Gay/Lesbian Issues

Corporate Influence over Government Is Bad…Unless They Hold the Correct Positions

Hollywood, NFL lobby to block law in Georgia to the cheers of the left.

|

"Guardians of the Galaxy"
Disney/Marvel "Guardians of the Galaxy"

It's the left's worst nightmare. Several large, powerful corporations are using their economic dominance to manipulate the outcome of the legislative process in Georgia. It's happening right now. It's what they've been warning us all about since the Supreme Court's Citizens United v. FEC decision. This is what happens when you allow unfettered corporate speech and involvement in politics! It's a corruption of the democratic republic. Wake up, people!

Oh, wait. They're using their economic influence to try to kill a "religious freedom" bill that would protect faith-based organizations from having to participate or provide their services in such a fashion that runs counter to their religious beliefs. This is obviously about same-sex marriage. Churches under the bill could not be forced to perform same-sex weddings, nor could they be forced to let same-sex couples use their facilities for same-sex ceremonies.

Georgia's legislative bodies have passed the bill and the state's governor is now deciding whether to sign it. Now the big news is that several entertainment companies that take advantage of Georgia's extremely friendly tax credits are threatening to pull out if the law passes. Disney has threatened to pull movie productions from the state, and the NFL has said passing the law could threaten a bid for the Super Bowl.

To be clear, this law has only a very modest effect outside faith-based organizations, mimicking the text of federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. That means that an individual can challenge an application of a law on the basis of it interfering with the exercise of that person's faith. But if the state can prove that that law furthers a compelling government interest, the person can still be forced to comply with the law. Despite what is showing up in some stories, it is far from a "freedom to discriminate" law.

This bill is a far cry from what passed yesterday in North Carolina, where legislators and the governor decided to overrule Charlotte's LGBT discrimination protection laws entirely and also require individuals to use the restrooms of their birth gender in schools and government facilities.

Anyway, we won't find much concern from opponents of this legislation over the impact of corporate intervention in the activities of the government. Indeed, the Human Rights Campaign has called on Hollywood to boycott Georgia if the government passes the law. This is the same Human Rights Campaign that has already endorsed Hillary Clinton, who has railed over the Citizens United decision and has made it part of her platform to select Supreme Court justices who will overturn it.

It's within the rights of these major corporations to decide whether to do business with a state based on its political climate or for any other reason. And it's well within their rights to lobby and publicly say so. But this is a right that is in part guaranteed by the Citizens United decision that many of the left attack at every opportunity. This is clear and obvious corporate speech that is intended to influence political outcomes via economic pressure.

Considering what just happened in North Carolina, opponents of this bill should be thinking about whether they would have nearly as much leverage to fight this legislation without Hollywood's help. The fact that activists and corporations are on the same side in this fight does not mean that this speech is "different" somehow from corporate lobbying to pass tax breaks or subsidies (both of which Hollywood and the NFL get in spades) or to get other special deals from legislators. It's still speech. It's still lobbying. It is still corporations trying to control what the government does. That a particular group of activists sees itself as the beneficiaries does not change the dynamic.

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.

177 responses to “Corporate Influence over Government Is Bad…Unless They Hold the Correct Positions

  1. Mmmm. Chris Pratt

    1. That’s like 5000 candles in the wind.

    2. The only version of Chris Pratt I respect. Probably NSFW, but definitely safe for America.

      1. Fat Chris Pratt is fine, but hot Chris Pratt is still a giant goofball… with abs.

    3. It was exactly this scene that motivated me to get back into shape. “If that fat goof from P&R can do it, so can I”, I thought. I dropped 22 kg of fat and have muscled up by ~6 kg now.

      1. when you use those metrics, we uneducated Americans can’t keep up

        1. good thing weight plates have pounds AND kilos on them…you should be proud of what you have done.

      2. I dropped 22 kg of fat and have muscled up by ~6 kg now.

        I need a translation.

        1. Down ~45 lbs, then up ~13 lbs.

          Or “nearly 3 stone, then up nearly 1 stone”.

          1. Oh! Thank you.

            That is really impressive, though.

          2. Is there like a rock somewhere in a government building in England that’s used as the official “stone” from which the unit is based? I just picture a rock in a glass case with like laser security around it.

          3. That is impressive. How many stones did you start out with? I’ve only got the two, so there’s no way I could match that.

      3. From what I’ve read, the movie use a system based as much on starvation and dehydration than actual muscle building where the star really only looks like that for about two days, and they just schedule all the shirtless scenes for that two day period.

  2. In before Jesse- DAMMIT

    1. I was just coming here to make a Jesse joke, but I see Jesse already came here.

      1. Well now the masturbation metaphors are just lazy.

      2. Am I that predictable?

        1. Like F d’A and Stossel!

  3. Does this mean Hollywood and the NFL are anti-Second Amendment rights because they do business in New York City, New Jersey, and Chicago?

    1. Well, Hollywood is anti-2nd amendment rights for other reasons.

  4. Is it possible to bake a homosexual pizza?

    Is that like deep dish with ham and pineapple or something?

    1. Gay pizza involves edible glitter and a lot of phallic-shaped foods.

      1. I’m afraid that you’ve mixed up gay pizza and wedding shower pizza.

        1. What about a gay wedding shower pizza?!

    2. In most Islamic countries the penalty for baking a deep dish pineapple and Canadian bacon Pizza is stoning.

      1. And that’s an aspect of Sharia that I respect and would like to see implemented worldwide.

      2. Everywhere else, you get stoned then go for deep dish pineapple and Canadian bacon pizza.

      3. Ham *is* haram.

        1. Well duh! It’s pork

  5. Remember when gay marriage proponents promised gay marriage would never mean that churches would be required to perform gay weddings? Gay rights activists have broke. Every promise they have ever made on this issue. The whole thing was nothing but a Trojan Horse to make it effectively illegal to object to gay marriage or homosexuality in general. It was never about freedom. It was always about using the language of freedom as a way to justify tyranny.

    1. Let’s make this into a Kim Davis thread!

      1. You just want to talk about Kim Davis for the same reason Jesse wants to talk about Chris Pratt.

        1. Apparently I am as predictable as Jesse.

          1. *high-fives Crusty*

      2. Here is a law that does nothing but codify that no church can be forced to perform a gay wedding and the gay rights activists are launching the jihad against Georgia over it.

        You tell me Crusty. Doesn’t that mean their earlier assurances to the contrary lies?

        1. and they are launching by purposely misrepresenting what the law aims to do, though churches saying no to people wanting weddings performed there is hardly new.

          1. It’s the left they lie, they always lie. I remember when a law that allowed businesses to opt out of providing birth control in their health care coverage based on religious grounds became, “The Republicans want to outlaw birth control”

            It’s the left, they never argue in good faith. It’s just a group of evil lying bastards and their hordes of moronic followers.

            1. Prepare yourself… Next thing you know, some troglodyte republican-dominated state somewhere will pass a law, prohibiting any person from getting prosecuted for “hate crimes” for the crime of turning down gay sex. “And if any person gets sued for prejudice and bias, for having more straight sex than gay, such a lawsuit will immediately be laughed out of court.”
              “Progressive” KKKorporations everywhere will immediately call for a boycott of any and all such states! Do NOT say I didn’t warn you!

              1. PS? I have to go now? I think the Sex Bias Police are following me!

            2. people say all sorts of similar and worse things about libertarians. I can accept that people disagree with me without attributing malice. I really have yet to stop being surprised by how different people can be.

        2. John, I have zero interest in having a gay marriage dispute with you. I understand the point you are making. I think we all understand the point you are making.

          1. I have been making it for years and was basically told to fuck off and called a bigot with am overactive imagination for making it.

            I doubt you are the only one who wants to move on from this conversation.

            1. John, you are not a bigot. I read here and very seldom comment. I don’t agree with you entirely, but on many things we think alike.

              You are spot on in this particular conversation.

              Gays have taken a sympathetic issue, “Gay people should be able to marry and have the same legal rights as everybody else”, that I agree with, and transformed themselves into a vengeful mob that persecutes innocent people for their religious beliefs. The “bake me a gay wedding cake or I will sue you into poverty” episode has turned my thinking 180 degrees.

              Fuck gays. They have lost my support.

              This, in a nutshell, explains Trump’s popularity. Trump is saying, “fuck your politically correct simpering”. I will probably vote for Trump as a tiny, and useless, gesture to the mob.

              1. So does this mean Trump will abolish the FDA?

          2. Will you have a gay marriage dispute with me? I’m not into those chinz curtains you bought.

            1. Like I said below Paul. These people are hated. So fucking them is different.

            2. Will you have a gay marriage dispute with me? I’m not into those chinz curtains you bought.

              Only if we can discuss your Tom Selleck shower curtain.

              1. What’s to discuss? Tom Selleck as a French General brooks no dispute. You accept the Selleck shower curtain, you you accept my moving out.

        3. the jihad against Georgia

          Is that anything like the Andrew Jackson Jihad?

          1. CALIFORNIA IS A GARDEN OF EDEN

          2. +1 Most Aborted Father

    2. You know what? You’re right. I’ll completely own up to being wrong on that.

      I still think that, to the extent the government regulates marriage, it shouldn’t discriminate. But you’re right, the gay marriage fight really was nothing but a trojan horse. Mea culpa.

      1. And remember the Libertarian position was always that government marriage was bad. Somehow libertarians convinced themselves that exanding government recognition and control of relationships was not only desireBle but mandatory.

        1. SLD, obviously. Government shouldn’t have anything to do with marriage. But if it’s going to, it shouldn’t discriminate. That’s the only point I’m trying to make there.

          1. Is good government marriage good or bad for people? If it is good, why do you oppose it? If it is bad, why do you want it expanded in the name of fairness? Are there any other bad things you want expanded if it can’t be ended?

            Hey I don’t support social Security but if the government is going to do it, even people who never paid into it should get it. I don’t support the drug war but if the government is going to do it it should prohibit all drugs and not let pot and spice users operate outside of it.

            Same logic

            1. Except marriage is voluntary. You can make a personal choice of it is good or bad for you. It’s not objectively good or bad. Selective service is objectively coercion and should not be expanded.

            2. I’m not sure whether a naked partisan like yourself refusing to acknowledge the existence of less-bad alternative makes you incredibly mendacious or incredibly retarded. Seriously, it’s a tough call.

              1. Hugh. You are almost cute if dumb. You are just more dishonest. The argument is what it is. If government marriage is bad then applying it to more people is not the best of a bad situation.

                Go celebrate fucking your enemies Hugh. It’s what you wanted you nasty totalitarian fuck.

                1. Wow, you really have lost it haven’t you? I’m sorry, John, I’ll be a lot more considerate of what I say to you now that I know you’re mentally ill.

                  1. You are a moron Hugh. You have no argument here. And you are estTic over the result. You are just too dishonest to admit it.

                    If you have ever made a cogent argument on here I have never seen it. Now run away

                    1. Look how complete your sentences are John! We’re all so proud of you. You got almost all the words right, but you can do better next time buddy! Now who wants a juice box?

                    2. Yes Hugh. Your perfect record of never making a rational argument or responding honestly continues.

                      Where you born this stupid Hugh? Did you drink drano as a child or something? Seriously what is your major malfunction? You seem to take pride in being retarded

                    3. Uh oh, somebody’s a Mr Grumpyface. Do you need a nap, champ? Or would you rather go outside and run around for a while?

    3. Duuhh I don’t know why people thought otherwise. Gay marriage support is never going to get any higher. They got their 50% and gave up on trying to change anybody’s minds. They switched immediately into fascist mode as soon as that 50% was hit.

      1. The fact that people were being sued for not participating in gay weddings in states that did not recognize gay marriage, prior to Obergefell, is probably one reason people thought otherwise.

    4. It’s not so much gay marriage as it is just the left in general. They are completely totalitarian in nature, and anyone who doesn’t agree with them must be punished and driven out of society. Everyone had to know the left was going to use gay marriage as a weapon because the left does this with any cause or institution they get their hands on.

      I mean look at what they have done to colleges. Once they gained control of them they started punishing anyone they could for wrongthink, and over time pretty drove out anyone who wasn’t a leftist.

      1. I spent five years on here telling people this would happen. And I got nothing but insults and called a bigot for my trouble. I was told to stop listening to the voices in my head that this would never happen. Everyone knew that the gay cause was pure and only a gay hating bigot could ever see a downside to it.

        1. Some people just knew that what you predicted would happen as a result of gay marriage was already happening before gay marriage was legally recognized.

          1. Churches were being sued for not doing gay mariagss? Where?

            And yes there were gay accommodation laws because at marriage. Gay marriage just made them worse.

            You won Nikki. The people you hate are getting fucked. Enjoy it.

            1. And yes there were gay accommodation laws because at marriage. Gay marriage just made them worse.

              There’s no evidence of that whatsoever.

              1. Yes there is. Before gay marriage churches could t be sued. Now they can.

                You won. Can at least be happy about it. These people are going to get sued out of public life. You no longer have to deal with them. Be happy about it.

              2. There’s no evidence of that whatsoever.

                Well, not counting the people who lost their businesses because they wouldn’t cater gay weddings, anyway.

                1. Yep. Gays have become a brigade in the fascist left, and little else.

          2. Yeah, I’m with Nikki. This issue would in all likelihood play out the exact same even if Obergefell had gone the other way.

            1. True for public accommodations and civil rights legislation vis-a-vis sexual orientation and sexual identity. This particular law, which is redundant with federal law anyway, is more directly related to gay marriage. However, it’s mostly posturing on both sides anyway. I don’t think anyone has actually been sued on the grounds that the law addresses, and even if they were, the federal law would already protect them. Of course, that will be moot when president Clinton signs the Equality Act next year. But ’til then…

              1. The court found for gay marriage it will find for a right to demand churches perform them. Churches can’t refuse interaci couples can they?

                The battle is lost. People will have to put their religion out of the public and keep it underground. Worse things have happened and religion has survived worse than this. But the facts are what they are. I don’t understand why adroid and Nikki are not happy about it. Their side won.

                1. Churches can’t refuse interaci couples can they?

                  I believe they can, actually. They’re allowed to set their own policy for the most part. Some churches don’t do weddings at all, some only do weddings for members, pretty much all place restrictions on it.

                  I don’t doubt that we will see expanded federal CRA legislation which adds sexual orientation as a protected class, at which point what you’re describing will probably come to pass. But Obergefell by itself doesn’t quite get us there.

            2. No it wouldn’t. Without ofberfell there wouldn’t be any way to sue churches. The church could just say we only do marriages when you have a license. Now they can’t do that. Marriage is a right.

              You guys won congratulations. You should be happy. The people in this country who object to gay marriage are going to either have to change or face being on the wrong side of state power.

              You hate those people and they are finally getting theirs. Enjoy it

              1. Without ofberfell there wouldn’t be any way to sue churches.

                Again, I don’t think any churches have been sued on this basis (ye). If they were, the federal RFRA, with which this state legislation is almost entirely redundant, would offer them the same defense as the state law. They’re going to need to pass the Equality Act to get to where you’re talking about, and they will, but by itself, Obergefell shouldn’t provide any novel grounds for suing churches. Religious employers, maybe, but not churches.

                1. The federal law will never survive court review now that gay marriage is a right any more than a statute that said churches were free to turn down interracial couples.

                  And churches will be sued and Scott will say gee that is too bad on and move on.

            3. Maybe, but marriage gave them another legal arrow in their quiver to use. I have no doubt the left would have still tried to hurt their enemies (It’s their nature), but I don’t know if they would have been as successful without this tool.

            4. This issue would in all likelihood play out the exact same even if Obergefell had gone the other way.

              I disagree. Obergefell was decided on equal protection grounds. Equal protection is the basis for public accommodation laws. Having SCOTUS declare that being gay was grounds for overturning state laws laid an important foundation stone that being gay was grounds for public accommodation.

              Its not strictly, legally, a straight line from one to the other, but only a fool thinks these things are done based on pure rationality and strict application of law.

              1. The basis of public accommodation laws is the commerce clause. That’s why you can’t bring an ADA or Title VII case unless the employer has at least 15 employees – because under that amount the business is not sufficiently involved in interstate commerce to implicate the commerce clause.

              2. Np, it was decided on substantive due process grounds.

        2. A lot of people here argue from like a Libertarian NAP philosophy. Basically in a perfect world if the government was going to be involved in marriage then it shouldn’t discriminate. This fits in well with the NAP and Libertarian thought.

          Unfortunately the political reality of the left and the Democrat party meant that this was going to be used as a tool to punish their enemies.

        3. I was told to stop listening to the voices in my head that this would never happen.

          1. Fuck off Go back and read the threads. You people all denied this would ever happen or that gay activists even wanted this. But we will throw that down the memory whole because GAYZ!!

        4. Just because you’re right doesn’t mean you aren’t a bigot. It’s not like you’ve stridently been demanding that we remain firm on eliminating all state marriage, you just wanted to use the (accurate) prediction of an evil future to preserve an evil present.

          1. I didn’t help the store religious freedom in this country. Libertarians and contrast did you want to resolve at least be happy with it

      2. Once they gained control of them they started punishing anyone they could for wrongthink, and over time pretty drove out anyone who wasn’t a leftist.

        Huh, so my time at UC Irvine was just a simulation?

        1. How many professors are Republicans vs how many are Democrats? The fact that colleges across the country have become virtual echo chambers for the left is something so obvious I don’t see why it needs to be pointed out.

          1. How would it be possible to know? Anyone who’s on a major liberal campus are not going to admit they are a republican because they know that means an inquisition and permanent ostracism from their chosen career.

            1. “Anyone who’s on a major liberal campus are not going to admit they are a republican because they know that means an inquisition and permanent ostracism from their chosen career.”

              And this does have the effect of driving less left-leaning people away. I attempted an academic career much earlier in my existence, but it was painfully clear that my lack of any sort of victim status combined with my extreme skepticism of Marxism meant that I either had to start supporting positions and using methodologies that were antithetical to my own beliefs in order to keep my job or I was going to have to find another career.

              I work in construction now and am much happier, because I can (mostly) freely speak my mind.

              1. I work in construction now and am much happier, because I can (mostly) freely speak my mind.

                What type of construction? I only ask because I’m currently trying to secure an apprenticeship with the local operating engineers trust.

                1. I specialize in public works, mostly educational, but am working on a county hospital at the moment. Used to work for a contractor but now I’m on the project management/consulting end working for the owner.

                  Operating engineer is a good gig – I envy those guys that run the big machines. It looks like great fun, they get paid well, and you can eat while you do it.

                  1. Sweet. Although I think I put down building construction inspector as my job classification, per a friend’s request who’s currently an apprentice.

                    1. Building inspector is a decent ticket also – I was always unclear on that labor classification distinction between machine operators and operating engineers. Are they the same union?

                    2. No idea, but this link might be able to clear things up for you.
                      http://www.oettms-public.sharepoint.c…..tions.aspx

              2. I attempted an academic career much earlier in my existence

                May I ask what discipline?

                1. English – medieval, with a strong interdisciplinary focus on history of science, mathematics & theology, since with medieval lit, science, mathematics and theology are all pretty much the same thing.

                  1. Huh, I would have assumed Medievalists were like Classics scholars; i.e., “Young Fogey-types who wear tweed and lean conservative.

                    1. “I would have assumed Medievalists were like Classics scholars; i.e., “Young Fogey-types who wear tweed and lean conservative”

                      A lot are – or were. Conservative Christians who wanted to study literature pretty much wound up there by default, and truth be told I wound up there in part because it was the only field that wasn’t full to the brim with Marxists who would kill your career in a heartbeat for questioning the prophet.

                      I was there 1996-2004, and the change was tangible – by 2004 the Marxists were moving in and the most recent call for papers I got from the medieval scholar people was all about victim studies in the middle ages.

                      I got to be a bit self-satisfied, though, when I saw all the post-colonial stuff showing up in medieval conferences. I suggested in about 2001 that medieval western Europe was a post-colonial society and I was literally scoffed at. Now that it’s been made to serve the Narrative, it’s all the rage.

                    2. And that would be a heck of an interesting course for history majors to take as an advanced Lit credit. I would’ve taken the heck out of that course for my history minor if it was offered.

              3. I’m considering an academic career; fortunately in a science, so it wouldn’t deal with politics at all, but I still worry. For one, more and more academic jobs are practically reserved for ethnic minorities and women, and thanks to my elitism it would irk me to have to apply to universities less prestigious than my doctoral institution.

                But what really worries me is that everything you say is tacitly policed. Gone are the days when you had to say a racial slur in order to get reprimanded. I’m amazed at how emotionally distraught and angry some leftist co-workers (again, scientists, not even people whose work concerns politics at all) have gotten at hearing me disagree with affirmative action or dispute the notion of the wage gap in hallway conversations about politics (that they started, invariably under the assumption that I was a leftist too). Complaints could get filed, accusations ot ‘racist’ or ‘sexist’ ‘microaggressions’, followed by mandatory workshops; and worse, even if no formal charge of misconduct stands, very likely a mark goes next to your name to alert your tenure committee that they’d best deny you a position. Too much of a minefield. And it’s only getting worse, and fast.

            2. Anyone who’s on a major liberal campus are not going to admit they are a republican

              There’s no difference between not being a Republican, and not saying or doing anything at all that would reveal you are a Republican.

              Either way, as far as the campus culture goes, there are no Republicans around.

          2. You didn’t specify if you were referring to students or professors in your original comment. I can tell you that there are indeed non-leftist students on college campuses around the country. You can of course google college republicans and Young Americans for Liberty as proof of such.

            1. This is very true – I had lots of students who were skeptical of leftism and PC culture even while professors and other instructors were openly shamed and ostracized for making statements that could be interpreted as insufficiently Marxian. Mostly these students had no intention of pursuing academic careers – they were there for degrees that would get them decent private-sector jobs and took much of academic culture with a huge grain of salt.

            2. And both clubs need faculty advisors.

              1. Ok so what is your point? That colleges are actually places of free thought, free expression, free speech? That conservative speakers are not routinely dis-invited, or shouted down by retarded protesters? That they don’t have speech codes, and safe spaces? That professors don’t inserted their progressive nonsense into every subject they teach? That left wing propaganda isn’t posted all over the place? That colleges are not obsessed with identity politic bullshit?

                Seriously what are you arguing? That because they’re a few conservative professors out there speaking in hushed tones that colleges didn’t force all conservative thought out?

                This is like arguing that the Nazis weren’t anti-Semitic because they didn’t manage to murder all the Jews, just most of them

            3. And these groups are routinely hounded by administrations and leftist student complaints for holding public events, openly expressing their views, or sometimes even just existing.

    5. I don’t remember anyone saying this was impossible, though I obviously didn’t read every thread. The majority argument I heard and made was that these are separate arguments. It was obvious that there would be people who would continue to push these types of anti-discrimination laws and force everyone to agree with them or be destroyed, because that’s what progressives always do. But the argument over whether or not the government should discriminate who it gives the right to contract with each other to enjoy the rights and privileges that accompany that contract does not depend on whether others will use that right to try to force others to give them access to their property. You can be for one and against the other.You can’t deny people rights just because some people will try to misuse them.

      1. Gays were given the right to contract via civil unions and turned it down to the cheers of Libertarians. Some states recognized gay rmarriages but libertarians demanded it be done by courts via equal protection. They were warned doing it that way would have grave consiquences for religious freedom. Libertarians ignored these warnings. Libertarians care for religious freedom as profs care for gun rights.

        Libertarians are now engaged in endless rationalization about how they really did not want this to happen and they did not help bring it about. Bullshit. Libertarians demanded gay marriage even though they knew the consiquences were going to be restricting religious freedom. They took that bargain and should not now be able to claim they didn’t.

        Their help and support is not wanted or needed on the issue of religious freedom. Libertarians no longer have the moral authority to be of any assistance in the matter.

        1. The libertarians I know said the government shouldn’t license marriages period.

          1. Okay. Then why did they want to expand that harm to include more people? And if they didn’t, then they did not support gay marriage and are not whom I am talking about.

        2. “Gays were given the right to contract via civil unions […]”
          Bullshit.

          Of the 30+ stand constitutional amendments that prohibited marriage equality, 20+ also banned civil unions, and civil unions were never offered any sort of federal recognition.

          Civil Unions were never a serious compromise, and they were only supported by Republicans in places where the Republicans realized it was Civil Unions or marriage.

  6. Also, goddammit Scott. Every time I post something political I get prog friends of mine talking about how I’m just parroting Reason and Reason is dumb and now I post about this 30 minutes ago and I see this.

    1. I’m just parroting Reason and Reason is dumb

      Your prog friends sound pretty smart.

    2. Progs spend their entire existence parroting the current talking points of the left. Challenge them and they defend those positions with reason and logic, right? No, they call you silly names and duck and run.

      1. They often say you are shitting your pants and have thereby proven you wrong.

      2. You forgot the insult you, ignore your point, and talk down to you, be smug, and gloat over opposing view-holders’ ‘losses.’

      3. Libertarians parrot Reason, but progs parrot Slate and HuffPo. See, Huffpo and Slate beat Reason. You might parrot the Financial Times of London and they’d be intimidated, but if one of them parrots the New Yorker, they automatically win.

        It’s a ll a card game, and the ‘sophistication’ level of the paper you regurgitate determines the quality of your position.

  7. You get the wrong kind of accompanying art when Shackford posts. Even if the post itself is pretty excellent.

  8. Oh, by the way, this hypocrisy is called “fighting fire with fire” from the left.

    1. Don’t worry Paul. The evangelicals are assholes and every right thinking person hates them. So I am sure their losing their rights will never make it easier for other people to lose their rights.

      1. and, of course, after they come for the rights of preacher class, they’ll stop. Because everyone knows the has a stopping point.

      2. The funny thing is the progs are evangelicals too, they just follow the religion of Progressivism.

          1. Not when they’re done

      3. I do personally know quite a few evangelicals who are in fact assholes. That being said, I don’t know too many leftists because I make it a point to steer clear of them, being as ALL of them are assholes.

        1. I know some that are and some that are not. Regardless they are hated by pretty much the entire political media and elite classes. And they are about to be fucked royally. But like I said, what do libertarians have to worry about? Not like they are a small and generally disliked minority.

          1. When you join the libertarian tribe, you should know that you are exposing yourself to hatred from both sides of the political majority. Most libertarians are intelligent and I’m sure most must realize that. If you want lots of upvotes on your Derpbook page, libertarian is not the way to go.

            1. I am a bit bitter over being proven right. The Libertarian tribe were convinced this would never happen. They were warned but didn’t listen. And now really don’t care. Gays are cool and those who object to gays are not. And cool matters most.

  9. Is Walking Dead production affected? That’s my only equity on this…

    1. THEY’RE ZOMBIES. CALL THEM ZOMBIES, PEOPLE.

      1. DID U KNO THAT NOT ONCE HAVE THEY BEEN CALLED ZOMBIES IN THE SHOW ALWAYS WALKERS I MEAN WHAT ARE THEY GETTING AT

      2. That’s not politically correct. The correct term is ‘living challenged’. Bagger!

  10. At first I thought this was a pic of shirtless and skinny-ripped Pitt from Fight Club. Regardless, I am enjoying Pratt’s muscle tones. No homo, of course.

  11. I refuse to read the article to try to glean what Chris Pratt has to do with any of this.

    1. Lovely. This video of his very juvenile Parks bloopers is also tremendous.

      1. I think the very last one might have killed the actor who played Gerry.

        1. Gergich was not a health nut.

  12. How about you argue for freedom of association for everyone, not just for ‘religious reasons’.

    1. Nobody wants to touch the argument for free associztion because lunch counters, back of the bus, Selma bridge you racist.

      Freedom of association is dead, buried and decomposed.

      1. You know Rosa Parks was actually sitting in the back of the bus? She was arrested for refusing to give up her seat to a white man not for sitting in the white section.

    2. Progressives made up the term ‘public accommodation’ to hand wave away any freedom arguments.

    3. I’ve got a few answers, but none of them are very generous to Libertarians/libertarians.

      So here’s a single short answer: because Libertarians are unwilling to do the hard work of changing people’s minds.

      1. Ah, so people only have the right to do what they want as long as they want to do what you approve of, is that it? Sure, churches can marry whoever they want! Unless they don’t want to marry gay couples, then we’ll shut the fuckers down unless they bend the knee.

        Sure, you can express your opinions freely, unless they don’t fall within this narrow set of appropriate, inoffensive, enlightened opinions.

        Sigh, but I’m just too damned tired right not to explain to you what a ‘right’ is, and why it isn’t the state’s job to make sure people are of the ‘correct’ mindset. If you can’t see why not, then you probably never will.

  13. Well first corporate influence is bad, always. End all corporate welfare now, and get them out of politics. And that act protects the right to the freedom of association. I’m not saying I agree with the church’s positions but I don’t think its right to force anybody to perform a service they don’t want.

    If you are the pastor to a church that was predominately black, how would you feel about marrying KKK members? I know I wouldn’t want to marry KKK members or support them in anyway.

    Either way this is one of the reasons why I vote Libertarian. They are strong on civil rights, including the right to free association. #GaryJohnson2016

    1. Just challenge them on this premise:

      If you can force one religion, in this case, Christians or evangelicals, to perform a gay marriage, then you must force ALL religions to perform gay marriages. That includes Muslims.

      They cannot possibly win that challenge, it’s the coup de grace.

      1. You assume they have any logic or integrity. They don’t and Muslims will get a pass.

      2. They’ll absolutely maintain that Muslims should marry gays, in theory. In practice, everyone will operate under the assumption that gays who tried to get married in a mosque would be murdered, so no one will try, so no lawsuit will be filed. Terrorism works.

        1. That would be the best test case of the left ever.

      3. Just pass laws requiring all sects to perform gay marriages, then selectively enforce those laws only for ‘oppressor’ group religions. “Problem” “solved.”

    1. Just hovering over that link makes my blood boil. The free market (aka “corporashuns”) have ALWAYS taken the lead on social change. Always. 100% of the time.

      1. Liberals need to be reminded that often.

    2. I thought this was going to be a Passover Coke joke.

  14. Despite what is showing up in some stories, it is far from a “freedom to discriminate” law.

    I’m still confused as to the reason why this is controversial considering all of us individuals have a fundamental right to discriminate on the basis of whatever piques our fucking fancy.

    1. I’m waiting for a man to sue a woman for discrimination because she refused to date him.

      1. Maybe if the woman were a hooker and the courts populated with people who are intellectually honest, the man would have a case because of the so-called “public accommodation” principle. But Marxians being Marxians I am sure the courts will simply equivocate and dismiss the case by saying the ‘spirit of the law’ is something else.

  15. Thats not making a whole lot of sene to me dude.

    http://www.Anon-Net.tk

  16. How is their position the right one? They want the government to initiate force to make people act against their wishes. That’s not libertarian at all.

    1. Said who? Did you read my comment? The position is in support of the law, due to the fact it helps reinforce the right to free association. And on the other note being against corporate subsidies is also libertarian. And I’m just someone who is opposed to lobbying, would like to see money out of politics.

      1. Uh, I’m not responding to your comment and how is pulling business out of the state in support of the law?

      2. As for lobbying the solution is for the government to be held to its one proper function, defending individual negative liberty with the retaliatory use of force.

        1. Truuuuuue, and my bad I thought you were. Also aren’t the businesses against the law? Or did I misread the article?

  17. I wonder what would happen if some big corporations threw their weight around to promote right-to-work laws and cuts to public pensions.

  18. Tax Corporate Revenues, Not Profits;
    http://news.yahoo.com/warren-b…..-news.html

  19. To be clear, this law has only a very modest effect outside faith-based organizations, mimicking the text of federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. That means that an individual can challenge an application of a law on the basis of it interfering with the exercise of that person’s faith. But if the state can prove that that law furthers a compelling government interest, the person can still be forced to comply with the law. Despite what is showing up in some stories, it is far from a “freedom to discriminate” law.

    So why do not these companies boycott the United States?

  20. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour… This is what I do

    ========================== http://www.4dayjobs.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.