Discrimination

Time to End Discrimination Against Gays?

Many people believe it's already against the law.

|

Rainbow
Leolintang / Dreamstime.com

On gay rights, America has come a great distance in a short time. Remember the days, not so long ago, that gays stayed in the closet, sodomy was a crime, same-sex marriage was banned and people could be fired from their jobs because of their sexual orientation?

Actually, you don't have to try to remember that last. It's still the case in 28 states, including Mike Pence's Indiana, that holding hands with your same-sex partner in public can mean losing your livelihood. A bigoted boss can cashier a good employee for loving someone of the wrong gender.

This unprotected status is an anomaly under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which forbids employment discrimination on the basis of "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." African-Americans and other racial minorities are protected, Catholics and Muslims are protected, women are protected and immigrants are protected. Gays are not.

Many libertarians, whose general principles I share, think the law is an intolerable infringement on contractual freedom. When Gary Johnson, the party's presidential nominee, said at the Libertarian Party's national convention in May that he would have voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, he was booed.

But pretty much everyone else agrees that ship has sailed, as well it should have.

The question now is not whether federal law should ban discrimination on the basis of certain criteria. It's merely which criteria deserve inclusion.

On this issue, the public took the side of gays even before coming around on same-sex marriage. Most Americans think discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation should be illegal. Not only that, a 2015 survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 75 percent think it already is.

A study by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law reported, "A majority of Americans in every U.S. congressional district support laws that protect against employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation."

Such an expansion would make sense, because gays are similar to other minorities that have long been targets of hostility and mistreatment. But when the 1964 law was passed, no one was thinking of protecting gays, who were widely viewed with ignorant disgust. And a bill known as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act has been repeatedly introduced in Congress, to no avail. So federal law leaves gays out in the cold.

Or does it? A lawsuit heard on Nov. 30 before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago argues that the federal law against discrimination on the basis of sex should be interpreted to cover sexual orientation. Nearly all of the judges who asked questions appeared to find much merit in the argument.

Frank Easterbrook, a renowned conservative appointed by Ronald Reagan, noted that in its 1967 decision in Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court struck down a law forbidding interracial marriage because it treated people of different races differently. A black woman could marry a black man but not a white man. She was penalized solely because of her race.

In the gay rights case, community college teacher Kimberly Hively said she lost her job after she was seen kissing her female partner goodbye in the parking lot. Had she been seen kissing her male partner, she would not have lost her job. "Why isn't that sex discrimination by exactly the reasoning of Loving?" demanded Easterbrook.

Hively allegedly suffered retribution not for having a female partner, which would be perfectly fine if she were a man, but for being a woman who has a female partner. How can that not qualify as sex discrimination?

The obvious retort is that the lawmakers who approved the 1964 Civil Rights Act didn't mean to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and therefore it doesn't. But they also didn't set out to deter sexual harassment of men by men or to prevent the firing of women because they are perceived as unfeminine—both of which the Supreme Court has ruled illegal under the law.

Conservative hero Justice Antonin Scalia, writing in 1998 for a unanimous court, agreed that such conduct was not what Congress had in mind. "But statutory prohibitions often go beyond the principal evil to cover reasonably comparable evils," he wrote, "and it is ultimately the provisions of our laws rather than the principal concerns of our legislators by which we are governed."

Sooner or later, discrimination against gays will no longer be treated as an acceptable, legal practice. Then Americans will wonder why on earth it took so long.

© Copyright 2016 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

Advertisement

NEXT: The only thing wrong with "Gilmore Girls: A Year In The Life"

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. Much more interesting read if you insert the word “the” before every instance of “gay(s)”.

    1. the love that dare not speak it’s name has become the love that wont shut the fuck up!

      1. Simple solution: Treat Gay and Straight people equally. Then we’ll shut the fuck up.

        1. So no more being forced to bake cakes for you then? Ok.

          1. No, stupid. If you bake cakes for straights, you WILL bake them for gays or be punished. No more religious nonsense to justify discrimination. We must insist on that!

            1. If you bake cakes for straights, you WILL bake them for gays or be punished. No more religious nonsense to justify discrimination. We must insist on that!

              Seig Heil, Sista!

              1. What if the couple in question is just way too faggy? Sometimes they’re just flaming pink hot and are at risk of combusting nearby materials.

                1. Maybe you’ll do us a favor and join the nearby materials, then.

            2. I support gay marriage because I believe complete freedom of association is a natural right. Freedom of association includes the right to choose not to associate for any reason, or no reason. Bakers should bake cakes for gay weddings; however all people have a fundamental right to choose otherwise. The 13th Amendment outlawed slavery. What gives you the right to use the police power to invalidate their choices?

              1. What gives you the right

                My feelz, duh.

              2. I’m curious.

                Per your understanding of “Freedom of Association”, are business licenses legitimate? Health inspectors? OSHA? Is there, in fact, any grounds to impose any regulations on you that you don’t voluntarily accept?

                If the answer is “yes”, you need to explain why the city can make your business license contingent on health and safety, but not on non-discrimination practices.

                If the answer is “no”, then your problem is fundamentally one with the modern social contract, and not with any specific law or regulation.

            3. I heard that 100% of forcibly baked cake have spit in them.

              1. …or worse…..

                1. only if they pay extra…

        2. No, you won’t. Because a loud minority of the Gay ‘Community’ (voting block) wants to play ‘Shock the squares’ and then be vociferously offended when they succeed. Somebody needs to tell them that if you appear in public exposing your pierced nipples and wearing a dog collar and a chartreuse Nun’s habit, you aren’t shocking people because you are Gay, you are shocking people because you are an arrested-adolescent, tacky moron with poor impulse control.

          And by ‘somebody’, I mean ‘their fellow Gays’, because they won’t listen to squares.

          1. We don’t speak tard-what are you talking about? Crazy straight people at Mardi Gras?

          2. Assless chaps. Don’t forget assless chaps.

        3. If you are claiming to speak for me, then you can STFU right now.

      2. Uh-oh! Sounds like someone hates equality!

  2. I can approach this from several angles:

    First off: yes, let’s go ahead and add gays to the Civil Rights Act. Once they’re on there, no one’s going to campaign on pulling them off because no one cares that much about what other people are doing. So it’s done forever and we can move on.

    Second: I was hoping gays could be the example of a minority that gets treated pretty much the way it wants to (not really, but, then, who does?) without state intervention. The reason people assume it’s already illegal to discriminate against gays has more to do with the widespread acceptance of homosexuality rather than erroneous knowledge of law, especially now that the gay marriage issue is settled.

    The Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed precisely because racism was on its way out. There’s lots of data showing that my 1964, strong racism was associated with only minority of the country, which explains the passage of the CRA in the first place. Government is always on the heels of social progress, never on the forefront. I’m glad for gay people that they haven’t had to wait on the government for almost complete free access to public accommodations outside of marriage, which was hampered precisely because of its entanglement with the government in the first place.

    Really, the last place you want to be is waiting on government to grant you access, because by the time that comes around, you would have had it already.

    1. Exactly. Progressives pass legislation once change has already happened and then take credit for it, whether it is the 40h work week, racial tolerance, or acceptance of homosexually. Hillary’s conversion on gay marriage is another example of that. Often that legislation isn’t just useless, it is actually harmful.

      1. Progressives are always harmful.

    2. If all these freedom-removing laws are such a good idea, or already being done, why do we have to be forced to do them.

  3. “But pretty much everyone else agrees that ship has sailed, as well it should have. The question now…”

    Really? Why should it have sailed? You declare it has and that it should, without any basis as to how or why.

    Moreso, those laws ARE an intolerable infringement on contractual freedom as well as, and equally important, Free Speech. How has this “ship sailed” anyway? This belief is a fundamental principal of Libertarianism. Laws which criminalize one’s CHOICE to express themselves peacefully with thier own resources, such as two men holding hands in pubic or a person choosing not to bake a cake for a gay couple, are equally wrong.

    1. “Many libertarians, whose general principles I share, think the law is an intolerable infringement on contractual freedom….
      But pretty much everyone else agrees that ship has sailed, as well it should have.
      The question now is not whether federal law should ban discrimination on the basis of certain criteria. It’s merely which criteria deserve inclusion.”

      So we should let bad laws stand because that ship has sailed?
      So people should just suck it up and accept that they have to make cakes for people they don’t want to?

      Steve, we do not share the same general principles.

      1. And apparently the decision is to be made in court, rather than by legislation. A judge is supposed to decide the general principle of non-discrimination in the existing statute justifies extending it judicially to…uh…whichever criteria “deserve” inclusion, according to the judge’s idea of dessert, I guess.

      2. Ships can be sunk. Even after they have set sail.

      3. There’s a big difference between government discrimination of *any* kind, which should be non-existent, and private discrimination, which is just that – private. And that includes private enterprise.

        While I personally would not patronize and would and have spoken out against a business that discriminates, I firmly believe they have the right to do so – and pay the penalty in lost business and higher costs for doing so.

        Freedom means nothing if it doesn’t also include being free to do things that other people don’t like.

      4. Congratulations – it’s now against the law for a black or Jewish hotel owner to refuse to serve a KKK or Nazi convention, and similarly for such owners of restaurants and every other business providing a “public accommodation”.

        If we’re going to add categories to the CRA, how about political affiliation?

        The CRA is a boon to lawyers who claim discrimination, when yes, it was discrimination based on a lack of bathing, improper clothing, speaking ill of the employer, bad manners, poor performance or refusal to do the job. But now you have to pay more to prove it, than to settle for a shakedown. And such laws, as Reason has reported, usually lead to more discrimination to avoid lawsuits.

        Is Reason to give up on liberty, even when liberal 60 minutes is now showing the problem: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60…..on-cooper/

        I for one, will defend liberty, always.

    2. What? You expect Reason to respect a libertarian viewpoint?!?

      Forget it it’s Chapman.

      Hey I hear their fundraising campaign isn’t going well this year.

      Maybe they should start trying to be you know actually libertarian…

      1. I click through the fundraising banner and the first thing I get is Chapman singing the praises of adding another identity group to Leviathan’s protected list.

        Um yeah, no biscuit for you this year Reason.

      2. Well, to be fair, if I were a black/Jew and the KKK came to be served by me, I’d do it because it helps break down these bigoted barriers. Not that I’d force anyone to do something that may be traumatic to them, or would I support government forcing people to do that. After all, it was black boycotts of racist businesses that help lead to fixing the problem.

  4. One big reason not to support anti discrimination laws (or expanding them to include new groups) is that they inevitable end up being used to punish employers innocent of discrimination. Judges and bureaucrats impose the burden of proof on the employer to prove nondiscrimination, increasingly frivolous rulings get made as cases of actual discrimination become rarer while activist judges desperately villains for their own seek ideological edification.

    Fuck, you can’t even subject applicants to an aptitude test. Isn’t that evidence that anti discrimination law has gone too far, rather than not far enough?

    Ugh. Why did I bother reading a Chapman article.

    1. Incorrect. Employers that discriminate (refusing flowers, cakes, etc) MUST be punished and they are. There are no examples of innocent employers being wrongly punished!

      1. So what can an employer refuse? We can assume that something explicitly illegal is out. Are you otherwise saying that everything and anything someone could request must be granted regardless of any objection? Or are you just cherry picking individual groups that must always be catered to? I’m leaning to the former.

        I need a cake. No words. But I want it well understood by the Baker that it is to celebrate the wedding of my sixth 11 year old wife, which is totally cool because it’s part of my non-American culture.

        Or how about I get a cake to celebrate my hatred of all people not of a specific color, religion, social class, gender, and/or political beliefs. When does that required freedom of expression become hate speech that was “condoned” by the baker because they feared saying no? I guess we need more regulation whereby all cake orders must first go through a regulatory body that will decide what can and cannot go on a cake prior to any order being accepted.

        What if aunt Judy cooks cakes for everyone in my family except me because she feels opposed to my belief? Should I just call her a bitch and stop talking with her, or do I proceed to lawyer up so that no one else in the family can ever again have a cake? Again, I assume you’ll prefer the former. Maybe both. And the problem is eventually Judy will have to deal with this because of your feckless war mongering.

    2. We read Chapman articles for the same reason we slow down when driving past an ugly car wreck. We want to see the blood and guts. Chapman’s articles are similarly pointless, sad, and horrific.

  5. The purpose people anticipate it is already illegal to discriminate in opposition to gays has extra to do with the sizeable attractiveness of homosexuality rather than faulty information of law, specifically now that the homosexual marriage trouble is settled. Thanks for sharing your opinion, I am appreciating you to took this topic to discus with us. http://usawriters.org

  6. “Lookism” next?

    1. Nazi cakes. GayJay moved the window and put the issue on the front burner. Bigoted bakers better practice their freehand frosting swastikas.

  7. A law against it will end discrimination against gays!

    Like the laws against marijuana ended pot-smoking!

  8. Many libertarians, whose general principles I share

    Citation needed.

    1. Yeah, I am calling bullshit on that, too. A libertarian principle would insist on removing the laws that discriminate against who can and can’t hold hands in public, not adding news laws carving out a special class. And “marriage equality” (and similar ant-discrimination laws) is using government force to fix a problem that was cause by government force in the first place.

      1. I have been using the line about government caused and protected various forms of violations of Human Rights, like slavery and discrimination. Government is the problem.

        It was government (police and courts) that upheld/uphold laws like slavery, segregation, discrimination and affirmative action.

        Without unconstitutional laws like Jim Crowe laws, the people don’t have to worry about government picking the side of those who seek to violate the rights of the minority group.

        1. “… laws like slavery, segregation, discrimination and affirmative action.”
          Which of these is unlike the others?

      2. Government: If you hate the problems we cause, wait until you see our solutions.

        1. when you come out of the closet, don’t slam the fucking door, asshole!

      3. That’s like smart and stuff.

    2. I think Chapman considers the “general principle” to be, “Be nice to people.” State it vaguely enough, & everybody agrees.

    3. Well, it’s undeniable that libertarians agree on a few general principles with both conservatives and liberals.

      Not sure I’ve seen Chapman ever express a libertarian view aside from those that Liz Warren would also share, but hey…that counts as some agreement!

      1. So Chapman agrees with all libertarian principles that also align with the ideas of communists???

        Not a big overlap there. I’d go out on a limb and say its the empty set….

    4. Laws are like a magic force field.

  9. 1. “A bigoted boss can cashier a good employee for loving someone of the wrong gender.” – more Muslim bashing.

    2. When did reason scribblers become so statist?

    1. 2. Chapman finds a way!

  10. It’s certainly time to end discrimination against Liberty.

    1. ^^this. Not even covered much on Reason and definitely not covered in the typical media.

    2. Excellent, the best comment on this thread.

  11. It’s awesome when a libertarian website publishes a call for more restriction of free association, backed up by government power, without caveat. Fuck you Chapman and fuck you Reason.

    1. This shit right here is why I didn’t donate this year.

      1. ^THIS^ x1000. Take note, Reason writers. Your commentariat is a whole lot more libertarian than you supposedly are.

        1. Maybe they should fire Chapman and Dahlmia and see what happens with the fundraising…..

    2. Chapman must go. He isn’t just not libertarian, he is ignorant and offensive. I have cancelled my subscription.

      1. Yes, there’s a corner of woodchipper hell that is reserved for him.

    3. You’re a mean one, Mister Grinch…you’re spot on as well…

    4. When Cato included Chapman as one of their “Byline” radio commenters, it was because the Fairness Doctrine was still believed to be in force, and also because they wanted to obscure their overall libertarian stance. (Actually I was told that was the reason for including Julian Bond, who was more starkly contradictory to libertarianism than Chapman.) What’s Reason’s excuse?

      1. Running Chapman (or Dalmia) articles is the only chance Reason has at getting anything past the filters for google news/facebook news feeds.

        1. It’s also the only way it gets considered for all those swell awards given out to “journalists” and publications.

    5. I was going to donate, but instead I will patronize a backpage whore.

  12. I thought libertarians believed in employment at will, free association, and so on.

    I oppose this kind of discrimination, but I think people have a right to engage in it.

    If a person quits a job because the new supervisor is gay, should that person be forced to go back to work?

    1. Yup, life is some people don’t like other people based on some ignoramous reason like color of their skin.

      The government needs to stop acting like it is benevolent and protecting all these groups of people. The people choose to treat people better and no law will ever fix that.

      The government still discriminates against plural marriage folks, but they are icky mormons.

      I think the government should get out of the marriage business and just accept domestic partnership contract filings by any party for public record and also recognize common law partnerships.

    2. Chapman isn’t a libertarian, he is an ignorant prick.

      1. Two best explanations so far as to why Reason published him.

        1. I just figured he was good at sucking on them.

      2. a disgrace to pricks everywhere!

    3. No, they do not. Its because of taxes-our taxes go to public businesses in the form of sidewalks, police, power grids, roads. So if you serve some in your public business, you must serve all! We have to insist on that.

      1. We

        Not me.

        1. I do not think this guy is actually gay, or honest in any way. An honest commenter would try to engage the people he encounters in a forum with arguments they would be likely to respond to. For instance, you wouldn’t go on The Nation‘s forum and argue against a regulation from a point of ethical egoism; you’d try to expose it as protective of industry and bad for the less powerful. I think this fellow is just trying to have a bit of fun pranking folks with a caricature of a position that would antagonize them. What else would he be doing here?

          Why do you think it is so hard for gays, who would seem to be such natural libertarians, to organize to take a real libertarian position on LGBT issues? Even the “OutRight Libertarians” (and, for that matter, the North Carolina LP) have taken to outright condemnation of (the very flawed and unnecessarily obnoxious, I’ll admit) NC HB2, without even a peep about the Charlotte ordinance that set it off. Seems “gay libertarians” are for the most part “gays who are libertarian” on everything but LGBT issues, on which they take a more standard “socially progressive” line…

          1. …I am actually a lot more impressed sometimes with the radical, anti-assimilationist tradition within the gay movement. They have a nice “why would we beg for entrance to a house that’s burning down” attitude towards marriage that’s really refreshing. Not quite the old-school sodomy-enthusiast-as-society-flouting-libertine thing that I really find charming, but it’s halfway there. Perhaps someday we really will be able to look back at this century or so when homosexuality became something you are rather than something you do as an unfortunate bump on the road to the time when everyone chilled about labeling each other and just minded their fucking business.

          2. Why do you think it is so hard for gays, who would seem to be such natural libertarians, to organize to take a real libertarian position on LGBT issues?

            I’m not seeing the “natural libertarians” part so much, myself. One of Clinton’s strongest demographics was gays; they are to the left on many issues that have nothing to do with being gay. I could probably write a treatise on all the possible influences and factors leading to that outcome, but it’s a lot simpler and more honest to just say “because that’s what they want”.

            The idea that the government can be turned against them just as it can be turned against their enemies requires a long-term and honest perspective which is incompatible with emotional pique and the sense of euphoria that accompanies the victories they’ve had recently.

            1. Well, I was thinking even at this late date they (at least the out and active ones, thought this is getting less so) are educated and wealthy, and much as this may embarrass us, libertarians are drawn from these groups disproportionately. Also their bad experiences with the police are a big part of their cultural memory, and they have a bit of a self-defense culture as a result. Other minorities have too, but gays seem to have been much less thoroughly “domesticated” by statist leadership than us racial minorities. Here in NYC, for example, being a gay Republican or conservative has not been particularly weird for decades. Also there’s that whole flamboyant-libertine tradition I mentioned, which I see someone like Milo being a throwback to. And I see, for example, gay men considering identity feminism to be a direct threat to them. And all these folks find very warm welcome on the young Right. They themselves are not libertarians, of course, but the point is that I think gays are a lot more resistant to staying on the center-left “reservation” than other historically oppressed groups, which means more openness to libertarianism too. I still think that, though a little less than I once did.

              BTW I was asking because I thought you were gay; you were talking like you were before but not so much now?

              1. BTW I was asking because I thought you were gay; you were talking like you were before but not so much now?

                It’s not something I bring up much, but yes I’m gay. When I’m talking about politically active/left-wing gays in third person it’s because I don’t identify with them.

                1. You would think those PC proggie gays took it up the ass or something!

      2. So if you serve some in your public business, you must serve all! We have to insist on that.

        Fuck off slaver!

        1. Oooh, kinky!

      3. Stupidest shit I read this week. Thanks for that laugh.

        1. You mean stupidest shit you are likely to read ALL week. Or at least until Chapman shits another article.

      4. And if a business pays more than its share of the costs of those public services, and you pay less than your share, does that business get the right to tell you when/where you get to use the public services it disproportionately paid for?

      5. So, because we have to pay taxes, and government uses them to provide some things we use, then we have to do whatever government tells us to do?
        As stated earlier: Fuck off, slaver.

  13. Many libertarians, whose general principles I share, think the law is an intolerable infringement on contractual freedom. When Gary Johnson, the party’s presidential nominee, said at the Libertarian Party’s national convention in May that he would have voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, he was booed.

    But pretty much everyone else agrees that ship has sailed, as well it should have.

    This is a libertarian magazine/website, right?

    Maybe you should consider ACTING like it.

    1. Chapman is not a libertarian. No idea why they always publish him here.

      1. Reason seems to feel that people like Steve are Libertarian enough to publish here.

        We cannot have great Libertarian writers on here because controversy brings viewers, therefore $$$$.

        1. I can’t think of a more controversial writer than one that would hold pure Rothbardian positions. I think it would be great to read articles that posit theoretical libertarian principles and highlight pragmatic solutions to problems that might arise.

  14. Time to End Discrimination Against Gays?

    Something something freedom of association…

  15. Wait, gay people still exist? I thought GRIDS got em all back in the 80’s.

  16. This article is fully up to Chapman’s usual standards.

    Reason giving him page space is still something that totally mystifies me. There’s lots of other outlets for statists to declaim- why not have a publication which, you know, actually makes the libertarian case for issues like this? And it’s not like there isn’t a great libertarian case to be made for narrowing rather than expanding state infringement on right of private contract.

  17. Inalienable rights, how do they work?

    CRA my ass.

  18. God, and here is the other Reason writer who doesn’t belong here at all. Really, on a Libertarian website, you have someone who can’t even get the extremely basic freedom of association principle correct?! Seriously, tell Chapman and SD to GTFO. Go write for some leftist rag where your ideas will feel at home.

    1. Hey man, Obamacare is law and it’s here to stay.

      CRA is law and it’s here to stay.

      Constitution is the supreme law of the land and is ignored to form a more perfect Nanny-State.

    2. “Go write for some leftist rag where your ideas will feel at home.”

      I think they have.

      1. Where their ideas will feel at home with the average reader/commenter of the site.

        1. Salon might publish them, but they sure as Hell wouldn’t pay for it.

  19. Fuck you, Chapman. Remember this article when you don’t reach your funding goal this year, Reason.

    1. They will blame that on some other reason. Not that Steve Chapman and other non-Libertarian writers had any fault in them not reaching their charity goal.

  20. As a gay man, I don’t want non-discrimination laws because they are largely useless. A homophobic boss is going to fire me anyway, and with non-discrimination laws, he is simply going to come up with a pretext or make my life miserable until I quit. A lawsuit is not a reasonable remedy.

    And if the law actually somehow keeps me in my job, it just means that I contribute my skills to the goal of enriching someone who hates me.

    What I do want, however, is the right to discriminate against people who hate me, which the CRA currently deprives me of.

    1. Do you find that other people that are gay don’t like you because you because of your views you mentioned?

      1. he once tried to get a gay bakery to bake an anti-anti-gay-discrimination-law cake, and they were like “no way!”, so yeah.

      2. Of course. Gay men and lesbians are overwhelmingly Democratic, and most of them do not take kindly to anybody who strays from the party’s dogma. The best you can hope for from many of them is that they tolerate you for what they conclude must be “internalized homophobia”.

        1. “Internalized homophobia”. Brilliant term, sad premise.

        2. Sadly, anyone that supports a party that believes gays should not be equal under the law (republican party platform 2016), they are self hating. Its pathetic

          1. Go. Fuck. Yourself.

            And don’t enjoy it.

          2. Or they can think beyond one issue and decide which issues are most important to them. You know, actual freedom of thought. If your point was to rouse people here by bashing Republicans you’ll be disappointed when they bash the Rs too.

          3. Well, I’d say a straight white man would have to hate himself to vote for almost any Democrat.

    2. What I do want, however, is the right to discriminate against people who hate me, which the CRA currently deprives me of.

      No, it doesn’t. Go ask Brendan Eich if it’s illegal to fire someone for real or imagined homophobia.

      I would guess what you mean is that you can’t fire a Christian or Muslim for articulating their religious beliefs. Which is also wrong. But not related to your sexual orientation in any way shape or form.

      1. No, it doesn’t. Go ask Brendan Eich if it’s illegal to fire someone for real or imagined homophobia.

        Brendan Eich didn’t get fired, he resigned. And he resigned because he concluded that he couldn’t have continued to lead Mozilla effectively given the press coverage and witch hunt that surrounded this issue.

        I would guess what you mean is that you can’t fire a Christian or Muslim for articulating their religious beliefs.

        Don’t try to put words in my mouth or shift the goalposts. I said what I meant: the CRA defines members of religions as protected classes, and it should not. If you think that the CRAs provisions that include “religion” for the definition of protected classes are ineffective or meaningless, all the better: you should then have no objections to having them eliminated.

        1. Brendan Eich didn’t get fired, he resigned.

          Yeah, Nixon didn’t get convicted by the senate either. That was one convenient and high profile example. Go ask Gary McFarlane or Charles Rhoads, if you’d prefer. It’s not illegal to fire someone for homophobia. Period. Homophobia is not a protected class. There exists overlap between members of protected classes and homophobes (loosely defined), but that is not the same thing.

          Don’t try to put words in my mouth or shift the goalposts.

          Didn’t. Thanks for the suggestion though.

          1. If you think that the CRAs provisions that include “religion” for the definition of protected classes are ineffective or meaningless, all the better: you should then have no objections to having them eliminated.

            I don’t think they’re ineffective or meaningless – quite the contrary – and never said as much. Don’t put words in my mouth or shift the goalposts. . I think protected classes of any type or nature are categorically wrong. My opposition to them doesn’t require me to lie about their scope or nature though. You as an employer – regardless of your sexuality – aren’t allowed to fire an employee for articulating their religious beliefs. You *are* allowed to fire them for any number of other reasons, including insubordination, harassment, bullying, abuse and actual homophobia. In much the same way that you aren’t allowed to fire an employee for being black, but you are allowed to fire him if he comes into work and harasses his white co-workers, or the way you aren’t allowed to fire an employee for being a woman, but you are allowed to fire her if she comes into work drunk.

            1. To summarize: the CRA is an abhorrently immoral rights-destroying regime that belongs in history’s ash bin along with so much of the last century’s legislation. It is my sincerest hope that one day you, as a gay employer, can hang out a sign that says “No dogs or Christians need apply”. But as of today, you are, in fact, allowed to fire an employee for being a homophobe at work, and the satisfaction you believe you are being denied is mostly a fiction you’ve invented for yourself.

              1. But as of today, you are, in fact, allowed to fire an employee for being a homophobe at work, and the satisfaction you believe you are being denied is mostly a fiction you’ve invented for yourself.

                I’m sorry this is so hard to grasp for you, so let me spell it out. I can’t fire, or refuse to rent to, Catholics or Mormons for their religions due to the CRA, and their religions condemn homosexuality. Catholics or Mormons, on the other hand, can fire me or refuse to rent to me simply for being homosexual. I don’t want “satisfaction”, I simply want rights to be balanced.

                To summarize: the CRA is an abhorrently immoral rights-destroying regime that belongs in history’s ash bin along with so much of the last century’s legislation.

                Well, good. So why are you so argumentative and insulting? Why do you keep lying? Why do you keep creating fictions about Brendan Eich getting fired?

                1. “I can’t fire, or refuse to rent to, Catholics or Mormons for their religions due to the CRA, and their religions condemn homosexuality.”
                  Well, there are too different things here. You *can* discriminate against people based on their beliefs. Just not ‘religious’ beliefs. There are definitely plenty of circumstances where people have been discriminated against for ostensibly being sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. Now, in some cases, the person may turn it around and say that the belief for which they are being punished is a religious belief, and therefore cannot be subject to discrimination.

                  So, if I am to speculate what Pat is saying, he is contending that you can punish a homophobe for being a homophobe, including if the homophobe is Catholic (and ostensibly is homophobic because he is catholic I guess); you just can’t fire him because he is Catholic.

                  1. So, if I am to speculate what Pat is saying, he is contending that you can punish a homophobe for being a homophobe, including if the homophobe is Catholic (and ostensibly is homophobic because he is catholic I guess); you just can’t fire him because he is Catholic.

                    Yes, that’s obviously what Pat is saying, but he is splitting hairs. Whether a court is going to make such a fine distinction is questionable. Furthermore, I may simply prefer not to have Catholics on my property, for the same reason I prefer not to have fascists or communists on my property.

            2. My opposition to them doesn’t require me to lie about their scope or nature though.

              So why do you keep f*cking lying? Why do you lie about Brendan Eich (he resigned rather than was fired)? Why do you keep lying about my positions?

          2. It’s not illegal to fire someone for homophobia.

            It is, however, illegal to fire someone for being Catholic or Mormon. Brendan Eich was your lousy eample, not mine.

          3. Yeah, Nixon didn’t get convicted by the senate either. That was one convenient and high profile example

            You’re missing the point here. Brendan Eich could probably have filed a non-discrimination case based on his Catholic faith, and he might have prevailed in court. Like 99.99% of targets of discrimination, he chose not to, because such legal remedies are pointless: you may prevail in court after several years, but your life is wrecked and you won’t get another job. You can’t force people to work with you.

            Gary McFarlane is a Brit, so he is irrelevant to discussions of the CRA. The Rhoades case hasn’t been decided, and according to Rhoades himself, the real reason the company is firing him is likely the high medical costs he is imposing on the company; he does not appear to be claiming religious discrimination.

            Any other such bogus examples?

    3. Yes, private discrimination on the basis of religion should be legal. Especially since some religions or sub-religions are massively shitty and deserve to be on the bad end of social pressure to reform, but not on the bad end of state violence or discrimination.

      1. That said, the SJW witch hunts are incredibly toxic to civil co-existence.

        1. -the bigots will die off soon so its no big deal-happened to most racists in the 60s

          1. Then they have bigot children who carry on the tradition, absent some intervening circumstance. Taking social progress for granted as though it’s a natural process like evolution is magical thinking.

          2. the bigots will die off soon

            And if they don’t? Are you going to Jacobin harder?

          3. If that’s the case, why is it so important to you that they be punished for their beliefs?

    4. As a lesbian in SF – I concur completely.

  21. I disagree with a number of the basic premises in this article.

    “The question now is not whether federal law should ban discrimination on the basis of certain criteria. It’s merely which criteria deserve inclusion.”

    There’s also affirmative action, though, right? And there’s legal discrimination against men because of Title IX. There’s the gay privilege of companies offering benefits to the partners of gay employees but excluding unmarried heterosexual partners from eligibility.

    Those are three examples of legal discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and orientation off the top of my head. That isn’t about which criteria deserve inclusion. It’s about which aspects of certain criteria deserve to use the law as a basis to discriminate against others.

    1. Excellent point. Whenever someone asks me why I oppose anti-discrimination laws, I suppose I should point out that as a straight white guy, they don’t protect me, so why should I?

  22. “This unprotected status is an anomaly under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which forbids employment discrimination on the basis of “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” African-Americans and other racial minorities are protected, Catholics and Muslims are protected, women are protected and immigrants are protected. Gays are not.”

    The question of whether discrimination continues regardless of the law deserves attention. Anyone who thinks blacks aren’t discriminated against because it’s against federal law is out to lunch. It’s like the idea that marijuana isn’t consumed because doing so is against the law. The unemployment rate for blacks remains double what it is for white people–worse during recessions.

    Also, do you imagine that Adventists aren’t discriminated against because they won’t work on Saturdays? That fundamentalist Mormons can’t be arrested for bigamy? Are you not aware that nuns were being legally compelled to finance the fornication of their hospital employees?

    Can battered men be legally excluded from shelters for being men?

  23. I have a better idea, let’s dump the entire CRA.

  24. The question now is not whether federal law should ban discrimination on the basis of certain criteria. It’s merely which criteria deserve inclusion.

    It’s not a matter of whether your rights should be infringed, but by how many different groups.

    1. The question is not how many, but which ones are the proper ones to do the infringing.

      All the rest don’t count, they just have to suck it up and bake the damned cake.

  25. I have a question/suggestion regarding the Reason drinking game. For the length of all begathons, can/should “this is why I didn’t donate” be added to the drink list?

    1. I *hiccup* approve mightily! *hiccup*

  26. Hively said she lost her job after she was seen kissing her female partner goodbye in the parking lot. Had she been seen kissing her male partner, she would not have lost her job.

    Citation needed.

    1. Yeah, unless her boss specifically mentioned that same sex kiss as the reason for her termination, I’m gonna call bullshit.

      1. Although PDAs, regardless of orientation, should be cause for termination. Get a room, you two!

    2. These days, more likely than not, she got fired because she was a lousy employee, but decided to blame her gayness to force them to give her her job back and become a martyr for the movement.

      My suspicion is, like all the faux ‘hate crimes’ most cases of alleged discrimination are bullshit; just people who got fire for justifiable reasons blaming it on something else. Many of them are successful in litigation nonetheless, which is enough reason to oppose the CRA. If I’m working at a company that’s downsizing and they need someone to lay off, and they decide to lay me off because I’m a straight white male who wouldn’t have a chance in hell at a successful lawsuit, will the CRA come through for me? Doubtful. On self interest along I couldn’t support it.

  27. I can’t wait until “shitty workers” are added to the list of protected groups. Once that happens I am going to start napping on the job like a pro.

    1. You mean union workers?

      1. I have to sign up for that though, I want to be even more passive and just have my name added to some government list.

    2. Discrimination against low IQ workers. Low IQ people are horribly marginalized in our society.

  28. Many years ago when I first started reading the blog at Reason after many years as a subscriber to the print version, I was kind of taken aback at how frequently, frivolously and virulently the “cosmotarian” appellation was tossed about. It always sounded more like a bunch of mostly-neocon with a little bit of libertarian streak types, except instead of saying RINO they would yell “cosmotarian”.

    Now I kinda get where they must have been coming from .

    Libertarians operate from first principals. And “wrong” doesn’t always equate to “illegal”.

  29. Yeah… here’s a thought. Maybe a rag dedicated to “free minds/free markets” or whatever the tag line is thinks it should publish a wide range of shit including articles that fall well outside the libertarian angel-pin-dancing orthodoxy? Maybe Reason is a free-wheeling barroom and not the Temple of Objectivism? Keep your fucking money. Use it to buy a comfortable chair to sit and watch a world run by everything BUT libertarian ideas.

    Adding sexual orientation to the CRA is lower hanging fruit than my old man balls after a four-hour sauna. Whatever your level of chagrin, the U.S. government is already in the protected class business. Adding “the gays” is just legislation catching up to a culture war where Bravo won. Oh, the legislation runs contrary to libertarian principles? Sorry, but it’s not 8th grade social studies, kids. The CRA ain’t going away anytime soon. Adding sexual orientation will actually speed its eventual obsolescence. Long game.

    1. “Adding ________________ will actually speed its eventual obsolescence.”

      Right, because if the Federal register gets big enough it’s gravitational effect will one day cause it to collapse into a black hole. Problem solved!

      Yes, Chapman knows the best way to achieve a libertarian future is collectivism. We just haven’t found the proper leaders for it yet. What we need is just the right people, maybe we could even call them the vanguard.

      As popular war advances, peace is closer.

      1. Yeah, crying like a school girl over adding gays to the CRA… that’s the kind of political gamesmanship and strategy that keeps the LP and followers masturbating in basements rather than masturbating in Congress or state houses.

        1. “If only you held exactly the same views as the two major parties maybe you might be more popular!”

          There’s plenty of room for you in the existing authority-fellating duopoly. Go enjoy the satisfaction of voting for a winning candidate that isn’t a libertarian rather than fuming impotently about the 1% of people who don’t share your enthusiasm for the taste of boot waffle.

        2. Doubling down on illiberal (classically speaking) laws because they are longstanding (“ain’t going away anytime soon”) is not only stupid it’s a form of reactionary conservatism of the worst sort.

          Not that any crying schoolgirls would understand that.

        3. Yes, your pet issue is totally what dominates U.S. politics. What winning national candidate were you the campaign manager for?

        4. Yeah, that’s why we’re all here. We don’t really care about principles, we just want someone with an L in the senate. Who gives a shit if he actually defends individual freedom. He could be a Stalinist, but as long as he’s ‘strategic’ we can get that L in the senate. And then it all be grand.

          That’s a great idea, Mike.

    2. We have to abandon libertarian principles in order to save them!

      Brilliantly incisive. Please tell us more.

      1. Add another name to the list of dilettante libertarians who don’t understand that high-minded principles are a luxury enjoyed by people who win fucking elections.

        1. Spoken like a good little fascist. Might makes right.

          1. and you think it doesn’t? where would you like your ashes sent stupid?

            1. and you think it doesn’t?

              Correct. As I said below:

              A million people or a billion people or all 7 billion people on this orbiting chunk of space shit can deprive me of my rights by force of numbers, but it doesn’t make them right. Keep that in mind when it’s you on the cattle car rather than your enemies Chapman, you authority worshiping piece of shit.

              If I believed that getting my way at the point of a gun was a legitimate way to do things I wouldn’t be a libertarian.

              where would you like your ashes sent stupid?

              Put them in a big pile along with millions of others. People are a lot easier to kill than ideas. And it won’t be too long before you’re in the same damn place, regardless of how expertly you sucked the cock of whatever despot was most convenient to obtain power.

              1. *jumps up and shouts many huzzahs!*

              2. next you’ll be telling us that violence never solved anything…

              3. mmmm despot cock ,almost as tasty as orphan tears.

        2. How many elections have you won?

        3. Um, didn’t you just say that high-minded principles need to be sacrificed in order to win elections? You don’t even seem to comprehend your own thoughts.

    3. The CRA ain’t going away anytime soon. Adding sexual orientation will actually speed its eventual obsolescence. Long game.

      How long we talking there? AFAICT, in most of the world employment-at-will doesn’t exist. Basically once you’ve hired someone, you’re stuck with them forever unless you do a mass layoff. I don’t know if the situation’s as bad in those countries re housing, or whether promotion on the job is relatively a free issue (or whether unioniz’n is so widespread that seniority rules pretty much everywhere), but these policies show no sign of changing except by minor tweaks. I think the more “protected classes” are added, the harder it’ll be to get rid of any or of the whole thing, because any diminution in scope or effect is going to be seen as aiming at “you”, whoever you are. The only groups that are discriminatable against in other countries, however, are foreigners, but that exception just seems to cement national solidarity rather than any concept of individual sovereignty.

      1. “…employment-at-will doesn’t exist. Basically once you’ve hired someone, you’re stuck with them forever unless you do a mass layoff.”

        What utter nonsense. People get fired from jobs all the time, for many reasons. I’m guessing you haven’t been employed or in business for a long time or ever and get your information about this from blogs.

        Now, it’s true that in some types of businesses or institutions, getting rid of employees can be somewhat more difficult than it used to be. That’s why a large and increasing portion of new employment is done through agencies, so that workers, even long-time workers, are treated as “temps” working for an outside contractor. These non-employees can be easily dumped anytime.

        1. Contract work has proliferated in many fields for precisely this reason. Not a permanent hire = not a permanent liability.

    4. I’m sure Democrats said the same thing about Jim Crow laws too…

  30. Argumentum ad populum is still a fallacy even when popular opinion is on your side — especially so, in fact. A million people or a billion people or all 7 billion people on this orbiting chunk of space shit can deprive me of my rights by force of numbers, but it doesn’t make them right. Keep that in mind when it’s you on the cattle car rather than your enemies Chapman, you authority worshiping piece of shit.

    1. keep this in mind when you’re on the wrong side of the lawn…

  31. Of course what all this ignores is that policies like this make homosexuality/lesbianism/etc. a threat against a prospective non-homophobic employer. If I hire a straight guy under this law, I can show him the door if he doesn’t work out, no questions asked. With the gay man, well, it’s not so simple. Even if I harbor no hostility to gay people, personally, these sorts of laws would give me reason for pause if I had a gay candidate for a job. The same would apply to housing or any of the other areas that the law would apply protection to.

    1. This is a very large factor in a lot of bad law. It is a thought crime, where some external source is ultimately going to be called to judge how you felt, and whether that way you felt was illegal. This is obviously impossible to do objectively, this creates situations where whether you did something right or wrong depends on heavily upon the analysis of your subjective mindset.

      One can easily argue there is very little that is truly objective I suppose, but I still believe that one requirement of a good law be that something close to an objective act occurred against another person that can be judged with a high level of external validity.

      1. Where is there any evidence that gays are suffering from discrimination? How much discrimination would this really end? Very little that I can see. Meanwhile, it would effectively end freedom of religion in this country. Of course Chapman views that as a feature.

        1. Apparently you didn’t read the news last week.

          It is well known that the gay-gene engenders a love of home decorating. To cater to this, the market has provided a cable channel called HGTV. The best and one of the most popular shows on HGTV features a couple from Waco that attend a church on their own time (not on their show) where homosexuality is considered a sin. Unless these people are forced to make a public apology and change churches or lose their show, it’s practically Jim-Fucking-Crow all over again.

          1. You will drink from that water fountain or we’ll well drown you in it!

      2. I hate to quote Jim Webb, but considering that Steve Chapman is now considered a ‘libertarian’ I don’t see how Webb is not immensely more libertarian (in the real sense, not the cocktail party sellout definition). Webb said there is an argument to be made to have laws protecting against discrimination towards blacks and native americans, because of the unique experience of government discrimination that they endured. There really isn’t a case for including any other group, as they have suffered no worse than the Irish and Italians (who are not a protected class).

        But, then again, I’m sure Jim Webb isn’t invited to a lot of cocktail parties and isn’t that what this is all about? Libertarian moment!

        1. If the Dems had put up Jim Webb instead of Hillary, I probably would have voted for him over Johnson. How sad is that?

        2. “[…] have suffered no worse than the Irish and Italians (who are not a protected class).”

          Um… “national origin” has been part of the CRA since 1964.

          1. Um… Webb was talking about ‘affirmative action’ and not specifically the CRA. If you think Italians and Irish are a ‘protected class’ then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

            Also, you know what else is part of the 1964 CRA? Religious exemptions, which the ENDA bill does not have. Religious exemptions were eliminated in the bill after the Democrats decided that they were a socialist party and abandoned all vestiges of liberalism.

            1. Go read the CRA. “National origin” is included there right alongside the other protected classes in just about every instance. Firing, hiring, public accommodation, etc. National origin is a protected class.

              So yeah, kicking someone out of your lunch diner because they’re Irish? Illegal under the CRA.

              And I’m not talking about ENDA, I’m pointing out that the claim that National Origin isn’t a “protected class” is factually wrong.

              1. I’m going to assume that you don’t get the difference between the CRA and affirmative action policy.

                1. I’m curious what you think makes a group a “protected class” in this country. If your answer is “affirmative action policy”, then you’re kind of putting the effect before the cause.

                  1. I’m curious what you think makes a group a “protected class” in this country. If your answer is “affirmative action policy”, then you’re kind of putting the effect before the cause.

                    The Supreme court deciding that the government discriminating against you on that basis requires a higher level of scrutiny than just rational basis.

                    You need to be curious because you know so little about this area of law, it is virtually impossible to explain it to you.

                    1. It may surprise you to learn, then, that “national origin” is one of the categories typically subjected to “strict scrutiny”, along with race, skin color, and religion.

              2. Does “national origin” refer to country of birth? Or to ethnicity? Not the same thing.

                1. Both. There’s a reason it’s normally written as “race, color or national origin” and so-on, because it’s all a social construct and mixed together in people’s understanding.

                  That said, if you’re at the point where you’re saying “I’m not discriminating against Irish citizens, I’m discriminating against people descended from Ireland” or “I’m not discriminating against Italian people, I’m discriminating against Italian culture”, then you’re pretty much hosed. When it comes to non-discrimination cases the courts are skeptical of such fine hair-splitting (hence why the “I’m not discriminating against gays, I’m discriminating against gay weddings” hasn’t worked ever)

    2. The CRA necessarily includes creating a hostile work environment as part of what constitutes discrimination. If it didn’t, it would be a dead letter. What good does it do to say an employer can hire you but then is free to make your life hell because of your race or religion?

      Hostile work environment effectively means that it is illegal to be openly racist in this country. If I put up a poster in my office that says “white power” or tell my co-workers blacks are inferior, my employer must discipline me and if I don’t quit it fire me or he will face liability and losing his business.

      Make gays included under the civil rights act and the same will be true for professing any public objection to homosexuality. If you are a Christian and think homosexuality is a sin or think gays shouldn’t be married, expressing that in public will be effectively illegal.

      Chapman is a totalitarian piece of shit.

      1. Of course the law says you can’t fire someone because he’s gay. That doesn’t mean you have to hire them in the first place. The thing is, you don’t hire them, who’s going to even know your reasons for not hiring someone? And that saves you all the cost of oversight and all the risk of lawsuits.

        Obviously, this strategy wouldn’t make sense absent the law Chapman is proposing. Discrimination imposes an unnecessary cost. The only question is whether that cost is offset by the cost of complying with the spirit of anti-discrimination law.

        1. That doesn’t mean you have to hire them in the first place.

          Oh yes it does. It is called the disparate impact test. If your hiring practices result in your workforce having a lower number percentage of a protected group than is the percentage of that group in the available population of those interested and qualified, you are guilty of discrimination. So if say 10% of engineers in your city are black and you are hiring engineers, 10% of your hires better be black or you are looking at being held liable should a rejected black applicant sue.

          That brings up the other problem with this. It would make all of our sex lives open to our employers. If I am an employer and subject to being sued for discriminating against gays, I am necessarily going to have to know who in my work force is actually gay. And that gives me a legitimate business reason to require my employees reveal their sexuality to me. If they lie or refuse tot ell me, I can fire them.

          So including gays under the CRA would mean you could no longer keep your private life private from your employer. Chapman being an idiot and having no idea how these laws actually work, has no idea that would happen but it would.

          1. “That brings up the other problem with this. It would make all of our sex lives open to our employers. If I am an employer and subject to being sued for discriminating against gays, I am necessarily going to have to know who in my work force is actually gay. And that gives me a legitimate business reason to require my employees reveal their sexuality to me. If they lie or refuse tot ell me, I can fire them.”

            Religion has been covered under the CRA since 1964 and a number of states already have sexual orientation covered under their state laws.

            And your nightmare scenario has not manifested.

            1. That is because religion has never been subject to the disparate impact test. Race and sexual orientation will.

              1. And yet, your nightmare scenario still hasn’t materialized in any of the localities that have sexual orientation covered.

                Your fears are simply that, fears.

                1. That depends on what you call a ‘nightmate scenario.’

                  Some “protected groups”, notably women, already enjoy tremendous advantages over men in many fields. It is routine for minority-owned businesses to get preferential treatment in public contracts.

                  The fact is, when you put a group on the list of protected groups, and have courts willing to punish employers just for disparate impact in one direction (and keep in mind the process is a punishment; legal costs, etc.), you are all but mandating discrimination against other groups.

                  It’s a lot easier to find a judge who will penalize an engineering firm for firing a female engineer than a daycare or school for firing a male teacher.

                  The reality is, virtually all disparities between groups are due to confounding variables, not actual discrimination based on race, sex, etc. And yet, because it is erroneously accepted that disparities are largely due to discrimination by so many in government and the judiciary, and no one ever thinks they got fired (or not hired) because they didn’t deserve the job, anti-discrimination laws inevitably encourage discrimination against ‘non-protected’ groups.

                  1. “That depends on what you call a ‘nightmate scenario.'”
                    I thought I was pretty clear: the “nightmare scenario” I’m talking to is John’s dream of non-discrimination laws meaning that employers are going to quiz their employees on their bedroom habits.

                    It makes for a nice scare scenario, but has entirely failed to materialize in any of the states that have passed such laws, including litigation-friendly California and New York.

                    1. Most litigation is based on things like race and gender, and you don’t exactly need to quiz your staff to discern if your disproportionately hiring one group or another.

                      If gay people who lose their jobs/don’t get hired tend to be extraordinarily litigious, then it would behoove firms to collect information on sexual orientation from applicants and employees so as to allow them to discriminate in their favor and avoid unnecessary legal costs.

                      Basically (again, if the supposed ‘marginalized group’ is particularly litigious) then job applications would end up like college applications: where you are expected to put race, gender, sexual orientation down, so they can discriminate in your favor (in the case of the company, not necessarily because they’re leftist ‘reverse’ bigots, but so they can reduce the likelihood of stepping into lawsuit; and if they do get sued, they can refer to their hiring of X group in ‘appropriate’ proportions as evidence that they aren’t discriminatory.

                    2. It’s worth noting that companies usually do keep data on the gender of their employees for precisely this reason, and when a company says ‘we don’t have data on that’, a common response from feminists is to speculate that their refusal to aggregate gender data is just to cover up sexist hiring policies. This is why some feminists have argued for requiring private companies to report information on the gender breakdown of their employees (as well as salaries, management demographics, etc.): so the government can monitor the supposed sexism in hiring going on in companies. It’s not that outlandish to expect that some LGBTQ… rights groups will want similar reporting on what fraction of employees, manager, etc. are LGBTQ and what their salaries are.

                    3. Right…

                      Tell you what.

                      You and John keep the fear alive. I’ll continue not caring and rolling my eyes at such fear.

                      Maybe you’ll be right and I’ll be wrong. I mean, it hasn’t happened yet, and we’ve had decades for it to happen, but who knows. But even if you’re right and I’m wrong, you’re living in fear and I’m not.

                    4. Because it has not happened yet does not deny their logic. It simply waits in the Wes for a time when it will happen, at which point you will still shrug your shoulders and say it is of no great consequence, apparently.

                    5. That’s rich. You’re the one waxing indignant like gay people are getting burned in the streets, of the horror that your life has been because you don’t feel comfortable sharingyour love life with your employer.

                      “So even if I supported the law (I don’t), it’s not like your fear is anything that hasn’t been my reality all my life.”
                      Hmmm.

                      Keep the fear alive, brother. I here Trump is going to be sending gay people to camps. Spread the rumor.

                    6. @MarkLastname
                      I like how I’ve been saying that John’s fears are paranoid, and then you try to attribute his fears (“your employer will want to know who you sleep with!”) to me. It’s kinda weird.

                      “I here Trump is going to be sending gay people to camps.”
                      Yeah, and Obama is going to send all the Christians to gitmo in boxcars.

          2. In order to have an effective disparate impact test, you would need to know gen-pop numbers, so people will have to be compelled to disclose their sexual orientation to the government as well.

            1. And to plaintiffs’ attorneys during depositions.

      2. Hostile work environment effectively means that it is illegal to be openly racist in this country. If I put up a poster in my office that says “white power” or tell my co-workers blacks are inferior, my employer must discipline me and if I don’t quit it fire me or he will face liability and losing his business.

        You can express “in public” whatever you want. At work, however, you have to follow basic rules of professional conduct or face the consequences. In a professional context, you have no business talking about your own religion or other people’s religions, or criticize them for their choice of spouses, whether they are fat, ugly, or of the wrong gender. If you violate those rules, an employer should fire you. That has nothing to do with the CRA, and everything with professional conduct.

        1. I wonder how long that will really be true though, considering how often both the state (schools, in particular) and businesses treat social media as their business. I can easily imagine a lawsuit within the next decade establishing that even knowing that a co-worker is a racist or sexist or libertarian or whatever (due to off-work activities that found their way online) constitutes a hostile work environment.

        2. You can express “in public” whatever you want. At work, however, you have to follow basic rules of professional conduct or face the consequences.

          You completely miss the fucking point. What is “professional conduct” is up to my employer. The CRA tells my employer what “professional conduct” is. My employer must fire me whether he wants to or not. The law makes him. The fact that you would fire me if it were your business is besides the point.

          Good you people are thick and stupid sometimes. You just can’t grasp subtle points.

          1. What is “professional conduct” is up to my employer. The CRA tells my employer what “professional conduct” is.

            This!

            Some of these discussion points are completely appropriate to talk about in some professional contexts. Some other professional contexts are friendly and personal enough that these discussion points come up. Not every job is a 9-5 cubicle farm job for a F500 corporation.

          2. You completely miss the fucking point.

            No, John, you completely miss the fucking point. You seem to think that I’m defending the CRA, which I’m not doing.

            What is “professional conduct” is up to my employer.

            No, it is not. Professionalism is a concept that is independent of legal standards. In fact, the CRA arguably forces employers to tolerate unprofessional behavior.

            Good you people are thick and stupid sometimes. You just can’t grasp subtle points.

            Well, in this case, that comment applies to you in spades.

        3. So if someone says something at work about his religion or views or what he does in the bedroom, and I can’t even, then he should be fired, per the edict of the federal government and it’s opinion on the definition of ‘hostile.’ Got is. Why you don’t sound like an SJW at all.

          1. So if someone says something at work about his religion or views or what he does in the bedroom, and I can’t even, then he should be fired, per the edict of the federal government and it’s opinion on the definition of ‘hostile.’

            You got it backwards. Anti-discrimination laws currently prevent business owners from rejecting people who use their business to promote their religion or sexuality. That’s the edict of the federal government. I oppose that edict. You apparently favor it.

  32. It’s pretty simple. It should be illegal for the government to discriminate based on race, sex, etc. It should not be illegal for individuals to do so. Liberty, and all that.

  33. Oh yeah, and fuck this piece of shit cunt scab of a website too. If I wanted left of center commentary and analysis I’d take it with a small dose of intelligence at The Atlantic, WaPo or Slate. If you’re going to publish exclusively left leaning partisan hacks you’re spoilt for choice, I’m sure you could find one with an IQ approaching room temperature.

  34. Also, the sentiment that is implicit in this title is that the difference between a group being discriminated against or not is a law. It’s time to end discrimination with the stroke of a pen. This is a ridiculous analysis.

    Finally, that picture is poorly done, and I feel like you could have found a photo of someone actually wearing a rainbow undershirt doing the Superman Rip, instead of spending upwards of 1000 hours in MS-Paint to make that image you used.

    1. Actually, I want to edit Goatse into the picture now. So I guess something good did come of this article.

  35. A bigoted boss can cashier a good employee for loving someone of the wrong gender.

    And we know this because it is possible to read someone’s mind.

    A study by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law reported, “A majority of Americans in every U.S. congressional district support laws that protect against employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”

    And of course there’s nothing wrong with imposing policy based on referendum instead of applying reason and Natural Rights. What could possibly go wrong? Right, comrade?

    In the gay rights case, community college teacher Kimberly Hively said she lost her job after she was seen kissing her female partner goodbye in the parking lot. Had she been seen kissing her male partner, she would not have lost her job.

    Now that we’re basing these cases on post hoc ergo propter hoc absurdities, can a person argue that he or she lost his or her job because he or she was “seen” walking on the wrong side of the sidewalk instead of the right side of the sidewalk? Because if he or she had been walking on the right side of the sidewalk then he or she would not have been fired, right?

  36. No, Chapman; if the story you relate was true, the woman was not fired because of discrimination against her sex, she was fired for discrimination against her sexual preference. A gay man would have been fired, too.

    There has been a dishonest push lately to try to make discriminatiom against gays a matter of “gender” discrimination, but it’s not.

    If you’re right, you don’t have to make anything up. But you feel you need to, Chapman.

  37. The obvious retort is that the lawmakers who approved the 1964 Civil Rights Act didn’t mean to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and therefore it doesn’t.

    May be an obvious retort but it is still framed around the question-begging assumption that the private party prohibitions in the CRA are required because people have a right not to be discriminated by businesses, a notion that completely makes hash of Property Rights. Adding another protected group only serves to line the pockets of trial lawyers and turn perfectly fine people into potential liabilities in the eyes of worried employers. In other words, the CRA does everything except protect those it purports to protect.

    But they also didn’t set out to deter sexual harassment of men by men or to prevent the firing of women because they are perceived as unfeminine?both of which the Supreme Court has ruled illegal under the law.

    Meaningless comparison. Those decisions were wrong from the beginning.

    1. You really can’t overstate how appalling Chapman is. He doesn’t even argue for changing the law. He thinks the courts should just read something new into it and shove it down the country’s throats.

      And BTW, I and a lot of other people said that creating a constitutional right to gay marriage would necessarily lead to calls for the courts to read gays as being included under the CRA and we were called paranoids. This is exactly what is happening.

      1. “And BTW, I and a lot of other people said that creating a constitutional right to gay marriage would necessarily lead to calls for the courts to read gays as being included under the CRA and we were called paranoids. This is exactly what is happening.”
        You are paranoid. Folks have been calling for gay-inclusion under the CRA for decades. Blaming Obergefel v. Hodges for them is to fundamentally fuck-up your understanding of cause and effect. It’s like people complaining about gay marriage when talking about the Elane Photography case.

        1. ou are paranoid. Folks have been calling for gay-inclusion under the CRA for decades. Blaming Obergefel v. Hodges for them is to fundamentally fuck-up your understanding of cause and effect. It’s like people complaining about gay marriage when talking about the Elane Photography case.

          No, you are a fucking moron who doesn’t understand the equal protection clause and its relationship to the CRA. And if you don’t understand it by now and understand the effects of making gays a protected class for the purpose of marriage, you are likely too stupid, bullheaded or both to understand it now.

          Man up and face the truth, in supporting gay marriage you supported something that is going to do grave damage to freedom. You were warned that would happen but you didn’t listen.

          1. Gee, how horrible. Gay folks having the same protections as the religious nuts who want to discriminate against gay folks. What a terrible future.

            As for “you were warned”… sorry dude, you’re telling the aggrieved minority that they should have just waited another twenty or thirty years to see justice. I can’t imagine why that isn’t persuasive.

            1. Religious people don’t have rights. The Federal government is currently trying to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to buy abortifacients for their employees.

              So, no, religious people don’t have rights.

              1. I might care if I didn’t already know more details about that case then you’re sharing.

                To be clear: either (a) their lawyers lied to the SCOTUS about what the Fed is doing that they’re objecting to, or (b) you’re wrong (maliciously or naively) about what the Fed is doing that they’re objecting to.

                I’m banking on (b) myself.

  38. A man or woman can put up a rainbow flag in a workplace, and cannot be punished without the law coming down on you. Put up a Nazi flag and you are fired and there is not recourse. Liberty says neither should be, unless it is a private business, then it should be up to the employer. Chapman should not be writing for a libertarian magazine. He has no tolerance for unpalatable beliefs. As long as they are doing no physical harm it should get a pass. Sticks, stones, and words. I learned it as a child and it still applys.

    1. Untrue statement.

      In 28 states you can be fired simply for being a known homosexual. You don’t even have to hang a flag.

      1. Good luck with that. Any business any bigger than Mom-and-Pop that did that will be put out of business toute suite.

        On the other hand, billionaire CEOs like Brendan Eich can be fired merely for having the wrong political opinions about gay rights.

        1. On the other hand, billionaire CEOs like Brendan Eich can be fired merely for having the wrong political opinions about gay rights.

          Brendan Eich wasn’t fired, he resigned.

          Any business any bigger than Mom-and-Pop that did that will be put out of business toute suite.

          That’s utter and complete bullshit, for the simple reason that the vast majority of gay men and women wouldn’t sue business owners over discrimination, just like Brendan Eich didn’t sue over discrimination, for the simple reason that such lawsuits are career enders even when they are successful.

        2. Any business any bigger than Mom-and-Pop that did that will be put out of business toute suite.
          … you act like this is something that hasn’t happened. It does. Regularly. And your assumed consequence does not happen.

  39. Aside from whether you think gay people should be a protected class, the answer to the question “Should the courts deem them a protected class under the existing statutes?” is a resounding no.

    Current law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. “Sex” does not mean “sexual orientation” or “gender”. If the courts (or administrative agencies) deem otherwise, it is a de facto amendment of the statute that is (or should be) beyond their authority.

    1. all gay people should be fucked up the ass!…there just sayin’ what everyones thinkin’, am I right, huh?

  40. I get paid ?85 every hour from online jobs. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my friend AT is earning ?10k /monthly by doing this job and she showed me how. Try it out on following website?O2

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

  41. I know Chapman is the model version of a ‘libertarian’ to Reason (‘all the cocktail parties with none of the icky liberty’), but most of us have not yet sold out to accepting the new left-wing Reform Party envisioned by Gary Johnson and the editors here.

    Seems to be a bad misstep to post an article by Steve ‘I love Hillary Clinton’ Chapman during your fundraiser.

    At a time when ‘libertarian’ candidates are calling religious liberty a ‘black hole’ (Gary Johnson) and supporting single payer healthcare (NH ‘libertarian’ candidate) is it too much to ask that the flagship libertarian publication write articles slightly more liberty minded than National Review?

  42. While opposed to these laws for the sake of argument I’ll accept the ship has sailed. Let’s say gays are added to the list for the remaining states. So gay is protected. What about flamboyantly gay. What if it’s not the gay part hurting your sales but the flamboyant part. How about trans? What stages? If people get unnerved from the half done job and sales suffer who has to suck it up?

    1. What about people who identify as chipmunks and insist on wearing a chipmunk costume to their jobs as waiters at high end restaurants?

      I mean, what are you gonna do, argue that the employer has the right to set the dress code? Then the guy/chipmunk will just end up suing Mens Warehouse for not making pants that can fit over his chipmunk costume.

  43. “But pretty much everyone else agrees that ship has sailed, as well it should have.”

    You could just as well say this about everything established in law and enforced by threats appears like this. But every legal action taken to bring someone in line says otherwise. Had the ship really sailed there would be no need for such laws.

    1. Is it safe to say that “the ship has sailed” on the Federal Controlled Substance Act? Should we stop trying to change that, and let them add whatever substances they want (e.g. Kratom)?

      What about Federal immigration law? Sure it hasn’t exactly been enforced to the letter of late, but my impression is that some rather important people have been talking about reversing that once they take office…

      1. Also Iraq and Afghanistan. Boots are on the ground. The public is concerned with other things. Get over it already.

  44. Mr. Steve Chapman – when will libertarians be a protected class?

    1. Already is in California. California’s non-discrimination law includes “political activities or affiliations”.

      1. So a synagogue can’t refuse to hire someone to be a janitor because the applicant happens to be a Nazi?

        Something tells be that, as with all “anti-discrimination” laws, some people are more equal than others.

        1. Sure, if you forget that religious institutions can already impose religious tests on their employees.

          1. No, they generally cannot.

            They can impose religious tests on people who are closely related to their ministry, like preachers or teachers, not janitors.

            In any case, make the synagogue a small business — a bakery, a deli, a law firm — owned by Orthodox Jews and the question remains. (Nice try ignoring his point.)

            1. “They can impose religious tests on people who are closely related to their ministry, like preachers or teachers, not janitors.”
              Someone hasn’t been paying attention. They found ways around that bit years ago. Fired gays keep trying to argue it’s bullshit that every teaching position is a “ministerial position”, but so far it’s working out.

              As for the small business, I’m guessing you forgot that pretty much all of these laws have exceptions for business size? I think 15 employees is normal, though I admit to not verifying that for California.

              But hey, if it makes you feel any better… During my entire life, provided the size and religious institution exceptions aren’t met, I have never been able to fire someone because their holy book literally calls for my death.

              So even if I supported the law (I don’t), it’s not like your fear is anything that hasn’t been my reality all my life.

              1. Ok, so a Jewish business owner can’t refuse to hire a Nazi janitor then?

                Really, that’s what you’re telling me. That a guy who is openly a Nazi, big fan of Hitler, otherwise qualified (whatever it means to be qualified to be a janitor), walks into Goldberg and Weinstein Associates at law, and applies, and they deny him because of his Naziism, the Nazi guy can sue them and win?

                If this is true (and), I’d think that’d be a bigger concern to you than your ability to fire all the Christians who work for you.

                “So even if I supported the law (I don’t), it’s not like your fear is anything that hasn’t been my reality all my life.”
                I can’t speak for Macy’s window, but discrimination against white males is not just ok, it’s actively encouraged by the government. I’m getting my PhD in a STEM field. When I’m done, I’ll be hard pressed to find a faculty position that doesn’t openly state “women and minorities preferred.” Which for competitive positions with a large applicant pool, essentially means ‘white males need not apply.’ Ironically, that’s why I’ll likely end up in the private sector, earning more money, and thereby perpetuating the “wage gap.”

                1. “Ok, so a Jewish business owner can’t refuse to hire a Nazi janitor then?”
                  Assuming the law is applied similar to other non-discrimination laws (I have no reason to believe otherwise, but not a lawyer)…
                  Sure they can refuse. But just like with other protected classes, they have to be professional when they tell him why, instead of screaming “Nazi!” while burning his application.

                  You know, like if they wanted to refuse to hire a Muslim, or Pakistani janitor?

                  “If this is true (and), I’d think that’d be a bigger concern to you than your ability to fire all the Christians who work for you.”
                  … really. In case you missed the last five months, the KKK and Neo-Nazis threw their support behind the Republican nominee for president, who won the election. The president-elect, who enjoys the support of open racists and Nazis, spent a lot of time trying to make me afaid of Muslims.

                  So were I more suggestible, I’d be far more worried about my ability to discriminate based on religion, then I’d be worried about my ability to discriminate based on politics.

                  As is, neither concerns me much.

                  1. “Assuming the law is applied similar to other non-discrimination laws…”
                    Since when are anti-discrimination laws ever applied in a uniform manner? If they were, Curves would be out of business for discriminating against men. How a law is enforced matters a lot more than how it’s written.

                    ” In case you missed the last five months, the KKK and Neo-Nazis threw their support behind the Republican nominee for president, who won the election. The president-elect, who enjoys the support of open racists and Nazis…”
                    Yawn. And Hillary and Obama both won the endorsement of the Communist Party, and neither renounced the endorsement. I guess they must be Communists! Remind me again why I should care who endorses whom?

                    1. “Remind me again why I should care who endorses whom?”
                      Hey, you’re the one that brought Nazis into the conversation.

                      That said, you missed my point: Nazis aren’t, and haven’t been, a serious bogeyman to gay folk in a long time. Our bogeyman is far more common and far more socially acceptable.

  45. Interesting… I see a lot of outrage about extending the same protections religion, etc… gets to gay citizens, but I see very few speaking out about the protections religion, etc… get in the first place.

    Why is that? Shouldn’t the protections be applied equally, or ended entirely?

    1. I say get rid of the whole law.

    2. Why is that? Shouldn’t the protections be applied equally, or ended entirely?

      The backhandedness of the CRA means the inverse argument that you’re making carries, or can be made to conceivably carry, undertones regarding the BOR and/or Founding Documents. It’s less vociferous than it once was but there’s still a considerable number of people with the mindset that only bigots and Christians want Free Speech so they can oppress their narrative-appropriate minority nemeses.

      Also, if the CRA is a sailed ship, nationwide tax breaks, in lieu of giving religious organizations selective breaks, is a ship sunk before they even drained the water out of the dry dock.

      1. RE: Tony.

      2. It seems it is pretty much an accepted “fact” among those left of center these days that if someone wants the government out of marriage entirely, that it’s just code for being anti-gay marriage.

        The same attitude prevails on free speech and freedom of association. Everything is about positive rights now.

        More over, in the end, Chapman is right. The ship has sailed. And the ‘religious’ protections of the CRA are going to recede with time. Some states may resist, but at the federal level, when forced to choose between protecting gays from discrimination and protecting religious people from discrimination, the former side is going to win out. Cakes will be baked. Weddings will be catered. And I wouldn’t be surprised if in not too long churches that refuse to perform same sex weddings or ordain female priests threatened with loss of tax-exempt status. Just ten or fifteen years ago, would we have seen this whole wedding cake dispute coming? The cultural zeigeist is moving fast in a distinct direction.

        1. “It seems it is pretty much an accepted “fact” among those left of center these days that if someone wants the government out of marriage entirely, that it’s just code for being anti-gay marriage.”

          Well, yeah. It basically went like this:

          Gay people: “I have a list of grievances. Workaround option L is crap, workaround option C lacks support, I really think we should pursue option M”
          (some) Libertarians: “you should try option G instead”
          Gay people: “But option G is really unlikely to work and basically becomes option L (the crap option) if I does work.”
          (some) Libertarians: “You should try option G instead.”
          Gay people: “We would have to get legislative approval, and if we had that kind of pull with them we’d already have gotten workaround option C.”
          (some) Libertarians: “you should try option G instead”
          Gay people: “Dude, listen to me. We can get option M. We really can. Everything is lining up, we can make it this time.”
          (some) Libertarians: “Option G.”
          Gay people: “You know what? Fine. You want option G so bad, you go push for it. I’m gonna stick with what actually addresses my grievances and is likely to work, option M.”
          (some) Libertarians: *does nothing*
          Gay people: “Yay! We got option M!”
          (some) Libertarians: “you should have tried option G instead”

          I wonder why gay folks aren’t too charitable to the idea.

          1. Option G is the right option. That’s what matters.

            And I know why ‘gay folks’ aren’t too charitable to the idea. Government out of marriage is equality; it’s freedom. But that’s not what they want, not anymore, now that they know that they can get more. Now they can force Christians to bake them cakes. Soon they may even get to get churches shut down for refusing to hold their weddings. Why though? They could easily find another baker or a liberal Episcopalian Church to do the wedding. For revenge, or spite, whatever you want to call it.

            That’s how ‘victimhood movements’ work, how they always have and always will. When you’re a slave, all you want is freedom. When you’re a peasant, all you want is equality. When you’re equal, all you want is privilege, and when you’re privileged, all you want is to be a master.

            1. Option G is the right option. That’s what matters.
              Then go and be a martyr for your own cause. Expecting gays to do it for you, whether it’s abolishing marriage or striking down all non-discrimination law? Is pretty fucking entitled.

              As to the rest: check your dates and case law. Acting like non-discrimination laws that include gay people are somehow breaking new ground shows a (not very) shocking ignorance of history.

              1. What’s pretty fucking entitled is trying to force a baker to bake you a wedding cake, and to expect everyone to boycott entire states for not allowing you to do so.

                Oy, such a favor I’m asking of you, to mind your own fucking business and let other people mind theirs. Is this how gay people try to convince straight people to be ‘allies?’ Why again am I supposed to care about your rights when you couldn’t care about anyone else’s. Why am I supposed to be crying a river over someone’s hypothetical but almost never exercised right to fire you? Every man for himself, no?

                “As to the rest: check your dates and case law. Acting like non-discrimination laws that include gay people are somehow breaking new ground shows a (not very) shocking ignorance of history.”
                I see you missed my point and decided to look for an excuse to toss out an irrelevant insult.

                1. Oy, such a favor I’m asking of you, to mind your own fucking business and let other people mind theirs.
                  There’s two parts of that statement, and you’re focusing on the first.

                  In order for us to “let other people mind theirs”, those “other people” have to actually be minding their own business.

                  At no point in American history has that actually happened. Sodomy laws, obscenity laws, security clearances, DADT, DOMA, state bans on marriage/civil unions, bans on being teachers, overturning wills because gay relationships weren’t “in the interest” of the state, bans on adoption (even with the permission of the parents). That’s not other people minding their business, that’s other people taking a perverse interest in our business and fucking with us in as many ways as they can.

                  And that’s before we even get to non-discrimination law. In your view, sexual orientation being covered under such laws is a violation of “mind your own business”. Well, in case you didn’t notice, religion has been covered since 1964. So even in states where sexual orientation isn’t covered under non-discrimination law, we are incapable of “[letting] otehr people mind [their own business].”

                  So yeah. Your “ask”? Is way bigger then you think. And that’s ignoring that what you were actually asking was that we not pursue marriage equality because of some libertarian pipe-dream of abolishing legal marriage.

            2. Now they can force Christians to bake them cakes.

              Just like Christians can force atheists to bake them cakes. What’s your point?

              That’s how ‘victimhood movements’ work,

              Yeah, Christians have been playing the “victim card” for two thousand years, in between throwing anybody they didn’t like to the lions and such niceties as bringing Hitler to power.

              They could easily find another baker or a liberal Episcopalian Church to do the wedding. For revenge, or spite, whatever you want to call it.

              That’s what most of us do. But continue to wallow in your self-righteous indignation and victimhood mentality.

  46. 1964 Civil rights Act: 99% good, 1% bad.

    The Libertarian Moment won’t happen until libertarians understand that utopia is not an option.

    1. 1964 Civil rights Act: 99% good, 1% bad.

      The Titanic, 99% good, 1% bad.
      Hindenberg, 99% good, 1% bad.
      Atomic Weapons, 99% good, 1% bad.

      Segregated schools under performing, race-specific violence and incarceration rates just as high as ever, increased equality in social participation with the same or less diversity in achievement… sure, Hell is 99%, well Hell, but the 1% that’s made up of paved roads is nice!

    2. It basically repealed freedom of association, and that’s only “1% bad” and wanting to get freedom of association back is working for “utopia”?

      Yep, that’s an argument. Not a good one, and not defensible by any means, but it’s definitely an argument…

    3. You’re the ones trying to build the utopia by forcing people to abide by your worldview. We just want you utopian douche bags to leave everyone alone.

  47. I associate with whosever I wish to associate with and exclude those I don’t like. That’s freedom, not forced association via the heavy hand of government.

    1. Who so ever

  48. I clicked on this article to remind myself why I don’t read this guy any more. I think Reason is more interested in being fashionable than in being libertarian. Same with the LP.

  49. No, no, and no. We don’t need to add to bad laws with more bad parts. Stop trying to tell people who they can employ or why they can’t fire them

  50. If you weren’t whining about oppressive nondiscrimination laws when they applied to, say, religion for all these decades, you don’t get to whine about them when they are proposed to extend to protect sexual orientation, which obviously fits among the other classes already recognized in such laws.

    And advocating for getting rid of them all just as sexual orientation is proposed to be included just looks bad.

    Work on convincing your neighbor redneck assholes to stop systematically discriminating against minority groups, and when it is no longer a problem, then you can plausibly apply libertopian principles to this debate.

    1. Fuck off Krugman, you pathetic sore loser.

    2. Pretty sure libertarians have been arguing the CRA’s anti-free-association components for a while. If religion wasn’t emphasized in that discussion, it’s only because it didn’t normally come into play.

    3. Great case, make it to your representatives and senators. The court has no place, or power, to add protected classes to an existing piece of legislation that specifically list protected classes.

    4. If you weren’t whining about oppressive nondiscrimination laws when they applied to, say, religion for all these decades, you don’t get to whine about them when they are proposed to extend to protect sexual orientation

      And if you were?

      And advocating for getting rid of them all just as sexual orientation is proposed to be included just looks bad.

      The heck with freedom of association, it may look bad!

      Work on convincing your neighbor redneck assholes to stop systematically discriminating against minority groups

      I’ve heard of this before, but I’ve never seen it, and I hang around rednecks on purpose. Perhaps the government shouldn’t pass laws that are necessarily discriminating.

      If you owned a bakeshop, would you have to serve someone who called for your discrimination? If I don’t shop at a “gay” bakeshop (not sure such a thing exists, but let’s say it does for the sake of argument) due to my beliefs, should I be forced to? Does that mean that you would have to shop at a devout “conservative” Muslim bakeshop or be guilty of religious discrimination?

      I honestly don’t know why I bother…

      1. If discrimination exists, that means the cops are employed to protect customers from it or to enforce it, i.e., drag customers out of shops for being the wrong race or sexual orientation.

        Bigots made this a zero-sum situation. As I said above, they are welcome to stop being bigots. But a civilized society does not have government agents dragging people from lunch counters for being blacks. We decided on that a long time ago.

        1. If discrimination exists, that means the cops are employed to protect customers from it or to enforce it, i.e., drag customers out of shops for being the wrong race or sexual orientation.

          No, the police are (supposed to be) there to stop initiations of force, one of those is trespass.

          Bigots made this a zero-sum situation.

          Not very self-aware, now are we?

          But a civilized society does not have government agents dragging people from lunch counters for being blacks.

          Hayek would love to pick that statement apart. “Civilized” means “whatever I like”, and “society” means government, not “the place in which I live”. That’s why he ceased to use the word “society”.

          We decided on that a long time ago.

          “We” meaning “the people who have control over the initiators of force, aka government”.

          If the police don’t detain people for initiations of force, then what purpose do they serve? You know what, don’t answer that, I’m afraid I may give you new ideas how to oppress people…

          1. If you want to defend a regime in which cops drag people from lunch counters for being black, be my guest. Just don’t pretend that you’re for less government force than I am.

            1. If you want to defend a regime in which cops drag people from lunch counters for being black, be my guest.

              I want people to respect others’ property. I am willing to use force to defend against this initiation of force.

              Just don’t pretend that you’re for less government force than I am.

              Fell into my “trap”. I asked a rhetorical question:

              “If the police don’t detain people for initiations of force, then what purpose do they serve?”

              You thought I was defending a certain function of government, and I wasn’t. I am an an-cap and was pointing out the resulting evil of even the MOST reasonable argument for government.

              So, basically, you lose the argument and the moral high ground.

        2. “If discrimination exists, that means the cops are employed to protect customers from it or to enforce it…”
          Nope. I’m happy to businesses take greater part in enforcing their own property rights. Meaning if a business owner wants you out, make it known that he wants you out, and you refuse to get out, I fully support his right to drag out himself.

          You, Tony, or people like you, are the ones who insist that that not be allowed; that only agents of the state may do that without being subject to litigation or prosecution.

          In so far as the state prevents people from defending their own rights, statists cannot complain when people demand that the state defend those rights for them; when that means defending their right to discriminate, so be it. Have an issue with that? Ok. If you get physically dragged out of a store, are you going to forgo your right to call the cops to punish the guy who decided he didn’t want you on his property?

    5. There is no systematic discrimination against minorities in this country. The only groups ‘systematically discriminated against’ in this country are the ones educational institutions and employers are required or incentivized to discriminate against by the state via ‘affirmative action.’

      To put in another way, if you want more black CEOs, go convince your black neighbor not to have children out of wedlock. If you want more women in STEM fields, go convince your female neighbors to quit wasting their time in gender studies and study engineering instead.

      But that would require you to acknowledge that a person who isn’t white, straight, and male has any responsibility what so ever for his own life.

  51. This would be a pretty good lesson for SJWs to learn: If you’re so gung-ho about believing free speech and free expression doesn’t protect you from losing your job (when you want that gay-hatin’ Twitter troll fired from his job), don’t complain when that belief comes back to bite you on the ass (when your gay-hatin’ employer fires you for holding hands with your loved one in a public place). I personally don’t want anyone to have their livelihoods ruined because of something they did or said on their own time, and as long as people are being friendly to everyone and not harming anyone, I don’t care if the guy fixing my car is a racist ass.

    1. This suggests an interesting point that I’m surprised hasn’t come up yet.

      Presumably, the difference is that one may fire or fail to hire over any views; the state is not (at least not yet) actually in the business of suggesting that certain views are state “endorsed” as matters of “basic antibigotry”; such a statute would certainly fail a 1A test. So I’m thinking it’s just a matter of time before an employer fires or fails to hire because an employee or candidate has attended a Pride event or belonged to a gay group. These usually involve some amount of activism, which should make them vulnerable, but also are often a crucial social mechanism for LGBT people. (You would, of course, have to treat any straight employee/candidate in attendance similarly.)

  52. I’d like Chapman to explain exactly how a person can have freedom of association, if a person does not have the freedom to disassociate.

    1. I’d like you to explain how you guys constantly misread the freedom to peaceably assemble into a “penumbra” right of a freedom to associate.

      Nobody really has an absolute freedom of association. You do not get to clear the street at your whim as you walk down it.

      1. I’d like you to explain how you guys constantly misread the freedom to peaceably assemble into a “penumbra” right of a freedom to associate.

        9th Amendment.

        Nobody really has an absolute freedom of association. You do not get to clear the street at your whim as you walk down it.

        True, there is only one right, the right to do everything other than initiate force on another human. You, on the other hand, love initiating force on someone for deciding not to do business with or hang out with someone else.

        1. You, on the other hand, love initiating force on someone for deciding not to do business with or hang out with someone else.

          Does he though? I thought he was just replying to the particular jurisprudential claim that the 1A guarantees, together or in a “penumbra,” the right to decide who you do business with. That is not a normative political claim. The U.S. Constitution is not a sufficient restrainer of government to libertarian principles. One might have a (perhaps wrongly) weak 9A reading but be a political supporter of a very robust freedom of commerce.

          1. Does he though?

            He does, just not in this particular comment. He has a history.

      2. “You do not get to clear the street at your whim as you walk down it.”
        You’re right, I don’t… because I DON”T OWN THE STREET. I do own my house. I do own my business. So yes, I should get to decide who gets to be in my house, or my business, and who doesn’t. (disclaimer; I am speaking hypothetically; I do not own either a house or a business.)

        Can you really be this dense?

  53. We must do these things, not because they are right, not because we have principles, but because they make us feel good and punish people we don’t like. And isn’t that, after all, what politics is all about?

    1. Too hard to tell if you’re an anarchist who honestly thinks the answer is yes!

      1. Well, it was meant as a sarcasm, but I suppose there is a grain of truth in it.

    2. Absolutely! I’ve been saying for years, the point of politics is to produce warm fuzzy feelings.

      That’s the great thing about taxes, you get feel good by giving money to the needs without the downside of it being your own money. Of course to keep the feeling alive you have to continually “give” more by raising taxes regularly.

      Similar for “disadvantaged groups”, we must continually find new ones save. Luckily we have an entire liberal arts wing in our university system devoted to this research.

      1. Look at you, waving your STEM username all about! Such an air of superiority!

  54. As long as White Christians keep voting for people like Trump, I’m officially not giving a fuck about their right to discriminate against gay people.

    If they can’t be bothered to defend my right to keep my property, or purchase products form foreign countries, or engage in mutually beneficial voluntary exchange with people without getting official government permission to do so, then fuck them.

    1. That’s the spirit. They’re not libertarian, so we shouldn’t be either. Fuck principles, let’s just go straight to the guillotines. What could go wrong?

    2. “to defend my right to keep my property, or purchase products form foreign countries, or engage in mutually beneficial voluntary exchange with people without getting official government permission to do so, then fuck them.”

      I was not aware that Trump was able to do all that before he’s been inaugurated.

      FYI- ascribing blame to groups of people by race and religion is now ‘libertarian’. You must be a Gary Johnson left-wing Reform Party fan. Cocktail parties!

    3. Hmm, your vision of a society of civil rights for those who hold the correct libertarian opinions intrigues me. Unfortunately I will be unable to participate, as I am a Latino (who voted for Hillary), a male (Trump), and a cisgender person (Hillary). If you come by my concentration camp to take up a collection I will donate what I can.

      1. Well to be (un)fair, a libertarian society only works where everyone is libertarian. If you allow non-libertarians to make laws, they’ll make non-libertarian laws, and then you’re not in a libertarian society anymore.

        1. That’s the beauty of communism. You don’t have to be a communist for the state to make you work for ‘society’ at gunpoint.

        2. Not true! A society might be governed by libertarian philosopher-kings, for example, or by a majoritarian direct democracy composed of 51% libertarians. Libertarianism designates a government that is restrained in its function; it does not indicate anything per se about political participation. And certainly under no conceivable circumstance would a libertarian agree that libertarianism would only work if every citizen were in ideological lockstep with it.

          The commenter above me had indicated that he did not believe that non-libertarians deserved to have rights (as conceived as natural rights, rights against the state, etc). That in and of itself makes him a non-libertarian of the most obvious and extreme kind. It’s not even a matter of whether or not the non-libertarians were to hold political power; it’s far more extreme than that.

          1. “Not true!”
            If you have to rely on a tyrant, then you may as well enjoy it while it lasts because it probably will only last two generations at most.

            As for any sort of republic or democracy? Sorry, human nature will win out. Even if you have only folks with the best of intentions, someone will make another earthquake industry (hello Oklahoma!) and the legislature will eventually have to step in and do something, and we all know what “something” ends up looking like.

            Quite simply, you have to be far more optimistic then me to think “libertopia” is possible.

            Or at least, any “libertopia” I’d want to live in. Something like the cyberpunk dystopia in Snow Crash might work.

            1. Freer societies are not just better because they’re freer, they’re also more prosperous. That people insist on fucking it up doesn’t demonstrate the faultiness of the idea, but rather the faultiness of people.

              This isn’t like communism, where it collapses because it’s terrible. (Classical) Liberal ideals are conducive to successful societies. It’s been historically demonstrated often enough. But people in those societies insist on flushing everything down the toilet for something worse.

              In any case, ephemeral though the freedom may be, the inevitability that some utopian dipshits will end up running and ruining things doesn’t change the fact that they are still utopian dipshits who should be made to bleed every step on their way to power.

              1. That people insist on fucking it up doesn’t demonstrate the faultiness of the idea, but rather the faultiness of people.
                If it’s only supposed to be a thought experiment or concept for a sci-fi novel, then go nuts. But if it’s supposed to be implemented, then yeah, failure to accommodate the faultiness of people is a fault in the idea.

                That’s why I’m not a libertarian/Libertarian (though I vote for them). Because some of the ideas are nice, but if ever fully implemented it would be a disaster because it can’t accommodate bad actors.

                1. Except that the faultiness of the people to which I’m referring to is the tendency to vote for candidates espousing bad ideas.

                  If a candidate wins an election by convincing the masses that launching nuclear weapons at the moon will end hurricanes over a candidate who, well, doesn’t, it doesn’t validate one concept over the other. People abandoning capitalism for socialism, then seeing their economy descend into oblivion, does not vindicate socialism; it just demonstrates that the voters prefer bad ideas to good ones.

                  And I’d rather let ‘bad actors’ fuck up their own lives than put them in positions of authority to fuck up everyone else’s, which is what tends to happen.

                  1. Except that the faultiness of the people to which I’m referring to is the tendency to vote for candidates espousing bad ideas.
                    Not what I’m referring to. I’m referring to people being short-sighted little shits, who are bad stewards and sacrifice long-term goals for short-term gains. Would you want to live in 19th century London? With the air so toxic it occasionally asphyxiates people and water so filthy that cholera outbreaks were common?

                    We know what people will do when they’re not restrained: anything they can get away with.

  55. I think we’ve got plenty of gaystapo already, thanks.

  56. Steve Chapman is a faux libertarian. He “generally” is libertarian, except when it comes to his pet issues, now it is sexual orientation, next it could be taxes.

    Freedom of association is a cornerstone of liberty. Natural rights cannot be overturned by congress. When Steve says “that ship has sailed” he is saying that congress has the final say, and once it acts, cannot be reconsidered.

    To forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation, would require employers to hire pedophiles, rapists, and sadists, as those are all examples of sexual orientation.

    I have a retail store. If my competitors wish to deny service to gays, that is their natural right. I will sell to them and be a beneficiary of the irrational prejudice of others.

    If instead I ran a kindergarten, I should not be compelled to hire pedophiles. If I ran a strip club, I should not be required to hire men or hermaphrodites. If I ran a counseling service for victims of rape, I should not be required to hire convicted rapists. And so on.

    Steve should get his act together, or take his show elsewhere. He is not a libertarian.

    1. I’m still waiting to be hired by the NBA. We white men of average stature are underrepresented and I demand justice.

  57. This is a very damned easy one from a libertarian perspective. The government has absolutely no business forcing people to engage in business transactions or any association that they don’t want.

    The fact that the government does other stuff that you don’t like doesn’t mean that one should abandon principles.

    If my neighbor murders dogs, I don’t round up some cats for him because he already does bad stuff.

  58. Yes, by all means amend overreaching federal law and add another “protected class”. This will be the last time, we believe you, really.

    Oh, and please make sure to define “gay” clearly too, I’d love to hear what you come up with.

  59. Sooner or later, discrimination against gays will no longer be treated as an acceptable, legal practice. Then Americans will wonder why on earth it took so long.

    a. Because social conservatives
    b. Because pseudo-libertarians would have concern trolled long enough.

    Anytime discrimination against gays comes up (like with marriage) you often had assholes go “Government should not be the business of marriage.” Because that is truly libertarian, right? Hey asshole, given that government already is in the marriage of business and there is no one really even bringing up a bill to get government out of it, what you were advocating for was status quo. In other words, get out being called a gay marriage opponent, but be one anyway.

    Next comes freedom of association. No one should be required to do business with another so as to protect religious beliefs. THIS has merit. If the world started today. And THAT was indeed made the law: no one is required to do business with anyone else.

    1. Right. No one should have to be raped in the ass with a rusty pipe, but damn it, if it’s going to happen to anyone, let’s make sure it happens to everyone.

  60. You’ve used a logical fallacy by piling gay marriage on top of criminal homosexual acts. Clearly, they don’t belong in a pile: one was the consequence of the other. Nor should homosexual activity be considered with race, creed, national origin. The Civil Rights Act only covered matters of birth. What if psychopaths are “born that way?” Must murder law exempt them?

    NB: Political orientation is not covered, hence Brandon Eich could have been, and was, forced out of Mozilla, for donating money to Proposition Eight. This preserves the freedom of association, doesn’t it? Where does Libertarianism end and begin? This is REASON’s biggest problem and Libertarianism’s weak firewall.

    1. I meant to write “what used to be criminal homosexual acts,” above.

    2. The Civil Rights Act only covered matters of birth
      You missed “religion”.

      What if psychopaths are “born that way?” Must murder law exempt them?
      Only if you misunderstand when folks are excepted form laws of general applicability.

  61. just before I saw the receipt that said $7527 , I accept that my mom in-law woz like actualey making money in there spare time from there pretty old laptop. . there aunt had bean doing this for less than twentey months and at present cleared the depts on there appartment and bourt a great new Citro?n 2CV . look here……. Clik This Link inYour Browser

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

  62. “But pretty much everyone else agrees that ship has sailed, as well it should have.”

    Please argue this point?

    1. If he could argue it, he would have.

  63. In the gay rights case, community college teacher Kimberly Hively said she lost her job after she was seen kissing her female partner goodbye in the parking lot. Had she been seen kissing her male partner, she would not have lost her job. “Why isn’t that sex discrimination by exactly the reasoning of Loving?” demanded Easterbrook.

    It’s gender discrimination, not sex discrimination, you silly goose!

    No one checked DNA, they went by gender presentation.

    Get with the new millenium!

  64. Can we also end gay discrimination against us deplorables in liberal states like Colorado?

  65. Homosexuals have the same rights as the rest of us—they don’t have extra rights. To heck with them.

  66. two days ago grey McLaren. P1 I bought afterearning 18,513 Dollars..it was my previous month’s payout..just a littleover.17k Dollars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly layouts..it’s realy thesimplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making overhourly.

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  67. til I looked at the receipt four $6371, I didnt believe that…my… mom in-law could trully receiving money in there spare time at their computer.. there friends cousin has done this for under 15 months and as of now paid the morgage on their mini mansion and got a new Infiniti. navigate to this site

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

  68. I expect to get a lot of hateful comments and remarks for what I’m going to say. Go right ahead. I believe that discrimination is legal under strict interpretation of the Constitution and the freedom of association and assembly clauses along with the 1st Amendment. I’m not encouraging it nor do I think it is wise but we don’t need government and it’s bureaucrats deciding what is and isn’t discrimination and telling us how to run our lives. {I am talking about private citizens, business, educational and religious institutions. Government institutions have a strict obligation to treat everyone equally}. As a businessman I’d pick the most qualified person who I feel would provide the most benefit to the business. I really don’t care about someones race, creed, color, sexual orientation or whatever. I want the people who best fit into my company and who can work together. It’s basic common sense. It is not governments job or right to make or second guess those decisions for me. The same is true regarding Freedom of Speech and thought. I do not encourage anyone to be hateful or a bigot but absolutely defend their right to be one if they want to be as long as they are not promoting violence or theft from other persons. They have that right just like I have the right to say they are wrong and not to do business with or associate with them. Government intrusion only causes long term resentment and impedes the healing of wounds and divides.

  69. I believe everyone should be tolerate against such people. In my opinion, they are mentally sick so this is a desease and we cann’t judge homosexualists. A few weeks ago, I ordered a persuasive essay at https://essaysworld.net devoted to this topic, so if you need the similar one, you are welcome.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.