Election 2016

Fashion Designers Are Boycotting Melania Trump. Shouldn't Bakers and Florists Have the Same Right?

Free association should not be for powerful liberals only.

|

"As one who celebrates and strives for diversity, individual freedom, and respect for all lifestyles, I will not participate in dressing or associating in any way with the next First Lady," wrote fashion designer Sophie Theallet in an open letter this week.

People magazine reports Theallet, who has designed and donated clothes for outgoing First Lady Michelle Obama numerous times over the last eight years, may not be alone: "A source tells People, 'This has already been going on for months. Designers wouldn't lend to Melania, Ivanka or Tiffany, so they either bought the items themselves or wore Ivanka's brand. … There was a lot of shopping their own closets.'"

Personally, I applaud Theallet's design to disassociate herself with the next occupant of the White House. I see Donald Trump as a shameful human being with few redeeming qualities as a leader and even fewer as a person, and if I were a business owner, I too would decline to serve his administration.

Likewise, I support Bruce Springsteen's right to cancel his concerts in North Carolina in protest of the state's transgender-bathroom policies.

Both are examples of associational freedom—the right to make decisions for yourself about how and with whom you spend your time and energy. This includes the right not to take on a client or project that elevates, in your view, a value you disagree with.

The problem is not that Theallet was willing to dress Michelle Obama and isn't willing to dress Melania Trump (which is, like it or not, a form of discrimination). The problem is just how many people don't seem to think that same freedom should be extended to bakery owners, photographers, and other wedding vendors who object to same-sex marriage on religious grounds.

As Theallet put it, "we consider our voice an expression of our artistic and philosophical ideals." I suspect Barronelle Stutzman, the white-haired grandmother who owns Arlene's Flowers, feels the same way about her craft. But instead of assuming a live-and-let-live attitude on the matter, Washington state has systematically worked to destroy Stutzman's business unless she agrees to take part in a celebration to which she is morally opposed.

There's been a lot of discussion since Trump's victory last week of the apparent disconnect between rural and urban America—between wealthy elites and those who live in what has become less-than-affectionately known as "flyover country." This is a vivid example of that chasm.

Rights cannot be just for those who will use them to uphold the values you agree with. They must also be for those who will take positions you can't fathom for reasons you can't stomach. Free association, and the freedom to live out your convictions expressively in how you make a living, cannot be reserved for rock stars and fashion designers and other powerful liberals, while being denied to regular Americans.

"As a family owned company, our bottom line is not just about money," Theallet writes in her open letter. "We value our artistic freedom." Hear, hear.

NEXT: Sen. Ben Sasse speaking to the Federalist Society about limited government

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

  1. Trump appoints Kim Jung Un as fashion czar.

    1. Hillary was the one in the Mao suits.

      1. I preferred her Vampire coffin attire she wore for her concession speech.

        1. Whoa! Hillary is not associated with any Vampires. You might want to retract your statement, because I cannot control a fellow Vampire taking you to court. Judge Boodie Shredland is very tough.

          You might think her knee high boots and whip is for your pleasure……but seriously, avoid her at all costs!

          1. Maybe she’s trying to infiltrate since she can no longer become queen of the living. Better watch your bats, I mean backs.

            1. My best friend’s sister makes $90 an hour on the internet . She has been out of a job for six months but last month her check was $14750 just working on the internet for a few hours. Go this website and click tech tab to start your work?this website?…. http://www.Trends88.com

        2. She looked like she was about to jump to the left and then take a step to the right.

          1. My best friend’s sister makes $90 an hour on the internet . She has been out of a job for six months but last month her check was $14750 just working on the internet for a few hours. Go this website and click tech tab to start your work?this website?…. http://www.Trends88.com

          2. It was Michael Renny who was ill, not Hillary.

    2. Just Relaks – If This Sound Good For You – Popcorn First !!!
      Latest Update More HD Quality Movie Complete Available Here:
      ? ? ? http://bit.ly/2g6t4Gl ? ? ?
      Happy & Enjoy to Watch For Free

  2. Go Bucks!

    1. Time to kick some Sparty butt. Seeing how Maryland beat them, it’s hard to imagine this being a game but I would never look past Dantonio.

      1. Turns out: it’s a brawl. Hope tosu wins.

        1. Me too. Need to stop those big plays.

            1. Yeah

  3. “Fashion Designers Are Boycotting Melania Trump.”

    Now let’s see how many are opposed to Reason having a fluff section. Yes, I’m boycotting the comment section until all my demands are met.

    1. WHO’S WITH HIM!!??

      1. We can refund it for beer and gum, right?

    2. Tch. Are not, lies and calumny.

      Since were living in post-PC world, can I say the slobbering over Michelle and Huma’s “beauty” all these years has been nauseating? I mean, they’re not bad, Huma certainly has this whole Uma Thurman thing going on and Michelle takes care of herself. Hey, at her age, those upper arms could be worse. But I heard Huma described in Der Spiegel, and I quote, as a “cross between Angelina Jolie and an Indian princess”.

      And yet the illiberals pretty-shame Ann Coulter and hiss about an actual model whose crime was to marry someone they don’t like.

      Melania is drop-dead gorgeous, and I suspect we’re in for four years of decidedly anti-feminist feminist wankery about her.

      1. I think Melania has kind of a funny-looking face, to be honest.

        Ivanka, on the other hand, can see my mulatto cock any time she desires.

        1. It looks like this, in case you were wondering.

          1. I would ask other members of the commentariat if that was safe to click on but I don’t trust any of you.

            1. It’s safe. Have I ever lied to you before?

              1. I think something of this importance requires further interrogation.

                https://youtu.be/kzw1_2b-I7A

              2. If you had, would the meth let you remember?

              3. It’s a picture of the rooster HM bought from SIV to guard his house.

            2. Black and white Barber Pole, static. If his schlong looks like that, I STRONGLY recommend seeking medical expertise.

              1. You are the penis expert around here…

              2. Wouldn’t it be worse if it were NOT static?

            3. Other commentariat “members,” you would ask, would you? Don’t bother. They’re all dickheads.

          2. Will you be giving her a shave and haircut, too?

            1. Two bits.

              Fuck that’s an annoying Pavlovian response.

          3. I clicked and was not dissapointed – BB indeed.

          4. “Mulatto Cock” would be a great name for a rock band.

          5. I can’t tell which end is which?

        2. Indeed.

          Ivanka is one of the very few women I’ve seen in my life for whom the phrase “makes me weak in the knees” seems to suit perfectly.

          Roowwwrr!

        3. Go see an optometrist.

      2. Huma certainly has this whole Uma Thurman thing going on

        Please elaborate, because I’m not seeing this.

        1. I don’t either

          1. By which to say, I don’t agree, but she’s skinny and seems intelligent so I can see how her personal charm has everyone around her so convinced of her hotness that they behave accordingly and everyone else just kind of shrugged and went along, because calling women “fascinating” isn’t as complimentary as calling them “gorgeous”.

            Which will only make sense as a clarification if you understand that this is also how I see Uma Thurman.

            1. Uma is not my personal cup of tea, but if someone said they found her attractive, I get it. Now Lucy Liu, I’ll not hear a disparaging word!

            2. Gotcha. I thought maybe Huma had enormous hands and I missed it somehow.

              Uma, Huma? Surely the one-letter difference can’t be mere coincidence.

              1. You know what they say about women with enormous hands.

                1. They give great hand?

              2. Oprah, Uma, Huma, Oprah

        2. Her mouth is too big for her head. That is a feature that creeps me out on both sexes.

          1. ^ This

            Her mouth needs its own zip code, and she could claim each tooth as a dependent on her taxes. They are gigantic.

            1. Would. All day.

          2. Is that you, Batman?

        3. He wanted to say ” if you see fer from behind and wear a blond wig, she may have some Uma :)), or if you cut the “H”

      3. Eh, Huma is way better looking than Melania. Not that I would kick either out of bed.

        Huma’s problem is that spending decades next to power but never *being* the power (only exercising it for the power’s will) has given her a permanent case of RBF – that shit got stuck that way.

        Every picture I’ve seen of her, she looks like she’s sucking on a sourball.

        1. She’s got those high cheekbones that say “I’m capable of smiling” and that primitive mammal rodent nose that says “I am capable of helping you sniff out and devour dinosaur eggs in a post-meteor world.”

        2. It could have been from sucking Weiner…

    3. Calm Down Just Relaks – If This Sound Good For You – Popcorn First !!!
      Interested? Check – visit don’t forget to like & share
      Latest Update More HD Quality Movie Complete Available Here:
      ? ? ? http://bit.ly/2g6t4Gl ? ? ?
      Happy & Enjoy to Watch For Free

    4. I have boycotted the comment section for forever, because it is pointless: a bunch of boring douchebags who bitch about everything but the topic at hand, go on endlessly with their retarded meme-of-the-day, belie their conservatard (NOT libertarian) leanings, waste half the comments with ‘so-and-so is a douche (never WHY he/she is a douche)’, ‘no, you are a douche’, ‘so’s your old lady’, falling or the same old left/right traps, etc, etc, etc… ad infinitum… worthless drivel from people who pretend to be above it all…
      speaking of above it all, I would not mind if the whole of the fashion industry fell off the planet, that would be a ‘good thing’: a morally ambiguous ‘profession’ which promotes waste and The Shiny above all else ? no thanks, that is a fucked up ‘value system’… an industry totally dedicated to making last years clothes unwearable ? that is obscene…
      a means by which ‘insiders’ can ridicule ‘outsiders’ ? sounds way cool, I think the commentard here would love the fashion industry ! ! !

  4. Last time I checked, “petty bitch” (or, more correctly, “wife of a petty bitch”) wasn’t a suspect class under Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence.

    1. Last time I checked, “petty bitch” wasn’t a suspect class under Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence

      On the contrary, in today’s jurisprudence, it is the only protected class.

    2. Well Glen, the 14th amendment is irrelevant to private discrimination so what’s your point?

      1. Somehow that got changed with the licensing fetish that has swept the country. Now everybody with a business license is in the service of the government and its whims.

        It is almost as if businesses are merely the managers with all the risk and the bureaucrats are the ones with all the say.

        1. Its almost like . . . nationalized . . . socialism? Yeah, nationalized socialism.

          1. Yea, but for some reason the progressives never called it that. They wanted a new catchier name from the 1890s.

    3. True. Not a protected class. But the religious are. In fact that is the first enumerated freedom.

      Yet Gary Johnson would not commit to protecting the religious. He was a fake libertarian.

      1. U mad bro?

    4. Where does the 14th amendment mention “suspect classes”?

    5. Where does the 14th amendment mention “suspect classes”?

  5. The wrong side of history can be boycotted by the right side of history, but certainly not the other way around. If your intentions are good, like Trump boycotters, then your boycott is blessed. But if your intentions are evil, craven and self-serving, like gay-bashing bakers, then your boycott is immoral and therefore illegal.

    Unfortunately with Trump in charge of the Supreme Court, we can’t fine Ms. Slade for this article, but he can’t hole up in the White House forever.

    1. And of course you get to decide what is “the right side of history.” Right?

      Could you possibly be more obtuse?

      1. Re-calibrate sarcasm detectors, and then re-read his post.

        1. Probably wasn’t around to catch AmSoc using exactly that rhetoric. Not just sarcasm but mocking sarcasm. I approve.

        2. If that’s sarcasm it’s incredibly lame sarcasm. In fact, it sounds more like petulant liberal drivel.

          1. If that’s sarcasm it’s incredibly lame sarcasm. In fact, it sounds more like petulant liberal drivel.

            Yes. Exactly.

            1. I have that problem in the real world as well. I’m amused by most of the time.

        3. There have been alot of new handles popping up around here sice the election. They still don’t “get” hnr yet. Give them time.

          Also, fried chicken.

          1. I can’t tell you how pleased I am that the, “Also, fried chicken.” thing still pops up from time to time.

            Good memories.

          2. We need a Reason wiki to cover all this shit, some stuff is obvious and long-lasting while other stuff fades after a couple months. Remember the “Old White Guys Brigade” or whatever the hell Bo called us?

            1. We definitely need a wiki, if only to provide ready explanations for references to Tulpa (who was before my time), Warty’s sex dungeon, and STEVE SMITH.

              1. What happened to reason.wikia.com?

          3. Facebook is intolerable now so we have to spend our time someplace.

      2. Not familiar with the High Fist of the Commentariat, are you?

        1. What makes you two think Bru(cake)baker wasn’t upping the sarcasm to a whole new level? OUT-SARCASMED.

    2. Looks like the wrong side of history done crawled out of the casket and slapped the right side of history upside the head.

  6. Why am I not shocked the Obama’s never paid for all those clothes. The were ‘donated. .Like the Salvation Army. And of course,they are tax free gifts. I guess the Queen has to be dresses in the best that money an not buy. Buying your own clothing is for the ‘little people. A term I heard The blonde harpy on Morning Joe use to refer r to most of the country. And they wonder why Trump won.

    1. I’m guessing you’re not shocked because the Obamas are nothing but self serving slimy hucksters.

    2. I’m not gonna do a research project on it but I wouldn’t be surprised if this was the case with prior first ladies as well. It is very common for famous women to wear free clothing, it’s basically advertising.

      1. I’ll bet they will get all kinds of ‘gift’ and specking fees once they leave office. They will never work a day the rest of their life,become very wealthy and bitch and rant against the ‘ 1% ‘.

      2. It was. That foul bitch Nancy Reagan got behind “Just Say No!” to distract attention from all the tax deductions ‘big corporations’ got for providing redecorations services for the white house, her gowns, etc.

        I find it at least moderately difficult to believe that there won’t be self-serving fashionistas who suck up to the Trumps and the power elite by providing gowns to the administration.

      3. Personally – if I’m in that position I’m not going to wear anything that *the designer* is paying for. Plus, this is America, it is, IMO, unseemly for these women to even allow designers to gift them. They should be pushing the narrative that the President (and his family) are not royalty or special. Anything else is unAmerican.

        1. You’ve always been one of the good ones Aga.

      4. I thought I remember JFK complaining that Jackie was spending too much on clothing while in the White House. Could be wrong though; could’ve been before they were in power.

    3. Melania can always tell people ‘at least I PAID for my clothes’ if she’s ever insulted about her attire.

    4. If t makes you feel any better, Snooki didn’t have to pay for her wardrobe either.

  7. Excellent article, miss Slade.

        1. He’s okay, but I am old school and lean more toward Evil Roy Slade.

  8. I, too, believe daughters should be punished for the sins of their fathers.

    Zh? li?n ji? z?!

    1. Do use a paddle and gag or open hand?

      1. I like open hand. The sound is much more satisfying.

        1. You like to see your hand prints on their ass. Am I right?

  9. Oh this should be fun

    1. I’m all for Ivanka wearing less clothing.

      1. That’s our first woman President right there.

      2. ^ THIS.

      3. Global warrrming made it possible.

  10. I’m just glad we finally have a hot first lady.

  11. To be honest, I’m a little more concerned about who Trump is appointing to key positions than I am about anyone’s wardrobe. Shocking, yes, I know.

    But is it too late to stop Trump from putting into place an entire team of neocon drug warriors? Does anyone around him or in his family have one little bit of sense they can use to persuade him to stop this madness? I know that Rand has already said he won’t vote for a Bolton or Guliani SOS, but really, Rand is only one guy.

    1. Rand only needs two more guys to join him to block any appointment assuming all the Dems vote against.

      1. I hope they dispose of Sessions very quickly, but I have no hope of it happening. The only hope is that Trump did this to keep his promise to Sessions knowing that it will fail and not be his fault.

          1. The only picks those current Republicans in the Senate ever vote against are presidents with an R behind their name.

            1. I think this gets back to my comment yesterday that there’s gonna be a lot of filibusters — by Republicans. Rand Paul, maybe one or two more.

        1. Well, who did you think he was going to appoint? Look, I’m happy as all hell that Hillary lost, and the schadenfreude and proggy tears go great with my coffee. So, that’s the good news. The bad news is that it means Trump is going to be president.

          1. The bad news is that it means Trump is going to be president.

            But think of the boilerplate signaling that will accompany every single Reason post for the next four years. That will never get old.

    2. When we were airing our raging schadenboners in celebratory revelry, it ought to have occurred to us that the socons were doing so just as enthusiastically. And there’s more of them, and they have important seats in government.

      Knew it was too good to be true.

      1. Are you conflating socons with neocons?

        And was FDR a socon, because he helped ramp up the drug war.

        What about Nixon and his War on Drugs?

        What about black “anticrime” activists and their advocacy of tougher drug sentences? Socons again?

        1. Are you picking a fight?

          Have I done something to offend you?

          Is that grasping nitpick over word choice really the best battle to pick? C’mon, you know I’ll say something far more offensive than that today.

          Good morning, Eddie! Have you ever done NaNoWriMo?

          1. Taking questions in reverse order:

            (a) If you mean National Novel Writing Month, no

            (b) You as a person haven’t done anything to offend me, but I feel at liberty to disagree with anyone, no matter how nice and friendly they may be.

            (a) Yes, apparently.

            Your remark about socons “doing so just as enthusiastically” looked to me like you were positing a mirror-image moral equivalence. But if they’re morally equivalent, why do they permit businesses to cater gay weddings? The opposite of requiring businesses to cater gay weddings is forbidding them to do so.

            It seems the SoCons are actually *more tolerant* than the SoLibs.

            1. Your remark about socons “doing so just as enthusiastically” looked to me like you were positing a mirror-image moral equivalence. But if they’re morally equivalent, why do they permit businesses to cater gay weddings? The opposite of requiring businesses to cater gay weddings is forbidding them to do so.

              It seems the SoCons are actually *more tolerant* than the SoLibs.

              You got all that, huh.

              In this interpretation, my slightest off-hand remark takes on the most remarkable significance. I shall take that as a compliment, whether you like it or not. It’s a nice Saturday morning, and I’m enjoying the image of looming in someone else’s world view.

              Dude, I’m not a socon. I mean, are you even remotely surprised to discover that I was enthusiastic about possible economic de-regulation and shrinking governments in education and environmental agencies, but not rolling back gay marriage and legal pot? Don’t tell me this news came as a shock. I won’t believe it.

              We want different things. Just this once, can we let it go at that without going through this whole rigamarole about which one of us that makes better?

              1. Sorry, I didn’t mean to suggest I’m better, just that I happen to have stumbled on a good idea you disagree with.

    3. Either Bolton or Giuliani would be terrible choices. I imagine that we are guaranteed that Giuliani gets in somewhere though.

      1. Bolton is so fucking horrible that I imagine he’d never get through. I don’t think Guliani is a sure thing either.

        1. Bolton as SoS would pretty much preclude any kind of foreign treaties or agreements because he is too incompetent, undiplomatic and abrasive. I don’t see that as a bad thing necessarily.

          1. Bolton as SoS would pretty much preclude any kind of foreign treaties or agreements because he is too incompetent, undiplomatic and abrasive

            i think he’s a bad choice for sec state for a variety of reasons, but not because of his competence or personality

            if you think ‘incompetent and abrasive’ are disqualifiers for diplomats, you haven’t been paying attention.

            Besides, i don’t think he’s incompetent. He would actually be a decent person to be ambassador to UN again. The UN needs people to challenge their endless posturing/meddling and show contempt for their corruption

            as sec state, i think he’d be less than ideal because of his historical baggage. it would be better to have someone that shows a change in US direction/attitude after Kerry, but not ‘retrenchment’ into Bush-era “my way or the highway”-ness.

          2. These other countries Bolton would be dealing with don’t even teach their children that America is the greatest country ever, so it’s not like they can be reasoned with anyway.

          3. On the other hand, it might be a change from the “give away the store in the hopes that maybe others will do something nice, but no promises” that usually characterizes State.

        2. Bolton is suitable to one position and one position only – he needs to be ambassador to the UN again.

          1. I wonder if he would even accept such a position if he thought it would be executed in service of isolationism.

    4. Those neocon drug warriors are largely the only people willing to work with Trump unequivocally. Half his own party doesn’t like him, the NeverTrumps will still continue to bitch, and the socons aren’t very enthusiastic because he’s not chasing their issues. A ton of the people jumping onto the Trump train had their careers on a standstill for years, the only way they’ll get anywhere is by sucking up to him. Everyone who’s worked with him seems to describe Trump as a ‘micromanager’ so I’m not sure how reflective this will be of actual policy, we’ll see. Hell, maybe he’ll even fire some of them when they do poorly, that’d be great.

      1. “socons aren’t very enthusiastic because he’s not chasing their issues”

        Looks like he’s chasing them pretty hard by appointing Sessions.

        1. And Pence was an attempt to kowtow to them as well. But the socons seem to be pretty aware that he’s targeting them pragmatically and not out of an ideological interest (i.e. the screams of “he’s not a conservative/social conservative!). I keep seeing them complain about that 60 Minutes interview where he said he’s hands off on gay marriage. They only half believe him on his abortion position, and in general they don’t like his history with women. At least this is what I’m seeing on various right-wing sites.

          1. Conservatives are just the flip side of a statist coin with proglogdytes. They both want to oppress you, just in different ways. Fuck both of those groups.

            1. I was way more concerned during the election about the crazy Republican warmongering fucks who kept complaining about Trump’s position on Syria. Because I thought Clinton was going get elected and they’d cheer active warfare against the Assad regime. Some of them were arguing that the U.S. needs to classify Russian planes as regime combatants ‘like in Korea’ and shoot them down. For no actual American interest in Syria. At this point they’re treating foreign policy as dick-measuring, where the U.S. always has to come out on top and stick their dicks in every hornet nest regardless of the benefits. I see this view as one of the more dangerous in American circles right now, so I’m glad we dodged that.

              If Trump’s just grabbing people for recognition and will micromanage them into his own policies, that’s better than letting them free-roam. If he’s going to leave them to their own devices this is going to suck. But it’s not like we expected a Trump Presidency to be a magical libertarian one, and the high of the collective wailing of progressives is over. Time to do what libertarians do best, complain about the shitbags in power.

            2. It’s still good to alternate between the two; it keeps either side from becoming too entrenched.

        2. The basic argument I heard from Socons was that at least wasn’t he wasn’t demanding gay wedding cakes. Yeah, he’s cool with Caitlyn Jenner taking a dump wherever she feels like. But that’s a personal politeness thing, not a mandate from on high.

    5. The AG position is by definition the biggest statist asshole out there.. That is pretty much their job description.

    6. ‘ Submitted for your approval ,an orange man with bad hair and vast wealth. He has cast a spell over much of the country. He slayed a large beast and now is the king of the realm. How will he rule.? Could he be another demon? Is this just a battle between two evils? You have entered the Trump Zone.

      1. Perhaps you missed it? No lobbyists in the transition team. Ending the revolving door to lobbyist. That bodes very, very well.

    7. WTF did you expect from Trump? No idea why you were gushing over him for months on end.

    8. But is it too late to stop Trump from putting into place an entire team of neocon drug warriors? Does anyone around him or in his family have one little bit of sense they can use to persuade him to stop this madness?

      These idiots are going to be tied up for several years undoing the damage that Obama’s administration did before they can even start tilting the country into the direction of their failed ideology. It’s still better than another four years of seamless continuation of the existing broken policies.

      1. These idiots are going to be tied up for several years undoing the damage that Obama’s administration did

        What on earth makes you think they have any interest in doing that?

        1. What on earth makes you think they have any interest in doing that?

          Simple: they have different cronies to pay off.

      2. Yeah, there are a shit ton of lawyers at the DOJ that have to be fired….

  12. See, and this is one of the few benefits of Trump I knew would be a given. People are going to do anything they can to disassociate or criticize Trump (mostly for the sake of their own social signalling). We wouldn’t see pathetic DU weirdos engaging in what could be described as worship of the Presidential couple or Clinton. The media is going to look for anything to criticize him on, and they’ve already done so, to the point of ridiculousness (references to Hitler and Stalin being common and stupid). And no one is going to hold Trump to no standard and pretend he’s just along for the ride in his own administration like Obama. No more deep-throating the Imperial Presidency. That’s a good thing.

    Do I wish the media were actually honest and coherent in their criticism? Sure, but delegitimizing them by having another four years of them being sloppy hacks is not a bad thing (and frankly would have still happened in the opposite sycophantic direction under Clinton).

    1. No more deep-throating the Imperial Presidency.

      Not until the next time a Democrat inhabits the office anyway. It’s not like these people found principles all of a sudden.

  13. Fashion Designers Are Boycotting Melania Trump. Shouldn’t Bakers and Florists Have the Same Right?

    Come on Steph, these are CLEARLY two separate issues. One side is racist and the other stands for goodness.

    Why can’t you see that?

  14. Stupid fucking GOP have the chance to save us from the lefties, but it looks like what they’re going to do instead is go on a social warrior rampage and deliver us right back into the hands of the rabid left in 4 short years. You fucking stupid dumbshits, focus on the economy and actually making government smaller and get out of the social wars business.

    1. Q: social ware? Is that anything like Tupperware?
      A: it’s almost exactly the same, except that instead of “burping” when you lift the corner of the lid, it says “racist”.

      1. Huh. You’re post says social wars. Where’d the typo go? Do i need glasses?

      2. I thought it says “butter”.

        1. parkay !11!!!

  15. Wait a minute – how do we know Melania even wants to wear this Sophie Theallet’s clothes? My money says Melania wouldn’t be caught dead in anything from Michelle Obama’s designer. I smell someone opportunistcally publicizing themselves.

    #SoBrave

    1. Wait a minute – how do we know Melania even wants to wear this Sophie Theallet’s clothes?

      That could change everything and spawn calls to force her to wear those clothes!

      1. Clothes designed to show off the wearer’s defensive-tackle-style arms likely wouldn’t be as flattering on Melania as the Wookie anyway.

  16. So it would seem that all the petty vindictive progs who so desperately wanted mrs clinton to be prez, show themselves to be petty and vindictive. Surprise surprise… they didn’t get the president they wanted but they got the one they fucking deserve.

    1. This^

      These Aholes deserve it. You gotta admit it is quite pleasurable to watch the footage of Clinton supporters weeping.

  17. So brave. Much solidarity.

    1. Goddamnit, Gilmore, why do y’all have to keep doin’ it wrong?

      Should be: Much brave, so solidarity. Captures the derp better.

      😉

      1. why do y’all have to keep doin’ it wrong?

        I never think of the Doge reference until i’m halfway into saying something. then i dont care enough to go back and change it to work.

        You may not believe this, but i typed the words “brave” and “solidarity” into google looking for an amusing image of Wokeness, but instead somehow found myself on Lena Dunham’s “Brainyquote” page. No really, she has one. It makes you hope climate change is real and that humanity is on the verge of being swept to extinction in a biblical flood-event.

        no, i’m not linking to it.

        1. somehow found myself on Lena Dunham’s “Brainyquote” page.

          OK, you may have found peak derp.

  18. Fashion Designers Are Boycotting Melania Trump. Shouldn’t Bakers and Florists Have the Same Right?

    I have already used up my Gary Johnson slams for the day.

  19. The state should completely F off.

    There shouldn’t be any laws of forced association whether it be forcing bakeries to bake cakes for same sex couples or vice-versa.
    The problem is these lawmakers and conservatives who enact or promote religious freedom laws are oft times the same people who readily deny gay people their rights. It works both ways and both sides are guilty. It just goes to show that both progressives and conservatives use government as a tool to subjugate and coerce dissenters of their ideological brand to conform to their belief system.

    1. Under the SoCons businesses could decide for themselves whether to cater so-called gay weddings.

      Under the SoLibs, businesses are denied that choice.

      Why do you insist on moral equivalence?

      1. You bring up a good point Fusionist and are correct. I guess what I wish to see is government wouldn’t be necessary at all and free association and the market would work things out naturally – however, as you replied, the state in this case will help religious freedom by enacting these laws.

      2. so-called gay weddings

        Do you consider state weddings to be weddings, or does it have to be religious to be a “wedding”?

        1. Anyone can get married, even atheists. No need for a religious ceremony.

          In fact, in the good old Middle Ages, all you had to do was contract to marry, then have conjugal relations. The marriage would be valid.

          1. In most states today, there’s an additional requirement of a public ceremony, but it doesn’t have to be religious.

            This is independent of whether same-sex unions are marriages or not.

            1. So.. by what standard are they not “marriages” then?

              1. By what standard are same-sex relationships marital?

                If they are, why was it reserved for these days of modern enlightenment to discover a mystery concealed from our ancestors…and why did enlightenment hit the SJWs before it hit the squares?

                1. The standard where “marital” means “people around you acknowledge that you have formalized your relationship, including a promise that it will be lifelong”?

                  shorter : People in the past defined marriage arbitrarily, which means people in the present can redefine it arbitrarily.

                  1. If it can mean anything, it means nothing, and there’s no need to have a special category labelled “marriage.”

                    1. It meaning what everyone agrees it means does not mean it doesn’t mean anything.

                    2. Except everyone does not agree that it means same sex relationships are marital.. If it did, a SCOTUS ruling would have unnecessary. The argument that it did mean that was largely based on it meaning anything,

                2. It was accepted by at least some of society in some ancient cultures eg. some native american tribes, various periods in chinese history, some african tribes. So it isn’t really modern. Chief Justice Roberts actually mistakenly cites Han Dynasty China as an example of an ancient culture that did not recognize it in his Obergefell dissent. Most of the emperors in that dynasty were bisexual and had same sex spouses and lovers.

    2. I agree with you Mauser. I’m torn between Session prosecuting these liberal hypocrites for their discriminating against their customers for their political beliefs, while demanding the government prosecute businesses that don’t want to serve homosexuals, versus getting our freedom back to associate, or not (including doing business or not) with whomever we want, including in our hiring and firing.

      Prosecuting a few liberals for their discrimination against conservatives might get them back to supporting freedom of association and put an end to government laws against private discrimination. I’d love to see the government prosecute some black/Jewish liberal hotel owner for refusing to host a KKK or Nazi convention. After all, it’s against the Civil Rights Act and the law.

      If we don’t do something like this, then the liberals may just continue to prosecute individual discrimination, but only if it’s a conservative doing the discrimination.

      Sometimes things have to get worse before they get better. I think that’s partly why Trump won. Frankly, I’m not sure Trump will do anything about it other than to do what Obama did: not enforce the laws he doesn’t like. Which leaves us no better off after Trump.

      1. Political beliefs are not a protected class in any state afaik. Sexual orientation is protected from discrimination in public accomodations in around 20 states. The AG really has nothing to do with either of these since neither are protected on the federal level.

        The KKK have been defended by the ACLU on occasion for their free speech rights and won.

  20. They simply see it as society vs business. Those categories being comprised of individuals appear out of their grasp.

    1. Yup. The individual is shown no respect.

  21. I’m sure the rubes in flyover country will repent of voting for Trump now that upscale fashion designers won’t sell dresses to his wife.

    Doubtless, Nebraska farm wives, hearing this on the news, are looking across the 5 AM breakfast table at their husbands and saying “Oh Lord! What have we done?”

    1. Doubtless, Nebraska farm wives,

      What the hell do you think they are buying with those six figure subsidy checks?

      1. You obviously don’t spend time with a lot of farmers. They buy stuff like seed, fertilizer, diesel fuel, expensive machinery and maintenance of it, feeder cattle and hogs, animal feed, veterinary services, transport services to market the stuff they produce, structures, tools, land rent, taxes, their own medical insurance plus stuff like groceries clothes, houses–that sort of thing.

        You don’t like the subsidies and neither do I, but not much is spent on designer dresses.

        1. Where I live, at least some of it is spent on pretty large houses. And third cars. And a couple of ATV’s for the weekend.

          1. Where about two dozen families of my friends and relatives, live, they don’t.

            Speaking of ATVs, some of the families have them, which they use to check on cattle, fences and field conditions all week long.

            As far as houses go, space and construction labor is cheaper than in the crowded rabbit warrens of large cities so there is room and a budget for a bigger dwelling than city people are used to. Also, rural families tend to be bigger than city dwellers. It is certainly so for the people I know.

            1. ^ THIS.

              Around the Lower Rainland?, it’s well-understood that if you want a really big house you move to Langley, or Mission, or Abbotsford, or even further east. $600K will buy you a postage-stamp-sized piece of land (sans domicile) in Port Coquitlam, but several times that much further east (including the house!).

              And in downtown Vancouver, $600K will buy you an option on the sale of a piece of land plus ? if you’re lucky ? a cup of coffee.

              At least the coffee’ll be good.

            2. Where I live land and planning are cheap, certainly – enough that you can get a pretty decent-sized house (like 2500 ft2 on 2.5 acres for less than 300k) – so I’m not saying these guys are making bank when compared to city-living, but there’s a whole lot of them that are living in places nearly 2 or more times larger than the average place out here (1200ish ft2).

              Except for a few – one family owns what might be the largest date plantation in the US – they ain’t making that in Yuma solely off selling produce.

              As for the ATVs here – its all agriculture, very little ranching in this area. The ATV’s are for racing on the weekend up the street from me and trips to Northern CA or racing down in Mx.

              1. To be fair you live in Yuma, and lots of people there chose to be desert rats. It’s cheaper and less depressing than Platinums.

            3. A very large portion of subsidies do indeed go to megafarmers, including absentee farmers. The basket of crops chosen for subsidies tend to skew that way. Farmer for farmer, of course, most subsidy recipients are indeed a more humble breed of parasite. Without subsidies, many would indeed be forced to cash out. This is supposed to bother the rest of us for some reason, so the farm lobby trots these people out for the feels so we don’t take up our pitchforks (which we use strictly for angry mob purposes, not being farmers) against the politicians who enable these monstrosities. But yes, those subsidy enemies who like to trot out the celebrity farm welfare queens are guilty of a bit of distortion from their end. Worse yet, many do this with an agenda not of eliminating subsidies but of “fixing” them to their own idiotic social engineering plans, like organic farming and what not.

              Of course, most farmers are not parasites at all. They don’t even get subsidies (or price supports).

            4. As far as houses go, space and construction labor is cheaper than in the crowded rabbit warrens of large cities so there is room and a budget for a bigger dwelling than city people are used to.

              Both city dwellers and country folk of 2016 live in significantly more interior space than any other Americans ever. Household sizes have decreased while interior space per home has increased.

              For example, San Francisco’s population in 1950 was 775,357. In 2000, at the peak of the dot-com boom and attendant housing crisis, the population was … 776,733. In 1950, those 775k people were housed in 259,055 dwellings. By 2000, the same number of people were spread across 329,700 dwellings, but the prices were shooting through the roof and everyone was complaining about how small dwellings were. Mostly what had happened is that people had come to expect significantly more interior space per person than prior generations.

              I can’t speak to how much space a typical human “actually” “needs” but it’s clear that humans can live fulfilled lives in a pretty broad size range of interior spaces. I submit that there is a point at which one’s home is actually too big, and that many suburban and rural Americans are already there. Certainly my friends in, for example, Arizona appear to do nothing with approximately 1/2 of their homes by area…

        2. Agammamon|11.19.16 @ 12:55PM|#

          Where I live, at least some of it is spent on pretty large houses. And third cars. And a couple of ATV’s for the weekend.

          See? QED baby!

  22. As Theallet put it, “we consider our voice an expression of our artistic and philosophical ideals.”

    “We” are pompous, intolerant asses.

    1. “As Theallet put it, “we consider our voice an expression of our artistic and philosophical ideals.””

      Fleecing the wealthy with moronic bullshit and cheap fabric; rag-trade “philosophy”.

  23. RE: Fashion Designers Are Boycotting Melania Trump. Shouldn’t Bakers and Florists Have the Same Right?
    Free association should not be for powerful liberals only.

    I’m sure Meania Trump is weeping softly on her pillow tonight knowing fashion designers are not working with her.

  24. It is no mystery why all the venom and bile slung at Trump, just like it is no mystery why the hatred of Sarah Palin by the same people who claim to be feminists. The same people who slung shit at Herman Caine and Ben Carson cry ‘racist!’ every time someone criticizes Obumbles.

    You can all drop the pretenses. This election cycle has really outed a lot of people. The fact is Palin, Caine, Carson and Trump are hated because they aren’t pinkos. It is as simple as that.

    1. More advice to those people: relax. Trump is further left than my taste.

      1. More advice to those people: relax. Trump is further left than my taste.

        I can’t keep track — is it better to be Worse than Hitler?, or Worse than Trump?? We know what it means to be Worse than Nikki?, but these lesser gradations are becoming confusing.

  25. Fashion Designers Are Boycotting Melania Trump. Shouldn’t Bakers and Florists Have the Same Right?

    1. This is very different, since the designers are refusing to give away samples to Melania, not refusing to SELL to Melania. A baker who gives away wedding cakes only to his friends is not violating any discrimination law.

    2. Choosing not to do business with a particular person is not “discrimination” in the sense of anti-discrimination law. There has to be a refusal to associate with an entire class of people.

    Disclaimer: I oppose anti-discrimination laws (other than those applying to govt and businesses primarily funded by govt) but the argument of this article does not make sense.

    1. There has to be a refusal to associate with an entire class of people.

      that’s simply the conceptual claim made about the individual instance of ‘not selling’ to an individual.

      as a practical matter, there’s no difference between ‘not selling’ to an individual or to a class of people. even if someone specifically states that’s their reasoning for discriminating against an individual, it turns the crime into “the intention” rather than the action.

      1. as a practical matter, there’s no difference between ‘not selling’ to an individual or to a class of people.

        Of course there is. Refusing to sell to an individual is based on dislike (and presumably some knowledge) of the individual, which is fine. Refusing to sell to a class of people means you are discriminating against people you do not know about as individuals, which is stupid and wrong.

        1. You don’t even understand the point being made.

          when a gay bar refuses entry to straight women, even if they say, “We have a policy refusing to serve women”, the only people being affected by that action at that moment are those individuals. And if they don’t articulate any policy at all, and just say, “no entry for you”, it is exactly the same outcome.

          The rubber only meets the road on a 1-1 basis. And when someone demands legal restitution for being discriminated against (*if there are anti-discrimination laws), they do so as individuals – not as a ‘class’.

          The point is that “intent” has no effect on the actual action and impact. Whether someone excludes an individual or a group, its still the same decision to exercise the right to free associate.

          That’s the practical matter part.

          You also seem to inject the below guy’s same “moral” assertion by saying that one (individual discrimination) is Ok, but the other (group-discrimination) is “stupid and wrong”.

          You say its stupid and wrong, but you don’t say why. Why is it wrong for a gay-bar to aim to only serve gays? Why is it wrong for a women’s college to only serve women? Why is it stupid and wrong for a men’s barbershop to only serve men?

          Free association is not stupid and wrong, and it has plenty of social and commercial benefits to people who choose to exercise their right to do so. Everyone has the right to refuse business.

          1. Do men’s barbershops really only serve men? (If they cannot do fancy female styles that should be fine but if the female wants a style they do on men then that should amount to discrimination on the basis of gender).

    2. Come on! It is blatant migrant discrimination!

  26. Pollster has to eat bug on CNN because he failed to predict that so many Gary Johnson supporters eventually cast a ballot for Trump. He should’ve talked to me if he wanted to avoid getting his protein from a cricket.

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016…..n-cnn.html

  27. Ms. Slade, I know it’s tough being a Catholic staffer at Reason and thank you for holding the flag high, but I think you may have assimilated a bit too much of the groupthink in this paragraph:

    “Personally, I applaud Theallet’s design to disassociate herself with the next occupant of the White House. I see Donald Trump as a shameful human being with few redeeming qualities as a leader and even fewer as a person, and if I were a business owner, I too would decline to serve his administration.”

    Now, if you mean that Trump *like all recent Presidents* is a Constitution-trampling tyrant with major narcissism issues, then I’d understand.

    But you seem to be singling out Trump as if he’s somehow *worse* than the other recent Presidents like Obama, Bush II and Bill Clinton.

    If that’s what you mean, then what makes him worse person that Bill Clinton, possessed of fewer redeeming qualities than Obama, and a worse leader than Bush II, then what is the basis for your assessment?

    1. Cocktail party invites.

      1. Cosmotarians at six on the balcony.

  28. “possessed of fewer redeeming qualities than Obama”

    He’s Black and born in Kenya so he sucks. I know.

    1. I didn’t know Sophie Theallet was black and born in Kenya.
      You learn something new every day.

  29. Everyone can literally go fuck themselves at this point. There’s no rational thinking; just stupid faux-self righteous bull shit like these fashion designers. Yes, because the fashion industry is soooo loaded with principled people. Ma, get the fuck out of here.

    I can’t put it anymore eloquently.

  30. A difference, of course, between fashion designer Sophie Theallet’s choice not to design for Melania is that she is targeting an individual, Melania, not a whole class of people, as Barronelle Stutzman the florist who refuses to do work for gay weddings. Associational freedom is morally legitimate when it is personal and another when it is targeted indiscriminately at a group. It is perfectly ok to discriminate personally. It is morally justifiable because of its specificity. Though this case is slightly complicated because Melania is not herself the ultimate target of the censure implied in Theallet’s refusal to design for her. Trump is. Theallet must be assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that Melania fully identifies with her husband’s moral position.

    1. she is targeting an individual, Melania, not a whole class of people

      I wonder if she would have designed a dress for Mrs. Cruz or Mrs. Rubio.

      1. They’re individuals too.

    2. Alrrigt, so every time a gay couple tries to buy a cake from a baker, they can refuse to do business with the two individuals, problem solved.

      1. They can… but if they just happen to refuse to do business with every gay couple “as individuals”, then they’re clearly engaging in discrimination against a protected class.

        1. So it isn’t the act that’s illegal, but the imputed intention. Which is moronic and unconstitutional.

          1. Moronic is subjective, but how is it unconstitutional? Plenty of laws depend on intent.

    3. It’s morally unjustifiable to put a gun to someone’s head for refusing to do business with someone else. The business owner’s choice to do business is his or her choice alone. That is freedom of association. You may not like it, but freedom should not be predicated on whether you like it.

    4. A difference, of course, between fashion designer Sophie Theallet’s choice not to design for Melania is that she is targeting an individual, Melania, not a whole class of people…Associational freedom is morally legitimate when it is personal and another when it is targeted indiscriminately at a group.

      No. You’re entirely wrong. I pointed this out above

      Your distinction exists entirely in your head and isn’t really how any kind of enforceable law works. Your concept of “moral legitimacy” is a attempt to turn “freedom of association” into some qualified privilege which is only acceptable under certain conditions.

      As though one should have to *prove their reasoning for refusal* before being able to refuse service. Which isn’t actually possible – which makes any refusal of ‘protected classes’ tantamount to refusal of all

      See the recent case of the Trans person who sued the LA barbershop. Are they allowed to defend themselves by saying, “we just didn’t like *this person*?”

      As a matter of law, it is the action that is punished, not intent. If one person chooses to refuse to associate with another, then it is their prerogative. There is no further “moral-justification” required.

      1. … further to the point about the barber or baker-cases…

        Why, exactly, is there no moral legitmacy in choosing the classes of people your business serves?

        See – the bar in portland that was put out of business for kicking out some trannies.

        Reverse that situation = are you saying that “Gay bars” shouldn’t exist? Is it morally indefensible to open a business which intentionally caters to specific groups of people? And how exactly do you police their choices about whom they exclude? Is it perfectly ok for them to turn *obnoxiously* straight people away…. but not ‘sorta metrosexual’ straight people? Who gets to define what the “class” even *is*?

        Your notion that “classes” of people objectively exist, and that people should somehow be forbidden from discriminating between them leads to absurd requirements from authority – to both define what individual people *are*, and what constitutes a “class” and what isn’t, and require police forces and lawyers to be able to “prove intent” instead of simply provide evidence of actions… and on and on.

        Your notion of “moral legitmacy” is utter horseshit.

        1. Throw in “women only” gyms, too. Blatant sex discrimination. But leftists tolerate them, because special pleading.

          1. “Mills College has been setting the standard for quality in liberal arts education for more than 160 years. Historically a college for women only, Mills continues that proud tradition today on the undergraduate level.”
            https://www.mills.edu/about/

            There was an attempt to make it co-ed probably 30 years ago; the school government argued at that time (I swear!) that the poor dears couldn’t pay attention to their studies with males around.

            1. When Vassar went coed a lot of the feminist students started crying hysterically when they heard all those rapey men would be allowed in.

        2. I can see the confusion. The owner disguised the bar as a gay bar, right down to the name, to lure these confused soles* into this place for ridicule.

          *At least a 5″ with platform I am guessing.

          1. My point re: the Portland incident- if you actually read the story – was that the owner actually had been serving these trans-customers on multiple occasions, and only threw them out because they were acting unruly and disruptive.

            According to Mr Moral Legitimacy, he was perfectly in his right to ‘discriminate against them as individuals’

            But the law didn’t give a shit about that. Because the law isn’t concerned with intentions, its concerned with actions. and his refusal of service to them was instantly a validated case of Trans-Oppression.

            1. Yes I read the story, that is how I saw the picture of the bar, with the name The Annex displayed in the picture.

              And I agree with his right to throw them out. Actually, he has a moral obligation to throw them out when they are disrupting others.

              If the law is concerned with actions, the law sure ignored a lot of them before they decided who was wrong here. The actions of the unruly customers, that is.

              BTW, are you sure you intended to respond to me? I have been in agreement with you in this at least 64% of the time.

              1. the ‘disruption’ angle is actually incidental and irrelevant to the main point = which was that the law doesn’t provide any allowances for discrimination “as individuals” when those individuals are members of a perceived ‘protected class’.

                Any discrimination at all is de-facto discrimation against a “class”, and one would have to try and prove in court that it *wasn’t*, which is effectively “punishment by process”. Anyone can simply accuse others of treating them X way because of “their class” and put the onus on others to try and prove otherwise – which is often impossible.

                The idea that there’s apparently a “right way” to discriminate (as individuals), and a “wrong way” (as a ‘class’) – is meaningless, because there is never any point where a person’s ‘intent’ can be proven as a matter of law.

                People can certainly make claims about perceived intent- but in the end its so much ‘he said-she-said’, and it makes for subjective law-enforcement.

                That’s the first point; the second point is that = “Even if people DO discriminate by class = so what? People do it all the time, often in beneficial ways” Women’s schools, gay bars, social clubs, sports leagues…etc. We routinely engage in ‘class’ segregation… and there is no reason to necessarily object to ANYONE self-segregating for social or commercial purposes.

                1. Were any of them Cher impersonators? The articles (I did read two of them) did not have any pictures of the gals who refused to act like gals in the gal’s latrine.

      2. Gilmore, you write, “Your distinction exists entirely in your head and isn’t really how any kind of enforceable law works. Your concept of ‘moral legitimacy’ is a attempt to turn ‘freedom of association’ into some qualified privilege which is only acceptable under certain conditions.”

        I think you missed the import of my statement that while associational freedom does give us a personal *moral* right to be discriminating in the choice of those we interact with, it does not justify a *moral* right to target entire classes of people for exclusion—that is unless, you can claim the personal right against each member of that group taken individually. Only individuals can be held morally responsible. (I apologize for my somewhat garbled earlier statement.) Notice I emphasized “moral.” I said nothing about legalities or enforceability. My claim is a moral one, not an assertion of what is legally enforceable or not. Ethics and the law are two very distinct realms. Moral theory has been passing judgment on laws and legal systems since the days of Aristotle. The law may, and often does, ignore what is moral. But it does so at serious risk to its stability.

        1. The moral underpinning of “associational freedom” (like all other freedoms) lies in the value freedom has for developing strong moral characters. No moral theory would say that any kind of freedom has value in of itself. Some legal/political doctrines may attempt to enshrine freedom, but since law can only reflect local political sensitivities, it can’t be in a position to criticize morality in the unqualified manner ethics claims to be able to do to the law. This is because ethics claims universal applicability irrespective what this or that subclass of human beings may think.

          Theallet may well be unjust to Melania. But if she is, it is because she may be too quick to paint Melania with the same brush she would paint her husband.

          More to your point, Gilmore, the moral/legal distinction has been around at least a couple thousand years longer than “my head.” And once more, you brought up “enforceable law” not me.

          1. Bianco|11.19.16 @ 5:33PM| block | mute | #

            gibberish.

        2. My claim is a moral one

          Which you provide zero argument for. And unless you mean to suggest your personal moral assertions are categorical imperatives…. they mean nothing.

      3. Your distinction exists entirely in your head and isn’t really how any kind of enforceable law works.

        That’s how existing anti-discrimination laws work, and they have been enforced many times, well outside of anybody’s head.

        As a matter of law, it is the action that is punished, not intent.

        Bullshit. You’re the one living inside the world you made up inside your head.

        1. sans citations, you’re a towel

          1. So your argument is that anti-discrim laws have never been enforced.

            In an article about how liberals are hypocritical for enforcing anti-discrim laws.

          2. Oh yeah, and you’re the one who claimed anti-discrim laws are unenforceable, sans cite.

            1. No, i pointed out above that “anti-discrim” laws were being enforced in ways that you say ‘don’t matter’.

              You think there’s some need to demonstrate ‘stated intent to exclude protected classes’. See LA & Portland examples above.

              If you don’t read the shit i cite, or understand points made, its on you.

    5. Associational freedom is morally legitimate when it is personal and another when it is targeted indiscriminately at a group. It is perfectly ok to discriminate personally. It is morally justifiable because of its specificity.

      Prove a single sentence of that. Anyone should be free to discriminate against anyone, be it a single individual or a class of individuals.

      1. He’s talking about moral legitimacy, not legality.

        1. and what exactly is “morally illegitimate” about freedom of association?

          As we asked above =

          Why is it wrong for a gay-bar to aim to only serve gays? Why is it wrong for a women’s college to only serve women? Why is it stupid and wrong for a men’s barbershop to only serve men?

          asserting that there’s a Categorical Moral dimension to other people’s choices suggests that they should otherwise ‘not’ do these things. – or be prevented from doing them.

          Unless its entirely a personal-morality, in which case = Who gives a fuck what you think?

          e.g. One person might believe that its “immoral” to eat meat; in which case they choose not to do so; but they do not also believe it would be “moral” to prevent other people from eating meat at the point of a gun.

          Asserting that there’s some important moral dimension to freedom of association puts the burden on you (or others) to explain exactly why people are :”immoral” for choosing to self-segregate.

    6. She is targeting that class of people who are married to Donald Trump.

  31. Sounds like racism. Straight up.

    Fashion designers slobbering over the tall black lady and turning their noses up at the slavic fashion model.

    1. Do you know who else hated Slavs?

      1. Other Slavs?

      2. Spartacus.

  32. For liberals, there is no objective standard of ethics. Whatever benefits liberalism is good, and whatever hurts liberalism is bad. This applies to the legitimacy of boycotts and similar denials of service as it does to everything else. So Sweet Cakes by Melissa and Flowers by Arlene can’t discriminate on political/religious grounds because they disagree with liberal dogma in doing so, whereas those who hate Trump are acting on the basis of liberal dogma and thus can discriminate to their heart’s content.

  33. Tentmakers hardest hit. These progtards really are pathetic human beings.

    1. Melania has me pitching a tent right now.

  34. I don’t think the slimy proggies realize how hateful they are becoming.
    You lost, scumbags. Shuddup and siddown.

  35. Nobody has the right to extend one’s economic power over another individual, and Theallet’s economic position and available choices are inferior to Melania’s. Like a tsarina, Trump’s wife is well equipped to hire an army of her own designers and shall not be immediately hurt by Thealett’s righteous and noble call for garment worker solidarity. Further, Melania, if she is true to her ‘anti-bullying’ campaign, should mend the political ‘tears’ by a kindly donation to the AFL CIO.

        1. Good. I was wondering if my sarc meter was out of calibration.

    1. But what if they all refuse her? This is Jim Crow all over again!

      1. Because every business, including new-and-upcoming designers, will pass up fucktons of money to have their designs seen worldwide.

  36. Designers wouldn’t lend to Melania, Ivanka or Tiffany, so they either bought the items themselves or wore Ivanka’s brand.

    So Ivanka isn’t actually being refused service, she’s just no longer getting free stuff because there’s no advertising value in having her seen wearing your clothes.

    1. She is being refused free stuff that everybody else in her job gets. Jim Crow all over again!

      1. First Lady isn’t a job, and I seriously doubt any of these designers were dressing Laura Bush or Hillary Clinton before her.

        1. Sure it’s a job. A SLAVE JOB! Work for da man with no pay.

      2. Someone explain to me the fundamental difference between discrimating in who you give to and discriminating in who you sell to? Because I think there is none.

    2. there’s no advertising value in having her seen wearing your clothes

      Which seems doubtful. More like the designer values signaling to her friends more highly.

  37. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    >>>>>>>>>http://www.centerpay70.com

  38. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    >>>>>>>>>http://www.centerpay70.com

  39. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    >>>>>>>>>http://www.centerpay70.com

  40. If I were a designer, Melania would be the first First Lady that I wouldn’t feel shame for her wearing my clothes.

  41. One caveat (apart from the fact that the designers are only “boycotting” freebies to Melania): We may want to defend the right of companies to boycott the people of North Carolina over HB2, but let’s not romanticize it. They have the right to do so, just as companies have the right to flood the airwaves with ads smearing every candidate who dares to vote against allowing them to bulldoze poor people’s homes and charge them tax dollars for the privilege.
    .
    In the case of North Carolina, Indiana, and so forth, we have companies from all over the place using their money to bully governments out of policies that, while seriously flawed (and probably bigoted in intent), are largely commendable. We certainly would not automatically cheer when the town factory owner fat cat says to City Hall, give us the policy we demand or we’re leaving. So should we not do it in this case. I hope North Carolina stands up to these self-righteous, virtue-signalling busybodies.

    1. “I hope North Carolina stands up to these self-righteous, virtue-signalling busybodies.”

      What’s stopping you from standing up to these companies?

      1. Nothing. I never said there was, I don’t see how you could possibly have thought I did, and I don’t see your point.

        1. mtrueman doesn’t have points, just obtuse superficiality.

        2. “I don’t see your point”

          Never leave to North Carolina what you can do yourself.

          1. That makes utterly no sense. North Carolina is a government. It acted to bar subordinate government institutions from telling private enterprise who they should admit to their bathrooms (as well as, more questionably, specified rules for subordinate government to follow for their own facilities).

            I cannot do any of this because I am not a government. You had earlier urged me to counter-boycott companies that boycott North Carolina. This, in turn, does not resemble anything that North Carolina has done or is proposed doing, but now it appears you think I have somehow, somewhere proposed “leaving” such an action to North Carolina.

            If I am honestly intended to understand this, please help me to do so.

            1. He doesn’t want you to understand what he says. His obscurantism is the only thing concealing the inanity of his thoughts.

            2. “That makes utterly no sense. ”

              Congrats on understanding that much. As for the rest, a load of self justifying claptrap. On second thought, you should probably steer clear of any kind of activism, pro-bathroom or anti-bathroom. You seem to lack the courage and the imagination, and the necessary generosity of spirit.

    2. Well put. But it’s not just private companies, it’s governments using the tax money extracted from their citizens as a carrot and stick to influence policy in other states and cities where they have no jurisdiction. As well as government-supported “private” organizations like the NFL and NCAA.

  42. “As one who celebrates and strives for diversity, individual freedom, and respect for all lifestyles,”

    Except the diversity of non left wing thoughts, individuals’ freedom to be married to people running against Hillary, and lifestyles that aren’t Democrats’. That kind of diversity can go fuck itself. Diversity only matters in skin color and who you sleep with, not thinking.

  43. We already had free association. It didn’t work. Too many racists in the country.

    1. Oh, you’re just here to troll people. I see; I apologize for my earlier comment.

      1. “Oh, you’re just here to troll people.”

        At least I’m not black.

        1. If it’s any consolation, I think you may be unintelligent enough to qualify as a member of a protected class.

          1. Just wait until i go full retard. That should clear up any lingering doubts. In the mean time, keep reading!

            1. “Just wait until i go full retard.”

              Dipshit, if there’s a difference between that and your ‘normal’ posts, it’s never been clear.
              Pathetic, self-centered, dumb, sophomoric, pretentious: All trueman, all the time.

              1. “All trueman, all the time.”

                Glad you enjoy reading.

    2. Those damn democrats.

  44. “As one who celebrates and strives for diversity, individual freedom, and respect for all lifestyles, I will not participate in dressing or associating in any way with the next First Lady,” wrote fashion designer Sophie Theallet in an open letter this week.

    What I would love to see: Ms Trump asking Ms Theallet to design her a dress (not a freebie, paying list price for it), gets turned down, and then sues her sorry ass for violating the public accomodation laws (that I disagree should exist).

    And then watch liberal pundits twist themselves into knots trying to rationalize how this refusal to serve doesn’t violate the law as written.

    1. Melania Trump is not a member of a protected class. Gary Johnson is also of the mistaken belief that public accommodation laws protect NAZIS

      1. When did migrant immigrant females stop being a protected class?

        1. Migrant illegal immigrant females, as it happens. She’ll probably get a D.C. license faster than I could.

  45. the REAL question is;does a person have any right to the labors or property of another person or business if that other party doesn’t freely consent to it? No.
    Does a person lose their Constitutional rights (First,5th,and 13th amendments) when they open a business? No.
    If one goes by the Constitution,”public accommodation” laws are unconstitutional,they force people into slavery,indentured servitude.
    It’s anti-freedom. it’s Fascism.
    Private property rights should always trump your feelings being hurt or your desire to do business somewhere.

  46. note that in today’s Internet world,people who were refused service have the ability to wield great power against such a business,by spreading the news,inciting a boycott. (or to support a business in peril from a boycott,via fund-raising sites like GoFundMe.)
    (when GoFundMe doesn’t go politically correct…)
    That power did not exist in Jim Crow days or earlier.
    these days,it’s very easy to drive a business out of business through social media. In essence,that is allowing the people to DIRECTLY “vote” their support or displeasure at discriminatory people/businesses.
    It’s TREMENDOUS power. It outweighs or negates any need for “anti-discrimination” or “public accommodation” laws. People now have the power to fight back on their own,no need for government to become involved.
    That’s FREEDOM,for -both- sides.

    1. BigotMap App

  47. Stupid is not a protected class. Stupid is not a race or religion but it might be a preference. Stupid is stupid and we don’t have to deal with, support or encourage the stupid. In fact it is every Americans responsibility to stand up to stupid whenever and where ever stupid is found.

    But the stupid have a leader now and maybe the stupid can finally be declared a protected class like gays (stupid gays) and the handicapped. It really is the stupid’s only hope because they are going be taking a lot of crap from here on out, even the smart stupids are going be shocked. We are not afraid no matter how angry the stupid are or what the stupid say or do or their stupid leader’s threats on twitter. This us the last hurrah for the stupid. When they are finally done, most of them to old age and the grave, it will take decades to undo the stupid these people will do.

    Go ahead stupid people get really, really angry because you are going to learn that you can’t force people to love, like or even care about you, and we don’t, we are done dealing with stupid.

    1. Blah blah blah tribalist demonization of political opponents, blah blah blah moral narcissism, blah blah blah elitist self-aggrandizement, blah blah blah self-righteous pat on the back.

      Thank you for your substantial input to this discussion.

      1. It’s ironic that the people who voted for the warmongering criminal feel that they deserved to sit up on that moral high horse.

        1. Catherine the Great?

          1. Would young Catherine. Crusty would old Catherine.

    2. ‘But the stupid have a leader now…’
      That’s no way to talk about Obama.

      1. The stupid are divided — Balkanized even.

        1. I am 1/16th Croatian. Apologize for this demeaning language.

          1. (Confession: I know very little about the relations between the Croats and Slovenes. Didn’t seem to have been covered much during the war years.)

    3. This was too dense, and distracting. I think the point got lost in the humorous presentation.

    4. Has to be a record for uses of the word “stupid” per paragraph.

      Read a thesaurus, moran.

    5. We’ve got a new one!

    6. Uh oh, one of those Social Justice nitwits that Gay Jay brought in stumbled upon Reason.

      Yay- left libertarians! All the leftism, none of the icky liberty stuff

      1. That is not what left-libertarianism means on any definition I know of. It does describe the progressives we are called to collaborate with on “social issues” from time to time–and it reminds us of just how far we are apart on issues of personal liberty. Hopeful thinking aside, our alliance will have to be of a very limited nature on specific, narrowly defined issues.

    7. “Go ahead stupid people get really, really angry”

      Oh, they were marching on Market Street today, whining that they didn’t win!
      The stupids are in for the long hall.

  48. “The problem is not that Theallet was willing to dress Michelle Obama and isn’t willing to dress Melania Trump (which is, like it or not, a form of discrimination). The problem is just how many people don’t seem to think that same freedom should be extended to bakery owners, photographers, and other wedding vendors who object to same-sex marriage on religious grounds.”

    The same is extended to bakery owners, photographers, and other wedding vendors who object to same-sex marriage on religious grounds.

    Perhaps you don’t understand the word “lend”. The designers are not blocking Melania’s right to purchase clothes that are for sale to the public. The designers are simply not giving her the clothes to wear for free. They are not obligated to do so either.

    So, let’s look at it from a bakery owner’s perspective. The bakery owner should not block a same-sex couple from purchasing a cake. They can certainly decide not to give them a free cake though.

    1. So, if, perhaps on some special occasion, a baker gives free cake away but only to straight customers, you’re ok with that.

  49. You know who else dressed well, refused to allow Eastern Europeans to have clothes, and considered their voice an expression of their artistic and philosophical ideals…

    1. William Higgins?

    2. Who is refusing to allow Melania to have clothes? That’s like saying you are refusing to allow Melania to have a home because you won’t sign over your deed. No one is stopping Melania from buying clothes.

      1. quit stepping on his setup dude

      2. There are clothes that they are not allowing her to have. Therefore it is correct to say that “they are not allowing her to have clothes”.

        Also it doesn’t apply to Hitler if I say “refuse to give Eastern Europeans clothes”.

      1. Let them eat the cake that gays can’t get from the bakers and let them dress in the clothes that Melania can’t get from the designer.

    1. It’s pretty safe to say that anyone who refers to withdrawing from the EU as “fascism” has getting on YouTube as his ultimate goal. But it’s also interesting to see that at least some statesmen from elsewhere have adopted the bizarre self-righteousness of the Mexican government, whereby they inveigh indignantly against the USA about its nationals that are here illegally, instead of hanging their heads in shame that they could not provide enough of a life for their own people in their own country that they would flee and risk this allegedly inhuman treatment.

      (Besides, I wonder if Evil Colin Quinn here would be out manning the barricades if the cops came for a house full of illegal aliens of my skin color who had snuck in and moved in next to him.)

      1. Irish nationalism is fine because it protects Irish people in nationalistic America. It must be wonderful to see the future so crystal clearly.

    2. 50K Irish illegals huh? Doing what?

    3. Maybe a look in the mirror might be appropriate

  50. Trump stands against most of my positions on the economy. He’s a poor man’s Bernie, to be frank.

    But his win was a blow against the PC culture that’s being pushed down our throats. The white middle class is still the most viable aspect of the economy. Their concerns should not be elbowed aside for the ETERNAL cultural war on transgender issues, cultural appropriation, amnesty, free contraception programs, abortions, college student feelings and whole lot of other stupid things that affect almost no one.

    When I watch Doctor Strange next week, that’ll be only the fourth movie I watched all year. The others were Independence Day, Civil War and BvS. All adult power rangers shows with white liberal celebrities who refuse to recognize the plight of their fellow countrymen because they didn’t belong to a certain group. If a black kid sees a noose on a tree, then OMG it’s time to act!

    I’m going to give these people less of my money. I won’t be buying anything Pepsi related. I don’t watch football anyways, but I won’t be even watching the game on Thanksgiving or something. The crybaby douche bags deserved to be embarrassed by Trump.

  51. “As one who celebrates and strives for diversity, individual freedom, and respect for all lifestyles, I will not participate in dressing or associating in any way with the next First Lady,” wrote fashion designer Sophie Theallet”

    I doubt Melania gives a shit, and will have no problem finding someone to make dresses for her.

    1. I am surprised the Trump supporters have not started a social media trend of releasing statements, “I am Spartacus”-style, announcing that they too will not be designing dresses for Melania Trump even though no one has asked them to do so. They can repeat this with every other bit of ostentatious virtue-signalling Trump inspires. It’s going to be a long four years!

    2. Melania should troll them by wearing a burlap sack to the inauguration.

    3. I totally want to offend a billionaire customer cuz I haz a sad over the election. Sounds like a solid business plan.

      1. I actually think it’s an excellent decision. The Trumps themselves are not going to buy thousands of dresses from her just because she gives them a loaner. She’d get some publicity by dressing Melania but more by becoming the first to denounce her. She probably figures by doing one or the other she’d alienate half the country (and, to a lesser extent, the world), and that the side she chose buys more fancy dresses. She’s probably right. She probably has little to directly fear from Chicago-style revenge on her business from the Trump White House, too. Finally, let’s not forget she probably does believe in the principle, and wants to signal it to the world. Few are venal enough not to want to feel like a do-gooder. She may have even convinced herself it is, indeed, a sacrifice, a bad business decision. But she probably doesn’t imagine it’s too bad.

        1. All the hollywood wenches will flock to her come Oscar time.

    1. I like it! They obviously had this piece written and ready to run after the Hillary victory everyone was expecting, but things didn’t turn out that way and they’d already paid the freelancer so why not. Science tells me waste is bad so I approve.

      1. Of all the things to attack Trump on, these Cold War 2.0! Fag hatred! Anti Semite! attacks just make his detractors look like imbeciles.

    2. More good news from the “homophobic” (actually, probably genuinely homophobic, but as the political field lies nowadays his biggest sin was actually caving on his state’s RFRA) Mike Pence: Apparently he “doesn’t believe smoking kills.”

      This was already likely to be great news, since again with the current political climate a foil-hat cancer denialist is freedom’s best hope (just as a Christian Right type is on the remaining “LGBT issues”). But it turns out he said this. “Smoking doesn’t kill” is a poor summary from a mind of probably middling prowess, but the overall message is great. I’m starting to wish I’d voted for him!

    3. Depends on who is launching. If it’s a superpower like Russia or China, we’ll be targeted.

  52. Wait, Leftists are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites? Well, I am surprised.

    The two best things to come out of this election: the court is safe, so long as Trump chooses an originalist (I don’t think the Republicans will let him weasel out of that), which is something all libertarians should be happy about. And I’ve drank a lifetime’s worth of liberal tears after the election and it was delicious.

    1. I wonder if we bottle up the tears and label them 2016, will they age to perfection to uncork and enjoy again in 2020 regardless of outcome?

  53. Vera Wang has donated over time both to Obama and to Romney, so she might be open-minded enough to take a decent gig and design Melania something for the inauguration and ball.

    1. Wouldn’t be the first. I seem to remember Piggy (or “Miss” Piggy, to use the plantationesque moniker she demanded) perpetuating an unapologetic culture of domestic violence around her partner and, despite her own humble origins, adopting an aristocratic bearing suggestive of the “neoreactionary” social philosophy. She also often addressed others by their race instead of given name, and displayed a particular contempt for the illegal alien Gonzo.

      Also, I hear that Dr. Teeth signed with Rock Against Communism briefly in the late eighties, and that the Chef was involved in crafting the infamous cultural manifesto of the Swedish Democrats (ironically enough given that he himself could not speak the language). These were just rumors, though.

      1. The old guys in opera box and their fat shaming and xenophobia were the original Cisshitlords.

        1. Plus many of Piggy’s repeated sexual assaults, including several committed against gay men, occurred openly right there on stage, and though everyone else stood by and did nothing, those two actually laughed and made jokes.

    2. That was pretty funny:)

      1. He’s an MRA. Longtorso should take a hint on how to be funny yet make your points. I’m not an MRA, but I always check out the dude’s videos because he’s whip smart and phunken hilarious.

  54. Booya police unions!
    Booya 40 yr high for police admiration by American public

    Jeers to hypocrites who say refusing to service (heh) MELANIA is woke but refusing to service gay couples is broke

  55. Homosexuals, at least as a group, strike me as evil, wicked, hateful bullies who’re out to GET everybody who isn’t 100% on board with whatever their latest Party line is. A lot of their shenanigans in re. punishing people for not baking their “wedding” cakes, or providing flowers or venues for their “weddings,” looks to me a lot less like striking a blow for equality than it does getting back, by proxy, at Mommy, Daddy, the minister, their relatives, and whoever else wasn’t delighted with the news of their orientation.

    You may say “But not all of them are like that!” That may well be true. However, I do like to point out to people who say things like that, that the “gays” who spoke up against the campaigns against florists, venues, bakers and other such small businesses were conspicuous by their absence. Silence is acquiescence, as the endless crusaders against racism never tire of reminding us.

    1. 2?I quit my office job and now I am getting paid 92 Dollars hourly. How? I work-over interneet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was to try-Something different. 2 years after?I can say my life is changeed completely for the better!

      Check it out what i do??? http://www.jobmax6.com

    2. You really there are a large number of us who are libertarians, right?: facebook.com/outrightusa

  56. Nice girl this Melania.Great article also.
    Mario flash games | Kizi

    1. Tremendous article. She’s going to be yuge in the fashion circles.

  57. I am so sick of hearing about cakes; it’s counterproductive at best, even irresponsible and dangerous to legitimize a fusion of bigotry and state. The religious right doesn’t argue from a place of free association, it argues from a place of forced disassociation and it does this by flipping the script on religious freedom in a really insidious way. There is never and I mean NEVER a time when those cases should be presented as a thing with which our values align because they don’t. They just straight up don’t.

    1. You are “hearing about cakes” because it happens to be a case in which the state is forcing peaceful people to violate their conscience. You seem to think libertarians should lay off…defending liberty because bad guys (homophobes) are on their side and good guys (nice, cuddly gays) are on the other. Well, everyone else might operate like that but not libertarians! They are going to go on principle, on objective right and wrong, on a society of individuals blind of identity. Where gays like you or minorities like me are oppressed, they will stand up for us, as they did for gays for decades back before progs or even gays themselves were concerning themselves with it. But when it is us doing the oppression, they will fight us just as they fought our enemies, not pander to us…

      1. Who the fuck cares whether it is the religious right doing the arguing or what “place they are arguing from”? Is their argument correct? Did you refuse to oppose the Iraq war because that movement was dominated by progs? This particular bill does not happen to “force dissociation” on anyone; it opposes the grave injustice of forced association. As for “our values,” our values are for everyone to mind their business and not violate the rights of others. On the issue of whether gay sex is a mortal sin or A-OK, we are neutral. We do not share an opinion and do not expect others to. Why on Earth do you suppose otherwise? And do you really expect any of us to be more horrified by someone who thinks gays are headed to the fiery pits of hell than by someone who wants to force such a person to bake a cake celebrating a gay sexual union?

        You are a peculiar sort of libertarian. I for one cannot imagine giving a rat’s ass whether another person approves of my sexual practices or not. Just because you enjoy doing something that is forbidden by another person’s religion does not mean they are guilty of “hate” against you, let alone that that “hate,” or any other, should be against the law.

  58. Dear First Lady, Melania Trump,

    I would be THRILLED and HONORED to design for you! What a beautiful woman. There will be designers from all over the world falling over themselves to get such a dream assignment. Whoever the heck Theallet is, never heard of her…and her career is done…so, now, no-one will ever hear of her. Nothing against Michelle Obama, but was anyone ever…honestly…impressed with her wardrobe? Not! Just a lot of false pandering because she happened to be First Lady.

    1. I get Paid over ?80 per hour working from home with 2 kids at house. I Never thought I would be able to do it but my best friend earns over ?9185 a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless.

      ??..>>>>>> http://www.jobmax6.com

    2. There are an awful lot of clothing designers who never have their designs worn by a First Lady. They still have their careers.

      1. But do they get Paid over ?80 per hour working from home with 2 kids at house? That’s the real question.

  59. I get Paid over ?80 per hour working from home with 2 kids at house. I Never thought I would be able to do it but my best friend earns over ?9185 a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless.

    ??..>>>>>> http://www.jobmax6.com

    1. No PC here, Mr. Patel! That is exactly the kind of thing we are fighting against.

  60. Bakers and florists DO have the right to refuse service on the basis of political positions. If you voted for a Nazi (or happen to be married to one), I don’t have to serve you. However, they do NOT have the right to refuse service on the basis of a biological trait, such as sexual orientation or gender identity. Doing so violates the right of the victim to participate in the marketplace.

    In other words, you’re comparing apples to oranges.

    1. Sexual orientation or gender identity aren’t biological traits. Otherwise you could test for it or measure it. It’s a mental trait, like pedophilia or necrophilia.

      It’s a preference or mental condition.

      So if you deny someone the right to protect and defend themselves, to freely associate with others, pursue happiness on the basis of a mental condition, than it’s perfectly consistent for a private citizen to be able to refuse service on the basis of a mental condition.

      And on free exercise of religion and free association grounds.

  61. I see Donald Trump as a shameful human being with few redeeming qualities

    And you apparently think the same of Melania Trump, who you don’t know much about, or anyone else related to him.

  62. What hypocrisy. I have no other words. Just those. What hypocrisy.

  63. If it’s perfectly okay for a couple of queers to go into The Pulse in Orlando, Florida and have a gay old time, then it is also perfectly okay for Mr. and Mrs Twenty to go into a club and have a beer. The drinking age is the real hate crime because the victims did not choose to be under 21. Queers did. If it ain’t a shotgun wedding, it was their choice, by their own free will, to get so-called “married”. Where are all the civil rights activists on that point?

  64. “The problem is just how many people don’t seem to think that same freedom should be extended to bakery owners, photographers, and other wedding vendors who object to same-sex marriage on religious grounds.”

    Yes, many people, including the Libertarian Presidental candidate.

    1. Possibly the North Carolina LP as well, if we can judge by their bizarrely sweeping condemnation of HB2 without a word of objection to the Charlotte ordinance that set it off.

  65. Repeal the Public Accomodations Section of the 1964 CRA and this issue goes away…

    1. How on Earth would that be the case?

  66. Didn’t the former Va governor’s wife get prosecuted for taking jewelry “donated” by a political supporter?

    If the designer “donates” expensive clothing based on political preferences to President’s wife, isn’t that bribery or illegal? Or could an owner of a collectable coin company “donate” gold coins to the President?

    Or an Airline CEO, “donate” free trips to a resort which “donates” free suites to the First Lady? Maybe Rolex could “donate” a solid gold watch to the President?

    How are fashion “donations” different?

    1. Federal vs. State.

  67. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.factoryofincome.com

  68. Or more accurately, “As one who celebrates and strives for diversity, individual freedom, and respect for all lifestyles,” let me tell you about one lifestyle I don’t respect, and when I say “diversity” I mean “the right kind of diversity, not diversity of thought”, and when I say “individual freedom” I mean “the individual freedom of individuals who agree with me.”

  69. I might actually care if the first lady had any form of constitutionally mandated duty to perform.

  70. “As a family owned company, our bottom line is not just about money,” Theallet writes in her open letter. “We value our artistic freedom.”

    So… did you argue the same for the bakers that were forced (and sued) to bake a wedding cake for gay marriages? A baker is an artist, and should have every right to choose what art they make and for whom.

    1. And the bakers weren’t discriminating against the homosexual individual, but against the homosexual ceremony. They believed, honestly, that their religion prevented them from celebrating the homosexual marriage ceremony.

      The homosexuals were free to purchase any of the items the bakers sold in their shop. But they wanted to use the jackbooted power of the state to force the bakers to help celebrate their homosexual marriage.

  71. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

  72. Yes, bakers and florists should be able to refuse participation in gay weddings. Furthermore, any losses due to litigation that have been suffered on this over the past few years should be compensated and the the legal fees of such bakers and florists paid by the plaintiffs. No problem with gay marriage, but I have nothing but outright disgust for the gaystapo.

  73. Work oppertunity: Start your work at home right now. Spend more time with your family and earn. Start bringing 85USD/hr just on a laptop. Very easy way to make your life happy and earning continuously.last week my check was 24551USD pop over here this site

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://JobNews80.com

  74. Stephanie Slade, nobody give a shit on your opinion,. Is something to not like Trump and something else to enjoy this boycott. Do you think, you and a lot of other ” beautiful” women like you , Trump’s wife with so much money she has , with good taste she has, need a stupid designer- see first lady’s hilarious outfits – to ” offer her clothes ? Find somthing real to write about, are so many things in need for atention.
    Give us your precious opinion about the infractors on the streets who damaged a lot of things around, under the protesting meetings.

  75. My Uncle Henry recently got an almost new gold Audi RS 5 Convertible just by some part time working online at home…
    see it here=====>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.Jobsheat.com

  76. my FATHER co-worker’s sister-in-law makes $73 /hour on the computer . She has been without a job for nine months but last month her check was $20283 just working on the computer for a few hours. This Sitemore information>>>>>>>>>>> http://bit.ly/2g9UUPL

  77. My first job out of High School was at St Paul and over the next 5 years Iearned so very much. Seeing the hospital torn down tears a small piece of my heart out. The Daughters of Charity and the doctors and staff of St Paul Hospital will always be with me..???????
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  78. My first job out of High School was at St Paul and over the next 5 years Iearned so very much. Seeing the hospital torn down tears a small piece of my heart out. The Daughters of Charity and the doctors and staff of St Paul Hospital will always be with me..???????
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  79. Hello, are you looking extra money? i recommend Clixsense. Signup free.

    http://www.clixsense.com/?8172285

    https://www.neobux.com/?r=brony13

  80. There’s a big difference between denying people business because of politics, as opposed to race, religion, sexual orientation, age, handicap status, or national origin. Those are protected by our constitution. It’s for the same reason you can’t deny a person of color the right to rent your house, if they have they meet all your other criteria.

    1. The people who were forced to bake the gay cakes or be destroyed did not deny service to gay people. They served gay people all the time, they refused to participate in a specific event that was contrary to their beliefs. Attempts to conflate this with the denial of service to black persons is quite insulting. There were probably very few persons ask about their sexuality before service was provided.

  81. The best part of work is from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week. Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more info Check the following link

    ==================> http://www.homejobs7.com

  82. “Live and let live” requires a degree of reciprocation.

    For example, I don’t bat an eye when Christians refuse me service, they don’t bat an eye when I refuse them service.
    I don’t interfere when they enter into marriages I don’t like, they don’t interfere when I enter into marriages they don’t like.
    I don’t try to stop them from forming families, they don’t try to stop me from forming families.
    I don’t try to throw them in jail for having sex, they don’t try to throw me in jail for having sex.

    Do you see where this is going?

    Fact is, “live and let live” has never been how the religious right has treated LGBT folks. They have throw us in jail, censored us in the postal system, censored us in the school, banned us from jobs, banned us from adoption, from marrying, complained at every step over the fact that we exist.

    And face it, after all these years of some pretty heinous words and actions, why should we believe they’re finally on-board with “live and let live”? They burned up any benefit of the doubt a long time ago. If they want it back, they’re gonna have to earn it. And sitting pretty with their non-discrimination protections while they insist it’s simply impossible for them to tolerate us having the same? That’s not asking for “live and let live”, that’s asking for “don’t bother me, I’ll bother you”.

  83. Yes! That’s right! Beacause the ttrump is sexist, anti-feminist and also loves Christmas Wishes for Husbands

    Tanks.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.