civil union, which they intend to perform exactly like a marriage. And the anti-gay Christian baker would have the same objections. And the courts would have exactly the same stance on it.

                      The judge that ruled in the bakery case isn’t going to sit there thinking “well, it’s not really a marriage so I guess that makes it ok to discriminate against gays now. I guess it’s okay to discriminate against civil unions.”

                      The only person whose mental state might be altered is the bakers by giving him an excuse to think he’s not really participating in a gay marriage.

                    7. Because it’s a lot harder to change those laws than to simply recognize gay marriages.

                      Considering that gay marriage was *the* premiere civil rights issue of our time and took decades to bring to fruition, I think you’ve got that exactly backwards. A change in the tax code or immigration law could have taken place with the stroke of a pen and far less controversy.

                    8. PM, that would have less chance of working it’s way through Congress than a law legalizing gay marriage. This was always going to happen via the courts, and it was going to happen by the courts declaring that the government had to recognize all marriages equally. Even if the particular case involved a challenge to immigration law or inheritance taxes instead, the ruling was always going to be one that applied universally to government recognition of same-sex marriages throughout federal law. SCOTUS was never going to strike down bits of immigration and inheritance law piecemeal.

                  2. How about instead of erasing he 1st Amendment we just get rid of inheritance taxes altogether and stop giving immigration preferences to family members? Or does that not appeal to you because it deprives you of the ability to stick it to people you don’t like?

                    How long before gay marriage recognition did you start railing against the rights violations of state-recognized traditional marriage? Or did that not appeal to you until it started affecting people you like?

                2. For the record, I agree that, under equal protection, gays (and any combination of freely consenting adults) must be give marriage licenses. But the Obergefell decision wasn’t decided on that – instead it created a positive right to marriage, and only one that is limited to two people. There was hardly anything liberty-enhancing about it.

                  The case was a clear example of ad hoc judicial lawmaking, i.e., completely arbitrary. Even if such gets you what you want, it’s hard to argue that, on the whole, such unprincipled lawmaking is a net gain for liberty.

            3. “It’s certainly true. it’s just the right to not bake a cake is WAY WAY less important than the right to get married to a person of your choice.

              Just to being with one is an isolated action, the other affects your entire life.”

              My grandmother, when she was in her ’90s, refused to rent one of her homes to a gay couple once she realized they were gay.

              She asked to meet with them, took her Bible, and explained that she couldn’t participate in their sin, but that Jesus died for them and loved them–and she showed them where it said so in the Bible.

              If the government had forced grandma to rent to them anyway, she’d never have left the house. They’d have had to lock her up in prison because there was no way she was going to willingly participate in someone else’s sin–ever.

              You say that marrying the person you want is more important than someone else’s religious convictions, but that’s just projecting your own values on other people by way of the coercive power of government.

              1. There isn’t anything about a gay person’s right to equal treatment by the government in terms of getting a marriage license that is fundamentally superior to a religious person’s right to choose to follow their own religious convictions.

                A religious person shouldn’t be allowed to violate a gay person’s right to make choices either, but refusing to rent a house or bake a cake isn’t a violation of anyone’s right to make choices for themselves.

                Property rights mean you get to choose what is done with your own property. No one should be forced by the government to use their property in such a way that it violates their right to choose their own religion. Gay people shouldn’t be forced by the government to rent their houses to fundamentalist Christians either.

          3. “Well, in the real world context of our unfree association laws, how is that not true?”

            IF IF IF that’s the case, then it seems to me that the problem there is the unfree association laws, and the solution is to protest those unfree association laws–rather than insist on the perpetuation of government discrimination against gay people in the granting of marriage licenses.

            1. Or just give gays civil unions so they get equal treatment from the government but also allow religious people to object if they choose.

              1. People should be free to object if they choose regardless of whether the government calls gay people married or civilly united.

            2. Yes, Ken, just like the problem with open borders is our welfare state.

              Libertarians are probably universally in favor of getting rid of our unfree association laws and our welfare state.

              BUT, until that happens, don’t try to tell me that open borders isn’t going to expand the welfare state, just like the gay rights movement isn’t expanding our unfree association laws.

              You can argue that a bigger welfare state and more unfree association is a price you are willing for other people to pay to get what you want, but don’t pretend there is no price.

              1. “Yes, Ken, just like the problem with open borders is our welfare state.”

                I’m not going to pretend that one thing is the problem when the problem is really something else.

                If all the anti-immigration people became anti-welfare people tomorrow, we might really get somewhere on crushing the welfare state.

                Likewise with free association.

                One of the biggest obstacles to getting rid of unfree association laws is that people think the only ones who want to get rid of those association laws are racists and homophobes. And it’s really hard to live that down when people are arguing against gay marriage–rather than unfree association laws.

                It’s the same thing with immigration. How are we going to convince people that we aren’t really racists when we argue against the welfare state–when so many of us are arguing against Mexican immigration instead of arguing against the welfare state?

  5. In 2013, [Agema] faced calls to resign from the Republican National Committee after he posted extracts from an article entitled “Everyone Should Know These Statistics On Homosexuals” which said that homosexuals lived a “filthy lifestyle”, were responsible for 50 percent of U.S. murders

    ….

    On December 31, 2014, Agema posted the text of an article that ran in the white supremacist magazine American Renaissance, which included sentences such as “[B]lacks are different by almost any measure to all other people. They cannot reason as well. They cannot communicate as well. They cannot control their impulses as well. They are a threat to all who cross their paths, black and non-black alike.”[7]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Agema #Political_controversies

    Tip O’Neal had it all backward. In California, anyway, all politics is national. Thing Globally, Act Locally, they say…

    People in California send Democrats to Sacramento because of the stupid shit Republicans in other states say.

    No really.

    1. “Homosexuals are responsible for 50 percent of U.S. murders”

      He cited this as a statistic.

      His fellow Republicans should sue him for defamation or fraud.

      He must be trying to make them look stupid.

      1. I didn’t know that Harley riders were so violent.

        1. A bunch of Harley riders in Waco forced the police to ambush and kill them, and then lock up the survivors – what is worse than that?

        2. “I didn’t know that Harley riders were so violent.”

          +2

          LOL

      2. “Homosexuals are responsible for 50 percent of U.S. murders”

        Here is the document that Agema is suppose to have quoted. I don’t see “Homosexuals are responsible for 50 percent of U.S. murders”. The closest is that “About 50% of the women on death row are lesbians”

        http://www.tldm.org/News20/Eve…..exuals.htm

        1. The closest is that “About 50% of the women on death row are lesbians”

          Close enough for government work!

        2. I found it at your link:

          “Judge John Martaugh, chief magistrate of the New York City Criminal Court has said, “Homosexuals account for half the murders in large cities” (10).”

          It’s probably in line with the observation that half the women on death row are lesbians.

          You lock people in cages for the rest of their lives, while they await execution, and it’s no wonder they form relationships with the people around them. That doesn’t mean they were gay or lesbian before they committed their crimes–or that teh ghay made them murderers.

          Meanwhile, maybe it’s different with women, but in men’s prisons, there are lots of guys who have sex with other guys and don’t think of themselves as gay. It’s like the old Roman notions, where pitching isn’t considered gay, but catching is. I also wonder if they’re counting guys who were raped in prison as gay. That’s fudging the statistics (no pun intended).

  6. PINK ELEPHANTS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THE DT’S NOT HOMOSEXUALS GET IT RIGHT REASON

    1. HOMOSEXUAL DT’S ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR 50% OF MURDERS.

      SAVE THE BOY SCOUTS.

      VOTE REPUBLICAN!!!

      1. P.S. THE SCIENTISTS ARE WRONG!!!

  7. They should talk about this in their party meetings. Nothing about “legitimate rape”. Say nothing about Noah’s ark. Just because it went over well when the preacher said it in church doesn’t mean you should repeat it to a journalist or, God forbid, say it on camera–mkay?

    Say nothing about the Confederacy. If somebody asks you about gay people or blacks, instead of saying what you want to say, say “I believe our brightest days are ahead of us, and I believe in America”.

    Mkay?

    When a reporter asks you about your stand on abortion, you tell them that you believe the children are the future, teach them well and let them lead the way, show them all the beauty they posses inside. Give them a sense of pride to make it easier. Let the children’s laughter remind us how we used to be.

    And then tell them that your favorite kind of music is reggae–and mean it.

    1. Talk about how much you love immigration, as ling as it’s legal.

  8. Don’t think this is because of any enlightenment.

    They’ll eventually start pushing away anti-Obamacare posturing, too.

    1. You mean reason or the GOP or both?

    1. You are not in Cleveland anymore?

      1. Down the road in Pittsburgh. New job.

        1. Down the road in Pittsburgh. New job.

          Congrats??

        2. Good for you. I was there for the Stones Concert in June. I wish I had known.

    2. Which I stand by even though this happened in Cincinnati. The driver was from Cleveland, therefore this counts as authentic Cleveland mayhem.

    3. What happened next? Well, it was all caught on camera by a WCPO viewer

      I really don’t like that style of writing.

      1. THAT’S NO OKAY

  9. The Democrats seem to actually want to keep gay issues as an election topic, with members of Congress introducing the Equality Act, legislation that would add sexual orientation and gender identity to just about every federal antidiscrimination regulation.

    Only because the unemployment rate of gays and transgender individuals is not high enough in the eyes of the Demo-rats.

  10. Gay marriage is a libertarian plot to establish Obama as Chairman for Life of the People’s Democratic Republic of America.

    1. “Reason only cares about Mexicans, and Muslims, and TEH GAYZ! WAAAAH!”

  11. Just so you guys don’t get too fascinated with gays…

    Here’s my gift to you all:

    Mexican Weather Girl Fannia Lozano

    Mexican Weather Girl Lluvia Carrillo

    Let’s say my visit to Monterrey allowed me to get reacquainted with the current cadre of weather hotties.

    1. I love Latin American Television.

  12. I remember a time when the symbol of a pink elephant meant you were drunk.

  13. LA MIRADA MASCULINA

    1. MALDITA SEA

  14. The Gays are going to engage in a righteous jihad to cleanse the nation of people like this guy. Don’t worry, I am sure it won’t get out of hand or anything.

    John’s getting attacked for this, but other than the bad taste, he has history behind him.

    Any group that relied on a set of militant members to survive is not going to suddenly shun those militants after a few significant victories. They may eventually hope they go away, but they are never going to disavow themselves of their former heroes. The temperance movement didn’t let up once Prohibition was enacted; the race-baiters haven’t let up with the election of Obama. Hell, the feminist movement has arguably gotten even more militant of late.

    1. Pretty much. But hey the gays are cool. Their militants are different and not like the others.

    2. Your point is well made. As much as John has gone flamboyant on the gay issue, there is still a practical concern that we’re plunging down the same slippery slope that we did in the 60’s, which is fraught with even more sharp sticks and tree stumps than last time.

    3. Anyone talking about “jihad” or “cleansing” is a fucking idiot.

      1. hy?per?bo?le
        /h??p?rb?l?/
        noun
        noun: hyperbole; plural noun: hyperboles

        exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.
        synonyms: exaggeration, overstatement, magnification, embroidery, embellishment, excess, overkill, rhetoric;

      2. No Jordan you are an idiot who doesn’t understand hyperbole. But fortunately sarcasmic gave you the definition. So hopefully you have come out of this discussion a little smarter.

    4. My only quibble would be that there’s a slight trend of gay rights groups voluntarily winding down (AFER recently joined the list). I can’t remember that happening in any of the movements you cited. I think there’ll still be people flogging further grievance nonsense, but a lot of the wind has been taken out of those sails by the Obergefell decision. Gay marriage was a clearly defined end point in the popular imagination. The really militant gay rights activists had already started falling on hard times when gays chose the ultimately conservative route of wanting to be included in marriage rather than breaking down old social hierarchies the way that the gay liberation types had wanted.

      1. The question is whether this will last. “Mission Accomplished” only lasted so long for the blacks after the CRA. Same with the disabled under the ADA.

        It would be great if things wound down after Obergefell, but I’m really, really skeptical. Progressives have never shown that they can take yes for an answer.

      2. I would like to think you are right Jesse. I would really like to believe this shit will be settled and that people are sick of hearing about it. And you may be right. If you are, however, it will be the first time in my lifetime at least that has ever happened. I honestly can’t see it happening but that is mostly because I have never seen it and there is of course a first time for everything.

      3. I’ve seen gay activists on the news publicly announcing the next stage of their campaign is suing businesses and landlords.

        As far as “free exercise” goes, if it only applies to what happens within the four walls of a church, then I guess there’s no objection to banning burqas? Or Sikh turbans and knives? Or even, I suppose, the public display of a cross?

        1. As far as “free exercise” goes, if it only applies to what happens within the four walls of a church, then I guess there’s no objection to banning burqas? Or Sikh turbans and knives? Or even, I suppose, the public display of a cross?

          Welcome to Western Europe.

        2. And I’ve seen Christians try to float state initiatives to execute homos

          Where do we cut off “the bulk of this group doesn’t care anymore” from the “oh look assholes gonna asshole”?

          1. There are no good guys in that article.

            “This just shows how nuts and wrongheaded we are about direct democracy,” said Joe Mathews, a critic of this state’s governance system. “This points out a shameful, problematic thing. You can put anything on the ballot.”

            Yikes.

          2. Because the odds of Christians, even if they could all be painted with that brush, successfully getting an initiative like that into law are zilch, but the odds of seeing further encroachments on private individuals and businesses under the auspices of anti-discrimination laws are quite high.

          3. Yeah Jesse Christians did that not one guy who seems to be a psychotic.

            http://talkingpointsmemo.com/m…..r-bridgman

            Seriously, I thought you were better than Tony.

            1. John, you’re a doofus.

              1. Yeah Sparky. Sure.

            2. God, John. This is why you’re a tar-baby. I was not saying “Christians did that” I was saying that there are going to be Christians who agitate for anti-gay things and there are going to be gays that agitate for pro-gay things for the foreseeable future. At what point do we stop judging a whole group for what some subset of the group does?

              It’s like you read exactly the opposite into what I was saying for the sake of your narrative.

              Why am I not surprised.

              1. I don’t think it matters how you judge who or whom. Neither side should be allowed to stomp the other. I don’t support that guy any more than the gays who want to sue everyone. The gays wanting to sue or the immediately issue because they for the moment have the power. But yeah, if that ever changes and the Christians or Muslims who want to hang gays actually become a real danger of getting power, then sure, lets talk about them too.

      4. ultimately conservative route of wanting to be included in marriage rather than breaking down old social hierarchies the way that the gay liberation types had wanted.

        On my way to work this morning, I was thinking about ‘protest’ in general, the gay marriage decision, and the kinds of things that people protest about in this day and age.

        We’ve gone from a world where people told the government to fuck off by burning their draft cards, to a place where people have demanded they be counted, licensed and stamped by government, and even implicitly demanded that they be included in the draft, as exclusion was seen as discriminitory.

    5. Any group that relied on a set of militant members to survive is not going to suddenly shun those militants after a few significant victories.

      Well, thanks for explaining that to us. Also, very impressed by your powers of precognition. Why don’t you prove that by kicking out some winning lottery numbers for a specific date.

      Militant? Srsly? You mean like Ted Olson? Because that straight conservative guy did more for the cause than ACT-UP or the true militants.

      And way to waltz right past how Americans for Equal Rights (the big marriage equality group) is voluntarily shutting down.

  15. Uncle Remus foresaw this thread and told an important allegory about it.

    1. The gay menace is now using cultural appropriation when it comes to our folklore. SMH.

    2. Uncle Remus foresaw this thread and told an important allegory about it.

      Is there an english version?

      1. Racist!

        Start at 35:22 for some classic Disney action.

        1. Thanks jesse, I almost followed most of it.

    3. You’re just biding your time and waiting for your chance to strike. I know this. I know how the Eternal Homo operates.

      1. Eternal Homo? Is that the name of your band? Cool name!

        1. No, no. My band is called Principals, Not Principles.

          1. Laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaame

  16. It seems some of you need a little history lesson about the decades that the religious right in this country has spent trying to jam their morality down everyone’s throat, and that all this talk about bakers not being able to turn away gays is just the pathetic tears of religious zealots who are finally falling victim to a precedent they established and that many of them still support.

    1. Two wrongs make a right! I knew it!

    2. Shorter SBOD: “Take that you damn fundies. You deserve to have your rights taken away you evil fuckers. And fuck you too, daddy!”

      1. More like as you sow, so shall ye reap. Remember, it was the fundies who had no qualms about trying to take rights away from others. Look, I know the koolaid they serve over at the socon dorm is real tasty and all, but it has other effects (not just turning your tongue purple).

        1. Remember, it was the fundies who had no qualms about trying to take rights away from others.

          So it’s ok to give them a taste of their own medicine now? Bullshit! They deserve their right to free exercise and their right to free association just as much as teh Honourable Gheys do. SBOD’s daddy issues notwithstanding.

          Wrongthink is not a reason to deny people their rights, even when you really, really, really don’t like the wrongthink.

          1. Yes, because once again, saying you shouldn’t be surprised at a reaction is the same thing as saying the reaction is morally upright!

            1. all this talk about bakers not being able to turn away gays is just the pathetic tears of religious zealots

              Doesn’t sound like SBOD was simply saying “you shouldn’t be surprised at a reaction.”

              1. That’s exactly what it sounds like to me, but regardless, we’re way down the thread. What did Tonio say?

              2. And maybe not, but regardless of what SBOD meant, the fact remains that the fundies went out of their way to fuck with the gays for years, and are now shocked, shocked do you hear, that some of the gays might want some payback.

          2. Nicole, in her 1:15 PM response speaks for me in this.

    3. Pitch perfect proggy, eager to seize any stick to beat their enemies and work out their daddy issues.

      Piss off, jackboot.

    4. I actually agree, in a way. Christians were never given a mandate to be politically active. American Christians should stop worrying about their “rights as Americans”, and instead focus on their responsibilities as Christians. Christian bakers, et al, should be advertising “We Specialize in Same-Sex Marriages” instead of trying to prove a point, or whatever. Iit’s clear that Jesus attended, on more than one occasion, His society’s version of Gay Weddings.

      Imposing Christian Morality through government power, even if it were feasible, is counterproductive to the work of the Gospel.

      1. Exactly when did Jesus attend gay weddings?

        And no Christians should be saying no and if they are punished for it be happy they can sacrifice for their conscience.

        1. He visited with tax collectors, which were a reviled class of people, and was criticised for it by the religious leaders.

          If Christians truly want to follow Christ, then we should be willing to accept censure and even persecution for our beliefs. It’s a Christian truism (at least in the circles that I move) that we should seek to be joyful rather than happy. The first status relies on our outlook, the latter depends more on our circumstances.

          1. He may have visited them but he didn’t condone their activities. Did he go to a Pagan temple and get down with the animal sacrifices? No. No one says Christians should not associate with gays. But associating with them doesn’t mean they approve of or accept their lifestyle and choices.

            One of the more problematic statements Jesus ever made was telling his followers to love him more than their family. That is pretty serious. What he meant was you don’t put even the love of your family over your principles. Gay marriage is a great example of how this should work. Your son runs off and gets married to a guy. What should you do? Well, you still love him but you don’t give up your principles and pretend what he did was okay by accepting his marriage as legitimate.

            1. What he meant was you don’t put even the love of your family over your principles.

              *shudder*

              Human principles are nothing to the Glory of God. Your love of God is what should be placed above your family. Granted, your love of God requires you to take care of your family, so you’re not just throwing them out in the cold, but it’s about your motivations for your actions. Are you motivated by faith in God or by worldly gain/instinct/social pressure. The entire gospel of James is about this.

              1. No. Your “principles” are those given to you by God. Sure you love your family and sure you don’t throw them into the cold. But you don’t go against God to do so. That means it doesn’t matter how much you love your family, you don’t condone or support their sin.

                1. I see what you’re saying John. My bad, I misinterpreted.

            2. Well, you still love him but you don’t give up your principles and pretend what he did was okay by accepting his marriage as legitimate.

              This is proof I don’t have the god gene – because this behavior makes absolutely no sense to me.

              1. If your child became a dyed in the wool Progressive, would you still love them? Would you become a Progressive because they did?

                Same thing here. You can love your child even if you don’t agree with their choices.

                1. Would you become a Progressive, accept Progressivism as a morally acceptable political ideology because they did?

                  Fixed it for myself so that it makes more sense.

                2. Of course I would still love them, and no I would not “become one”. (Who’s claiming that parents should become gay in order to support their gays kids?!)

                  But there’s a difference: I would not waste my time trying to convince them they’re sinning or even worse tell them they’re going to hell. This is the kind of “love” that lots of gay kids get from their parents.

                  1. But there’s a difference: I would not waste my time trying to convince them they’re sinning or even worse tell them they’re going to hell. This is the kind of “love” that lots of gay kids get from their parents.

                    I wouldn’t either. However, theres a shitload of difference between being an annoying ass to your child because they reject your religion and not “pretend[ing] what he did was okay by accepting his marriage as legitimate.”

                    There’s a difference between being obnoxious and being principled.

      2. cavalier, your post is a jumbled mess.

        Christians were never given a mandate to be politically active

        Agreed, but it didn’t preclude it either. the Bible takes a rather agnostic view to politics, showing that a Christian’s primary allegiance is to God, not to country. (Many cultural christians get this waaaaaay wrong)

        American Christians should stop worrying about their “rights as Americans”, and instead focus on their responsibilities as Christians.

        To an extent, I agree. The instant the government gets in my way of performing my Christian responsibilities, my “rights as an American” become an issue.

        Christian bakers, et al, should be advertising “We Specialize in Same-Sex Marriages” instead of trying to prove a point, or whatever.

        Bullshit. There’s a giant difference between associating with people who are shunned due to their flavor of sinfulness and promoting said sinfulness. You’re clearly advocating for the latter. When Jesus saved the adultress from getting stoned to death He said “go forth and sin no more.” He made it clear that he surrounded himself by sinners not because he validated their sin, but because that was the best way to get them to repent of their sin.

        (cont.)

        1. Iit’s clear that Jesus attended, on more than one occasion, His society’s version of Gay Weddings.

          Bullshit. He certainly didn’t help the tax collector collect taxes. He didn’t introduce his two adultrous friends to go have extra-marital sex. He made friends of the downtrodden, He didn’t promote their sin.

          Imposing Christian Morality through government power, even if it were feasible, is counterproductive to the work of the Gospel.

          100% agree. The Gospel is a change of the heart. You don’t change somebody’s heart by forcing them to do the right actions.

          1. Unfortunately, I’m trying to do work and comment at the same time, so I did not complete my argument. I did not intend to say that Christians should endorse activity that they deem sinful. I was thinking more along the lines of the opportunity presented to share the Gospel.

            In my opinion, catering a same-sex wedding is a similar activity to”eating meat offered to pagan idols”. It doesn’t violate any of God’s laws in itself. A Christian shouldn’t violate his conscience, though.

            1. In that case, I agree. I think that catering a gay wedding is a bridge too far, but I can see where some may disagree. In that case, definitely turn it into a sharing moment. My mother-in-law works at an HIV-positive clinic, where a very significant portion (90%+) of her clientele is LGBT. I have no doubt she is doing God’s work there.

              I abhor the cultural christians who turn their “faith” into an ad hominem. “Them queers are sinners, so I ain’t havin’ no queers around here.” It’s a blatant and downright sinful distortion of Christianity, and it’s specifically addressed by Jesus (parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector). On the other hand, I really have trouble with the accommodationist christians, too. It’s just as much a perversion of the faith to say that Jesus was ok with sin as it is to say that Jesus hated sinners.

  17. I think there’ll still be people flogging further grievance nonsense

    This is unquestionably true; there was an opinion piece in the NYT from a prominent(?) gay marriage activist which basically boiled down to “And now, on to the lawsuits!”
    I do not foresee an apocalypse, however. There may very well arise a cottage industry of gay griefers, just as there are those who make their living filing ADA suits.

    1. There will be a great living to be made in being a gay griefer right up until Christians realize how effective Muslims are in avoiding such things. Then it will become a contact sport.

      1. How do Muslims avoid griefer lawsuits?

        1. You just have to throw your homos off a building

          The thing is that the one people who will retain their religious liberty is likely to be the Muslims. And when the time comes that they become enough of a political force in the Democratic Party, the gays are going to go back in the closet. And honestly, I can’t say I will give a fuck. They don’t seem concerned with anyone else’ rights.

          This is of course what John means by “back in the closet” that homos who are out will be executed and John really won’t care because “bakers”!

          1. And he (and others) have mentioned many, many times over the years that Christians are uniquely above such behavior.

            1. I always like it when commenters start musing ominously about how violence is coming to the gays and how they deserve it. It’s just nice that they’re willing to depth check their dedication to civil society and report back.

              1. No they don’t deserve it. But if you are going to continue to fuck with things that people hold pretty dear, you can’t say it is unexpected. It is how human beings and society works.

                1. No they don’t deserve it. But if you are going to continue to fuck with things that people hold pretty dear, you can’t say it is unexpected.

                  You know who else said a massacre was “expected” when people fucked with things that other people held dear?

                  1. Sure! god. About the Canaanites.

              2. Look, John has openly admitted in the past that if it weren’t for his belief in God he would be a murderous psychopathic warlord. Judge for yourself what kind of person that makes him deep down inside.

                1. Wow Sparky, you are as dumb as Frank. You seem to also have difficulty grasping abstract concepts. It is not that I personally would do anything or even that the world would fall into immediate disorder if there were no government. It is that someone would want to be and would be able to attract enough toadies to make it happen.

                  Seriously, if you are too stupid to understand the conversation, and you clearly are Sparky, why don’t you post on another board where the conversation is simpler and you are better able to understand what is going on? Don’t you ever get tired of being confused? Just a little?

                  1. Sure, John. I have every reason to believe you would be the very model of civility. I like how you’ve taken to accusing everyone of being incapable of abstract thought. Did you reach that in a book?

                    1. No sparky just you and Frank. You seem to be the ones who can’t understand any point that isn’t spelled out in the most concrete and literal ways.

                      If you don’t like me saying you can’t think abstractly, then start thinking abstractly and stop making idiotic points like because I understand that getting rid of the government would mean the rise of warlords means I would literally be one myself.

                      I can’t make you any smarter but you can’t complain about being told you are stupid when you refuse to get any smarter.

                    2. It’s too bad the article that you made the claim had nothing to do with a lack of government. It was a discussion concerning whether or not God existed and your generic ramblings about how people couldn’t possibly be good unless they believed in God. Your comment was something along the lines of “If God doesn’t exist then there’s no reason to be good. And if there’s no reason to be good, I’m going evil whole hog.”. I’m paraphrasing, of course, but maybe when I get home I’ll track down a link and throw it in the PM Links for all to see.

                    3. It was a discussion concerning whether or not God existed and your generic ramblings about how people couldn’t possibly be good unless they believed in God. Your comment was something along the lines of “If God doesn’t exist then there’s no reason to be good. And if there’s no reason to be good, I’m going evil whole hog.”.

                      I don’t see what’s wrong with that view. If there is no God, what is the point of adhering to the arbitrary morality of followers of a cult? The only point of being “good” (in the judeo-christian sense) is to avoid being thrown in prison. If I were entirely convinced that there were no God, I wouldn’t necessarily be evil, but I sure as hell would be quite the selfish son of a bitch. I would use my natural talents of manipulation and cunning to get what I want, consequences to others be damned. After all, as long as I don’t get caught, it’s not like I’m actually doing anything wrong.

                    4. Not everyone needs the belief in an all-powerful crutch to not be sociopaths.

                    5. Sorry Trshmnstr, but I’m gonna have to agree with Sparky. You don’t have to believe in God to understand right from wrong and to choose to be a good person.

                    6. You don’t have to believe in God to understand right from wrong and to choose to be a good person.

                      I disagree. “Good” Aztecs sacrificed children to their sun god. “Good” Maori, Pagans, and other tribes ate the flesh of the tribes they conquered. “Good” Catholics in the 15th and 16th centuries drowned witches and anabaptists. “Good” Romans in the 1st and 2nd centuries would abandon their children in the woods when they did not want to care for them.

                      The idea that you can even define “good” and “evil” or “right” and “wrong” without appealing to the millenia of religious tradition is absurd. You may be able to distill some cross-cultural norms, but how do you even begin to assign moral value to them without descending into argumentum ad populum? We generally frown on the “society does it, so it must be right” arguments here in libertarian circles.

                    7. What about reason? What about the Golden Rule based on reason instead of based on who said it?

                      FWIW, I’m not an atheist. I even believe in the Judeo-Christian God.

          2. Rywun,

            Where have I ever said they are above such behavior? They don’t engage in such behavior but that doesn’t mean they can’t or won’t.

            And Jesse, I only kid. I will care and will stand up if for no other reason than I will be next. And my guess is that if and when that does happen, it will likely be various Quislings in the gay rights community who are pushing you off the cliff in the name of tolerance.

            1. And Jesse, I only kid.

              Like a madman who throws firebrands, arrows, and death is the man who deceives his neighbor and says, “I am only joking!”

              Yeah, John. I don’t actually believe you’re joking. Even in your “I was only joking” response you’re positing a future ruled by villainous gay people.

              1. It won’t be run by villainous gay people. It will be run by a totalitarian mob who have decided to use gays as a reason to ruin people they don’t like.

                Gays are just incidental and likely to be on the other end of the mob once they have outlived their usefulness.

                1. So what do you call the centuries of rule by white Christian males who spent almost all of that time excluding everyone else from participation in society?

            2. They don’t engage in such behavior but that doesn’t mean they can’t or won’t.

              It sounds like you believe that gay activists are the absolute worst thing that Christians have faced over the centuries – so horrible that turning the other cheek is no longer an option, but rather the beheading of random gays is called for. This is just a bizarre belief – yeah, “just joking” I’m sure.

              1. Of course not. But since when did it take a lot to get people to start doing nasty things? People are people.

              2. I actually agree with John on that one, not because gays are “the worst,” but because we have 3 generations of “christians” who are largely better described as culturally christian but theologically american agnostic, and are used to getting their way. Their Jesus has an American flag draped over his shoulders and a bald eagle perched at the end of his AR-15.

                What happens to their fantasy Jesus when “these colors” that “don’t run” start running? What happens when the American flag is replaced with the rainbow flag in their minds? They’re going to act out. They are Progressives who have a faint connection to God, and a much stronger connection to government god. What happens when God and government god come to loggerheads (a word I find rather funny)? I think they’ll become violent.

  18. OT:

    Retired police officer shoots 16-year-old burglar he caught stealing his neighbor’s TV

    Ex-cop was walking with his wife near their home in Lake County, Florida
    Spotted the ‘suspicious’ teen leaving a neighbor’s home carrying the TV
    Pulled a gun on the alleged robber and told him to stop
    Claims the boy charged at him, so he fired a single shot
    Police say the man appears to have acted within his rights

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..-s-TV.html

    It’s unclear whether the retired cop was armed at the time or went to get a gun, but he pulled the weapon on the teen and told him to stop.
    The man says the teen refused and charged at him, but the suspect denies this.

    On the one hand the kid stole a tv, but on the other hand the retired cop is obviously lying. Like anyone is going to charge someone who is pointing a gun at them. Doesn’t pass the smell test. Looks like nothing else will happen, and the retired cop went home safely.

    1. What a conundrum. If I defend the teen against the cop, aren’t I implicitly defending burglary? There’s an analogy to something else here.

    2. Doesn’t pass the smell test.

      Unless the punk was on weaponized marijuana.

  19. Where do we cut off “the bulk of this group doesn’t care anymore” from the “oh look assholes gonna asshole”?

    All Christians = Westboro Baptist
    All homosexuals = That fat guy in the Gay Pride parade wearing a leopard skin thong, pink boa and high heels

    1. What is wrong with the fat guy in the thong? Who did he bother?

  20. My question is whether this is where gays and lesbians get off the LGBTWTFBBQ bandwagon. I still don’t really see how your average gay or lesbian has enough in common with a pre-op trans-male gender-queer pansexual to be a lockstep voting bloc.

    1. There’s a kind of ‘identity politics union’ if you will, and it’s becoming a really, really big tent.

    2. All of them? Probably never. Suburban, middle class, gender role normative ones like me are already outa there.

      But it really doesn’t help that socons are saying exactly the same shit about transgender people that they said about homosexuals. That right there is keeping a lot of people in the movement.

    3. I don’t do bandwagons and I have always said each of those letters in the acronym soup needs to fight their own battles. Yeah, there’s a certain shared “experience” that boils down to little more than “not the norm” and that is attractive to some but by no means all or probably even a majority. Hell, the first “L” and “G” only tolerate each other when it’s convenient – forget all the other letters.

  21. “This points out a shameful, problematic thing. You can put anything anyone on the ballot.”

  22. So, once again, I see this is a hill someone shouldn’t die on. Still NO indication from anyone what hill we should be dying on!

    1. Still NO indication from anyone what hill we should be dying on!

      I will be over on hill “bringing back overalls with one strap down.” Either you are with me or against me, Paul.

    2. Second Amendment. Police lawlessness. First Amendment. Fourth Amendment.

    3. Still NO indication from anyone what hill we should be dying on!

      Well, as libertarians observing the NAP, don’t we die on all them?

  23. “rhetoric in opposition to gay lives.”

    Remember in the Before Time – a few months ago – when *Reason* was talking about a federalist solution to gay marriage?

    Now it seems that returning the matter to the states is “in opposition to gay lives.”

    1. Give a year or two and it will be “remember when Reason was talking about how Libertarians were going to have to part ways with the gay rights establishment when the issue became public accommodation and free exercise?”

      1. Libertarians should not feel obliged to agree that one of the biggest problems in the country is not enough racism and homophobia in action. Civil Rights legislation has been around a long time. If they start pissing and moaning about it at greater volumes now than in the recent past, it might be confused for some kind of special problem with gay people.

        1. If they start pissing and moaning about it at greater volumes now than in the recent past, it might be confused for some kind of special problem with gay people.

          I don’t disagree, but that would be entirely the fault of the person who is confused. I became libertarian because of the gay issue (it was the catalyst, not the only reason). I thought the GOP was being ridiculous, and was never going to survive intact. I’ve been against the CRA ever since I left the GOP in 2009 (gimme a break, I was 20 and just getting used to being able to live and think on my own). If somebody gets all pissy about my opposition to the CRA just because it was the gay issue that made me libertarian, then so be it. Bullshit ad hominem has never really bothered me anyway.

          1. I would suggest admitting defeat and moving on. There is no great loss to liberty here. If the lack of the freedom of bigots to discriminate were truly a vast “problem” in this country, then the CRA is all the more justifiable (because there’d be a lot of discrimination going on without it, potentially excluding minorities from participating in commerce in a substantial way). If there is no major problem with discrimination, then the CRA is merely redundant.

            Because let’s face it, in the 1960s, if you were against civil rights legislation, people may assume false things about their motives, but a principled libertarian stance on property rights was hardly the main motivation in those days. In fact it was often, to the letter, the excuse offered.

            1. You say assume like progressives weren’t… etc.

              But you’re right. I suppose, as an atheist, I can take some comfort in the fact that my sacred ox isn’t being gored, to mix metaphors. And really, why not? Those bastards have given us a tough time. Scopes, anyone? Remember when that happened? Why shouldn’t I cheer on, or at the very least enjoy watching, Christians being brought to heel in the great cultural shift? Only some sort of principled hardliner would find himself upset over it.

              1. Religion, unlike sexual orientation, is already protected in civil rights law.

            2. If the lack of the freedom of bigots to discriminate were truly a vast “problem” in this country, then the CRA is all the more justifiable

              Only because you hate bigots more than you love freedom. I love freedom more than I hate bigots, so I find it a travesty when people restrict freedom, even freedom of bigots to be assholes.

              It’s the natural caution in me. I look back through history and see a hell of a lot of perfectly innocent gay people getting thrown in jail because people of the day hated deviants more than they loved freedom. I see a hell of a lot of blacks being jailed and killed because people of the day hated sub-humans more than they loved freedom.

              You appear to trust the political winds of the day to keep shifting in your direction forever and ever, completely missing the fact that gays had rights in societies that existed thousands of years ago, only to have the political winds shift. Why are you so confident about today’s culture? Wouldn’t you want to hedge your bets a little by not just undoing the legal bigotry of the day, but also by eliminating the genre of actions that have been used by those in power to inflict their hatred on the despised others (which included gays for the longest time)?

              1. I’m going to try to say this again in the hopes that it sinks in: the right you are claiming to cherish is the right to have police empowered by the state and paid for with taxes drag gay people from businesses that are otherwise open to the public. That is smack in the middle of the “genre” to which you refer. And like it or not, property rights absolutism has always been a go-to excuse for those who would employ that force.

                I don’t see what the alternative “free” situation is. Bigots have a right to expel gay people, but they promise to be nice about it? Nobody is forced to run a business that opens its doors to the public. If they want to exclude people they can do so at their house. Running a business comes with certain obligations in a civilized society. Too many for your taste, perhaps, but when property rights has been used as the excuse to inflict massive harm on communities, property rights deserves to come under scrutiny and its actual value examined.

                1. the right you are claiming to cherish is the right to have police empowered by the state and paid for with taxes drag gay people from businesses that are otherwise open to the public.

                  Well, if they don’t leave peacefully when asked, I don’t see a problem with this.

                  Unless, of course, you object to any enforcement of trespass laws.

                  1. So the owner gets the cops on his side but not the customer. And you only get to be on the side of “small government” by choosing the side of the owner? Sounds like a conflict of rights claims to me. That’s why we look at what’s going on in society and determine which rights claim produces more meaningful freedom. But property has always been a problem for libertarians. Government is bad, except for when I need it for stuff!

                2. Running a business comes with certain obligations in a civilized society.

                  Ah, there’s the bullshit premise. See, running a business is merely an interpersonal transaction. Except for the profit motive, it is no different that when you go trolling around town on Grindr. Are you going to argue that you’re somehow obligated to fuck everybody who shows interest because you’re running a service, and it comes with certain obligations in a civilized society? Tony doesn’t like to fuck 3’s, but he lives in a civilized society where he has a certain obligation to provide his sexual services to 3’s because he also provides them to 4’s and 5’s.

                  Too many for your taste, perhaps, but when property rights has been used as the excuse to inflict massive harm on communities, property rights deserves to come under scrutiny and its actual value examined.

                  Harm is irrelevant because it’s not quantifiable or measurable. Harm is an imaginary substance based on the mental state of those inflicted.

                3. “Nobody is forced to run a business that opens its doors to the public.”

                  That sort of contemptuous attitude toward business has contributed to the economic growth of *so many* countries.

              2. As ever, Iron Laws are applicable:

                You aren’t free unless you are free to be wrong.

                Me today, you tomorrow.

                1. They are free to be wrong, they’re just not free to refuse service to negroes. Actions vs. thoughts. We can police actions. Even libertarians agree about that.

                  1. They are free to be wrong, they’re just not free to refuse service to negroes.

                    No, I think you have to choose. Are they free to be wrong, or not?

                    1. Are murderers free to be “wrong”?

                    2. Yup. They’re just not free to murder. Expelling undesirables from your property is not the same as killing undesirables.

                    3. It’s still a harm. Maybe in some contexts it’s a permissible one. In some contexts it’s even permissible to kill. The distinction is thought vs. action. You don’t have to agree that discrimination should be outlawed, but you should agree that it is an action.

                    4. Harm is a squishy word with no quantifiable meaning. You’re harming me by making my poor brain hurt. That doesn’t mean that I can legislate your ability to post inane stuff on Reason away. Not only that, but inaction (forbearance, in legal parlance) can also harm. Can I force you to do something (see my above “fucking 3’s” analogy) because not doing so harms me?

                    5. inaction (forbearance, in legal parlance) can also harm.

                      Don’t tell the people here that. I’ve been trying to explain this for years and getting only confused looks in response.

                      As for your analogy, there is a reason that a distinction exists in law between private business and public accommodation.

                      I realize that the assumption is that owning property and running a business is something that people gain the ability to do from nature itself and doesn’t require any action or taxpaying or governing by anyone else. My assumptions are a bit different, of course.

                    6. Don’t tell the people here that. I’ve been trying to explain this for years and getting only confused looks in response.

                      The point (confused libertarians aside) is that harm is a really shitty way to measure what needs legislated.

                      I realize that the assumption is that owning property and running a business is something that people gain the ability to do from nature itself and doesn’t require any action or taxpaying or governing by anyone else. My assumptions are a bit different, of course.

                      You’re a Georgist? I guess that would make sense.

                    7. Christ, you really are a twit. I used to give you the benefit of the doubt, but every time you post I’m forced to reconsider.

                      All laws are moral!

                      All transgressions of the law are immoral!

                      The State is the ultimate and sole arbiter of all morality!

                      All hail the benevolent and infallible State!

                      You may as well be a Christian fundie for all your unshakable faith in government.

                  2. It’s not as simple as “actions vs. thoughts,” Tony. Or do you think the citizens of the Soviet Union were perfectly free since they could think things?

                    1. No, normally you guys think that, explaining countless times to me that rights are things that exist whether anyone is actually empowered to practice them or not. (You get to define what counts as rights, of course.)

                    2. normally you guys think that, explaining countless times to me that rights are things that exist whether anyone is actually empowered to practice them or not.

                      Empowered to practice is not the same as immune from the natural consequences.

                      (You get to define what counts as rights, of course.)

                      If you can come up with a philosophically rigorous definition of rights that doesn’t lead to me being able to kill you and the Jews if I get 51% of the vote, I’ll be happy to talk about things from your definition of rights ad arguendo.

                    3. All I need is a dictionary:

                      right, n, something that a person is or should be morally or legally allowed to have, get, or do

                      Notice all the verbs. Notice the is-ought distinction. The only reason this debate goes on is because libertarians either don’t understand that distinction or pretend that they don’t so that they get to decide what all the real rights are.

                      Hitler had a right to kill all the Jews. He was a dictator; they get to take rights for themselves and away from others at will. In my humble opinion, Hitler should not have been thus empowered. But as a matter of fact, he had that right until a very large army stopped him and he shot himself in the head.

                    4. Jesus fuck, Tony, you are a warped human being.

                    5. Hate to break it to you but the millions of dead Jews are not comforted by your assurance that they actually did have a right not to be gassed. Nor would they be if you were shouting that assurance at them from the other side of the fence.

                      I think bad things happen when people don’t give a flip about meaningfully actualizing people’s rights, but just asserting them and then letting society dole out actual rights, or the lack thereof, according to the whims of nature.

                    6. I think bad things happen when people don’t give a flip about meaningfully actualizing people’s rights, but just asserting them and then letting society dole out actual rights, or the lack thereof, according to the whims of nature.

                      Beat that straw man one more time, and I’ll be convinced.

                    7. You don’t have a right to my shit.

                    8. Once he marries his sugar daddy and gets his SS spousal benefits he does.

                    9. Hitler had a right to kill all the Jews. He was a dictator; they get to take rights for themselves and away from others at will. In my humble opinion, Hitler should not have been thus empowered. But as a matter of fact, he had that right until a very large army stopped him and he shot himself in the head.

                      Ok, so to you, right == ability to do something. Did I get that correct? IOW, I have the right to go postal in my office right now, because nobody could stop me. Am I on the right track?

                      Hitler should not have been thus empowered.

                      So you recognize that some people’s ability to do something can be restricted by some sort of moral or practical bounds. Why should Hitler not have been empowered to kill the Jews?

                    10. Hitler did not have the right so much as he had the power, based on historical circumstances, to do what he did.

                      In the process, he violated the rights of millions.

                      These are simple concepts. You must be intentionally obtuse.

                    11. Here’s a dictionary entry for express, like in Freedom of Expression:

                      Convey (a thought or feeling) in words or by gestures and conduct.

                    12. My point clearly sailed over your head, so I’ll elucidate:

                      To simply declare that the government can police actions but not thoughts begs the question of what are thoughts and what are actions and why are they different? Are they always discrete?

                      You seem to have a strict definition of “thought,” being merely whatever it is that occurs in one’s brain. Since it is technically impossible to police a person’s thoughts, a person living anywhere at any time is free to think what he wants. The most ruthless dictatorship comports with your principle of policing “actions vs. thoughts,” which is why I retorted it’s not as simple as “actions vs. thoughts.”

                      How is the government having free reign to police my actions – any one of them – conducive to liberty? Because 51% said it could?

                    13. I agree that taken alone and literally “freedom of thought” is a pointless concept, but I think it more broadly encompasses activities, such as the freedom to read, write, and say whatever you want (thought being constituted of and shaped by such things). Those things can be policed, of course, because they are actions. They shouldn’t be policed in my opinion as a liberal.

                      So with the baker, the question is whether she is merely engaging in freedom of thought (or expression), or if she is acting against people in a way that is legitimately policed. She can think about stealing from someone. She can write about thinking about stealing from someone. She just can’t actually do the stealing. Is discrimination such a crime? Some say yes, others no.

                    14. or if she is acting against people in a way that is legitimately policed.

                      This gets back to the Hitler question:

                      So you recognize that some people’s ability to do something can be restricted by some sort of moral or practical bounds. Why should Hitler not have been empowered to kill the Jews?

                      In other words, what defines legitimate policing and what does not? Keep in mind what I wrote above about the political winds shifting and about how gays have had laws passed against them even after permissive eras.

                    15. In other words, what defines legitimate policing and what does not?

                      Convenient fictions if you boil it all down. I say be grateful to fortune if you were born in a society free enough to offer sane laws and ample liberties. I’m something of a utilitarian. Every policy or proposition must be examined for its effect on human well-being. Even the convenient fictions known as rights.

                      Keep in mind what I wrote above about the political winds shifting and about how gays have had laws passed against them even after permissive eras.

                      I think this is implausible, but for the sake of argument, you tell me what to do about it. Shouting assertions about rights into the sky? If “political winds” are powerful enough, dictatorship or democracy, people can get thoroughly shafted. It happens. Not sure what to do about it other than build on what works and remain vigilant.

                    16. This might be the least disagreeable thing you’ve written so far, Tony. However, I take issue with this:

                      Those things can be policed, of course, because they are actions. They shouldn’t be policed in my opinion as a liberal.

                      This seems like more question begging. Why do actions need to be policed? Do you mean all actions? What’s your criteria for when one action needs policing while another doesn’t?

                    17. When societies agree via legitimate democratic means that they’re bad for individuals or society.

        2. You say confused as if progressives won’t be disingenuously muddying the waters at every opportunity.

          1. Like socons don’t do that?

            1. For sure. They have the nerve to think they have constitutional rights like real human beings or something.

        3. Some of the folks up above (and below) who articulate this exact same sentiment in the exact same way might want to ponder on that. When you find yourself in lockstep agreement with Tony, you may well need to reevaluate.

  24. Still NO indication from anyone what hill we should be dying on!
    Deep dish pizza: barbecue sauce, yea or nay?

    1. I have it on good authority that “deep dish pizza” isn’t a real thing.

    2. Fuck yeah. Deep dish BBQ chicken alfredo pizza.

      1. I’d actually try that.

        1. It’s fantastic. Although I’ve only ever had a flat pizza with it.

          AND DON’T RUIN IT WITH BROCCOLI!

    3. That could only be an improvement.

  25. I always like it when commenters start musing ominously about how violence is coming to the gays and how they deserve it.
    .
    Jeepers, Jesse, if you’re too stupid to comprehend adult logic, you should just stick to discussion boards about shoes, or something.

    1. Outstanding response on the issue, Brooksie. Thanks for being a consistent voice here.

  26. Except for the genuine Rick Santorum types and anyone with a thick Southern accent, Republicans have been gritting their teeth while saying “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman” for years now. It’s their constant tension. They live in a cosmopolitan town, a very gay town in fact, but know that, thanks to years of tireless effort, their jobs depend on winning to votes of bigoted morons who care mostly about being bigoted morons and seeing their views reflected in media and politics. They’re just waiting around for the peasants to stop caring, and they do seem to have refocused like a laser on the Mexicans. Of course, since the peasants will only accept mass deportation, that isn’t exactly a winning trade.

  27. their jobs depend on winning to votes of bigoted morons who care mostly about being bigoted morons and seeing their views reflected in media and politics.

    But enough about the proggies. Tell me more about how anyone and everyone with a thick Southern accent is a bigot.

    1. Undoubtedly Tony would consider Red Duke a bigoted moron.

  28. Get out of my boat, Tonio.

  29. JESUS CHRIST SO HELP ME I WILL TURN THIS COMMENT BOARD AROUND IF YOU KIDS DON’T STOP FIGHTING.

    1. I’m prairie dogging it back here!

  30. This is, like, the worst. thread. EVAR.

  31. The first resolution, introduced by embattled Michigan national committeeman Dave Agema, would have encouraged “schools that are teaching the homosexual lifestyle in their sexual education class also include the harmful physical aspects of the lifestyle.”

    Isn’t the *whole* *original* premise of sex ed to educate kids about the harmful/risky aspects of *heterosexual* lifestyle?

    As long as Agema isn’t demanding that the lesson include “Jesus will physically damn them to Hell”, doesn’t the CRA and equality already do this or at least support Agema on this? Isn’t this, at most, just (another) issue about redefinition/reinterpretation rather than an actual re-writing of the law?

    1. the harmful physical aspects of the lifestyle.

      Don’t play dumb.

      1. Don’t play dumb.

        Seriously, I’m not. Unless, like I said, he asserts that topics like “Gay sex will cause you to be hit by a bus.” or “Gay sex causes you to contract HIV.” need to be covered, you’re just arguing that teens *should* be educated about *the* risks of heterosexuality and left to their own devices when it comes to any/all risks regarding homosexuality.

        If a democratic national committeeman said that conventional sex ed doesn’t do enough to educate teens among sexual minorities and that more education about the risks should be done, would you be arguing against them?

        Nevermind, I know the answer to that.

        My point is, Shackford cites a failing proposition that isn’t inherently republican or libertarian from an out-of-favor committeeman, that if posed by the other side, would actually be embraced, as being an example of Republicans’ inability to advance *their* anti-gay agenda and abandoning it.

        It’s a non-sequitur wrapped in a tautology wrapped in a non-sequitur. The conventional definition of what you and I would call bagpipes is changing (and needs to be) and all true Scotsmen are giving up playing the bagpipes.

      2. Excepting propaganda for the gay lifestyle (whatever that may be) what would be the purpose of teaching it to predominately heteroxexual kids? Heterosexual education makes sense for informing and warning kids about procreation and even the dangers of unintended procreation. However, the LGBTQ lifestyle(s) is not something that the majority of kids necessarily needs detailed information about. Perhaps some sprinkling of information in Social Studies makes sense, but not in Sex Education because there is no procreation involved.

        1. OK, after reading mad.casual’s post I can imagine that general education about the spread of STDs would require a walkthrough of major sexual preferences and each one’s relationship to the prevention of STDs.

        2. It is impossible to know which members of a 5th grade class are gay and might need such an education, because people don’t often come out that early, even to themselves.

          The guy should just take solace in the fact that you can’t actually turn kids gay.

          1. That child is still only 1% to 3% of the populations–amirite? I don’t get the reason that public schools need to deal with it. Neither do I expect them to do an adequate job.

            I still think the main reason for discussing homosexuality in public schools is to normalize it. They should just admit it.

            1. Why on god’s earth shouldn’t it be normalized? Which other minorities should we pretend don’t exist, even as they likely sit right in front of you in class?

  32. As for the “you have the right to discriminate against gays, but you’re a bigot for doing so,” well I would agree in certain contexts about the bigotry.

    If an auto-parts store owner refuses to serve gays because they’re icky, then that would be bigotry. Selling car parts to gays doesn’t endorse their behavior.

    But a baker who refuses to make a wedding cake for a same-sex union because he holds the the sex-binary definition of marriage which endured for thousands of years? And when the happy couple can always to to a more gay-affirming baker to get their cake? I see not basis, legal *or* moral, to criticize the traditional-marriage-affirming baker.

    1. They most likely never once applied their deeply held beliefs to their business until the gays came along. Those beliefs probably include the notion that two Hindus getting married are going to burn eternally in hellfire, but they serve them and I suspect the bandwagon would be much smaller for the “right to discriminate” movement if that were the issue. If a baker refused to make a wedding cake for an interracial couple, the baker would be vilified in all but the darkest corners of society.

      The very problem is that the idea persists that it’s OK to discriminate against gays because a lot of people have deeply held religious beliefs on the matter. But, duh, religion is the source of many bigotries, and so is hardly a convincing excuse.

      1. They most likely never once applied their deeply held beliefs to their business until the gays came along.

        Which is certainly troubling and exposes them as hypocrites on some level. Whether you can appropriate their labor seems to be a completely different question.

        1. As I’ve said, it’s not that it’s logically inconsistent or anything to say that the right to discriminate trumps the right to be free from discrimination. It’s just picking a side. I pick the side of the customer because even with laws on the books protecting black people from discrimination, they are still economically disadvantaged. I just don’t see any good coming from re-empowering business owners to exclude them from the economy all the more.

          And of course if we’re going to continue preventing discrimination based on race, sex, religion, and disability status, we must include sexual orientation (though some judges have managed to already to cover it under “sex”).

          1. And of course if we’re going to continue preventing discrimination based on race, sex, religion, and disability status, we must include sexual orientation (though some judges have managed to already to cover it under “sex”).

            I agree with that one. Given that the CRA exists, it must cover any sort of permutation of innate characteristics.

            As I’ve said, it’s not that it’s logically inconsistent or anything to say that the right to discriminate trumps the right to be free from discrimination. It’s just picking a side.

            If I dust off my (not often worn) Georgist hat and put it on, I can see this. Land and land derived property is communally owned, so any restriction on who can be a customer is a restriction on their communal ownership of the land.

            Of course, I think that Georgism is ridiculous, but for the first time in a long while, I can see internal consistency in your arguments.

            1. “Given that the CRA exists, it must cover any sort of permutation of innate characteristics.”

              If this is so, what additional protected categories (besides sexual orientation) should be added to the CRA?

              1. Whatever the majority finds offensive to discriminate against. The CRA is just crass majoritarianism, and to somehow become principled about the areas it encompasses seems to just be rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic, IMO. I mean, hell, why shouldn’t left-handed people be protected, and people with freckles, and people with unibrows? Why should they be unprotected? Either it’s ok to force people to associate with other people, or it isnt. Fighting at the margins gets us nowhere philosophically.

                1. why shouldn’t left-handed people be protected, and people with freckles, and people with unibrows?

                  If a history of discrimination against these groups existed, there is no reason they shouldn’t be protected. Notorious GKC is correct to call them categories rather than make the false claim that such individual groups are protected (e.g., handedness would be included in protection, not just left-handed people).

                  And the idea is that nobody is forcing association, as nobody is forced to run a business that opens its doors to the public. This is simply a condition placed on that vocation, as we place conditions on driving or operating an airport.

                  Freedom of association as you describe it is, of course, conditional. You can’t opt not to associate with the cops if you rob someone. You can’t opt not to associate with your children by leaving them on the side of the road. You can’t opt to associate with the president of the united states. It is in fact a collectively focused right–it prevents government from barring you from forming and leaving groups of your choosing, like political parties, unions, or churches. And it’s actually called assembly in the US Constitution.

                  1. nobody is forced to run a business that opens its doors to the public.

                    Why can’t I run a business that opens its doors to only part of the public?

                    This is simply a condition placed on that vocation, as we place conditions on driving or operating an airport.

                    Only if you assume all driving and airport-operating regulations are valid, and even then it still begs the question of what is meant by a “valid” regulation.

            2. Why do you need to go that far? All you have to do is step a short distance away from the line of absolute property rights, which of course are completely indefensible. Then acknowledge that discrimination is a harm against individuals and/or society.

              1. All you have to do is step a short distance away from the line of absolute property rights

                That is Georgism. If there are no absolute property rights, then property is, in some sense, communally owned. That may not be a perfect description, but philosophically it’s the same. You have some claim to the property that I exert possession on.

                1. Not everything that isn’t absolute property rights is Georgism. I’m just talking about plain law and order. You aren’t entitled to assault people on your own property, so if you can agree that discrimination is a similar kind of harm, there’s no problem, except the conflict with the claimed right to be free from being around people you don’t want to (do I get to assert that on the metro?).

          2. And that’s where we have our irreconcilable differences, Tony. We see people as individuals, while you see them as groups to be melded according to your preferences. We don’t see people as a means to an end, no matter how wonderful that end may be.

            1. I’m not sure you even believe this all the way. Do you see property rights as inviolable even if the world may burn? Or do you see property rights as actually a utilitarian means to a society that would be better for human beings than one without them?

              1. Not sure how the world would burn if property rights were actually held by everyone to be inviolable.

                1. What if the only way to save the world from an asteroid is to violate someone’s property rights? What if he’s a psychopathic asshole who refuses to donate his property?

                  1. What if the only way to save the world from an asteroid is to violate someone’s property rights?

                    What if the only way to shit was to stand over the toilet with one finger up your ass while singing Danny Boy to a bathtub full of lesbian midgets?

                    It’s not.

                    I’ll volunteer my property in lieu of the psychopath. But I guess in your eyes, the only way to obtain anything is by force.

                    1. It’s a hypothetical. I set the rules. Only one guy can save us, and he won’t budge. Are property rights violable in that case? Just this once?

                      Or are you really going to pretend that absolute property rights are in any way remotely defensible?

                    2. No, they aren’t violable.

                      Of course that won’t stop someone from violating them. But then, we can figure out the proper punishment for the violator once the asteroid is neutralized.

                      (Never mind the fact that your hypothetical is facially impossible and riddled with the worst sort of idiocy.)

                    3. Horseshit on a stick. Let’s go with a classic: the only way to feed 3 thousand starving babies is to tax some billionaires an amount that is pocket change to them, but which they wouldn’t otherwise donate freely. Their property is so inviolable that the only moral course of action is to let the 3 thousand babies starve.

                      Since this fails on any reasonable moral grounds, property rights can’t be absolute in any remotely moral system.

                    4. Oh, I see. Sometimes babies DO have a right to life.

                      But seriously, they still don’t have a right to his money. I don’t understand what is so hard for you to grasp.

                      (I’m sure you’ll conflate this into some version of I’m a horrible immoral monster that would let 3000 babies starve or something. Which will be rich coming from the immoral shit that would murder people in cold blood, so I’ll just leave now and let you think you’ve won.)

                    5. Yes, they have a right to that money, because otherwise they would starve, and it’s infinitely more morally imperative to prevent their starvation than to keep that money in the billionaires’ pockets. (And taxpayers are gonna be paying for that security anyway! Jesus fuck!) If this is how you see the world, you are a nutcase and don’t deserve to ever be listened to.

                    6. Yes, they have a right to that money, because otherwise they would starve

                      No…

                      …they don’t AND they wouldn’t.

                    7. You don’t get to change the terms of the fucking hypothetical in order to avoid the very question it’s meant to address!

                      You can’t admit to any moral gray area here. It’s fucking unbelievable. You really do care more about being an absolutist than being a sane person.

                      Take this to bed: absolutism is almost never a good idea, and almost always leads to absurdities. Property rights aren’t and can’t be absolute except in some bizarro biodome experiment.

                    8. You don’t get to change the terms of the fucking hypothetical in order to avoid the very question it’s meant to address!

                      The fuck I don’t. Your hypothetical has no basis in reality. It is a false premise, masquerading as fact.

                      a. Those children wouldn’t starve, as people would voluntarily feed them.

                      b. Even if they didn’t, they have no claim to the property of another, regardless of outcome.

                      So

                      No…

                      …they don’t AND they wouldn’t.

                    9. This is totally out of order. I’m saying in this hypothetical those are the two choices. It’s simplistic for a reason, to challenge your premise. You cannot be unaware of how this works.

                      But fine, think of some scenario in which violating property rights would lead to a far greater good. Make it really nasty. Then tell me why it’s better to maintain absolutism.

                      Jesus Christ. “Charity would take care of it.” One of the biggest and lamest of all libertarian cop-outs.

                    10. Jesus Christ. “Charity would take care of it.” One of the biggest and lamest of all libertarian cop-outs.

                      Because people were starving to death prior to government safety nets. You are an idiot.

                    11. THEY WERE AND ARE YOU RIDICULOUS CREATURE.

                    12. Let’s go with a classic: the only way to feed 3 thousand starving babies is to tax some billionaires an amount that is pocket change to them, but which they wouldn’t otherwise donate freely.

                      And this scenario is no less absurd than your original.

                    13. Or I could feed 3000 starving babies by taxing every socialist in this country. That works too. Are you in favor of a tax on Democrats, Tony?

                      AND STOP FISTING KITTENS!!!

      2. “Those beliefs probably include the notion that two Hindus getting married are going to burn eternally in hellfire”

        Do you have a citation for that – which is to say, a citation to people who object to Hindu-on-Hindu marriaes?

        1. Well it’s not the marriage alone that’s going to cause their eternal damnation, but surely the marriage is at least as illegitimate to Yahweh as a Christian gay marriage.

          1. You really don’t know very much about the Abrahamic religions, do you? Unfortunately, too many others are as ignorant as you and will likely accept you naive pontifications. For Yahweh, commitment and maintenance of that commitment is most important–not the philosophy behind a particular style of marriage.

            1. Sounds like the baker is on Yahweh’s shit list, not me.

              1. You’re are likely more correct than you can know.

              2. Don’t know for sure what you’re saying and I don’t really trust you to be honest you haven’t been in some of our past exchanges. Nonetheless, I will explain my position on this.

                I consider myself a Christian even though some Christians would likely reject me if they knew more about my perspectives. From this Christian perspective I fault the bakers and the photographers for failing to “love” others and keep their needs in mind. From this perspective I feel that they should do what is best for others. However, the Christian perspective is not the only one with which I view the world.

                Another perspective is the Classical Liberal one in which I see the bakers and photographers doing whatever the fuck they want and choosing to reject customers at will.

                The first standard I keep for myself, while I apply the second one to others.

    2. So thinking gays are icky makes you a bigot but doing the exact same thing to them based upon the “word” of your imaginary friend makes it okay? Is that what you just said?

      You are simply using your religion to justify your bigotry.

      1. Bigotry is based on intention. I can deny services to you because I think you’re an icky black, or because you’re not giving me enough money. It both ends the same way.. you’re not getting services from me.

        What is the intention of somebody who denies gays service in their restaurant? I would say it’s “icky gay” bigotry.

        What is the intention of somebody who won’t make SSM wedding cakes? Could it possibly be that they don’t really find gays icky, and would happy bake them a birthday cake, but that they possibly, just possibly, only have a moral inability to make SSM wedding cakes?

        1. What is the intention of somebody who won’t make SSM wedding cakes? Could it possibly be that they don’t really find gays icky, and would happy bake them a birthday cake, but that they possibly, just possibly, only have a moral inability to make SSM wedding cakes?

          Moral? Moral?

          HAHAHAHAHAHA! Good one. *wipes tear of laughter from eye*

          Look. You have every right to deny service to whomever you want, for any reason you want. And that is absolutely legitimate. I’m on your side.

          But if you do it based upon race, color creed…sexual orientation, you are a fucking bigot. You have every right in the world to be a bigot. And I have every right in the world to not do business with a bigot (which I won’t).

          But don’t stand there and tell me that justifying your bigotry based on an invisible man has more credibility than justifying it with the “icky” excuse.

          1. But don’t stand there and tell me that justifying your bigotry based on an invisible man has more credibility than justifying it with the “icky” excuse.

            Ah, i see. Bigotry, to you, means “doing something I don’t like.”

            It’s the grown-up version of the 2-year-old yelling “you hate me, mommy!!!” because the 2-year-old doesn’t get to eat cake before dinner. The only difference is that these 2-year-olds have appealed to daddy to force mommy to give them cake. But you’re right, mommy is the bad guy because the 2-year-old can’t comprehend spoiling their dinner.

            1. No, I pretty much go with the standard definition:

              big?ot?ry ?bi??tr?
              noun
              noun bigotry plural noun bigotries
              intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

              Funny thing is, people who think they can’t be bigots just because their intolerance is based is based upon their religion.

              1. How is refusing to offer one type of service but not the other in any way bigotry?

                1. *service to the same person

                  (stupid no edit button)

              2. big?ot?ry ?bi??tr?
                noun
                noun bigotry plural noun bigotries
                intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

                And I have every right in the world to not do business with a bigot (which I won’t).

                Ima let your self-awareness kick in on this one.

                Your incessant use of “bigot” as a slur against Christians betrays your own bigotry and hypocrisy. Don’t get me wrong,

                “You have every right to deny service to avoid conducting business with whomever you want, for any reason you want. And that is absolutely legitimate. I’m on your side.

                But if you do it based upon race, color creed…sexual orientation religion, you are a fucking bigot.”

                1. Not punishing you for your religion, punishing you for your actions. You don’t want to sell a gay couple a cake, fine, that’s your prerogative. But I still think you are an asshole for it and I prefer my money go to cake makers who aren’t assholes. Get over it.

                  You want to call me a bigot for thinking you’re an asshole? Fine. I’ll admit it. I’m a bigot for not doing business with assholes. You don’t need to frequent my store either.

                  Just don’t tell me you aren’t a bigot because god said it was okay.

                  This thread started with Eddie claiming it was bigotry to not do business with gays because they are icky but not bigotry for not doing business with gays because of god. Clearly, horseshit on multiple levels.

                  1. F d’A, you ignorant slut, I didn’t mention God.

                    I *did* mention Christians, Jains, Buddhists, Confucians and atheists.

                    Guess what they all had in common until a couple decades ago?

                    Yes, they held to the sex-binary definition of marriage.

                    I would *love* for Christians, or even theists in general, to take credit for this marvellous and essential development of humanity – the sex-binary definition – but I’m afraid I must acknowledge that we simply use the same sex-binary concept that all these other folks do. We weren’t being original – we can’t claim the credit for erecting this essential pillar of civilization.

      2. Ah, F d’A, long time no see.

        I sure hope you haven’t been stalking anyone else, because that would make me jealous. I’m old-fashioned – stalking multiple people is like adultery as far as I’m concerned.

        Anyway, now that you’re back to your old stand – in my bushes with your binoculars – maybe you could explain why it is that the sex-binary definition of marriage has been held not only by Christians, Jews and Muslims (those mean monotheists) but by Hindus, Jains, Confucians, Buddhists, animists, atheists, and Cubs fans – for thousands of years until the unique wisdom of the past two or three decades superseded everything which had come before.

        1. Tradition is no defense of current wrongdoing. It is a plausible excuse for why some people can’t quite bring themselves to be decent people.

          1. Well, as much as I try, I guess I can’t achieve your level of decency.

        2. Because everyone else does, is a perfectly rational argument for defending the point that unquestioning adherence to the law of an invisible man makes you less of a bigot than thinking homosexuality is icky.

          Once again Eddie..your logic astounds.

  33. Well, that was stupid.

    1. C’mon, Zeb, wasn’t that fun?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.