Free Speech

The Next Front in the War on Religious Freedom

Stop bellyaching about Washington. All the country's best fascists are on your local city council.


Stop bellyaching about Washington. All the country's best fascists are on your local city council.

Not long ago, Colorado became a leader in the fight against religious freedom, when its Civil Rights Commission, self-appointed ministers of justice and theology, decided that a shopkeeper who refuses to participate in a gay wedding ceremony must be smeared and fined out of business. A Colorado appeals court says this is kosher, finding that the brittle sensitivities of a cakeless couple outweigh the constitutional rights of Christian business owners.

Now, in an effort to save everyone some time, the cultural imperialists at the Denver City Council have decided to skip the pretense of some trumped-up injustice and jumped right to discriminating against a business solely because of the beliefs of its CEO.

The Denver City Council's Business Development Committee has stalled a seven-year deal with Chick-fil-A because CEO Dan Cathy spoke out against gay marriage back in 2012. Cathy, after being flogged for this misconduct, backed off, saying he regretted getting involved. But that won't do. There are no prisoners in this culture war. So the city council will meet in a couple of weeks to take up the topic again. Not so the members can take time to chew over the significance of a city's punishing its citizens for their thoughts and beliefs or even to weigh the importance of tolerance in a vibrant city such as Denver. They're waiting to have a closed-door committee hearing with city attorneys, who will brief them on the legal implications and practicality of shutting down apostates.

The only thing that might stop Denver from pulling this concession from an apologetic Christian, then, would be a few risk-averse bureaucrats. This, even though Chick-fil-A has not been accused of any infraction or crime. No one has even suggested it's guilty of make-believe acts of discrimination. Chick-fil-A has given assurances, in fact, as all other concessionaires at Denver International Airport restaurants have, it will follow nondiscrimination policies laid out by law, which include protections for sexual orientation.

So what's the point? Well, Councilwoman Robin Kniech asked a concessionaire this question: "If the national corporation with which you are affiliated once again puts themselves at the center of a national debate about depriving people and their families of rights, would you as a concessionaire have any ability to influence that?"

"I don't believe so," he answered.

"I don't think you would, either," Kniech said. "And that's my concern."

So that's her concern? Setting aside the oversimplification of the debate surrounding marriage, since when is it the interest of a city councilor to monitor the political activities of citizens and wonder how she deals with vendors who displease her sensibilities? Do Americans with minority opinions function under some different set of laws? The only entity with the power to deprive anyone or anyone's family of rights, in this case, is the city council. So please tell me how Kniech isn't a petty tyrant.

Of course, Denver is not alone. A few years back, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel (D) supported an alderman's efforts to block Chick-fil-A from opening in his city because of, as the media like to say, the "anti-gay views" of its CEO, which, only a couple of years beforehand, had been the anti-gay views of President Barack Obama and Emanuel, his chief of staff. The Chicago City Council didn't go through with it, after "assurances" from the company that the virtue of Chicago would be protected.

Denver Councilman Paul Lopez, who is leading the intellectual charge for the ban, a task that meshes poorly with his skill set, says that in the end, opposition to the chain at the airport is "really, truly a moral issue." Now, when the Founding Fathers told us that government can make no law respecting an establishment of religion, I took it to mean that the belief system of a union-installed sock puppet on a city council would be completely irrelevant in matters of expression and faith. Really, truly.

Now, people are free to boycott and protest whomever they please. Citizens and elected officials have every right to work to cut off taxpayer funding to businesses and institutions they find morally distasteful. But if the city council of Anytown, USA, were to concoct reasons to deny permits to gay business owners who support same-sex marriage, many Americans would find that rightfully appalling. If you're OK with the idea of a city council's denying Christians who believe in traditional marriage the same freedom, you're a massive hypocrite, and probably worse.


NEXT: Attn, LA Reasonoids: Happy Hour with Nick Gillespie This Friday!

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

  1. Are you trying to give John an aneurism David?

  2. Holy bejeeze, poke ’em in the other eye too while you’re at it David!

  3. I thought it was chik fil a’s vice president who was at the center of what happened 2 years ago. Also, that he hadn’t spoken out against gay marriage so much as donated to a conservative organization that had many points on its agenda, one of them being against gay marriage.

    1. IIRC, all they did was comp the lunch catering. Just like they do for a bunch of other civic, charitable and religious groups.

  4. …since when is it the interest of a city councilor to monitor the political activities of citizens and wonder how she deals with vendors who displease her sensibilities?

    Since when? I assume she plans to ride the wave of identity politics to another election victory if not higher office. What’s the use of having a little bit of power if you can’t use it to beat up your perceived ideological rivals in the private sector? Those fast-food jobs aren’t worth having anyway.

    1. Since when? Since the soft machines convinced Trilby voters to sacrifice their convictions because the election results are a foregone conclusion. Until voters realize that losing is winning because spoiler votes shift paradigms, they will be played for suckers and deserve it. “The case for voting libertarian” is that we oblige the looters to repeal moronic laws or have their politicians’ hands slapped from the till.

  5. The greatest threat to democracy is the idiots living in it.

    1. To the extent that the Denver City Council’s actions represent the wishes of the voters of Denver (and I have seen no evidence to indicate that they do not) then what we are seeing is democracy.

      Democracy being a concept developed by the same people who institutionalized the practice of the scapegoat.

      1. Democracy is the system of government in which 51% of people can designate 49% as slaves, second class citizens, or worse. It is two wolves and a sheep deciding whta to have for dinner.

        1. As long as the sheep gets a vote on the choice of condiments though it’s ok right?

          1. You mean, the sheep decides if his carcass will be served with mint sauce, mustard greens, or an apple in his mouth?

            Sounds good to me, bring ON the mutton! Fuck the condiments, “whatever” will do!

            Can the political class be the served-up mutton source for the next go-round?

      2. Yes, and the Utilitarian Monster. But don’t blame me… I voted libertarian!

    2. That’s why I want a Republic, it limits what the idiots can vote on.

      1. That’s why I want anarchy, The idiots have no power at all.

        1. Until a demagogue (there’s that f’in word again) rallies them together and assumes power in the name and principle of, wait for it…


          1. Stopping those idiots is why we have guns.

        2. Anarchy is an inherantly unstable state, ususally followed (though I suppose there must be exceptions) by a Some form of rule by Strongman.

          1. Anarchy is how looters depict the LP to other looters. If they were sincere, and not communists sent to infiltrate us and alienate voters, they would work toward a libertarian government as a jumping-off point for their own experiments in legalization of murder or competition in the restraint of men. The article on the San Francisco private cops is the first intelligent approach to the concept I’ve seen in decades. But you can’t make freedom out of communism.

  6. Progressives had nothing but tolerance and understanding for their own leaders “evolving positions” on gay marriage, but now that they’re on board, it’s open season on everybody else.

    1. And this is a surprise, why?

  7. My only issue with Chick-fil-A is that they are closed on Sunday. There have been Sundays when I get a craving for one of their delicious sandwiches. They have great products and their stores are very well run. They would be just fine without the Denver Airport concession. It would be Denver’s loss.

    1. One of the many reasons I do not nor will I patronize their establishment. Founder Truett Cathy believed that Sunday is god’s day and therefore all of his employees must spend that day with their family. I do not care what anyone’s personal beliefs are until they forced upon others who may not belief the same. Granted, those employees are free to find other jobs, but sometimes it is not as easy as that. I believe the Cathy’s could allow their stores to be open on Sundays so that their low-income employees have the opportunity of an additional day of work, or their franchise owners the opportunity to decide how to run their business. Chik-Fil-A could even donate all Sunday profits to a charity to help other low-income families. To me, that would be a more Christian outlook. I do not agree with Denver’s decision, but I would be lying if I said I do not get a little pleasure from it.

      1. The problem is that there’s no winning here. If they’re open on Sundays, then people will be whining that the employees never get a day off, slave labor, etc…. It’s already quite obvious that this kind of derision doesn’t get applied evenly throughout industries, (McDonalds and WalMart get hammered on these issues while Wendy’s and Target get left alone despite having the same models). You really think the media and protesters wouldn’t unleash on Chick-Fil-A if they started opening on Sundays?

      2. Start your own chicken sandwich restaurant and you can open any day you like. At least Chick-fil-A didn’t lobby to keep the competition closed on Sunday like liquor stores and car dealerships do

        1. A Transport Sozialist Arbeiterpartei airport concession is about as competitive as monopolizing the only Kosher stand at Treblinka: compare their prices with the world outside. Reading David’s whining article made me feel my first twinge of sympathy for the mindless vegetarians out to stop the genocide of helpless chickens and defund the brutal frying of innocent chicken embryos. I pray that the purveyors of avian genocide and the Politically Communistic city-council minions have it out like the Calico Cat and the Gingham Dog. I’ll see it as evolution in action.

      3. As a business owner, he has absolutely no obligation, statutorally or morally, to have his store open at any time. To say that the owners are in some way imposing on their employees by *not* being open on Sunday is ridiculous. This argument essentially says that the business owner is obligated to allow his / her workers to work as many hours as they want, which is, of course, ludicrous.

        1. Business owners have no moral obligations whatsoever, right?

          1. No, none.

            1. They do have the moral obligation to no commit violence…

              1. and to honor the terms of whatever contract they sign with another party.

          2. Tony you are a moron.

          3. Business owners have a moral and legal obligation to provide the product and/or service that they were paid to provide, and the wages and benefits that they agreed to pay. Either way, it’s honoring contracts.

        2. Yes, that’s true. But if the business owner wants you crammed in prison for having a seed under your floormat, or choosing to not reproduce, or resisting armed robbery, or having visions a yellow silk road… then what? Meet my friend Schadenfreude!
          On this particular topic it is instructive to look the word up in the Urban Dictionary.

      4. If setting the operating hours for your business is imposing your beliefs on other people then
        that phrase has no negative meaning. You have dumbed oppression down to nothing

        1. “dumbed down”

          Yep, you covered it

        2. Coincidentally, I watched Penn and Teller’s Bullshit Wal-Mart episode last night. One of the assholes complaining about Wal-Mart said that setting schedules for the employees was harmful.

        3. Well… there’s Schadenfreude…
          That’s the downside to constantly advocating the initiation of force against pregnant women, hemp-tepreneurs or even mohammedans who happen to be minding THEIR own business. People have this nasty habit of remembering how gleefully you cheered when the jackbooted minions were shoving guns in their faces.

      5. Bullshit. You either:

        1. Don’t like their food, or
        2. Eat there anyway.

      6. ” I do not care what anyone’s personal beliefs are until they forced upon others who may not belief the same.”

        This is not “force.”

        Are establishments that close at 10pm guilty of forcing their beliefs onto employees who may wish to work overnights?

        1. Not sure, but my employer is clearly inhibiting my right to leisure.

      7. What if the employees *want* to work there so they don’t have to work on a sunday? What if the low-income employee finds that to be a benefit?

        1. That’s not force. You should just say you think it’d be better for employees and customers if they opened Sunday, which is much more reasonable a position.

          1. Sorry, you or the guy who said that originally. If you agree with him about ‘force.’ Don’t know if you do.

      8. So you mean the employees that voluntarily work there for pay are somehow being mistreated? Idiot.

      9. I really don’t boycott. I mean, I know I could, and that’d be fine, but if I were going to boycott any establishment whose owners hold some dumb political or religious belief, I couldn’t shop or eat anywhere.

      10. Car lots can not sell on Sunday in Colorado. Going to quit buying cars? Auto dealers lobbied hard to keep the Sunday blue law.

        Not only can Chick fil A’s employees get a new job, they should if they feel ‘forced’ to work for Chick fil A and it’s business plan.

        Of course, you are free to boycott them, just as the employees are free to work for them, or not. Personally, I would never work for the amount of money you can make in that industry. Somehow, I would figure out something else.

        While I get no pleasure from the City of Denver using anti Christian ideology to bar this company from being an airport vendor. I will take great pleasure in not utilizing Denver International Airport, as my form of ‘boycott’ of such heavy handed authoritarianism.

        Your belief about how to improve the Chick fil A business plan is irrelevant. If you want to open some similar type operation, feel free. Maybe a topless chicken sandwich shop, staffed only by ‘hot chicks’. You know full well, some ideologue will come after you too.

      11. Nunya fucking bidness, asshole.

      12. Nonsense. Cathy isn’t forcing anyone to spend time with friends/family or indulge in religion, but is providing the opportunity by “forcing” employees to have a day off on Sunday. Everyone gets a day or two off as is, even the low-income you’d rather have toiling seven days a week; one of those days is Sunday. Franchisees agree to this.

        From the corporate website “Over the past three years, Chick-fil-A, Inc. and its franchised Restaurant Operators have given more than $68 million in contributions to over 700 educational and charitable organizations and have provided millions of dollars in food donations all across America.” Charitable donations – check.

        You didn’t put much thought into this.

      13. So, you get to force your ideas on him, but he does not get to set terms of employment it they annoy you … when you aren’t an employee.

      14. I too avoid them, but not because people choose to work there. I avoid them as a corporate nexus for funneling money into National Socialist election campaigns–as a conspiracy to buy politicians or inject fanatics into government to coerce and murder people. I too would be laying if I pretended to have an ounce of sympathy for that anti-life artificial person of a company.

    2. You need to visit one of their Seventh Day Adventist locations. They’re closed on Saturdays instead…

  8. I’m amazed at those who demand religion be taken out of politics have no problem forcing their politics into people’s religion.

    1. Yeah, ironically, their politics had become a religion, well sort of. The ecologist activism here with Greenpeace leaded by Daniel Guilbault in Canada had became one as mentionned in this French blog post written in 2010. http://blogjacquesbrassard.blo…..eault.html

      I guess South Park was right on target when they showed Butters praying government. đŸ˜‰

    2. How is baking a cake a religious act?

      1. It’s participation in an act that the baker finds religiously offensive. It’s not per se “a religious act,” but it’s an act that has religious, offensive connotations for the baker. Therefore he should not be compelled to participate in it.

        Satanist walks into Home Depot. Explicitly says, will you sell me the materials to make an upside-down pentagram so I can do my devil worship? The clerk / store manager / Home Depot CEO (take it up the chain) should have the right to say, nah, I don’t think I will participate in that.

        1. They’d have a good religious discrimination claim. Depending on the state, the Satanist might have more rights here than a gay person.

          1. Aaaand here comes Tony spouting the same worn group “rights” bullshit. WhitesWhite SatanistsSatanistsSatanist gaysgaysblack gaysblacks? Did I get the PC inequality equation right Tony?

            1. F-ing HTML — how does it work? Once more: Whites White Satanists Satanists Satanist gays gays black gays blacks.

              1. Oh hell, I give up.

            2. Collectivists, collectivists, collectivised rights, collectivists, collectivists (all individuals deleted).

          2. uhuh…and the left totally wouldn’t turn the tables if say a fundementalist wished to order a cake that said Jesus is Lord from a Satanist baker. Spare us the disingenuous bullshit.

      2. Baking a cake and selling it over the counter is not a problem (for most). There is an issue with messages on the cake. Would a gay baker want to put “Faggots suck” on a cake?

        But for weddings, the person doing the cake normally has to be at the reception for at least a period of time, setting things up, etc. Same for a wedding photographer. This is then “participating in the ceremony.”

    3. Funny thing about altruists. To them, turnabout is fair play. Yet people who only think about throwing others in jail are constantly amazed to discover that vengeance is not always a monopoly of the Lawerd. But concepts are just theory, right?

  9. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”

    Funny how religious freedom, following centuries of religious violence, war, and persecution, looks like that. It doesn’t look like 50.1% of the people picking the best religious thinking for everyone and shoving it down everyone’s throat.

    Yet, the only way to give everyone freedom in the culture war is the thought police, apparently.

    It’s like dealing with children that can’t think of a way to solve problems that doesn’t involve calling the teacher and crying.

    1. Speaking of the thought police, I spotted this blog post about VoxDay’s new book.

    2. Believers are subjective. The concept of freedom having a simple definition, like freedom from coercion, is as alien to them as a pregnant woman with individual rights or the evolution of species through natural selection. It doesn’t pay to skip this issue, or the standard for differentiating good from evil, before trying to discuss anything abstract.

  10. Separate Church and State, and penetrate the State into every crevice of society. Not a terribly hidden formula, is it?

    And I’m a secular, humanist, materialist which, traditionally, has been no friend to the superstitious Casper crowd, and I certainly have no desire to live in a theocracy, but I have no desire to beat them completely out of the system. I don’t smoke, and HATE second hand smoke, but It’s a fucking crime that people pretty much have to go off 100 yards into a cow field to smoke. Similarly, I don’t have to be on board with the Sky Ghost crowd to feel the grudge against those who are chasing them down where ever they are. Probably because those people are just as superstitious and are looking to balm their existential fears through Top Men On The Hill instead of a Universe Faerie. Same difference.

    1. In a real sense, I think you nailed it. My way of saying is a bit different.

      Religion, is how we explain things that can’t be proved. Religion is recognized by the fact that positions and beliefs are based on faith, rather that deductive logic based on objective facts.

      Environmentalism for example, where the belief is that there is some state of nature that is correct, and anything man does that might impact that state is evil, is a religion just as much as Islam, Judaism, or Christianity.

      Christianity was used in the Middle Ages to buttress government, to justify concentration of power and wealth in the hands of the nobility and the church. The change to a priesthood that did not marry and have children was a direct response to the clergy using the church as the family business and transferring church wealth in to private hands.

      Progressives use a number of faith based cults, Environmentalism for example, along with classic divide and conquer techniques to accomplish the same thing. The purpose is the accumulate power and wealth.

      1. there is some state of nature that is correct

        Yeah, the state of nature that best suits the human species. Dipshit. You don’t even care if you know what you’re talking about do you?

        1. Not sure if I want to engage a troll but……The state of nature that best suits the human species is open to debate. Many people are willing to tolerate a certain amount of pollution to allow a vibrant economic climate and the amount of pollution considered reasonable varies from person to person. Did you know it’s illegal to build a new blast furnace in the United States? You can rebuild on an existing foundation but cannot build a completely new one. If USS or Arcelor-Mittel wants to expand production they must do so overseas, there is no American option for increased steel production. I would say that a few blast furnaces are a small price to pay for high paying jobs. Obviously some people disagree.

          1. I would say that climate change is an existential threat to the human species, and who gives a flying fuck about blast furnaces.

            What happened to Reason over the last few days? Did some remote Appalachian village just get internet access?

            1. Existential threat? The climate is in a constant state of flux, to say that worst case computer model simulations shows that mankind is doomed is a bit…dumb. Garbage in=garbage out. Who gives a flying fuck about blast furnaces? I do. I live in northwest Indiana, Chicagoland’s industrial underbelly. We boast four major integrated steel mills, starting with iron ore at one end and ending with steel coils at the other end. Nobody in the world makes better steel than Hoosier steelworkers.

              1. Yeah 3, but you’re not worth fussing over, just like the worthless hicks in a “remote Appalachian village,” and deserve all the derision sent your way by our smug betters who live in swell parts of the country and have absolutely no idea where their consumer products come from or what it takes to create them.

              2. I go to Indiana a lot for work. You people really call yourselves Hoosiers don’t you? You’re like exceptionally proud people for being, I dunno, fucking Indianans. What’s with that?

                1. Well, some people are smug about being New Yorkers, some people are smug about being from California. I’m not just a Hoosier, I’m from the Calumet River Region. I’m a region rat. We’ve got a distinct cultural identity from the rest of the state. Guess that makes me double smug.

                2. Aren’t you a “Sooner”- you know, them worthless fucks that cheated on a Gov’t “lottery” program that stole land from the Natives?

            2. That’s because you’re an idiot. Humans would benefit from a warmer planet. We are a subtropical species. Growing seasons would be longer, fewer cold deaths, fewer storms (contrary to what your retarded cheerleaders believe due to the reduced temp gradients), etc..

              And stop fisting kittens.

              1. Kinda like the medieval “boom period” where temperatures were warmer than they are now and Europe experienced a population surge. But no, WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!11!!

                1. This is a global phenomenon currently resulting in mass species extinctions and sea-level rise among other global disruptions, some of which we probably can’t predict–not some local short-term thing like the so-called Medieval warm period.

                  1. There has not been any acceleration in sea level changes for thousands of years. Idiot.

                  2. Short term thing? Temps have rising since the 70’s! On a global climate timescale that’s the blink of an eye! Medieval population boom was from 1000-1250. Short term yes but a bit more than 40 years, yeah?

                    1. It temps had risen thermometers would show it. Temperatures have been published in newspapers for a couple of centuries now. If that record from the same local thermometers were convenient for creating a looter state it would have been compiled and published by every looter paper, party and publisher.

            3. I would say your opinion about climate change is fucking ridiculous. You don’t even understand the arguments.

              To paraphrase what you said about 6 months ago “Water vapor feedback is not a factor in CO2’s effect on climate” Tony.

              Well – of course – water vapor feedback is essential for CO2 to have any effect at all. But you treated CO2 as a religious icon, so in your tiny little mind if some other external factor came into play that would reduce the effect of your talisman.

              Shut the fuck up about CAGW, you haven’t the slightest clue.

            4. I would say you sound like someone without any real technical background making noise.

              Climate Change is inevitable and continuous.

              It is inevitable that the sun will go dark and the earth grow cold and life on the planet will end.

              Indeed, Existential.

              Now, the questions to be considered are:

              Does significant man-made climate change exist? Many believe so, but even among scientists there is even SOME disagreement. (even among those that contributed to the ICCC UN Report)

              If man-made climate change exists, will it trigger a positive feedback loop and grow large, or a negative feedback loop and be small and restrained. On this question there is a GREAT DEAL of disagreement among nearly everyone, the computer models are all over the place, and whose position is supported by the climate data seems to depend on who is normalizing the data and interpreting it. (this data normalizing is extremely controversial as there are no standardized methods for doing it.)

              If man-made climate change exists AND triggers a positive feedback loop, what is the relationship between various levels of “greenhouse gases” and the level of change? This is important because if the objective is not to kill off 90% of the world population returning to an agrarian society, we are going to have SOME level of greenhouse gases to deal with.

              1. So, this is not a simple topic, nor is it one with “settled science”, as if such a thing existed. (we are still modifying Einstein for Pete’s sake!)

                In terms of policy, just a question Tony, do you believe that blast furnace built in Indonesia contributes fewer greenhouse gases than one in Indiana? Who and what benefit do you think these sort of policies serve?

                Oh, and for the record, since I am a control systems engineer and find this kind of thing interesting, I stay up on it pretty well. Complicated systems and insufficient data. Lots of work to do before we have good answers to most of these questions.

                The models contain more place holder estimates than actual experimentally derived relationships. The data sources come from widely different technologies implemented in widely different ways, and drawing conclusions from that data requires it be normalized to some common standard that does not exist. It is really difficult for professionals in this area to take the models very seriously, too much guesswork in them. (Remember, GIGO, Garbage In Garbage Out) We need to continue to study this stuff because it IS important.

            5. Tony, that you are one of the Faithful in the Climate Change religious cult does not surprise.

      2. My observations suggest the purpose of superstition is to maximize death and suffering. Wealth can be earned with no appeal to invisible threats or devils. But the power to turn folks into corpses is horribly magnified by superstition. Remember the demonstration in Conan the Barbarian?

    2. Several thumbs up to toolkien. I’m an atheist non-smoker but share his sentiments.

  11. I thought I explained rather clearly that this is a matter of taking sides. Choosing the Christians over the gays is not automatically to choose freedom over tyranny. This is a gratuitous admission of libertarians’ taking sides in the war of theocracy vs. decency.

    1. What side was it that libertarians took on the issue of gay marriage itself? The Christian side? Could it be that we place principles before principals? Nah, couldn’t be. We’re a bunch of theocrats.

    2. would you force a Jewish deli to make non Kosher meat, Would you make a Muslim restaurant serve you Pork, would you make an African American videographer film a KKK rally. No you and they wouldn’t this is clearly an attack on Christian beliefs thru governmental force which nobody here except you are for.

      1. None of those examples is relevant to public accommodation laws. A deli can sell whatever it wants. It just can’t opt not to sell its products to black people, or to Christians.

        1. And congress can create a protected class that includes the KKK, subject to the protections of public accommodation laws.

          1. Well get back to me when that happens.

            1. Oh, I won’t bother. You’ve illustrated yet again that you have no principles and only concern yourself with momentary circumstances.

              1. In law, we should treat sexual orientation the same way race, religion, sex, and disability status are treated. I think that’s pretty principled, not to say obvious. What is the principle that says we should exclude it?

                1. Mutual association? Coercing someone to do business with someone they don’t want to is wrong because coercion is wrong?

                  1. Do we include sexual orientation or wait around for the repeal of civil rights laws?

                    1. Repeal. Discrimination is stupid and we are not the country we once were. Gay dollars are green and the vastly, overwhelming majority of business owners will be all too happy to accept those green, green gay dollars. There will be a few fools who take on a competitive disadvantage but they will do so at their loss. Jim Crow was a thing in the south only through government enforcement.

                    2. Oh, and discrimination is not coercion. Non-coercive discrimination is less bad than state power being used to force involuntary business transactions. Not to say that anyone here is pro-discrimination so much as we are anti-coercion. But this has been explained to you before.

                    3. But discrimination implies state coercion. What happens when you tell someone to leave your shop because you don’t like gays, and they refuse to leave?

                    4. Then they are trespassing. They stand upon your property and refuse to leave. If the property is rented it stands to reason that non-discrimination clauses could be worked into the contract and if you signed a contract not to discriminate you are bound by it. Otherwise it would be your right to say who can and who cannot be inside your shop at any given time. People have a right to be dumb as long as they use no violence against another person.

                    5. Protection of property rights has nothing to do with discrimination. Are you really this stupid, Tony? All these straw man arguments!

                    6. Just don’t tell me I’m the one who favors the government jackboot.

                    7. Just don’t tell me I’m the one who favors the government jackboot.

                      I don’t need a Gov’t jackboot. Leave… or be walked out by my employee. Resist… and the paramedics will scrape you ass off the curb out front.

      2. Tony’s conception of morality stops at the legal definition of it when it suites him.

        Fact is, the circumstances surrounding so-called gay discrimination pail in comparison to civil rights struggles. Public accommodation shouldn’t apply hear since the gays can go down the street and order another cake. There is no material impedance of their everyday lives by a few bakers who would rather not bake a cake for a gay wedding.

        Freedom of association is more important that sporadic discrimination.

        1. My principle is that if we are going to protect against racial, religious, etc. discrimination, we must include sexual orientation. It’s the same as if we’re going to allow straight marriages, we have to allow gay marriages. If we want to get rid of it all, that might also be OK, and the conversation would shift to the utility of antidiscrimination law in general.

          Not that you have any idea what kinds of discrimination gays face in society.

          1. Who is “we”?

            Government shouldn’t have any laws against discrimination, excepting those forcing the government itself to not discriminate (you can’t opt out of government).

            Not that you have any idea what kinds of discrimination gays face in society.

            Please, enlighten us. It’s not like I haven’t been hearing it for decades.

            Any time government discriminates against you, that’s further proof government is an evil. Any time a non-governmental actor “discriminates” against you:
            A. that actor is a jerk
            B. you have been a jerk
            C. neither of the above and it’s something you don’t understand

            Any way you want to look at it, forcing that actor to accommodate anyone violates the 13th amendment and freedom of association.

      3. would you force a Jewish deli to make non Kosher meat, Would you make a Muslim restaurant serve you Pork, would you make an African American videographer film a KKK rally.

        Current law certainly requires an atheist to bake a cake for a Mormon wedding, and for a gay restaurant to serve Bill Donohue.

        No you and they wouldn’t this is clearly an attack on Christian beliefs thru governmental force

        It’s no more an attack on Christian beliefs than it is an attack on atheist beliefs, humanist beliefs, and all sorts of other beliefs. For some reason, you seem to think that Christian beliefs are somehow special.

        Until churches are willing to talk seriously about removing religion as a protected class civil rights and public accommodation laws, I don’t see any reason why religions should be exempted from conforming with those laws vis-a-vis other protected classes.

    3. “I thought I explained rather clearly that this is a matter of taking sides.”

      Sorry, but we don’t really have to live in your false choice fantasy land. Call us realists.

    4. I’m against putting guns to people’s heads unless they’ve aggressed. I don’t care what group they belong to.

    5. There is also an element of strategy. We are outnumbered 100 to 1, so it behooves us to watch the enemies of freedom (=friends of coercion) kill EACH OTHER off. Religious fanatics infiltrate the LP in their efforts to force women to squeeze out Hitlerjugend for the Eastern Front. Communist fifth-columnists insisted that everything except unconditional surrender to the Soviets was a violation of the NAP. I thrill at the sight of communists and nationalsocialists slashing each other to ribbons. After all, the initiation of harmful and deadly force is what they most deeply value and worship. All we do is infiltrate the voters and offer them an alternative to force and violence. This was NOT an option in 1970.

  12. you now must accept our way of thinking not just in your actions but even in your heart or you will not be able to participate in society. isn’t that what ISIS does?

    1. It’s certainly what Christian churches have done in the past, and what they would like to re-institute.

    2. As near as I can discern it is what ALL of them do, to themselves and to each other as priority targets, then to us. There is tremendous cognitive dissonance, so much that their discomfort at meeting someone not terrified by invisible devils borders on the very fright they value as motivation. This is probably why they haven’t troubled to exterminate us already–that and internecine fighting over how best to kill us off. There is hope that the existence of dissident views will break the hypnotic hold of groupthink on their victims. The Solomon Asch experiment on Opinions and Social Pressure measured this effect and it is quite strong.

  13. Well warren and schumer are in Washington. And I can move from a town run by Tonys

  14. Progs gonna prog. I used to think fascist lite but think they are the real thing.

  15. 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…

  16. This bit about hypocrisy: “But if the city council of Anytown, USA, were to concoct reasons to deny permits to gay business owners who support same-sex marriage, many Americans would find that rightfully appalling. If you’re OK with the idea of a city council’s denying Christians who believe in traditional marriage the same freedom, you’re a massive hypocrite, and probably worse.”

    Made me think about this bit about hypocrisy:

  17. Whatever happened to fairness? Isn’t turnabout fair play anymore? Advocates of “christian” mysticism have since time immemorial tortured and burned each other alive, and reserved sterner measure for infidels and apostates. These forms of coercion they regard as the “free exercise” of faith, much like mohammedans do the mutilation of girls and flying planes into buildings. Now that they are themselves coerced–whether by equally mystical islamic faithful or worshippers of a secular looter state–alluva sudden it’s not fair or free to coerce anymore. Why does Reason not try to ascertain how the victims define freedom?

  18. 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…

  19. 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…

  20. I personally boycott that fried chicken joint for the same reason its owners boycott my political party: I reject the initiation of force. But proponents of superstition, revealed faith and unreason absolutely require the initiation of force. They murder and coerce out of altruistic concern for post-death spirits, not individual rights. Their Church crushed the knees of its priest Urbain Grandier and burned him, patriot Joan of Arc and others alive. Positive Christianity brought the income tax and prohibition to America then got itself voted into power in Germany–to massacre Jews then, Vietnamese since, and hippies and mohammedans now. So White Terror prohibitionists whine for a monopoly concession at a Transport Sozialist Arbeiterpartei-controlled airport. Soft machine officials tired of coercion and idiotic laws in the name of God and Allah have renegued. What, me sympathize?

    1. Did Chick-Fil-A pay for all this? I don’t recall seeing that story last week.

  21. This is just so blatantly unconstitutional. The “police power” of the States and their subsidiaries (cities, counties, special districts, etc.) is supposed to be used evenhandedly. They are allowed to make rules, e.g., rent control (a bad idea, but constitutional), anti-discrimination laws (questionable, but constitutional), safety regulations, etc.

    But discriminating against a business for the beliefs of one executive (even the CEO) is just plain wrong. Chick-Fil-A should sue the pants off Denver.

    Of course, Chick-Fil-A has many other reasons to want to disclaim bigoted comments like Dan Cathy’s. For example, they have a store in Westwood Village, right across the street from the main entrance to UCLA. The UCLA student body is almost as liberal as Berkeley’s. I want you to imagine how much business they’d lose if they had an official policy against same-sex marriage… (Even without the inevitable picket line…)

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.