Gay/Lesbian Issues

Well, Ted Cruz Is Consistent: He Thinks Gays Should Be Able to Turn Christians Away

Not that anything would actually come of such beliefs.

|

Some of the pushback I get when I argue against expanding public accommodation laws to cover sexual orientation and even scaling back the laws that we already have to allow for more individual liberty in commerce is that the religious conservative opponents will continue to benefit from the law that they refuse to expand. That is to say, despite my wishes and probably the wishes of many libertarians, protections against discrimination on the basis of religion are not going to be wiped from the books. Regardless of whether sexual orientation or gender identity are added to federal discrimination laws, it will remain a violation in several different ways for gay people to discriminate against evangelical Christians, for example.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is now getting some attention on the campaign trail for making the libertarian argument on the matter: He thinks gay florists should be able to refuse to provide flowers to Christians on the basis of their deeply held beliefs.

This all first came up last week when recently out actor Ellen Page showed up at a Ted Cruz barbecue in Iowa to confront him on his conservatism on gay issues. In his defense of religious liberty he argues that Christian business owners should not be required to host or provide goods for same-sex marriages, and that the reverse is true: "Nobody has the right to force someone else to abandon their faith or their conscience. Imagine, hypothetically, if you had a gay florist. And imagine that two evangelical Christians wanted to get married and the gay florist decided, 'You know what? I disagree with your faith. I don't want to provide flowers.'" After Page says the gay florists should provide the flowers, he responded, "And I would say the gay florist has every right to say 'If I disagree with your faith and don't want to participate … then you know what? There's lots of other people you can buy flowers from.'"

The Cruz vs. Page exchange hit the triumvirate of gay, political, and celebrity blogs and outlets last week. It's not clear, though, that people actually watched the exchange because Cruz talked about the same attitude in a subsequent interview with NewsmaxTV and it's making the rounds in gay and civil liberties blogs as though this a new thing. Watch the interview below:

Now, as consistent as Cruz's beliefs are here, it does not seem to come with any sort of policy recommendation that would follow suit. On the federal level, he would have to strip religion from the public accommodations section Civil Rights Act of 1964. But states have their own much broader public accommodation laws anyway, and he would be unlikely to be able to do much about them as president.

In fact, after reading some of the responses to Cruz's comments on other blogs and sites, I feel the need to get a little pedantic and correct some misunderstandings. Under federal law, florists can turn away customers for whatever bigoted reasons they want (except for disabilities, actually!). Florists are not considered a public accommodation under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It would not be "a federal crime," as this writer at The New Civil Rights Movement seems to believe. And it would certainly not be a violation of the Constitution, which seems to be what this writer at gay blog NewNowNext is saying.

It would instead be a violation of state public accommodation laws, which is why all of these lawsuits are happening on the state level. It's not just because sexual orientation is not currently included in the federal law. The federal list of public accommodations is very restrictive, covering restaurants or places that serve food, hotels, entertainment venues, and gas stations. Take a look at the Department of Justice's list of complaints for violations of federal public accommodation laws, and note that they're primarily against restaurants, hotels, and clubs.

The newly introduced Equality Act, in addition to adding sexual orientation and gender identity to existing federal discrimination laws, would drastically increase the federal definition of public accommodations to include florists and pretty much every other consumer business or service in the country.

In any event, Cruz's extension of his argument is probably not likely to be treated seriously among gay voters. That might be because at the same time he's calling for consistency in allowing businesses in letting their conscience dictate practices, he is one of only four Republican presidential candidates (Ben Carson, Rick Santorum, and Bobby Jindal being the others) to sign the National Organization for Marriage's pledge to support, among other things, a constitutional amendment that "protects marriage as the union of one man and one woman." That's not religious liberty, Cruz. 

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.

229 responses to “Well, Ted Cruz Is Consistent: He Thinks Gays Should Be Able to Turn Christians Away

  1. Right, like there would ever be a gay florist.

    1. Imagine , hypothetically, if you had a gay florist.

      Emphasis added.

      “Consider a spherical cow.”

        1. If there’s a newsletter, I should like to subscribe.

  2. Principles trumping principals? That’s a new one.

    1. Enough Trump!

      1. #gobacktounivision

        1. —?Que?—

          1. You’re doing it wrong. You’re supposed to interrupt while I’m trying to answer questions from other people and grandstand and not shut up because you believe that journalism is about advancing your agenda. And then when I tell you I’ll get to you, you continue to violate every rule of basic decorum and prioritize yourself above your peers in the profession. Then after I kick you out to let you cool off, you can come back in and make a five minute “brave” monologue and think that somehow equates to journalism.

            1. —?Que?—

            2. Journalistic ethics and traditional practices are for stuffy old white conservatives with their hour-long discussion forums and stodgy questionnaires and reedy, patient old people voices.

  3. I’ll continue to turn Ted Cruz away because he’s an asshole and bible beating fanatic.

    1. The Art of the Deal was a far more influential book on my life.

    2. I am an atheist and I don’t have a problem Ted Cruz’s religiosity I’d prefer he didn’t wear that on his sleeve though. The most religious president we’d had in my lifetime is Jimmy Carter (D-Georgia) , and by a long-shot.

      1. He still teaches bible stuff to this day!

      2. And god bless him. He seems to be an anomaly though. My American history knowledge is lackluster. Is there another president even close to him on the limits of the bell curve?

      3. I don’t think even Carter would have been mean-spirited enough to amend the Constitution to define marriage.

        1. I don’t think you got the memo, the mid-2000s never happened. I learned that from commenters here.

          Nobody ever ran with a major plank being a constitutional amendment to protect marriage and nobody ever will.

    3. I’ll continue to turn him away because he looks like a clown. I don’t want to have a beer with a clown.

      1. You object to The Beers of a Clown?

        1. Not cool, bro.

        2. *narrows gaze*

          You people are really wearing me out…

          1. I hope you’re moisturizing. You’ll get crows feet with all the gaze narrowing you’re doing.

            1. I’m pretty sure this is a webcam shot of Switzy while he reads H&R.

              1. Not full Eastwood! It may be too late for moisturizing.

      2. Not even Homey? It might break his parole, though.

        1. Homey don’t play that…

      3. His face appears to be melting. I think he looked into the Ark.

  4. I expected that NOM pledge link to send me back in time to when DOMA was a thing that delusional SoCons thought was actually going to happen, but the press release came out only a couple of days ago. Talk about fighting the last war.

    1. You were just disappointed it didn’t take you to the North American Man Boy Love Association.

  5. This is a boring post! C’mon REASON, keep me entertained!

  6. This may be the first good thing I’ve ever heard about Ted Cruz.

    1. Well, he also gets an “A+” from GOA. So, two good things, I guess.

      1. The Indian party town?

    2. Cruz was very impressive when he spoke during Rand Paul’s drone filibuster.

      1. You think? I thought he was kinda lame then actually. Not terrible, just blah.

        1. Quoting Shakespear? I thought that was pretty classy! Far better than Rubio and references to “The Godfather”

          1. Rubio came across as a drool case. It was very disappointing as I kinda like him at the time.

  7. Someday in the far future prostitution will be legally and we’ll have a lawsuit under public accommodation.

    1. Screw that, if there were real social justice, prostitution would never occur, because it would be illegal for attractive people to keep their nether regions reserved for each other alone. They’d be free to screw as they wished, of course, but only after they’d done their duty to society.

  8. OT: Sally Kohn ?@sallykohn 1h1 hour ago

    was mentally unstable AND appears to acted out of sense of victimization i have no reason to believe not justified

    1. She goes on to say that she meant that she was sticking up for the black community because when black people are involved in shootings the entire black community is attacked but it doesn’t happen when whites shoot someone. It’s.. amazing.

      1. She’s apparently blind to the whole Zimmerman debacle.

        1. The one where the “white Hispanic” acted in justifiable self-defense, and the media hordes and race hustlers were screaming “racist” and howling for his blood? Where the guy who assaulted Zimmerman looked like Obama’s son? That one? It’s understandable she would be unaware of such a minor matter.

          1. That was many years and many incidents ago.

      2. Funny, it seems to me that when blacks get shot, angry black men murder innocent whites on live TV and claim it’s in revenge for the black killings. Or they burn down innocent white and minority businesses. Or they trash neighborhoods. Or riot. Or….

        1. I’m pretty sure pointing that out is racist.

    2. You know the running contest between Eric Liu and Dean Obeidallah as to which one is the biggest prick in America? Sally Kohn is not in the contest only due to the fact that she plays in the Majors and wouldn’t deign to move down to the Minors.

    3. The victims had it coming, because WHITEY!!11!!!

      Yet this shit is somehow not ostracized out of polite society.

  9. Yes Egypt a VAT is just what you need to amp up your economy.

    In a recent statement, the Egyptian Minister of Finance announced that the legislation introducing a VAT system might be published in early 2015 (January or February). The proposed time of implementation would be at around the middle of the year to allow taxpayers to prepare their accounts, software and systems to apply the new tax.
    In contrast to the current Sales Tax, the main features of the new VAT are likely to be:

    Applicable to all goods and all services instead of just a few services;
    Deduction of input VAT from output VAT;
    Increased registration threshold (EGP 500k or EGP 1 Million – approx. USD 70,000 or USD 140,000 respectively);
    The reverse charge will be applied;
    Arms length rule for related party transactions;
    Permanent Establishment and the concept of resident / non-resident will be considered;
    Fiscal representation for non-residents;
    Increased penalties and fines for tax evasion.

  10. And gay people should be able to turn straight people away, too.

    1. Anyone should be able to turn anyone away. And in a sane world it wouldn’t be controversial.

      1. The ironic thing is that every time I’ve told a gay man to turn around, not only has it not been controversial, it’s been embraced with a grateful smile and enthusiastic anticipation.

        1. sick, but very funny

    2. Or anyone should be able to turn anyone away for any reason. No shirt, no shoes, no melanin, no fabulous grindr profile, whatever.

      1. Do we keep this policy even if it results in systematic discrimination against particular groups such that they are meaningfully restricted in the participation of the commerce of their community? Is there ever a level of de facto segregation that goes so far that anti-discrimination law becomes necessary?

        1. If you can show this happens outside if your head sure. But it hasn’t.

          1. Um, the United States, particularly the South, pre-1964.

            1. Where government policy forced segregation? And black owned enterprise to serve local communities thrived?

              1. Re: Sudden,

                The lack of self-awareness of Tony the Marxian is legendary. He keeps harking back to Jim Crow laws when it is his kind ? the Marxians ? who limit access to trade and commerce through finance regulations or licensing, zoning, and environmental laws. He’s a total hypocrite and has always been. He’s a Marxian, to put it more succinctly.

              2. Yes, it was pervasive because the government required it and enforced it. Solely to protect the racist businesses from competition from non-racist businesses.

                1. This sleight-of-bullshit is basically an admission that you don’t have a good answer. WTF do you think you mean when you say business owners should have the right to discriminate? Doesn’t it mean government will enforce that right? That it will drag customers they don’t like from their establishments?

                  1. Systematic discrimination? Against gays buying shit?

                    Tony, for every florist or baker who tells a gay couple to pound sand, there are ten who are depserate for any customer.

                    You are picking a very stupid hill to die on.

                    Howver, yes. If someone is so odious that they can’t find anybody to do business with them, then it sucks to be them.

                    But, even Fred Phelps family seems to have no trouble buying food and traveling across the country. And they are likely the most reviled people in America.

                    So the hypothetical you bring up is pretty unlikely.

                    1. It’s not a stupid hill, and he’s not dying on it today. He has the backing a fairly sympathetic audience outside libertarian circles. It’s easy to drum up paroxysms of vapid passion over the question of overtly religious business owners abiding by their consciences, and nearly impossible to inspire even a scintilla of support for actual tolerance.

                    2. A stupid thing doesn’t stop being stupid because it’s popular.

                      It’s a stupid hill because it’s easily rebutted.

                  2. WTF do you think you mean when you say business owners should have the right to discriminate? Doesn’t it mean government will enforce that right? That it will drag customers they don’t like from their establishments?

                    That is the ultimate form of enforcement, yes. Although it will rarely get that far. Most people have a feel for when they are unwelcome, most of the rest can take a hint, and most of those still remaining know to leave when told explicitly. The few who insist on ignoring all of those warnings are trespassers; if the property owner is unwilling or unable to remove them peacefully, then the cops will do it forcefully. The same as would happen to someone who overstayed their welcome in your home.

                    1. tony doesn’t understand how not-prohibiting a business from hanging a No Tonys sign is different from a legislative prohibition on serving Tonys in any establishment serving decent people.

        2. Re: Tony the Marxian,

          Do we keep this policy even if it results in systematic discrimination against particular groups

          Or even if doesn’t mean systematic discrimination against particular groups.

          […] that they are meaningfully restricted in the participation of the commerce of their community?

          You mean like we have right now with licensing and zoning laws? You know, those thigs the Marxians love?

          You’re a total hypocrite.

          1. Tony may not actually realize he is a hypocrite, he is just that stupid.

          2. You’re changing the subject. When have I ever expressed an opinion on zoning laws?

            1. Re: Tony the Marxian,

              When have I ever expressed an opinion on zoning laws?

              Your main preoccupation: “systematic discrimination against particular groups” is exactly what zoning laws, licensing laws, rules and regulations achieve. Whenever Marxians like yourself impose zoning restrictions and things like minimum wage laws, it is the ethnic poor who suffer the consequences in a greater measure than other groups, precisely because the Marxians (like yourself) create these barriers to entry which are even more egregious and cruel than having segregated lunch counters.

              1. O.M., you realize you’re basically trying to explain calculus to a cat, right?

                1. ^ made my day, I thought herding cats was hard. I have new saying.

                2. Hey, Pal, Schrodinger’s Cat knows quantum physics!!!!!!

                  1. Schrodinger’s Cat was placed in a box and poisoned. So, no.

                    1. Schr?dinger’s cat learned about zoning the hard way!

                3. Re: WTF,

                  I’ve been aware for a long time that he’s shifty and dishonest. A Marxian, to put it more succinctly.

                4. THIS.
                  made me giggle.

        3. Do we keep this policy even if it results in systematic discrimination against particular groups such that they are meaningfully restricted in the participation of the commerce of their community?

          Yes, we do.

        4. yes you keep it
          no there isn’t

          You see, you can’t justify violating one innocent person’s rights, justified by the expectation someone else’s rights may be violated by a third party. That is what you advocate.

          If you believe you can do that, you undermine the entire concept of INDIVIDUAL rights in service of COLLECTIVE rights. If you are classical liberal, or a libertarian, the allegiance to INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS is a basic principle.

          Webster 2001
          PRINCIPLE
          a fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption
          a rule, or code of conduct

  11. I bet Ted Cruz’s head would explode if he considered that you can be both Christian AND gay.

    1. Those sad eyes are not very presidential. He looks like a puppy.

      1. Puppies are cute.

        1. Not when they’re negotiating with Putin. For that I want a full grown rottweiler.

          1. What sort of pooch was Kerry?

          2. Cruz is plenty tough enough. He has lit up some witnesses in hearings, and is just not the kind of weak-kneed pansy that we currently have a surfeit of.

      2. This explains to some extent the popularity of Trump. The right in particular has spent the last 7 years envying the Russians for having a head of state in Putin who has steely eyes that reveal a certain swagger and determination, even if they detest his policies (while not all do obviously). The entire GOP field right now is full of soft Boehner clones that have no fire or righteous anger in their eyes. Then Trump comes along and has the look of a man who gives zero fucks about other people.

        TL;DR: Sometimes being an asshole is an admirable quality. It’s the reason I can’t hate Epi for example.

        1. Funny we both thought of Putin:)

      3. Such a man as all the world. Why, he’s a man of wax.

    2. you can be both Christian AND gay

      And not a Catholic priest.

      An awful lot of people of various political stripes seem to believe that all Christians are right wingers and all leftists and homos are atheists. Which has not been my experience at all. Huge swaths of Christianity are very leftist on economics at least. And American mainline protestants are quite gay friendly as well.

      1. The single worst and most predictable Prog in my Facebook feed is a pastor. And then there’s the pope…

    3. No it probably wouldn’t.

      Christians that I know, understand that sin is associated with what you do, not what you are tempted by. Even Christ was tempted by Satan.

      Sin is to be avoided, and repented when as human to fall short.

      So, being Gay is not a sin, and certain does not preclude being a Christian. Living a Gay lifestyle is considered sinful, to be avoided, and repented.

      Sinner belong in the church.

      BUT, things come off the rails when Gays demand that the lifestyle is normal, healthy, and not sinful. The demand that Christians agree with them on this, and welcome them into the leadership of churches seems to be where the major breakdown takes place.

      I am always curious why Gays don’t start their own denominations with their own doctrines and interpretations of the Bible rather than demand that every other denomination bend to their will. Denominations have certainly split off for far less.

      Being a little flippant, I would certainly defend them every which way in buying an old church building and opening it up as “First Church of the Christian Fudgepackers” (reformed) or whatever they want to call it. (got your attention with that line didn’t I? LOL)

      To paraphrase, “Can’t we all just leave each other alone?”

      1. There are already plenty of Christian denominations that are quite open to gayness. No need to start new denominations.

        I’m all for just leaving people alone. But if someone tells me that my non-harmful-to-anyone lifestyle is sinful, I’m going to think they are assholes and if they are obnoxious about it, I’m going to tell them so.

      2. I am always curious why Gays don’t start their own denominations with their own doctrines and interpretations of the Bible rather than demand that every other denomination bend to their will. Denominations have certainly split off for far less.

        The MCC has been around since, I believe the ’60s. A conservative evangelical friend of mine had to spend time in different congregations during her seminary training (she eventually ended her stint in seminary when she and her husband got pregnant and now does lay ministry), but she recounts her time in the MCC as being doctrinally difficult, but being the only congregation where she felt the love of Christ was practiced whole-heartedly.

        Also, you’re understanding of the history of homosexual acceptance in the church is seriously lacking. It generally has not been external pressure from gays that has wrought changes within mainline denominations, but internal pressure. Ministers were some of the first people to call out for decriminalization of homosexual behavior in NY and other major cities when they first saw how aggressively vice cops were pursuing entrapment, and many of the more liberal church traditions believe that it’s more important to have people accept Christ than to go after homosexual behavior. These denominations ended up with attendance by gays who were hungry for spiritual guidance and some of them rose to the top.

        1. Indeed. I’m not aware of any actual gay people who regularly go to my parents’ church, but the congregation was incredibly gay-friendly from the 80s, at least. It would be decades before I saw a single out gay person there.

  12. On the federal level, he would have to strip religion from the public accommodations section Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    Your mask is slipping Scott; at least the assumption that scaling back what’s covered under public accommodations for everyone equally isn’t even considerable speaks *volumes*.

    1. What are you talking about? He says that would have to be done at the state level. The federal regulations are already narrower.

      1. Yep, sure, couldn’t possibly be narrowed any further Nikki. The only possible solution would be to remove Religion, which would really just be a token gesture considering religion’s specific protections elsewhere in the Constitution.

        The law was written with a specific public need and a debt owed by businesses to the public at large in mind. The debt has long been paid and the need of individuals today is vastly further reaching and less dire than it was when the laws were written and enacted. Rewriting it with considerations of the individual’s ability to access said businesses would be completely unthinkable and too complex.

        Just like redefining marriage to include same sex couples.

        1. What “scaling down” seems more likely to you than removing religion? Repealing the entire CRA? Removing the categories of restaurants and hotels?

          None of this has fuck all to do with the First Amendment, since that doesn’t prevent private actors from discriminating on the basis of religion. So it’s not clear why you would think “repealing the whole Act” would somehow be easier or more likely than removing religion from it.

          1. What “scaling down” seems more likely to you than removing religion? Repealing the entire CRA? Removing the categories of restaurants and hotels?

            So, when picking from unlikely scenarios for changing a law meant to address everyone equally, the one that selectively targets one group is *the* logical scenario? No other scenarios, even though they’re all absurdly remote, will even be considered?

            Yes remove the categories (WTF is entertainment venue doing on there?)! Yes stipulate the way the categories can be invoked (Catering != restaurant)! Yes stipulate some sort of clear delineation about how much debt a business owner owes to public accommodation de facto!

            I mean, if we’re pulling shit out of our asses, why are we only allowed to pull out the shit that can pass through Shackford’s bias filter?

            1. So, when picking from unlikely scenarios for changing a law meant to address everyone equally, the one that selectively targets one group is *the* logical scenario?

              I’m sorry, I insanely thought this was a post about how people should be allowed to discriminate against Christians, because that’s what Ted Cruz talked about.

              1. I’m sorry, I insanely thought this was a post about how people should be allowed to discriminate against Christians, because that’s what Ted Cruz talked about.

                Apology accepted. Cruz pretty clearly brings up discrimination against Christians was an imaginary hypothetical conjured up to support the notion “Nobody has the right to force someone else to abandon their faith or their conscience.”

          2. None of this has fuck all to do with the First Amendment, since that doesn’t prevent private actors from discriminating on the basis of religion.

            Actually, public accommodation laws are themselves violations of the First Amendment.

      2. Scott goes out of his way to explain the pedantry of how florists aren’t covered by the federal CRA and ignores all the pedantry that would be invoked by the absurd idea of stripping religion from the CRA.

        Ignoring the pedantry and making the recommendation he did is like saying; “They didn’t have Google, Yelp, Uber, Takeout Taxi, and AirBnB in mind when the law was written, we can’t possible come up with an anonymous legal proxy or basal concept of how these businesses might affect the CRA, so the only reasonable way to accommodate Cruz’ absurd suggestion would be to strip religion from the CRA.”

        1. and ignores all the pedantry that would be invoked by the absurd idea of stripping religion from the CRA.

          What on earth are you talking about? Why would it be “absurd” to allow private discrimination on the basis of religion?

          1. WHYCOME NOT FAGS LAW????

          2. What on earth are you talking about? Why would it be “absurd” to allow private discrimination on the basis of religion?

            I didn’t say it would be absurd to allow private discrimination on the basis of religion (assuming private discrimination on the basis of religion isn’t, intrinsically, an absurdity). I said the idea of effectively repealing it would be absurd. The idea of repealing it for everyone, equally is absurd.

            At the very least, it’s as absurd as repealing the CRA in it’s entirety.

            1. Which is…exactly what Scott was arguing…

              1. I must’ve missed the part where he called for the repeal of the CRA or Public Accommodations as a whole.

                I hear Scott whining that he approaches conservatives and Christians and has trouble convincing them that religion needs to be stripped from the CRA. Duh.

                1. I hear Scott whining that he approaches conservatives and Christians and has trouble convincing them that religion needs to be stripped from the CRA.

                  The Shackford in your head sounds like a little bitch. I’m glad that’s not the Shackford on the page, at all.

                2. I hear Scott whining that he approaches conservatives and Christians and has trouble convincing them that religion needs to be stripped from the CRA. Duh.

                  Weird, what post is that from?

            2. Sorry, I’m reading this exchange and I have no idea what you’re harping on Shackford for.

              Cruz said:

              “And I would say the gay florist has every right to say ‘If I disagree with your faith and don’t want to participate ? then you know what? There’s lots of other people you can buy flowers from.'”

              He explains florists aren’t actually covered under the CRA, but that for Cruz’s statement to work generally religion would have to not be covered, because venues that are covered by the CRA would be in violation of Federal law if they turned away a couple for their religious beliefs.

              Scott isn’t making a policy proposal he’s stating facts about how Federal law would work in this scenario.

              1. Scott isn’t making a policy proposal he’s stating facts about how Federal law would work in this scenario.

                Aside from not-at-all, because florists. And, rather pointedly, ignoring the part of Cruz’ statement that says “There’s lots of other people you can buy flowers from.

                Let’s skip all the useful and relevant stuff Cruz has to say and focus on the irrelevantly hypothetical and unactionable points that advance a popular agenda, this is Reason, right?

                1. Why is it relevant that there are lots of other people you can buy flowers from, if you can sue under state law for being refused service?

                  The only interesting thing here is that Cruz thinks people should be allowed to discriminate against Christians. They’re not allowed to, and Cruz won’t be able to make that happen, but apparently that’s irrelevant. Right.

                  1. Why is it relevant that there are lots of other people you can buy flowers from, if you can sue under state law for being refused service?

                    FFS there are lots of other businesses that are more than willing to accommodate you. State law *and even the Federal Law for the specific categories* ignore this in favor of blanket enforcement of equality.

                    The only interesting thing here is that Cruz thinks people should be allowed to discriminate against Christians. They’re not allowed to, and Cruz won’t be able to make that happen, but apparently that’s irrelevant. Right.

                    So, the hypothetical part that was made up on the spot that we all acknowledge has nothing to do with the presidency is *the* interesting part?

                    I can agree that it’s interesting if we’re only looking at twisted notions of

                2. Jesus. Florists are a stand-in for consumer interaction in general. Scott makes it clear that in the specific case of florists it is not-at all in the paragraph after the one you’re whining about. I made it clear in my post.

                  Let’s skip all the useful and relevant stuff Cruz has to say and focus on the irrelevantly hypothetical and unactionable points that advance a popular agenda, this is Reason, right?

                  You’re literally doing the exact thing you’re complaining about Shackford doing, you are aware of that, right? You’re being a whiny little cunt about a small a sentence, which you willfully misinterpreted, in a 9 paragraph op-ed column…

                3. I don’t get it. Which isn’t that unusual, I haven’t understood this particular gripe since you started it.

                  Anyway, I’m for a full repeal of the CRA. Who’s with me?

                  1. I’m for a full repeal of the CRA

                    I’m down. We should probably take out the ADA and state level public accommodation laws while we’re at it though. Pull it all out by the root.

                    1. Goddammit, Jesse. Put on your high heels and your headdress and burn down a church or something. Act like you’re supposed to.

                    2. Put on your high heels and your headdress and burn down a church or something..

                      I’m not getting the Robespierre connection, Warty…

                    3. GIIIIIIIIIIIIRRRRRRRRRONNNNNNNNNNNNDINNNNNNNNNNSSS

                    4. I’m not sure what you have against dentists… wait, nevermind.

                      Pulling up by the root, yes, good.

                  2. Anyway, I’m for a full repeal of the CRA. Who’s with me?

                    Do we start and end with a full repeal and nothing less or do we proceed piecemeal and pick and choose who’s going to lose privileges first and when and where, short of full repeal, we stop?

                    ‘cuz, no matter how genuine many around here says they are about the former, there’s plenty of reason to believe they really mean the latter.

                    1. Moreover, even if they are 1000000% genuine about full repeal, history has shown that they will align with and then be subsumed by people who only want to cream their political opponents, take a shit on the Constitution and large parts of the political process, blow any notion of equality under the law (more) to hell, and move on to the next SJW cause.

                    2. History has also shown that you like to box with imaginary versions of people you don’t like instead of what they actually say and generally have sub-par reading comprehension skills, so I don’t know that people should take your interpretation of other people’s secret SJW impulses too seriously.

                    3. Soooo… Did you take lessons from John in knowing what people REALLY think regardless of what they say?

                      (not you, jesse)

  13. Most people don”t get freedom of association even when they support freedom of speech. Conceptually they’re not all that different. Some people are going to use their freedom to be an asshole. People are willing to allow others the freedom to be assholes with their speech because they want to have the right to be the asshole when the time comes. Freedom of association isn’t that much different. We have more power today than ever before to punish assholes without the use of government force. I would not support a business that discriminates.

    1. Freedom of “association” is not what the constitution protects. It protects the right to associate in groups, i.e., to assemble. It prevents government from banning you from joining the groups (churches, unions, etc.) of your choosing. The right to be free from interacting with certain types of people you don’t like is not what this means, and is not a plausibly enforceable right.

      Which is why the anti- position is more coherently expressed as a part of property rights. What you’re allowed to do on your own property is the issue. If you run a business, a state telling you not to discriminate is not really different from it telling you not to sell spoiled food to customers. Maybe you think that should be a right too, but this isn’t really about association.

      1. Re: Tony the Marxian,

        Freedom of “association” is not what the constitution protects.

        Irrelevant and, besides, not even factual. Even without the 1st Amendment, freedom of association is implicit in our freedom to choose.

        It protects the right to associate in groups, i.e., to assemble.

        Irrelevant, Tony the Marxian. Assembling in groups and associating with someone is the same thing. One does not assemble with people one doesn’t want to associate with, so to make a distinction is meaningless.

        The right to be free from interacting with certain types of people you don’t like is not what this means

        Again, irrelevant. The Constitution is not a grantor of rights, but a guarantor.

        Did you learn logic from a cereal box?

        1. So you’re asserting the existence of a “natural right”–how far does it extend? Do I get to call the cops to remove obnoxious people from the street I’m walking down? I don’t want to associate with them, after all. I’m not terribly fond of my next-door neighbor. Can I get rid of him, and how?

          1. Did you learn logic from a cereal box?

            ^Evidently even less rigorous than that.

          2. Re: Tony the Marxian,

            So you’re asserting the existence of a “natural right”–how far does it extend?

            To each individual. Who else steps on this good Earth except individuals?

            Do I get to call the cops to remove obnoxious people from the street I’m walking down?

            You can do anything you want. So do the cops, by the way.

            I don’t want to associate with them

            Stop equivocating. You sound more the fool than what you wish to present yourself. Associating with someone means voluntarily seeking an association with someone else who wants to do the same thing. It is no different than trading ? both parties seek the association. Just because there are people on the street does not mean you’re associating with them. I can’t even fathom why would you think you can get away with that fallacy.

            1. He’s a Democrat. They haven’t changed very much from the time they crafted laws to stick blacks in ghettos and gays in jail.

            2. I’d expect you more than most would be comfortable framing it only as a property-rights issue. I think “association” is problematic for the reasons I’ve given. So you have an implied right to disassociate with people, but that practically can only go so far. If you have a business that’s open to the public, tensions in the right can arise on association-grounds alone (but not absolute property rights–in which case the owners get the government goons on their side).

              1. Re: Tony the Marxian,

                I’d expect you more than most would be comfortable framing it only as a property-rights issue.

                The conversation started with freedom of association.

                I think “association” is problematic for the reasons I’ve given.

                You didn’t give a single valid reason. You merely asserted the immorality of exclusion (i.e. discrimination). That’s not a reason to abridge a person’s right to refuse to engage in commerce.

                So you have an implied right to disassociate with people, but that practically can only go so far.

                Of course it can go “so far” if what you pretend is to make people disappear from your own sight. You don’t have that right. However, you HAVE the right to refuse to associate. You HAVE the right to CHOOSE. I don’t get your befuddlement.

                If you have a business that’s open to the public[…]

                You can’t open a business to the public. You can’t. It’s impossible. You open a business to paying customers, not “the public”. Also, stop equivocating: opening a business is not the same as giving away property. Not even Marx talked in those terms.

              2. Ah, Tony,.

                Freedom of association is really pretty simple. You have the choice who you associate with, and my implication, who you do not associate with.

                The only place where it does not apply is with government, since as the only true natural monopoly, everyone is compelled to associate. Because of this, all the original movements (like repealing Jim Crow) were directed at government sponsored or executed discrimination.

                Even anti-discrimination leaders such as Martin Luther King, Jr. were only intererested in eliminating government sponsored and compelled discrimination. MLK Jr. wanted to personally discriminate on who he did business with, or who he when to church with, or who he spent is private time with.

          3. Tony – I don’t understand how you’re conflating not associating with “getting rid of someone.” You mean forcibly expel him from his property when he hasn’t harmed you? No, you can’t/shouldn’t do that. I don’t see how this is an indictment on natural rights or free association.

            1. Re: Trevor,

              You mean forcibly expel him from his property when he hasn’t harmed you?

              Tony is merely engaging in creating strawmans. When one talks about choosing not to associate, he immediately takes this and changes the meaning to say “getting the persons out of my sight” because he thinks in collectivist terms. If a person cannot be insular then that person cannot be an individual. That person’s life must be intimately intertwined with the other individuals in a group like cells in a body. That is his thinking. That is why he thinks in terms of collective rights.

              Of course the notion is idiotic. We’re not cells in a body; we’re not Borg. Each of us is an individual with the capability of choosing according to our self-interest. Each of us has his or her own mind. That entails there is NO such thing as a collective right. Tony the Marxian is in fact rejecting REALITY.

              1. The only context any conversation had here makes any sense is the context of society. “Society” is the term we give groups of human beings living together and sharing certain things (like laws, values, and resources). You can no more wish the existence of society away than you can a body vis a vis cells. You’re radically wrong on this, and it’s a pity because you base all your thoughts on this flawed premise.

                The concept of rights has no meaning outside of the context of society. They are both entitlements to do things and restrictions on others to prevent you from doing them. You can pretend that the only conversations worth having are those that presuppose a single individual on all of planet earth, but you might as well be in a padded room talking about how there are no voices in your head. It’s pointless. You’re obsessed with this nonsense.

                1. There is no such thing as society.

                2. Only individuals have rights.

                  1. I just told you what a society is. Look it up in the dictionary if you don’t believe me.

      2. Freedom of “association” is not what the constitution protects. It protects the right to associate in groups,

        Two is a group.

        The business owner, and their customer, are a group.

        A short-lived one, potentially, but a group nonetheless.

        Try again.

        1. So the CRA violates the First Amendment?

          1. Not entirely; part of it is just codifying the 14th Amendment in a specific way (“no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law”).

          2. Very much so. That this somehow managed to elude you even though it has been expressed explicitly multiple times in these discussions you’ve taken part in for years and years is a sad indictment of your reading comprehension.

          3. Re: Tony the Marxian,

            So the CRA violates the First Amendment?

            The first, the fourth, the ninth, the thirteenth and the fourteenth. The CRA pretends to transfer title of ownership from a business-owner or property-owner to a person of a specially-protected group, by force. That is a direct violation of the freedom of association, the freedom to be secured in our belongings, the right to be free and the Privileges and Immunities Clause which protects individuals from discriminatory acts by the State (the CRA is discriminatory against individuals by creating specially-protected groups of individuals.)

            1. Don’t speak to me about the constitution. That is a big-government collective imposition on the precious liberties of individuals to live in the land of plenty of biker rape gangs.

              1. Don’t speak to me about the constitution.

                Tony, summarized.

  14. OT:

    So in the TV movie “The day after” there is a scene close to or at the end of the movie with a young woman soiling the crotch of her dress with blood.

    I was fairly young when I saw the movie so I was always confused by this. Was she having her period? her first period? Was it is miscarriage? Was it a symptom of radiation poisoning? Did she just lose her virginity?

    1. It was the end of her fertility and by extension that of humankind.

      A few decades later the apes would take over…

      1. So it was a miscarriage?

        1. Wiki sez radiation poisoning.

  15. Now, as consistent as Cruz’s beliefs are here, it does not seem to come with any sort of policy recommendation that would follow suit. On the federal level, he would have to strip religion from the public accommodations section Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    Why would that even be relevant, Scott? The argument that says “because the law says so” is circular. Besides this, it is not correct to say that Ted Cruz is being consistent in “his views,” when the right to refuse trade is inseparable from a person’s right to choose and his or her right to property. The right to refuse trade with someone is not an opinion or a point of view, it is a direct and logical implication of freedom.

    Take a look at the Department of Justice’s list of complaints for violations of federal public accommodation laws, and note that they’re primarily against restaurants, hotels, and clubs.

    This would be relevant if the constraints on liberty were coming only from the federal government, but you’re not mentioning the broader encroachments committed by the state and local governments, which are the primary weapons used by the anti-property rights crowd hiding within these “civil rights” groups that purport to fight for “freedom”.

  16. “In any event, Cruz’s extension of his argument is probably not likely to be treated seriously among gay voters. That might be because at the same time he’s calling for consistency in allowing businesses in letting their conscience dictate practices, he is one of only four Republican presidential candidates (Ben Carson, Rick Santorum, and Bobby Jindal being the others) to sign the National Organization for Marriage’s pledge to support, among other things, a constitutional amendment that “protects marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”

    The suggestion that gay voters would support a candidate who was consistent in letting gay businesses discriminate against fundamentalists seems willfully naive.

    I am yet to see compelling evidence that gay rights activists care about any rights other than their own “right” to do whatever they want–because they’re gay–including trample on the rights of others. In fact, I would characterize gay rights organizations as being generally hostile to the whole idea of individual rights.

    It’s about advocacy, and if disparaging the rights of non-gays to make choices for themselves that aren’t gay friendly is wrong, then they don’t want to be right. Their whole pitch is against individuals being free to make choices for themselves.

  17. Think of it this way…

    Libertarians have positions on myriad issues. We can partner with black civil rights groups against the drug war, on the issue of Fourth Amendment searches, school choice, jury nullification, sentencing reform, and that’s just the beginning of the list.

    Apart from gay marriage, can we partner up (pun intended) with gay rights organizations on any other issue?

    I don’t think so, and how many other causes are there like that?

    I can think of plenty of different issues we can partner up with environmentalists–on privatization and conservation; who here realized how many issues we could partner up with foodies on before Baylen Linnekin showed up? I see all the libertarian issues out there, and I can find all sorts of different issues we can partner up on with various causes…

    I support gay marriage, but I have no faith whatsoever that gay rights organization will ever give a damn about me and my rights. I’m just not convinced gay rights organizations care about any other issue other than “Is it good for gays?” They’re sort of like the Jewish Defense League. Gay rights organizations aren’t violent, but they only care about one thing–and it isn’t rights. They just care about whether it’s good for gay people.

    Why pretend otherwise?

    1. Gay rights advocates focusing on the rights of gay people. How dare they!

      1. Re: Tony the Marxian,

        Gay rights advocates focusing on the rights of gay people

        There’s no such thing as gay rights. There’s only individual rights, nothing else. The problem with advocating for exclusive rights is that other people end up being excluded even if the advocates do not want it that way.

        But the Marxians love it! Divide, and conquer.

        1. I didn’t say gay rights, I said the rights of gay people. The issue would be that others have imposed a lack of rights on gay people. Nobody is talking about rights that only gays get. If they are, perhaps you can point them out or name these rights.

          1. Re: Tony the Marxian,

            I didn’t say gay rights, I said the rights of gay people.

            Same thing. Gay people are people, individuals with the same rights as you or me.

            The issue would be that others have imposed a lack of rights on gay people.

            Who are these “others” you allude to? The only organization capable of violating rights is the government.

            Nobody is talking about rights that only gays get.

            Are you for real? What do you think “protected group” entails if not special rights?

            Marxian to the end.

            1. Yes, governments (supported by majorities) imposed a lack of rights specifically on gay people. All that is being asked is that gay people have the same rights everyone else has. It’s not my problem that you have the phrase “protected group” etched into your little brain; tell me what special rights you’re talking about that gays are getting that nobody else gets?

              1. tell me what special rights you’re talking about that gays are getting that nobody else gets?

                I’m not entitled to service by a public-facing business on the basis of my sexuality, but gay people are in several states. There’s one. Kind of the important one in the context of this discussion.

                It’d be nice to think you were just a mendacious piece of shit, but sometimes I think you might actually be as stupid as you appear.

                1. I’m not entitled to service by a public-facing business on the basis of my sexuality, but gay people are in several states.

                  You absolutely are. That’s the whole misconception here. Laws do not protect specific races, religions, or sexual orientations, they just ban discrimination on these bases. So yeah you can’t be discriminated against for being straight either.

              2. Re: Tony the Marxian,

                Yes, governments (supported by majorities) imposed a lack of rights specifically on gay people.

                Which means you’re setting your sights on the WRONG CULPRIT, you moron. The problem is NOT individual rights and the freedom to choose. The problem is GOVERNMENT.

                All that is being asked is that gay people have the same rights everyone else has.

                Everybody is born with the same rights: Life, liberty and property.

                It’s not my problem that you have the phrase “protected group” etched into your little brain; tell me what special rights you’re talking about that gays are getting that nobody else gets?

                The right to people’s property without the benefit of an agreement. That is what “anti-discrimination” laws and “specially-protected groups” are about. Those are special rights.

                1. The specially protected group is all humans who have a sexual orientation, so it’s a pretty wide net and doesn’t really call for the adverb “specially.”

                  1. Some people are pretty asexual. I presume you are one of them.

                    Sexuality does not merit rights.

                    1. Asexual being a sexual orientation. And don’t I wish.

                      The reason this set of classifications is singled out alongside race and religion and disability status is because of a history of discrimination associated with it. Yeah the laws are there in practice to protect the minorities from the harm they have been historically exposed to. But in principle it also means straight people have the exact same rights.

          2. The issue would be that others have imposed a lack of rights on gay people

            Who?

            Keeping in mind that only the government can impose a lack of rights on anyone.

            Me declining to sell you something, for any reason, doesn’t violate your rights.

            1. It does if your reason is discriminatory and I have a right to be free from discrimination. Whether I have that right is up to government as well.

              1. You don’t have a “right to be free from discrimination”. That doesn’t even make any fucking sense. There are thousands of miles between you and most of humanity; how are you going to force them to stop discriminating against you?

              2. Re: Tony the Marxian,

                It does if your reason is discriminatory and I have a right to be free from discrimination.

                You don’t have a right to be free from discrimination. That’s ridiculous and insane. It’s like having a right to be free of rejection, or be free from frowny faces. That is an imposition on others to cater to YOU and YOUR needs without the benefit of a voluntary agreement.

                I am certain you got your thinking skills out of a cereal box.

            2. But how can I get an abortion if you won’t pay for it? How can I avoid getting pregnant if you won’t buy my contraceptives?

            3. RC, why are you engaging this retard?

              1. For the same reason I poke the dogs with sticks at those “adopt-a-puppy” events?

          3. What rights are gays people deprived of?

            Education? nope
            Start a Business? nope
            Love/Live/have sex with who the like? not any more
            Religion? nope
            Travel? nope
            Own Property? nope

            All I see Gays deprived of is certain tax breaks and inheritance shortcuts the government has created to favor hetero marriage. If THOSE are rights, then the entire tax system of tax deductions and credits favoring one sort of behavior over another needs to be overturned as well.

            As it turns out, I favor exactly that, but unless you have had a serious change of heart, you do not. If you are going to take a position, make it consistent.

      2. To the exclusion deprecation of other people’s rights?

        Not getting this libertarian on board.

        I’ve already been publicly in favor of gay marriage for more than 12 years on this site.

        I’m also in favor of First Amendment rights for neo-nazis and terrorists, but that doesn’t mean I have to partner with the sick bastards–or pretend that we’re somehow on the same side.

        “In any event, Cruz’s extension of his argument is probably not likely to be treated seriously among gay voters. That might be because at the same time he’s calling for consistency in allowing businesses in letting their conscience dictate practices, he is one of only four Republican presidential candidates (Ben Carson, Rick Santorum, and Bobby Jindal being the others) to sign the National Organization for Marriage’s pledge to support…”

        Why pretend gay rights people are serious about consistency when they aren’t?

        Those gay rights organizations appear to be openly hostile to libertarianism and individual rights, and I won’t pretend otherwise. And Jesus, why not show me some kind of evidence that they aren’t openly hostile to individual rights? Are you really going with the idea that it’s okay for people to trample on others’ rights–so long as they’re doing it for selfish reasons? Do you feel okay with fundamentalists crushing gay rights under foot out of selfish disrespect for anyone’s interests but their own?

        Why would you say something that stupid, Tony?

        1. I can’t tell what the hell you are talking about. It is a legitimate position to favor the status quo with respect to antidiscrimination law and then extending it to cover sexual orientation. It’s what liberals believe. Are you just being pissy pants? They don’t agree with you, so fuck them and their rights? I am seriously not understanding your point.

          1. “I can’t tell what the hell you are talking about.”

            That’s because your moral compass was never properly calibrated.

            Your whole moral philosophy boils down to “Might makes right”.

            You’re beneath contempt. Reprehensible.

            Eewww.

            1. Seems like you’re irrationally lashing out.

              1. Oh poor, Tony!

                People are lashing out at him–just because he can’t even imagine why we should care about other people and their rights.

                …and no one will explain to him why we should!

                On the humanity spectrum, you’re a shit-eating worm of a human being, Tony. The sooner you come to realize that, the sooner you can evolve.

                The world might be a better place if you were hit by a truck.

              2. Looking at the mirror again, little fella?

          2. It’s what liberals believe.

            Yes, we know they want every interaction between their subjects to be under their micro-management, and are willing to make incremental steps toward this goal.

            We object to that as a goal, and some us even object to the incremental steps.

          3. I am seriously not understanding your point.

            It’s nice when you make your mental incapacity explicit instead of letting us just infer it from the nonsensical idiocy you spew.

            1. And the thing he doesn’t understand is why people should care about each other and their rights.

              He’s a moral defective.

              He’s what they used to call a psychopath.

  18. What happens if a Christian couple goes to a florist only to discover they were gay and decided against buying flowers from them? Or, trickier, they wanted to return an item?

    Would the gay florist have a right to sue the customers for ‘discrimination’?

    Of course not and it should swing the other way too.

    Whatever happened to common civility? Civility is not about everyone sharing the same outlook, it’s about have the courtesy and respect of your fellow citizen regardless of their religious or social beliefs.

    A business person is under NO obligation to be a fricken civil rights activist.

    1. Of course not and it should swing the other way too.

      Phrasing…

    2. My first job was to work at a flower store. I was 15 and pretty much begged for the job. (I was a nasty teenage brat and wanted to make my own money with no say-so from my parents.) The store had a commercial-facing show room on the highway to make money. I worked in the green houses behind. Like a Mexican at the jerbs you won’t do.

      1. Ok, I started pulling Tupperware orders in a warehouse when I was 14. But I don’t see what point you are making.

  19. Have anti-discrimination laws ever been interpreted to require an anti-Catholic florist to provide floral arrangements for a baptism. Or for a Jew to provide a bar mitzvah cake for a boy practicing the “wrong” brand of Judaism?

    1. You are holding back. I am sending a commando squad to your bunk with a Mohel who will bite off your the shleeth of pleasure.

  20. As I understand it, Cruz is getting slagged in part for talking about state (anti-discrimination) laws while running for federal office.

    But states have their own much broader public accommodation laws anyway, and he would be unlikely to be able to do much about them as president.

    So a candidate who talked about state (marriage) laws while running for federal office should also be slagged?

    Other than the commentariat, of course, I don’t recall seeing this as part of our “national conversation” about marriage:

    But states have their own marriage laws anyway, and he would be unlikely to be able to do much about them as president.

  21. Why shouldn’t gays be able to turn Christians away from the businesses they own? They’re their businesses. They should be able to refuse to do business with whoever they please.

    1. People who open businesses are only able to do so because the government lets them. Therefore, they must abide by all the rules the government places on running a business. If you don’t want to serve the public, you shouldn’t have opened a business in the first place.

      If you want to sell things only to your friends, sell them from your living room. After you get your permit from the government. And once you get a permit from the government, you have to abide by all the rules the government places on selling things. Which means that you’d better be prepared to offer whatever you’re selling to everyone.

      1. Yeah, that’s why people are climbing over each other to open businesses these days.

      2. Hmmm,

        There is no such thing as a “Free Market Socialist”. That is like and openclosed, or a blackwhite.

        You have described a Socialist society pretty well though. Thanks!

      3. I’m amazed at how you can zoom right by the fundamental ethical questions of whether the government should imposing all those rules in the first place (to use your wording) before reaching your conclusion that a business owner only has himself to blame if he wants to use his property as he sees fit.

        1. I’m amazed how you can think I was being serious.

          And to the poster above you, that’s the joke.

          1. Also, I guarantee that if you Google “free market socialism” you will not be disappointed. You might even turn up something from this very site.

          2. So, just boringly trolling. Yeah, good joke, man.

            1. Are you another one of those dry asshats that doesn’t get sarcasm? You sure seem like a dry asshat that doesn’t get sarcasm. Oh well, there’s always one.

  22. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobnet10.com

    1. Making cash now. Getting more time with your family, Marjorie587. Computer access. Spending days in bed with your mother and sisters. Life is good. $987,503,876.82 a month. Never been happier. My system rules. Not sure why you’re still typing about yours…
      http://www.nobjet.moc

  23. “a constitutional amendment that “protects marriage as the union of one man and one woman.” That’s not religious liberty, Cruz.”

    Numero uno, did he say it was? Perhaps he defends such an amendment as a defense of civilization and common sense, not simply of particular religious doctrines. Look at a junior high biology textbook (or maybe an elementary school textbook, I don’t know). Observe how the sexes are different. Observe how their biology is specifically geared toward reproduction.

    More broadly (though I don’t know if this needs to be in a textbook), look at the complementarity between men and women, even in sterile married couples.

    Then compare and contrast this with Sheila and Ann shacking up and calling themselves married, or Bruce and Bob shacking up and hiring Sheila to produce some designer babies for Bruce and Bob to raise.

    I’m sure Sheila and Ann and Bruce and Bob are nice people, but are they going to give “their” children the benefits of being raised by a mother and a father?

    Numero two-o, of course this is related to religious freedom. If the state limits itself to recognizing normal, natural marriage, then we will hear no more about the government forcing private businesses to pretend that Sheila and Ann are married, or that Bruce and Bob are anything more than a couple guys who live together and like to bone each other.

    1. Defense of civilization and common sense?

      You’re such a doofus.

    2. Oops, this goes here. In case there was any doubt about who the bigot slaver was.

      If the state limits itself to recognizing normal, natural marriage

      Fuck off bigot slaver.

    3. More broadly (though I don’t know if this needs to be in a textbook), look at the complementarity between men and women, even in sterile married couples.

      complementarity

      1. He’s right about the complementarity. I’m a Ravens fan. My wife is a Steelers fan. QED.

    4. Waaaaaaa!

      “Marriage” is my sacred Skydaddy word and I don’t want you perverted faggots using it.

      /Eddie

    5. then we will hear no more about the government forcing private businesses to pretend that Sheila and Ann are married, or that Bruce and Bob are anything more than a couple guys who live together and like to bone each other.

      I seriously love the pseudo-science angle. ‘Wait, wait, did you guys know penises and ver-ginas go together? That proves it!’

      Complementary genitals aside, this describes heterosexual couples who ‘shack up’ equally well. Of course, and what you’re willfully ignoring, is that these people often love each other, too. Since we’re not the Love Police for heterosexual marriages or relationships, I don’t see why whether love exists in a gay relationship would be of concern to us, either.

    6. The weirdest thing in all of this is that there are people who think married couples are something other than friends who like to bone each other.

    7. “Perhaps he defends such an amendment as a defense of civilization and common sense, not simply of particular religious doctrines.”

      Um . . . Mormons . . . Muslims . . . well, I guess he defends religious doctrines that *count*.

  24. If the state limits itself to recognizing normal, natural marriage

    Fuck off bigot slaver.

    1. This does not need repeated, and it is not persuasive.

      1. I can see why you say “bigot”, but I see nothing about his comments that imply slavery.

        Yes, I am being difficult about your resorting to unadorned insults.

        1. Eddie (Notorious used to go by a different handle) and Fd’A have been going back and forth for a long time. His statement is more to Eddie in general rather than This comment in particular. Also “Fuck off, slaver” is idiomatic in the H&R comments where “slaver” is used to denote a person who would use government coercion to enact their preferences on others rather than “someone who buys and sells slaves.

        2. 1. You must be new. People here, including myself, have argued with Eddie in good faith for months. He is a fucking troll worthy only if insult and ridicule.

          2.

          I see nothing about his comments that imply slavery.

          Eddie wants the State to impose his definition of marriage on the rest of the world:

          If the state limits itself to recognizing normal, natural marriage

          Eddie is a theocrat who wants his mysticism enshrined in law and forced on the rest of us. IOWs, he’s a fucking slaver.

        3. Understand that Eddie approved of me being jailed because I divorced and remarried. That was the point at which I realized that he was unworthy of even the slightest respect.

          1. Seriously? Link?

  25. I wonder who bakes more cakes; Christians – or – Gays

    1. Could a gay black Christian refuse to sell an Easter cake to a straight white atheist?

      1. If there are 51 angels dancing on the head of a pin, will they all fall down if one stumbles?

  26. What if …. 49 of the angels are wearing boots?
    What if …. 27 of the angels are black?
    What if ….

    oh sorry, just channeling my inner Judge N.

  27. Thanks for clarifying that, Ted… and I invoke MY right to look at YOUR beliefs, and out of that, decide to Never Vote For YOU!

    Fair enough? It’s a deal.

  28. I fully agree. Going even further, no business or individual should be forced to do business with those whom they choose not to serve, sell-to, buy from, patronize etc. Free markets will eventually prevail. If a business in Detroit decided not to serve Muslims, they would lose most of the market share, forcing relocation, altering their business practices or going broke. A Jewish-owned delicatessen opening in certain markets and refusing to make ham sandwiches might lower sales numbers than in a more favorable demographic .

  29. I fully agree. Going even further, no business or individual should be forced to do business with those whom they choose not to serve, sell-to, buy from, patronize etc. Free markets will eventually prevail. If a business in Detroit decided not to serve Muslims, they would lose most of the market share, forcing relocation, altering their business practices or going broke. A Jewish-owned delicatessen opening in certain markets and refusing to make ham sandwiches might lower sales numbers than in a more favorable demographic .

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.