Supreme Court

Masterpiece Cakeshop Is Fighting for the First Amendment, Not Against Gay Marriage

Despite framing to the contrary by some.

|

This week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips, the man who refused to create a specialty wedding cake for a same-sex couple in Colorado in 2012. Yet the stories that dominate coverage distort the public's understanding of the case and its serious implications.

For one thing, no matter how many times people repeat it, the case isn't about discrimination or challenging gay marriage. But when the news first broke, USA Today, for example, tweeted, "The Supreme Court has agreed to reopen the national debate over same-sex marriage." The headline (and story) on the website was worse; it read, "Supreme Court will hear religious liberty challenge to gay weddings." Others similarly framed the case. (And, don't worry, "religious liberty" is almost always solidly ensconced inside quotation marks to indicate that social conservatives are just using it as a facade.)

There is an impulse to frame every issue as a clash between the tolerant and the closed-minded. But the Masterpiece case doesn't challenge, undermine or relitigate the issue of same-sex marriage in America. Gay marriage wasn't even legal in Colorado when this incident occurred.

So, the Associated Press' headline, "Supreme Court to Decide If Baker Can Refuse Gay Couple Wedding Cake," and story are also wrong. As is The New York Times headline "Justices to Hear Case on Baker's Refusal to Serve Gay Couple," which was later changed to the even worse headline "Justices to Hear Case on Religious Objections to Same-Sex Marriage."

A person with only passing interest in this case might be led to believe that Phillips is fighting to hang a "No Gays Allowed" sign in his shop. In truth, he never refused to serve a gay couple. He didn't even really refuse to sell David Mullins and Charlie Craig a wedding cake. They could have bought without incident. Everything in his shop was available to gays and straights and anyone else who walked in his door. What Phillips did was refuse to use his skills to design and bake a unique cake for a gay wedding. Phillips didn't query about anyone's sexual orientation. It was the Colorado Civil Rights Commission that took it upon itself to peer into Phillips' soul, indict him and destroy his business over a thought crime.

Like many other bakers, florists, photographers and musicians—and millions of other Christians—Phillips holds genuine longstanding religious convictions. If Mullins and Craig had demanded that Phillips create an erotic-themed cake, the baker would have similarly refused for religious reasons, just as he had with other costumers. If a couple had asked him to design a specialty cake that read "Congrats on the abortion, Jenny!" I'm certain he would have refused them as well, even though abortions are legal. It's not the people; it's the message.

In its tortured decision, the Colorado Court of Appeals admitted as much, contending that while Phillips didn't overtly discriminate against the couple, "the act of same-sex marriage is closely correlated to Craig's and Mullins' sexual orientation," so it could divine his real intentions.

In other words, the threshold for denying religious liberty and free expression is the presence of advocacy or a political opinion that conflates with faith. The court has effectively tasked itself with determining when religion is allowed to matter to you. Or, in other words, if SCOTUS upholds the lower court ruling, it will empower unelected civil rights commissions—which are typically stacked with hard-left authoritarians—to decide when your religious actions are appropriate.

How could any honest person believe this was the Constitution's intent? There was a time, I'm told, when the state wouldn't substantially burden religious exercise and would use the least restrictive means to further compelling interests. Today, the state can substantially burden a Christian because he's hurt the wrong person's feelings.

Judging from the emails and social media reactions I've gotten regarding this case, people are not only instinctively antagonistic because of the players involved but also because they don't understand the facts. In this era of identity politics, some have been programmed to reflexively side with the person making accusations of status-based discrimination, all in an effort to empower the state to coerce a minority of people to see the world their way.

Well, not all people. In 2014, a Christian activist named William Jack went to a Colorado bakery and requested two cakes in the shape of a Bible, one to be decorated with the Bible verses "God hates sin. Psalm 45:7" and "Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:22," and the other cake to be decorated with another passage. The bakery refused. Even though Christians are a protected group, the Colorado Civil Rights Division threw out the case. The American Civil Liberties Union called the passages "obscenities." I guess the Bible doesn't "correlate" closely enough with a Christian's identity.

Or perhaps we've finally established a state religion in this country: It's run on the dogma of "social justice."

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM

NEXT: When Gutting A Tax Board Is Actually Bad For Taxpayers

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. ” Christian activist named William Jack went to a Colorado bakery and requested two cakes in the shape of a Bible, one to be decorated with the Bible verses “God hates sin. Psalm 45:7” and “Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:22,” and the other cake to be decorated with another passage. The bakery refused.”

    Not that I agree with Bible-banging, but…

    I do wonder, on what basis is writing on a cake different than printing a book? If it’s OK for the cake shop to do this, is it OK for a print shop to refuse to print a Bible for me? More to the point, is it OK for a print shop to refuse to print gay-wedding invitations?

    Unless you are providing a clearly critical public service (eatery, hotel, emergency room at the hospital), I wish businesses were free to decline ANY business that they don’t want!

    1. Further evidence that ACLU stands for Arbitrarily Chosen Liberties Union.

      1. I’ve also heard Anti-Christian Liberty Union.

        1. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

          This is what I do… http://www.onlinecareer10.com

        2. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

          This is what I do… http://www.onlinecareer10.com

        3. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

          This is what I do… http://www.onlinecareer10.com

    2. Yeah, the anti gay cake seemed like the more interesting case. Clearly a constitutionally protected expression, and *also* protected as an exercise of religion.

      Can a business deny service based on objection to constitutionally protected speech? Are businesses required to be non-discriminatory for all services, and not just “public accommodations”?

      42 U.S. Code ? 2000a – Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation

      All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

      I think most of us would say no, but that seems like that is the law. Services, and based on religion.

      More to the point, is it OK for a print shop to refuse to print gay-wedding invitations?

      Even more to the point, could the cake itself be similarly constitutionally protected speech that must be “accommodated”? I don’t actually think so, as the law seems to be more about identity and expression. But there could be some “viewpoint neutrality” law on businesses out there somewhere.

      IMO, lacking such a law, the suit should be a loser. It was expression of support of gay marriage they objected to.

      1. The perversion of the term “public accommodation” is one of the more irritating developments in the law.

        Quick, what does “accommodation” mean? Here’s the first definition from m-w: “lodging, food, and services or traveling space and related services.” The reasoning behind the first “public accommodation” laws (and their constitutionality) was that people need to travel (in interstate commerce), and if there’s a system of racial discrimination against blacks by hotels and restaurants, it’s much harder to travel.

        The reasoning is dubious, and in any event I don’t think anyone should have to do business with anyone else, but I’d be willing to compromise on anti-discrimination law: if it’s something people *really need* and it’s something that can be hard to find, okay, you can’t discriminate based on race. But since then, we’ve changed “public accommodation” into a synonym for “business open to the public.” So now the law applies everywhere.

        1. Another word that has lost meaning in the service of statism is “service.”

          People now say “performing a service” as if it’s an arms-length thing with no personal involvement. “You’re just performing a service.” But think about that for a second: a person performing a service is a *servant*. You’re putting someone’s needs ahead of yours and working at their direction and command. “Servant” is lower status than “master.” Now, we don’t think about these inequalities that much anymore – or rather, we prefer not to in a country that prides itself on egalitarianism. But there’s still a power dynamic there.

          For that reason, the original antidiscrimination laws excepted some master-servant relationships. It’s one thing to be forced to rent a room or sell a product on your shelf. It’s another thing to be forced to labor for someone else.

          And those laws also excepted artisans, because everyone recognized the problem with compelling the artistic efforts of a creative person. Today… no so much.

        2. Government propped up slavery, then Jim Crowe laws, then public accommodation laws.

          See the problematic link?

          1. yes…people with POWER. It can be in any form. Mob (public or mafia), military, government, corporations, churches, or any group of people with enough pull.

        3. Actually from the link above, it looks like the narrow meaning of “public accommodation” is specified in the US Code. It’s just a few paras.

      2. I’d say that you have to delineate between should and could.

        Should anyone be able to decline service to anyone for any reason? I say yes, despite the law listed above.

        Could they? Probably not.

        But I also see a major difference in that something like a wedding cake is a custom job. If someone comes in to a store, points at a cake in the display case, and says “I want to buy that” then accommodation laws should kick in (if we’re going to have accommodation laws in the first place). The owner shouldn’t (in this example) be able to say “Go away person I don’t like who isn’t being disruptive by their actions.” They should sell them the cake and let them be on their way.

        But when that person comes in and says “I want a cake with Hillary’s face on it” then the owner should be able to say no, I don’t want to. It’s a small difference, but an important one, I think.

        And again, this presumes we are in favor of public accommodation laws in the first place. At this point in the US of A, I’d like to think that the black-hating Nazi Cake baker would get such bad press on social media that that person would go out of business without a law ever being crafted. Maybe that’s optimistic, but at least it’s something that we could point at and say “See? We don’t need a law after all.”

        1. The distinction between work that requires artistic effort and that which does not is a useful one, but it doesn’t give us all the answers. Some scenarios for you:

          “I want to buy that cake to celebrate Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton”
          “I want to buy that Bible to mop up the jizz after I have a gay orgy.”
          “I see that you’re out of cakes. Please bake me a nondescript one, no customization, like you’ve baked a thousand times before, to serve at my Black Mass.”

          If the cake is already made, should I have any authority to restrict its sale based on its intended use? If the cake is already made, but making a new one won’t require any special artistry, based on its intended use?

          I think the answer to those is “yes,” but I cannot construct an argument that I’m happy with for why, other than falling back on “people should have the right to refuse service to anyone.”

          1. I think the answer to those is “yes,” but I cannot construct an argument that I’m happy with for why, other than falling back on “people should have the right to refuse service to anyone.”

            There are two arguments in particular; Property Rights and Freedom of Association.

            The cakes you bake are your property. Barring a contract, you are under no obligation to sell to anyone, even if you have them advertised for sale. You get to choose to whom your property will be voluntarily transferred. If you cannot choose, then it is not a voluntary transfer. Barring a contract, no one has any legitimate claim to your cakes nor proper authority to compel you to sell to them.

            The Freedom of Association is an individual’s innate authority to choose with whom they will associate, or not, in any capacity. That includes choosing who you will or will not serve or trade.

            Even if your business is advertised and open to the public, no one has a Right to do business with you. It does not violate their rights in anyway to refuse service/trade, regardless of the reason.

            1. Nice try. Not all goods are fungible. For a restaurant to turn away a black person because there’s another restaurant across the street is an obvious violation of public accommodation. The cake shop in this case is open for commerce and is therefore subject to the rules and regulation of commerce in that jurisdiction. So the implied contract that exists when someone walks into an open cake store and wants to buy a cake from a display is pretty cut-and-dried. You pretty much gotta sell it to them.

              What you don’t have to do is expend your artistry and “best efforts”on work-for-hire without a contract. The question is do you have to contract with everyone? Even those who are asking for you to perform work that is against your deeply held religious beliefs? Does a kosher chef HAVE TO accept a catering job that requires him/her to touch/cook/serve pork? That seems like an overreach.

              1. Good try, but the cake shop is not denying service. They are refusing to sell for a specific occasion that their faith contends is a sin. They sell cakes to gay people, but might refuse if the gay person tacks a certain event that may prove contrary to that person’s beliefs. So gay people are not being denied service as black people were. Black people were denied service or asked to go to the back of store where they could not be seen.

              2. Good try, but the cake shop is not denying service. They are refusing to sell for a specific occasion that their faith contends is a sin. They sell cakes to gay people, but might refuse if the gay person tacks a certain event that may prove contrary to that person’s beliefs. So gay people are not being denied service as black people were. Black people were denied service or asked to go to the back of store where they could not be seen.

              3. Public Accommodations laws are violations of Property Rights and the Freedom of Association. Period.

                Arguing the side of PA is arguing against liberty.

          2. I suggest you look to the 13th amendment of the US Constitution, which forbids slavery. See Robert Nozick’s entitlement theory, an element of which is “the only just transaction is a voluntary one”.

    3. Only the ER is a ‘clearly critical public service’. Health care is a need. Having someone cook you a meal or provide you a room is not.

      1. If you are traveling, food and lodgings are a need as well. Perhaps less essential than emergency medical care. But ultimately you don’t need that either. You can also get better on your own or you can die.

        1. But travelling is a voluntary action.

          1. plus they never call it anymore

        2. Nope, they’re not.

          Because you don’t NEED to travel.

          ‘Need’ means ‘one will die unless they get X’

          1. That’s why I say “if”. And why do you need to live? No one owes you life any more than they owe you a place to stay.

            To live one needs to make a living. And for some people that involves traveling.

            I’m not trying to justify any coercive government action here. Just pointing out that there isn’t such a clear distinction.

    4. “If it’s OK for the cake shop to do this, is it OK for a print shop to refuse to print a Bible for me?”

      What if, for example, the customer said they were going to desecrate the Bible in some fashion?

      Would it not be OK for a Christian to refuse then?

      1. Or what if that print shop doesn’t print Bibles in the first place? What if they only print magazines, or novels, or whatever else isn’t a Bible?

        1. Those are non sequiturs, as Bibles have religious significance to Christians.

          Generic “magazines and novels” do not.

    5. Unless you are providing a clearly critical public service (eatery, hotel, emergency room at the hospital), I wish businesses were free to decline ANY business that they don’t want!

      See the Dyke March v. Lesbian Jew debate. There are people who think that not only should public accommodations broadly apply to certain classes of people and that the public at large can be denied access actual public property because of race, creed, nation of origin, sex, etc. and/or that the public at large’s constitutionally guaranteed rights can be transiently voided on public property because social justice.

      Effectively converting public property into ‘approved free speech zones’ and voiding public accommodations thereon while simultaneously using those zones to advance causes requiring greater public accommodations.

    6. Unless you are providing a clearly critical public service (eatery, hotel, emergency room at the hospital),

      The problem here is that you are defining ‘critical public service’ as arbitrarily as the people you oppose.

      1. None of those are public services. They are businesses.

      2. And defining things like *restaurants* as ‘critical’ is going a bit far. Once you go there, what’s to stop you from lumping in bookstores, car dealerships, hair salons?

      3. Non-coercive tolerance is the standard here. As long as you’re not violent, I’ll *tolerate* your existence. I won’t necessarily interact with you, but I’ll leave you alone if you leave me alone.

      1. 2. And defining things like *restaurants* as ‘critical’ is going a bit far. Once you go there, what’s to stop you from lumping in bookstores, car dealerships, hair salons?

        You have accurately described the history of Civil Rights law, 1964-present.

        You might not think that there’s a straight line from desegregating lunch counters to forcing a devout Christian to show up at a same-sex wedding and use his skill to photograph it, but here we are.

        1. You might not think that there’s a straight line from desegregating lunch counters to forcing a devout Christian to show up at a same-sex wedding and use his skill to photograph it, but here we are.

          Be careful not to fall into the binary debate where being against “public accommodation laws” is the same thing as being “for segregation.”

          “Desegregation” should properly be understood as doing away with legally mandated segregation, which is what it was.

          Public accommodation laws and the like are more properly understood as “forced integration,” which is something different from “desegregation.”

          1. Good point.

      2. “2. And defining things like *restaurants* as ‘critical’ is going a bit far. Once you go there, what’s to stop you from lumping in bookstores, car dealerships, hair salons?”

        Well, for one, the fact that people have to eat in order to live. They don’t have to buy books, buy cars, or get haircuts in order to live.

        Don’t get me wrong. I understand that there are options for eating other than the anti-gay restaurant (at least in most places). I’m just saying that a clear line can be drawn there.

        1. No one needs to eat in a restaurant to live.

        2. You’ve never cooked a day in your life, have you?

          You should try it some time. There’s this really cool place called a “Grocery Store” where you can get all sorts of food, and then you can prepare it yourself! It’s an amazing process! You can skip restaurants entirely, and still eat!

          Seriously, it’s the newest rage. You should try it some time!

          1. Then does a grocery store count as public accommodation? There’s this thing called “roadkill,” after all. . .

          2. Sorry, that was the point of the third paragraph. I guess it could be read as meaning: there are restaurants where one can eat other than the anti-gay restaurant. The intended meaning was: there are options (implied to include non-restaurant options) other than the anti-gay restaurant.

            So, back to the original point, Agammamon said that defining restaurants as critical is going to far and that once you go there, what to stop you from including things like bookstores. I’m not disputing the first part. I’m responding to the second part. There is a clear line between things like restaurants that provide a necessity and things like bookstores that provide non-necessity. The reason for my third paragraph was to preempt the response about how restaurants aren’t the only way to get that necessity.

            Yes, you can get those necessities in other ways. But, there’s still a clear line between food and non-necessities like books.

          3. The point of public accommodation was for travelers. If you’re away from home, you’re away from your kitchen.

          4. Could a grocery store refuse service to someone the owners disapprove of?

        3. You’ve never cooked a day in your life, have you?

          You should try it some time. There’s this really cool place called a “Grocery Store” where you can get all sorts of food, and then you can prepare it yourself! It’s an amazing process! You can skip restaurants entirely, and still eat!

          Seriously, it’s the newest rage. You should try it some time!

          1. Ugh… sorry for the double post.

            1. You must be new hear. The squirrels are just introducing themselves.

      3. Food is essential and books, cars, hair-dos are not. But you don’t need access to every restaurant to get food. So you’re right, you can’t really draw a firm, non-arbitrary distinction.

        1. Howdy.

  2. Nice article with relevant facts added. Yay.

    Customer: Bake me a cake celebrating gay marriage.
    Baker: I don’t want to
    Colorado Civil Rights Commission: Bake the cake or else!

    Customer: Bake me a cake condemning gay marriage with bible verses
    Baker: I don’t want to
    Colorado Civil Rights Commission: No problemo!

    Lenin: Who, whom?

  3. Another great article. Thank you David.

  4. “and millions of other Christians” and Muslims. and Jews. and Hindis.

    1. This.

      More importantly, change the language slightly and add atheists to the list.

      Seriously, For The Love of God (wink), stop making this about religion. The point should not be that if you have a genuine and strongly held religious objection (and your religion happens to fall into an acceptable list), that you can’t be forced to do something you object to. The point is that it is wrong to compel someone to abandon their freedoms of speech and association simply because they open a business.

      Being religious isn’t what protects you from this abuse. Being human and being in the USA is. It doesn’t matter whether the damn cake is for HItler’s birthday, a gay wedding, a dildo party, a bar mitzvah, or a college graduation.

      1. It’s like the accommodation of certain religious groups in a deli in a large marketplace. For instance, Kroger and Wal-Mart both have management policies allowing devout Jewish people and Muslims to keep Kosher/Halal when working in a deli area. They just have another employee help the customer cut pig products or handle pig products (depending on how strict the individual’s belief is). That’s a reasonable thing for those employers to do to keep productive employees happy regardless of their religion (although moving them from a deli counter would also make sense to me). Why couldn’t the couple go their own way and accommodate the wishes of the bakery owner, rather than cause a conflict? Because they want to control other people’s beliefs and thoughts.

        1. It is about control. If I lived near the WeHateGays bakeshop and I was getting married, I wouldn’t patronize them. In fact, I’d consider opening my own damn bakeshop and very proudly welcome the gay marriage business. And, I’d advertise the hell out of it. I’d throw it in the other bakeshop’s face. And I would subtly accuse them of all kinds of shit.

          Unfortunately, ultimately, I would probably fail. Because, as so many of these cases demonstrate, too many of my potential customers would bypass me and go to the other bakeshop so they can get rejected there and raise a fuss. Whatever extra business I got would just be from the rightthink SJW crowd.

          Hopefully that’s not actually accurate, but that’s how it appears when you read too many damn articles like this.

          1. Or you would go out of business because you spend too much on advertising.

            FYI: just because you don’t don’t want to bake cakes for gay couples does not mean you hate gay folks.

  5. You are either 100% on board with gay “tolerance” or you are their enemy.

    Its a tried and true strategy that gets generally conservative people to accept your outlying behavior based on convincing and rational discussions about the issue.

    1. The only possible explanation for not being on board with everything gay is hatred. Pure, Hitleresqe, hatred. That’s it.

      1. What do you object to, specifically?

        1. Being bullied. I don’t like it when idiots do it to lgbt folk, and I don’t like it when activists do it to religious types.

          1. I was asking sarc what he objects to about “everything gay.” Being gay doesn’t make one a bully. It usually makes one acutely aware of being bullied.

            1. I totally agree that being gay certainly doesn’t make one a bully. But neither does being a Xtian. There are gay bullies, there are Xtian bullies, there are black bullies, etc.

              Fundamentally, isn’t there a difference between hurting someone, and refusing to do something for them? (Immediate emergency, police, fire, etc excluded of course).

              IOW, if several gay people wish to associate with each other, they have the fundamental right to. Do they have to admit someone straight into their group? And why does this change if money is involved?

              1. Contrary to popular belief in these parts, there is no actual right to “freedom of association.” If you leave your house, you don’t get to dictate the composition of the people around you. If there were truly a freedom of association, I’d order the evacuation of the grocery store upon my arrival so I could shop in peace without having to wait behind any absent-minded moms picking out Hamburger Helper.

                Private organizations, even ones in which money changes hands, do have a right to exclude anyone they want, and the only thing at issue are businesses that cater to anyone who might walk in the door (we can disagree on what counts as a public accommodation, but I prefer an expansive definition because I see no utility in a restrictive one–the freedom to discriminate is just not that sacred or important to me).

                The legitimacy of antidiscrimination law can rest on the fact that running a business and making money off of members of your community is, at least in part, a privilege granted by government anyway. I prefer the argument I’ve made, that either road requires government goons forcing people to do something, so let’s just choose the less barbaric one.

                1. “Running a business… is… a privilege granted by the government.”

                  …and we’re done.

                  1. I did specifically set that argument aside, but you try running a business without roads leading to its parking lot, laws against theft and vandalism, and a thousand other things government has put in place to facilitate commerce.

                    1. Contribution to pay for roads is not voluntary, it’s forced, ergo you don’t get to use it as leverage to coerce business owners. They can’t opt out, legally.

                      If I paint your house without you asking me to, do I get to invite myself and some friends over at will, and have your house seized by the state if you refused?

                2. Flawed argument. You can choose not to go out in public if you don’t like the people out there. You also can choose not to frequent a grocery store. restaurant, car dealership, etc… if “Those people” (Whoever those people are to you)_are there.

                  You should also be able to post a No “THOSE PEOPLE” sign stating that you won’t serve those people. I actually would prefer that you do so that I can shun you properly like a good little libertarian.

                  1. But it doesn’t end at that. It means if one of “those people” does come in, you get to call the cops to come drag them out. That then becomes part of the form of your society. We did try it that way in some parts of the country. And we didn’t make changes just because we hate Southern white business owners.

                3. Contrary to popular belief in these parts, there is no actual right to “freedom of association.” If you leave your house, you don’t get to dictate the composition of the people around you.

                  You are, as usual, arguing against something no one is actually saying.

                  the freedom to discriminate is just not that sacred or important to me

                  Bullshit.

                  Scenario for you: you design and decorate cakes for a living. Someone asks you to design and make a cake that says “God Hates Fags” for a party.

                  Should you be forced to do it?

                  1. No, because that would be compelled speech. I thought everyone was up to speed on this distinction here.

                    1. No, because that would be compelled speech. I thought everyone was up to speed on this distinction here.

                      Did you read the actual article? Do you realize that this is exactly what the article is arguing, what we are all agreeing with, and what you are telling us we are stupid and closed-minded for saying?

                4. Tony:
                  You really don’t know much of anything do you?

                  Freedom of association is that you are free to associate with whomever you would like.

                  It is not that you get to force others not to associate with whom they would like. In other words, your ridiculous example of a grocery store being cleared out is forcing others to leave because you don’t want to associate with them. The other people clearly want to be in the grocery store and were invited by the business to shop there.

                  1. Point to the place in the constitution that mentions freedom of association.

                    1. Rights aren’t granted by the constitution. Slavery wasnwrong before the 13th amendment happened, halfwit.

                      Also, note that nowhere in the constitution is a right to privacy mentioned, and yet my guess is you still support Roe v. Wade?

                    2. Amendment I
                      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

                      Amendment IX
                      The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

                      Since time immemorial people have interacted with people they chose to.

        2. When did I say I objected to anything?

  6. “I swear to God, if you do not bake that Nazi cake, I will make the Holocaust look like a joke”

    -Gary Johnson

    1. Just so everyone knows – since I know from the election that most of you uncritically accepted every single smear aimed at Gary Johnson – Johnson agrees 100% with the writer here. A baker can’t, under the CRA, tell a gay customer who just wants to buy a cake “fuck you, I don’t serve faggots”, but they have every right to refuse to decorate or design the cake in any way they don’t want to decorate or design it. This was Gary Johnson’s stance from Day 1, and is the stance of a huge percentage of libertarians.

      Gary Johnson never said anyone had to ‘bake a Nazi cake’, except in that sellers of cakes can’t refuse to sell them to Nazis specifically. A baker must sell his cakes to Nazis same as everyone else, but he is under no obligation whatsoever to do anything that recognizes or legitimizes Nazism.

    2. After his little gay tandem bike ride though.

  7. I’m loving the idea of using messages on cakes to show passive aggressiveness. What a fun contrast.

    “Well, it’s a church social, so we were wantin’ to with somethin’ that says, ‘God hates gays,’ but with an amaretto filling so it can pair well with the bluebell.”

    A bunch of crossed eyed children running around with blue hate icing on their faces…too good.

    1. God says: “f*ck them queers” Pass the coleslaw

      1. hahaha

        Hate cakes have been trending this summer but we wanted to do something fun and festive for the 4th – spell out your hate message with deviled eggs!

        1. Not diverse enough! I want a 4th of July cake that says, “Death to the Infidels!”

          1. you won’t have any problem getting that one……..

        2. My lady vetoed my idea on making a red volcano cake of a person. So when you slit their throats red bloody goodness comes out.

  8. You want anti-discrimination law to go away? Apply it to lawyers.

    Require lawyers to advocate for all clients who show up in their office, regardless of the political views of the client. Then find the lawyers who donated to Hillary Clinton and hire them to advocate for a challenge to gun laws.

    1. This is an interesting situation: Are lawyers’ services considered ‘public accommodation’?

      1. No. Not today. But most of what we call “public accommodations” don’t fit within the original definition. So perhaps some day!

        I explained this upthread a bit, but when public accommodations laws were first enacted, they only applied to things that were accommodations, like food and lodging. Now the term basically just means “business open to the public.”

        Now, you usually can’t just stroll into a lawyer’s office and buy legal services the way you can walk into a bakery and buy a box of donuts. But the same could be said for photographers, who have been required to photograph same-sex weddings.

        1. I think the comparison is totally fair. Even more so, considering the right to legal counsel is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution.

          If a lawyer who makes a point of working with an LGBT group is asked to defend a straight person accused of a hate crime against a gay man, wouldn’t this be illegal discrimination? If not, why not?

          Florist services and cakes hardly have the importance to society that the legal profession does.

          1. Florist services and cakes hardly have the importance to society that the legal profession does.

            ^ This.

            In what universe does it make sense that floral services are “fundamental” but expert advice on the most even-more-Byzantine-than-the-actual-Byzantines legal system ever devised isn’t?


            1. In what universe does it make sense that floral services are “fundamental” but expert advice on the most even-more-Byzantine-than-the-actual-Byzantines legal system ever devised isn’t?

              Hell, they should starting calling it ‘American’ in reference to insane bureaucratic systems that are essentially guarded labyrinths. There is no way Byzantium was worse, and they were Greek. ^_-

      2. I don’t think any cases have found “public accommodation” laws to apply to attorneys, but I believe most (possibly all) state bars make it an ethical violation to refuse to provide legal services to a potential client based on race, sex, or religion, and probably based on sexual orientation too in at least some jurisdictions. (That’s why there was a kerfuffle some years ago with the Illinois state bar refusing to admit a white supremacist.)

    2. Wouldn’t they just do half-ass advocacy at their full-ass billing rate?
      Are they compelled to do their best effort?

      1. Lawyers have an ethical code which is supervised by the courts of their state. And there is a duty of diligence. Half-ass your cases and you could get suspended or disbarred.

        Half-ass your baking and you won’t get many customers. You might even have to pay out some refunds. But as long as your shop passes the health inspection, no one from the government will shut you down.

        1. And conservatives could play merry hell with progressive law firms just by forcing them to advocate for things they hate, then filing complaints with the state bar.

    3. Man I’d hate to pin my hopes of competent representation on a lawyer fundamentally opposed to my position.

  9. Judging from the emails and social media reactions I’ve gotten regarding this case, people are not only instinctively antagonistic because of the players involved but also because they don’t understand the facts.

    Speaking of religious convictions, I’ve lost my faith in that last part. Facts don’t mean a damn thing to many of these people. They understand the facts, they just don’t think that the facts are relevant. Principles, reason, logic, consistency – none of it matters, it’s all about forcing your opinion on others and winning at all costs, shouting them down, shutting them up, beating them into submission is all fair game. You can’t argue with people who have no interest in arguing but only in winning the argument.

    1. Does anyone know exactly what they wanted on the cake that was so objectionable to this guy?

      Did they ask for a picture tow guys spit roasting each other?

      1. tow guys

        What an odd fetish…

        1. they’re sexy in their jumpers

          1. I mean, I get it. I get that there can be sexual appeal to blue-collar guys who get dirty and work with their hands.

            Mostly I mean that it’s an oddly specific fetish.

            1. >>>Mostly I mean that it’s an oddly specific fetish.

              me too, the jumpers was all i could come up with

              1. May I also add that I have no idea how two guys spit-roast each other?

                There are only two legs to that stool.

                1. there’s probably an Aztec sculpture of it…not to besmirch the Aztecs if there are any here

                2. When the spit-roasting involves only two guys it’s referred to as “towing”. Hence, the “tow guys” reference.

                  1. You have no idea how pleased I am that we closed the loop on this.

    2. You’re right. Part of the actual goal here is to eliminate from society the belief that gay people are subhuman. And that’s a worthy goal. And the people who believe it can go fuck themselves once they’re done attempting to hide behind government protections like the first amendment.

      1. “And the people who believe it can go fuck themselves once they’re done attempting to hide behind government protections like the first amendment.”

        That’s not a ‘government protection’, you ignorant twit; it’s a human right protected by the government.
        Learn to read.

        1. And where do human rights come from?

          1. Being human.

            1. Tautology, table for one.

              1. I believe it’s referred to as a “self-evident truth”. An axiom, if you will. The belief that the Bible is the inerrant word of God because the Bible says that it is and the Bible – being the inerrant word of God – cannot be wrong, that’s a tautology.

                But, you know, the Bible doesn’t say that gays are sub-human any more than it says thieves or murderers or blasphemers are sub-human, it merely says that they are sinners. Furthermore, it says we are all sinners in God’s eyes and it’s got that bit about removing the camel from your own eye before worrying about the goat in your neighbor’s eye, or some such. Love the sinner, hate the sin I think is how they put it.

                1. In other words, “because I say so.” Surely you can appreciate how someone might feel entitled to disagree with a mere assertion.

                  Let me demonstrate: It is a natural, human, self-evident right that I get to confiscate your house and the things in it. Prove me wrong.

                  1. Does everyone share that right equally?

                  2. How about this one:

                    It’s a self-evident good “to eliminate from society the belief that gay people are subhuman.”

                    Or if the majority decides that gay people deserve to die, we get anti-gay pogroms and you’re okay with that?

                    1. No, rights assertions being preferential, I get to say it’s wrong because I say so. I’m not the one prancing around claiming deities are on my side.

                    2. Who here said that any deities are on their side?

                    3. No, rights assertions being preferential, I get to say it’s wrong because I say so.

                      That’s gobbledygook and you know it.

                      You either have natural rights, or your rights are subject to the whims of the majority. Which is it?

                  3. Smith & Wesson… Give it your best try.

              2. Where does the government get the right to dictate what rights people have?

                From force. Might makes right.

          2. Actually, this is a more important question than many think.
            If man is truly endowed with these rights, from whom or what do they come:
            1) god(s)
            2) the ability to reason (ala Objectivism)

            If there is nothing about humans that innately gives them rights, then from whence do these rights come?
            3) Autocrat bestowing them at will
            4) Democratically voting for them

            Obviously there are variations to all these, but I think these are the basic choices. Problems:
            1) why obey YOUR god/s? What makes you right and other religions wrong?
            2) this has always struck me as a tautology.
            3) Autocrat can revoke rights or bestow them only to those they favor
            4) Groups can revoke rights or bestow them only to those the majority favors

            Therefore, we can’t prove why humans have rights. But, the only non-arbitrary way to run our society is to take them as axiomatic, and then go from there.

          3. If rights come from where you say they come from, T, then they can be taken away.

            1. That is his plan exactly. Government tells you what rights you have and when they will take them away.

      2. Part of the actual goal here is to eliminate from society the belief that gay people are subhuman. And that’s a worthy goal.

        The obvious way to do this is to violently stamp it out. That usually changes people’s minds.

      3. It absolutely is a worthy goal. And one on which huge progress has been made in the last few decades. Which leads me to believe that more government force is not necessary. I think it is probably counterproductive at this point.

        1. Absolutely. Compare the status of gays compared to straights now versus 50 years ago. With little or no government force (until Obergefell), there is not much actual friction between gay and straight people.
          However, how about blacks vs whites? We have tried a lot of government solutions. And the racial divide has gotten worse over the last 20 years or so.

          This is obviously not conclusive. But it is an interesting idea that education and patience work a lot better, and is more lasting than government fiat.

      4. So you want the state to use force to eliminating are views you don’t agree with, and you don’t think the government should protect people you disagree with from violence by those you do agree with (that’s what the first amendment does).

        You do realize you are a sociopathic piece of shit, I hope.

  10. I appreciate Harsanyi setting the record straight.

    And I’m sure Harsanyi appreciates that free association is a real right–even if it’s asserted by a truly nasty human being, regardless of whether the subject of this suit really is one.

    1. even if it’s asserted by a truly nasty human being

      That’s the only time rights do get asserted. Nobody objects to nice people doing or saying nice things, nobody in Skokie, Illinois objected to the homecoming parade or the posters announcing the PTA meeting or the Girl Scouts in their uniforms selling cookies on the sidewalk. When the Nazis showed up, suddenly there’s a problem with parades and flyers and uniforms.

    2. The funniest thing about the leftist attacks on those supporting the baker’s right to free association is that they are often ad hominem and inaccurate. Whenever I bring it up to friends on social media, it’s all, “well then you must hate gay people and their rights”. No, I don’t hate gay people, I just would like all people, regardless of whether I would associate with them or not (and in this case, I wouldn’t patronize this bakery due to his refusal to decorate the cake) to have the same rights, and to be able to refuse business to anyone to the maximum extent possible. This makes us all more free, and takes power from faceless nutjob bureaucrats. The worst one is a friend’s mom, who worked for the government her entire career, and doesn’t understand that the bad bosses she had in government, and the bad co-workers are the types that staff these commissions on a regular basis. She honestly doesn’t understand it when I say there are a maximum of 5 people who at one point were federal bureaucrats that I trust to act in a fair and impartial manner (her, her husband, another friend’s parents, and my uncle). They went to certain schools at certain times that taught them a great deal of skepticism with their liberalism, to the point that they are excellent devil’s advocates, and can spot bullshit authoritarianism within structures they are a part of a mile off, but they can’t see it in policy at all.

  11. I am waiting for a lesbian in Nevada to get turned down by a pro in a brothel. Or a male escort to turn down a gay man.

    1. I am waiting for a lesbian in Nevada to get turned down by a pro in a brothel.

      A friend of mine says that the girls’ services are listed up front and, thus, the distinction between what the business offers and what the girls offer is clearly established (not to mention that plenty of pros are into it, and by ‘it’ I mean getting paid).

      Not that it couldn’t or won’t ever happen, but it would be more clearly a case of individual compulsory action. As if the gay couple walked into a bakery who didn’t refuse to bake gay wedding cakes and then went around to each employee asking about their religious convictions and then picking the specific employee who wouldn’t bake them a cake.

      1. It’s clearly a case of individual compulsory action when a hairstylist who works with nine others is forced to cut a black person’s hair, all of whom would be happy to do it. But we require that.

      2. I thought of this as I was typing, which was why I added the escort.

        But, I wonder about the difference. If I go to a baker, barber, etc, the service is ostensibly separate from the individual. IOW: I want my cake or my hair to look a certain way when they are done. So (other than perhaps skill or training) it makes no difference which employee does the work. It absolutely does make a difference which prostitute is doing “the work”. Therefore, what if my wife wants a blonde with big tits. There are several, but they don’t do girl on girl. Maybe the only one there who does girl on girl is a petite brunette. We are not getting equal treatment and it is specifically based on sexual preference.

    2. The Buzzfeed/HuffPo crowd has already put out few articles explaining why it is transphobic for a straight man to not want to have sex with a transwoman with a penis.

      1. Google “cotton ceiling” to see a massive brawl* between lesbos and trannies. Basically, the trannies are pissed that lesbians won’t suck their dicks. I am not kidding about this.

        *your perception of the hotness of this scenario may vary.

        1. I am suddenly very confused about my sexuality

        2. dressing like a girl to get a blow job from a lesbian has never crossed my mind…whew

  12. Why would you want a cake baked by someone who would rather not do that for you?
    Why would you want to host your wedding at a site where staff will be uncomfortable, annoyed, glowering at you, or otherwise feel you are unwelcome?
    It’s not like there are no alternatives.

    Personally, I’d rather know who the people are who have a problem with it so I don’t patronize them. Or give them all the business I can based on the ‘it’ in question.

    1. It’s about punishment, not cake.

      1. I wish more businesses would show their stripes and turn people away. Then I could get all of those sweet dollars in my store. What leftist dipshits will never understand is that the invisible hand of commerce and creative destruction weeds out the unwise businessman.

        This whole silly debate is analogous to the bank red lining thing and forcing banks to lend in traditionally high risk areas. What banker would not gladly make money off of a loan regardless of where the loan is? No one that wants to make money discriminates because money is green. I don’t give a shit what color or creed hands me that green stuff.

        1. Well, by and large I think they do “show their stripes.” Most people who object to gay marriage know that a poof’s money spends as well as a normal’s. They don’t object to doing business with filthy sodomites. They object to being dragooned into participating into a celebration of buggery.

        2. What leftist dipshits will never understand is that the invisible hand of commerce and creative destruction weeds out the unwise businessman.

          It’s worse than that. They don’t understand that in forcing someone to decorate a cake that violates their principles, the gays are also forcing the business that discriminates to take their payment, thus diverting that cash from businesses that are eager to serve them.

          With friends like that, what business needs enemies?

      2. It is about making disapproval of homosexuality legally unthinkable in the public square. It is the creation of thoughtcrime.

        1. Its also how you keep the herd mired in Orwellian doublespeak and distraction while the apparatus gets the dirty work done unchecked.

          1. ^that

        2. If you don’t approve of homosexuality, if you don’t celebrate it from the rooftops, then you hate all gays. You hate them so much that you want to kill them. All of them. You’re Hitler.

          Or what you said.

          1. Grab his ass! Rub your fingers through his chest hair! Yeah!

          2. What’s to disapprove of? Do gay people come to your work and knock the vaginas out of your mouth? Get a fucking life, how about?

            1. Kinky!!!

              But seriously, I hope you know by now that I am NOT a Xtian, nor a socon in any way. Consenting adults should be free to put their genitals wherever they want. (Also, their bank accounts, their mortgages, etc).
              I did disagree with Obergefell, but not because I have any issues whatsoever with 2 guys or 2 ladies choosing to legally commit to one another. Although, why shouldn’t 3 guys, 3 ladies, 2 guys and 1 lady, or any other combination of consenting adults be able to get the same privilege? After all, the ONLY reason the number 2 has any significance regarding marriage is that humans have 2 sexes. If that is no longer a determining factor, then any number is as good.

              But this isn’t even about that (as per the article).
              I don’t particularly like many of the things religious Xtians hold. But they shouldn’t be forced to do something against their will, any more than the gay couple should be forced to not be together.

              1. Force is a red herring. The whole issue is what the law should say, and more practically, which side gets the government to force the other.

                For other suspect classes we long ago decided as a society that it was more civilized not to have government goons dragging people out of shops for being the wrong color, gender, or even religion. If we stop now as gays are petitioning for the exact same protection, then we can only conclude that the Christians have carved out an exception for themselves, not just from antidiscirmination jurisprudence, but from the constitution.

                1. Tony, reread that first paragraph of yours.

                  1. Tony can’t read.

                2. This is just nonsense, plainly and simply. This conversation is not, in any factual way, about the ability to use the state to force gay people out from your shop.

                  The force under discussion in this case only goes one way. One side wants the state to use violence to enforce association, the other wants to be able to decide how they will or will not execute their jobs in the context of their religion.

                  As is nearly always the case, you are being entirely dishonest.

                  1. What if the gay customers demand to have their cake and won’t leave the shop? What happens then?

                    What happens is the Libertarian Paradox enters the picture, bumbling and stupid as always: “Government is bad because it is violent. That’s why it should only do those things that injure, kill, or imprison human beings!”

                    1. What if the gay customers demand to have their cake and won’t leave the shop? What happens then?

                      Well, when the business closes for the evening, they don’t get to stay. Just like everyone else: black and white, gay and straight, man and woman. Equality.

                    2. There’s no paradox. Or a single bit of sense in the second sentence.

                    3. To rephrase, since you seem to willfully have trouble understanding this:

                      “Government is bad because it is inherently violent, which is why the scope of its involvement in social functions should be minimized. That’s why it should only do those things that injure, kill, or imprison human beings but that are nevertheless necessary and unavoidable parts of large societies that need to control crime and violence and defend against foreign threats.”

                    4. What if the gay customers demand to have their cake and won’t leave the shop? What happens then?

                      The same thing that happens to ANY customer who refuses to leave the shop. You’re conflating two different questions, in the course of arguing a different scenario than what uis under discussion.

                      You are either entirely dishonest, or entirely stupid.

                    5. Embrace the healing power of ‘and’. Tony is entirely dishonest AND entirely stupid.

                    6. Then the owner has the right to grab the trespasser by the arm and drag him out of the shop.

                      Just the same as if I invite you over to my house, then you proceed to throw a fit because I won’t give you a hand job, I demand you leave, you refuse: do I not have the right to physically evict you from the premise? I do have that right. And there is no difference between commercial and residential property that would justify a difference in proprietary rights.

                      Lastly, the shop owner is *forced* to pay for the police every April 15, and it is people like you who would flip their shit at the prospect of letting businesses be responsible for their own security because you think the owners are evil. I’d be fine with letting people evict trespassers from their property without the police. Leftists and ambulance chasing lawyers however would object.

                      It’s really like you’re allergic to coherence. I’m beginning to wonder if you really are a troll.

                    7. To put it as simply as possible for Tony (because he is rather simple), there is no paradox because libertarians only oppose aggressive force. If I ask you to leave my property and you refuse, you’re aggressively violating my property rights. If I then evict you, or get a proxy to evict you, that’s proportional defensive use of force.

                    8. What if Tony stopped posting here?

                      The average IQ of posters would go up several points.

                3. “The whole issue is what the law should say, and more practically, which side gets the government to force the other.”

                  When either side can use the government to force their will on others – IT’S WRONG.

                  The law used to force people to stay apart. WRONG
                  The law now forces people to be together. AGAIN WRONG

                  Let everyone decide of their own free will. Save the lawsuits for when someone is truly harmed and not just that they were offended.

    2. Why would you want a cake baked by someone who would rather not do that for you?

      How about a compromise: you can force a baker to bake you a cake for your gay wedding over their religious objections, but you have to eat whatever cake they bake for you. Is dog shit considered a wet or dry ingredient?

      1. Is dog shit considered a wet or dry ingredient?

        It’s tricky – you have to factor the water content, but the fats are liquid-neutral.

    3. Why would a black person want to sit at a lunch counter of a shop run by racists?

      1. Actually, you are proving our point. I know it was shitty, and wrong when localities mandated segregated lunch counters, water fountains etc. hence getting rid of Jim Crow LAWS.

        It still is shitty if a private business does it, but it doesn’t make it wrong on a fundamental level. A person has the right to be an asshole.

        But let’s assume for the moment, that truly “public accommodations” such as restaurants or similar services in which people might find themselves in need without any other options. (There are always other options, but for the sake of argument….)

        There is no way you can make the argument that a florist, or a cake baker, or a facility that hosts events meet this criterion.
        (I mean seriously, there are NO florists or bakeries that will prepare same-sex arrangements?)

        1. So are we talking about a principle or are we talking about context-dependent practicality? Antidiscriminaion laws are OK if a community doesn’t offer any other choices?

          Of course, even if just one shop in town ejects blacks, that means blacks are measurably disadvantaged in their participation in the commerce in that community. You have to heed the point that the upshot of your position is that cops will come drag gay people out of flower shops. It’s not some negative, hands-off alternative. It’s a positive choice to empower cops to treat a class of people as second-class depending on the whims of business owners.

          1. If you’re re so much of an asshole that you won’t leave someone else’s flower shop when they don’t want you there, then maybe someone, cop or not, should drag you out. If a flower shop owner is forced to pay for cops and the cops supposed job is to protect property rights, then the flower shop owner is entitled to have the cops that they are forced to pay comedy their job.

            I know you think you’re making some kind of point that it’s all just arbitrary use of force by the government. But, think about who is initiating force here. Who is the aggressor? Does a person have the right to enter anyone else’s property that he chooses? Does a person have the right to another person’s labor?

            1. come do. Not comedy. autocorrect ftl

            2. Who the aggressor is depends on what the law says. If the law says the owner has the right to discriminate, the trespasser is the aggressor. If the law instead protects the customer, the owner is the aggressor.

              We can determine who the asshole is along similar lines.

              1. So aggression is equal and synonymous to breaking the law. So when buttfucking was illegal, you and your boyfriend were constantly committing acts of aggression?

                1. You could say yes, it was considered an act of aggression against the state or society’s precious moral fiber.

                  You can shoot someone in the face and in one context it would be among the worst aggressions imaginable, and in another it would be perfectly legal. It’s not the act, it’s what the law says.

                  Doesn’t have to be law, it could be a norm of any kind. The problem is always treating the more powerful side in any conflict as the potential victim of aggression. Why does this pathology exist in libertarianism? Why does it never favor the weaker side?

                  1. You could say yes, it was considered an act of aggression against the state or society’s precious moral fiber.

                    Ok, so in North Korea saying aloud that Kim Jong Un is fat and dumb can get you sent to a gulag or worse. And that’s justifiable because you committed an act of aggression against the state. I just need you to clarify that you support this sort of thing.

                    The problem is always treating the more powerful side in any conflict as the potential victim of aggression.

                    What kind of logic is that? So a person who is “more powerful” can never be a victim of aggression? What do you mean by “more powerful” anyway. If a homeless person punches a rich old lady in the face for no reason, I have to side with the homeless person because he is less powerful?

                    Why does this pathology exist in libertarianism? Why does it never favor the weaker side?

                    Now you’re just lying because you know very well that libertarians are constantly defending the weak against the powerful. And your degree of “power” does not give you extra rights nor does it mean you have fewer rights than anyone else.

                  2. No, retard. It’s the moral co text that dictates whether its aggression. Whipping your slave is either aggression or not, regardless of what the law says.

                    Par for the course, you lost the argument and nor are trying convolute terms, confusing laws with rights, to turn this into another idiotic semantic debate.

      2. Very often, it wasn’t the lunch counter that didn’t want them there. The businesses were forced to comply by the state.

  13. >>>The American Civil Liberties Union called the passages “obscenities.”

    Sending my local chapter a “fuck you, ACLU” cake now…

    1. American Civil Liberties union – if you qualify as our type of American.

    2. Well, they are the Anti-Christian Liberty Union, after all.

  14. America has experienced this kind of free expression before, where merchants can refuse serving customers over absurd and ridiculous pretexts. I didn’t work.

    1. That was the government enforcing those policies. Plessy vs Ferguson was actually a private company suing the government to allow integrated services.

      1. Also comparing gay marriage, or any LGBT rights, to black civil rights is insulting to the history of black Americans. And I’m gay. It is nowhere near the same league as black oppression.

        1. Weird logic. You can always find a worse oppression. Doesn’t mean nobody’s allowed to ever complain.

          1. Hey, everyone is entitled to complain about whatever they want, no matter how good they have it.

            It doesn’t necessarily mean that others have to listen, or do something about it.

          2. Everyone’s allowed to complain.

            But different problems get different solutions. There’s no reason that the legal solution to the problems faced by blacks in the deep south 60 years ago must be identical to the legal solution to the problems faced by gays in 2017.

          3. Weird logic. You can always find a worse oppression. Doesn’t mean nobody’s allowed to ever complain.

            Have you EVER actually responded to the other person’s argument, instead of ginning up and feebly attacking strawmen?

          4. Personally, I find Tony’s posts oppressing to anyone with a functioning brain.

        2. Yeah, conflating ‘oh no we can’t get married and our preferred sexual act is illegal’ to ‘oh you’re not actually a human being’ is a pretty wide difference in my book.

          They’re both ‘wrong’ in my opinion, but one is way worse.

        3. “Also comparing gay marriage, or any LGBT rights, to black civil rights is insulting to the history of black Americans. ”

          I never said a thing about black Americans. Still, it’s a pretty strange objection from a guy who’s hankering for the days when comparing a white man, even a gay white man, to a ‘black American’ was an insult.

      2. “That was the government enforcing those policies. ”

        No government forced a hotel to refuse Jewish guests.

        1. No government forced a hotel to refuse Jewish guests.

          Please think carefully about whether this statement is actually true.

          1. During America’s era of freedom of expression, not all that long ago. My annotated copy of Lolita (the Nabokov classic novel) tells me that American hotel owners would put up a sign saying ‘church nearby’ to show normal customers that Jews were not welcome. No, it wasn’t the government who prevented Jews from staying at certain hotels.

            1. So you agree that what you said was untrue.

              1. Cue mtrueman going on an obscurantist rant about how there is no truth.

                1. For all the ranting about rights, strangely absent is the term civil rights, which Libertarians evidently oppose, but for some reason are loathe to admit it. We know they hate taxes and regulation because we are told so repeatedly. So it’s not like they are shy about expressing unpopular opinions.

              2. “So you agree that what you said was untrue.”

                I’ll go further than that. It was a bald faced lie. It was government that forced hotels to refuse Jews accommodation. Anything to happy make you. Have you figured out what a circular argument is yet, by the way? If not, you might want to avoid the topic.

    2. The state intervened and made them acquiesce, Had the government not forced those businesses to serve black people, eventually those idiot business people would have gone out of business at the hands of the smarter businessman that would have served them. And the whole evolution and transition would have been a lot more peaceful and civil over the years. All the government did was politicize people’s freedom of choice which fomented anger and division.

      1. The old “Southern whites really wanted to integrate blacks into society, but their mean old local governments wouldn’t let them!” argument. Convincing as always.

        1. Ok Socrates. See if you can fathom this.

          I open a business and refuse to serve blacks or gays

          The guy next door open up and takes all comers. He charges a little more because he is the only guy that does this. The guy next door to him opens up, takes all comers and charges a little less.
          I either go out of business or revise my policy, take all comers and charge less.

          Now the gay fella or black fella has three choices with better pricing all around. Competition creates choices and lower prices. And that process is a lot more peaceful, civil, and less expensive than government force.
          Black people were treated incredibly unfairly and deserve the protections and liberties guaranteed by the constitution, but that has nothing to do with commerce. Just because you think big gov people are smart, capable and angelic, doesn’t mean that those central planners can shape preferences or the creative destruction process efficiently.

          1. Except the actual context was a society in which if you served blacks your business was burned to the ground.

            1. Actually, I am very sympathetic to this. And I think it is fair to say that many localities would have allowed this to happen, even if not codified in the law. IOW, I can see sheriff dipshit not doing a damn thing because Rufus’ restaurant was burned down because he let “colored” people eat with good, upstanding white folk. (Please hear the sarcasm!!)

              And I would agree completely that in cases like this, there is place for the State (or the Feds) to be involved.

              Hell, if this CRA had stopped with what are traditionally considered public accommodations, I don’t think we would be having these conversations(at least not nearly so often).

              But, from whence does the principle come that as soon as money is exchanged, the seller gives up all rights to decide who they do business with?

              1. I think there’s a reasonable argument that what qualifies as a public accommodation has expanded beyond anyone’s initial intentions.

                I would argue that it’s simply not valid, however, to treat sexual orientation differently from how we treat race, sex, religion, and disability status. If we restrict the definition of public accommodation, it can’t just be for gays. The fact that federal law doesn’t include sexual orientation is testament only to the fact that it’s been legally acceptable to treat gays as second-class for longer than any of the other groups.

                1. If gays were treated as second-class, then blacks were treated as 12th class.

                  Although I’m opposed to most antidiscrimination laws, 50 years ago, blacks were facing discrimination on a level that cannot be put in the same category as what women, gays, and cripples face today. It’s not even close. Hell, blacks don’t currently face anything like what they faced 50 years ago.

                  Antidiscrimination laws were a powerful tool to fix a huge problem. But the laws remain, despite the fact that they’re less necessary than ever. I see no reason to compound that problem by treating white women in 2017 as if they’re black men in 1950.

                  1. For the sake of argument I’ll concede that nobody today has it as bad as blacks in the 50s (outdone only by the treatment of blacks in the 40s, then the 30s, and so on). But if sexual orientation is left out of the categories that get protection from such laws, which it is at the federal and many state and local levels, it’s a rather conspicuous statement on society’s view on the matter, don’t you think? We treated blacks badly, but at least they got the protections. Gays don’t even have that.

                    1. I’ve got a deal for you:

                      You can have anti-discrimination laws that cover any classification you like: race, sex, orientation, whatever. However, the laws must reflect the actual scope of the problem, and not assume that nothing has changed since 1950’s Mississippi.

                    2. That would require a lot of legislating to fix a problem that doesn’t exist (not enough discrimination!), but sure. The beauty of antidiscrimination law is that they are sort of self-extinguishing. If society becomes enlightened enough, they can remain on the books, or get repealed, but either way it will only be as a statement of principle. I still prefer the principle that the freedom to participate in the commerce of your community equally is more important the the freedom to expel customers from your shop for being the wrong race or sexual orientation.

                    3. the freedom to participate in the commerce of your community

                      You need to have a talk with the guy who wrote this:

                      “Contrary to popular belief in these parts, there is no actual right to ‘freedom of association.’ If you leave your house, you don’t get to dictate the composition of the people around you.”

                    4. Yeah, not only do I endorse probably hundreds more individual rights than you do, freedom of association isn’t one of them.

                    5. What difference do you think exists between “the freedom to participate in the commerce of your community” and “freedom of association”?

                  2. If gays were treated as second-class, then blacks were treated as 12th class.

                    50 years ago, blacks were facing discrimination on a level that cannot be put in the same category as what women, gays, and cripples face today

                    .

                    Today, sure.

                    I think that you could argue that 50 years ago it was more acceptable to treat homosexuals as second-class citizens than any of those other groups.

            2. Let me know when somebody introduces a bill to exempt gay bakeries from arson laws.

            3. Burning someone else’s business to ground is illegal.

              See, the Democrats kept slavery until the Constitution was changed. The Democrats instituted Jim Crowe laws. The Democrats would threaten to burn businesses that served blacks down. Police that were Democrats refused to hold those who would burn things down accountable for violating the law.

          2. I open a business and refuse to serve blacks or gays

            The guy next door open up and takes all comers. He charges a little more because he is the only guy that does this. The guy next door to him opens up, takes all comers and charges a little less.
            I either go out of business or revise my policy, take all comers and charge less.

            I used to work at a restaurant that refused to serve tobacco users. Or at least tobacco users who wanted to light up on the premises. They indeed charged a bit more, and those who were prejudiced against tobacco users were happy to pay a little extra to avoid associating with dirty smokers.

            Then the city passed legislation requiring that all restaurants discriminate against smokers, and within two months that restaurant closed.

        2. Who forced the northern businesses to integrate? Oh no one that’s right.

          No one said desegregation naturally happens instantly, but it inevitably happens over time, thanks to the economic self interest of business owners, which is quite well demonstrated. If it didn’t, there wouldn’t have been an already voluntary desegregated north to politically mandate desegregation in the not as far along south.

      2. “The state intervened and made them acquiesce,”

        Nonsense. You are bigotted enough as it is. You need no encouragement from the state to exercise your bigotry.

    3. mtrueman|6.30.17 @ 11:12AM|#
      “America has experienced this kind of free expression before, where merchants can refuse serving customers over absurd and ridiculous pretexts. I didn’t work.”

      Cite missing.

      1. “Cite missing.”

        A Ukrainian collaborator must have stolen it.

    4. “No shirt, no shoes, no service” discriminates against my Appalachian heritage.

  15. I find it hard to believe that after all the obsession over this cake stuff that this author doesn’t understand that courts have made distinctions between the service of making a cake and the message written on one.

    1. Everyone meet Tony. he’s the resident dipshit leftist mouthpiece.

      He sucks Rachel Maddow’s dick every morning to imbibe his talking points.

      He is the love child of Alex Jones and Don Lemon.

      1. Everyone knows timbo. He’ll be in the corner jacking off his sister.

        1. Who happens to be your mother?

          1. Tony’s mother is his sister. Hence the extra chromosome.

    2. You glossed over the word “service” so naturally that you didn’t even think about what you were saying.

      1. Let’s make this about someone else so that you people’s Jesus bullshit doesn’t get in the way. Can a bakery refuse to sell cakes to people because they’re black? No. Can they refuse to write “black power” on a cake? Yes. That’s where the standard has been evolving. Might the Supreme Court completely change the nature of antidiscrimination law now that gays want in on the action, in order to favor a Christian theocracy model? Entirely possible.

        1. I’m not sure you understand which of those two scenarios you think is before the Supreme Court.

          Actually, I’m certain that you don’t.

        2. A private business should be able to turn anyone away for whatever reason they choose. The rationale or lack thereof is irrelevant to the point of freedom.

          1. Libertarians ironically have the narrowest definition of freedom of any political philosophy. Even pure autocracy can at least acknowledge that “business owners” and the wealthy are not the only type of people who deserve any freedom, even if it doesn’t grant it.

            1. We should eat the rich. Right tony? They are taking all of your money.

              1. Not all of us can live on a diet of varmints and grits.

                1. What’s a varmint?

                  Is that what you have to eat to get the maddow go juice taste out of your mouth?

                  1. Rachel Maddow was a Rhodes Scholar. Have you ever even left your ferret farm?

                    1. And Cecil Rhodes was a racist.

                    2. He was a rhode racer.

                    3. Tony, are you really advocating that Rachel Madow is anything but a leftist party hack?

                      Shes not a news person. Shes not a journalist. Shes not an objective pundit.

                      Shes an entertainer and she gives the narrative to the left and entertains the right with that narrative.

            2. ‘The wealthy’
              You just made that up. Poor property owners have deserve as much freedom to use their property as they please as rich ones. If you want to not let Koreans into your boiler room apartment go ahead. You’re the one arguing that there’s effectively no such thing as private property.

  16. I think I’m going to open up Leviticus Bakers. the switch is that there is a cover charge and we will make supergay baked goods for you.

  17. It’s not written in the cosmos that free speech is a more important freedom than freedom from discrimination. Both are government rules enforced by government agents. There’s really no “limited government” angle to any of this. If you favor the liberty of proprietors to kick people out for being gay, who does the kicking out? Who legitimizes it? Not free market unicorns–men with batons and guns paid for with tax money.

    1. Tony|6.30.17 @ 11:32AM|#
      “It’s not written in the cosmos that free speech is a more important freedom than freedom from discrimination”

      There is no ‘freedom from discrimination’. You can’t stop me or anyone else from discriminating, you ignorant twit.

      1. I can if I have the government goons on my side. I thought you people were acute in your understanding of the concept of force.

        The problem is you are too stupid to realize that this entire argument boils down to you wanting the government goons on your side.

        1. Really, in all fairness, I am struggling to see this. How are government goons involved at all, if a seller decides not to sell?
          And honestly, the seller doesn’t have any more power than the buyer does.

          Why does the buyer have the right to choose whomever they want, to make whatever they want, but the seller doesn’t have the right to refuse?

          1. If a black person comes into a shop whose owner is legally entitled to kick him out for being black, that means the owner can call the cops and have the black person ejected for trespassing by force, even deadly force. That’s inextricably implied in the “freedom to discriminate” position.

            1. If an asshole comes into a private home whose owner is legally entitled to kick him out because he doesn’t like him, that means the owner can call the cops and have the asshole ejected for trespassing by force, even deadly force.

              So it’s not that you’re anti-discrimination. It’s that you’re anti-private-property.

              1. As long as we agree that it’s not some kind of passive “negative” right, but one that necessarily entails the employment of taxpayer-funded government agents and violence.

            2. Libertarians in general are familiar with the concept of positive rights vs. negative rights. Your idea that your right to free speech necessarily entails my obligation to listen to you is nonsense.

            3. And the cops can refuse if they don’t think it’s their job to throw anyone out of your store. But it would be within the owner’s rights to throw out the trespassers himself. I would argue that he doesn’t have a right to use deadly force right off the bat since that would be far from a proportional response.

              And no, no principle or right is written in the stars. People have to come to agreements over rights. I argue that the principles of individual liberty are those that allow the most people to love as they choose.

              1. Live. And love too, but that should say live.

              2. That’s just special pleading, isn’t it? It’s not merely theoretical that cops would drag customers away, violently if necessary. It’s inherent to the policy choice you are making, and it actually happens when antidiscrimination law isn’t in place.

                1. No, I’m pointing out that the existence of cops is merely incidental. My “policy choice” is the existence of personal and property rights. I guess your “policy choice” is the elimination of these things.

                  1. The existence of property rights without necessarily involving a means to enforce them? What are they worth then besides the paper they’re written on?

                    1. Cops are not necessary to enforce property rights.

                    2. I’m not really sure who you imagine your opponents to be. Anarchists? I mean, some of them hang out here, but you’re weak-manning the Libertarian position with this “you want the police to enforce rights therefore you’re just as much a statist as I am” argument.

                      Some form of law enforcement is necessary to enforce rights. When that situation arises, the first question is: “Which is the more important right?”

                      Then (for me at least) if it’s a close call, the second question is “Which of these equal rights requires less government to enforce?”

                      At no point do I say “we shouldn’t have cops.”

                    3. Then you agree that the only argument here is whether Team Proprietor or Team Customer gets to have the cops do their bidding.

                      Libertarians tend to side arbitrarily with the more powerful interest then slap a bumper sticker that reads “freedom” on it. Liberals tend to side with the less powerful one. Neither of us is for more or less “government.”

                      There, glad we finally settled that.

                    4. So if Team Customer falsely accuses Team Proprietor of committing a crime and gets Team Proprietor locked up, that’s OK, because Team Proprietor had more power, in your eyes, at the time.

                    5. A penchant for black and white thinking is extra dangerous when paired with a philosophy that favors the powerful over the weak at every turn, wouldn’t you say?

                      I never said I think the owners shouldn’t have any rights. And I hope you feel the same about the customers.

                    6. A penchant for black and white thinking is extra dangerous when paired with a philosophy that favors the powerful over the weak at every turn, wouldn’t you say?

                      How is the flower shop owner more powerful than the person he doesn’t want to serve in this scenario though?

                      Seems to me, that if the person he doesn’t want to serve can sic the cops on him and shut down his business, the flower shop owner is not the one with power.

                    7. No one is more powerful than the state, so listen to your own words.

                    8. Then you agree that the only argument here is whether Team Proprietor or Team Customer gets to have the cops do their bidding.

                      That’s like saying that the only argument here is whether Team Let’s-Rape-Tony’s-Mother or Team Tony’s-Mom-Doesn’t-Want-to-Get-Raped.

                      Libertarians tend to side arbitrarily with the more powerful interest then slap a bumper sticker that reads “freedom” on it. Liberals tend to side with the less powerful one. Neither of us is for more or less “government.”

                      In the conflict between devout Christian florists and the LGBQWERTY interest groups and the entire political left and much of the center, whom do you imagine to be “the more powerful interest”?

                    9. That’s like saying that the only argument here is whether Team Let’s-Rape-Tony’s-Mother or Team Tony’s-Mom-Doesn’t-Want-to-Get-Raped.

                      No, it’s the exact opposite of that, because it’s not a choice between good and evil, but a choice between two potentially conflicting interests.

                      In the conflict between devout Christian florists and the LGBQWERTY interest groups and the entire political left and much of the center, whom do you imagine to be “the more powerful interest”?

                      I’m gonna go with the Christians. You know, the overwhelming majority religion in this country?

                    10. it’s not a choice between good and evil

                      Is it evil to force someone to work for you against their will?

                    11. So the shop owners who are being forced to work for people against their will under the threat of losing their businesses are the ones with all the power in this situation?

    2. It’s not written in the cosmos that free speech is a more important freedom than freedom from discrimination.

      It is, however, written in the Constitution.

      1. As long as we agree that libertarianism has nothing to say about this matter. As I’ve repeatedly tried to explain, the conflict is only about which team gets the government goons to do their bidding.

        1. The government paying an armed man to protect my property from burglaries vs. the government paying an armed man to burglarize my property are not equivalent violations of liberty.

          1. Pete,
            I’m pretty sure this guy works for reason. There is no way a troglodyte of this magnitude could even figure out how to walk much less read and write.

            This guy was created by the editors to help us sharpen our understanding of capitalism and freedom vs. everything else. It is vital to know the ways of the marxist horde.

            1. Pete,
              “I’m pretty sure this guy works for reason. There is no way a troglodyte of this magnitude could even figure out how to walk much less read and write.”

              Nope.
              In any case where the conflict might exist, chose stupidity over cupidity. Always.
              Tony is that stupid.

              1. Nobody has successfully refuted the arguments I’ve made here. All you do is call names and presumably feast on your own boogers. All most of you here do is side with Team Republican and talk-radio conservative asshats and slap a “libertarian” decal on your bullshit.

                1. Tony|6.30.17 @ 12:09PM|#
                  “Nobody has successfully refuted the arguments I’ve made here.”

                  *EVERYBODY* has, but so long as you keep your fingers in your ears and screw “I CAN’T HEAR YOU!”, you’ll never understand.
                  You don’t have an argument; you have a demand for special privileges.

                  1. tiny,
                    everyone always refutes everything you say. Everything you say carries the intellectual prowess of Hank Johnson. Just because you were told to say it does not mean that is makes any sense.

                    That is the power of brainwashing. The staters steer the herd towards the insane so that you will be in a constant state of confusion.

                    Hence Tiny: the guy that once read Marxism for dummies and started watching the news.

                2. Every attempt you’ve made at an argument has been thoroughly refuted more times than anyone can count; you just keep recycling old ones because you forgot they were refuted. Get checked for early onset Alzheimer’s buddy.

  18. From where I sit, this isn’t even about expression or religion. This is about equal treatment under the law. The customers have every right to decide who they transact with based on that person’s sexual orientation — that is, they could deliberately seek out a gay baker if they wanted. If the baker doesn’t have the same right, he’s the one being treated unequally by the government.

    1. In other words:

      People who refused to do business with Chick-Fil-A because of its position on same-sex marriage don’t think Chick-Fil-A can turn down their business because of their position on same-sex marriage.

      1. Amen.

  19. Tony,
    You have to read “That Which is Seen and That Which is Unseen” by Fredeirc Bastiat and Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman.

    Until you do, you will never understand anything the commenters on this site are talking about.

    1. Yes and I’ve also read “See Spot Run,” “The House that Had Enough,” “Atlas Shrugged,” and various other children’s books.

      1. I’m sure “See Spot Run” required you to count the letters.

      2. Don’t lie tony. You have not read those books.

        If you did; my GOD! You read those books and are still this f*cking stupid!?

        You don’t operate machinery or come in contact with other humans I hope.

        1. If all you’ve ever read is libertarian pablum, you have made yourself stupider than you otherwise would have been. Try some real philosophy. There’s quite a lot to get to before you can declare yourself all-knowing.

          1. By all means, what are your recommendations?

            1. I’m a fan of the pragmatists. But I really think you should read the classics even if you intend to reject them: Kant, Nietzsche, Hume, Kierkegaard, Plato, etc.

              1. I can understand your sympathy for Kant and Plato, and somewhat, I suppose, for Kierkegaard. Hume seems like a weird choice for you, and . . .

                Nietzsche? Really?

                I’m not convinced you’ve read a word of Nietzsche in your life.

                1. As one of my majors as an undergraduate was philosophy, I’ve read all of them and a good chunk of all of their oeuvres. I did say above that you can read them and reject their conclusions–I think you have to read them before you can reject them, in fact. And I reject almost all of them.

                  1. And I reject almost all of them.

                    Well aren’t you precious.

                    Did you forget that timbo had asked you for some recommendations of philosophers that you think would enlighten us cousin-fucking knuckle-draggers? And that you simply listed off some famous philosophers you happen to know the name of and then asserted that you don’t agree with any of them?

                    Do you have an actual answer to timbo’s question, or will we just see more poseurish preening?

              2. Ok, now I know you’re bluffing: Kant was an absolutist and Hume was an empiricist as well as a classical liberal. You should hate them more than Bastiat. And wasn’t Kierkegaard too much of a christfag for your taste?

                And I don’t think you know what philosophical pragmatism is. Have you read James? I’m quite certain you didn’t understand him.

          2. Have you ever even read your own side’s books? Hobbes? Marx? Marx is laughably idiotic. What about Piketty? Did you read the intro and then close it self satisfied? Have you read Rortu or Rawls?

      3. This is telling. Tony doesn’t read books by people he disagrees with, which is pretty evident. Bastiat, of course, read Marx thoroughly before he reflbutted him.

  20. There is an impulse to frame every issue as a clash between the tolerant and the closed-minded.

    But isn’t that what this one is really?

  21. The article states that same-sex marriage was not legal in Colorado in 2012 when the issue began. Are bakers, or any other goods/service provider for that matter, required to produce goods or services for illegal activities? One of you lawyers out there please respond because this is a part of the story I wasn’t aware of previously.

    What other cakes for illegal activities can be compelled?
    Congratulations on molesting that 12 year old!
    Murder is fun!
    Racketeering – not just for the mafia and government!
    Way to defraud investors!
    Rape – she said no but you knew what she really meant.
    Best bank robbery ever!

  22. Tony|6.30.17 @ 11:55AM|#
    “Tautology, table for one.”

    Stupidity; don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out..
    Humanity gets to choose its government, and we (a product of the enlightenment ) chose to found ours on a document which includes the statement that human rights are unalienable, and they are due every human simply as a fact of existence. It was written specifically to protect us from whiny, stupid, egomaniacs like you.
    You don’t like it? Good; start a petition to change it.
    BTW, I seem to recall you claiming to be a ‘free-speech fundamentalist’ or some such, so I guess we can add hypocrisy to stupidity in your list of accomplishments.

    1. So you’re claiming that the Declaration of Independence has the force of law? You’re just pulling assertions from your ass, and I’m the meddling egomaniac?

      I don’t subscribe to your or any other religion. People who latch onto natural rights are people who want to dictate what those rights are (because they sure as shit aren’t etched on any stone). And I think libertarianism doesn’t permit nearly enough individual rights for my taste.

      1. Re: Tony,

        People who latch onto natural rights are people who want to dictate what those rights are

        Once again you prove your penchant for perfunctory contradiction. If rights are natural then they cannot be dictated. If you argue that there are people who espouse moral principles based on natural rights, then you cannot argue that they’re ipso facto dictating what those rights are. Natural rights would be self-evident by definition. The most they can do is judge the actions of others based on those principles and limit their own actions based on those principles, but that cannot be construed as “dictating”.

        because they sure as shit aren’t etched on any stone

        That’s an interesting comment. Does that mean you would mind the rights of others only if these are “etched in stone” like you said?

        If that’s the case, I feel sorry for your neighbors. They have no clue of what a monster lives in their midst.

        I think libertarianism doesn’t permit nearly enough individual rights for my taste.

        Which rights do you argue are missing from natural law-based rights?

        1. You seem to have missed the primary argument I’m making, which is that the concept of natural rights is bunk. What does “a self-evident right” mean? Are you saying that these self-evident concepts existed somewhere out there in the cosmos, but it took hundreds of thousands of years before any member of the human species discovered them? (And they were right in front of our faces all along!)

          No, obviously any right is a human invention. Any right that has any actual manifestation in the world is enforced, usually by a government. It is by observation alone that I can say that libertarians and other natural-rights proponents like to simply assert which rights are valid, and there is no underlying coherence to why some are accepted while others are rejected. It’s essentially a political platform with a “God says so” stamped on it.

          1. Re: Tony,

            You seem to have missed the primary argument I’m making, which is that the concept of natural rights is bunk.

            I probably “missed it” because saying that Natural Rights are “bunk” is not an argument. It is an opinion.

            obviously any right is a human invention.

            Of course it’s a human invention. Without humans, there are no human rights.

            Any right that has any actual manifestation in the world is enforced, usually by a government.

            You keep confusing the concept of rights with rules or governance. Rights are not the same as rules. Rules can be derived from rights. But the fact that there are agents which serve to enforce some of these rules does not mean the AGENTS created the rights, just like the fence around the electrical installation in a factory did not make electricity dangerous.

            by observation alone that I can say that libertarians and other natural-rights proponents like to simply assert which rights are valid[…]

            Of course Natural Rights-based ethics are a way to judge which rights are valid. You seem to think that by mentioning this, it ipso facto invalidates the truths derived from such ethic, but this is a fallacy.

      2. Tony:

        So you’re claiming that the Declaration of Independence has the force of law?

        Yes. It was the lawful instrument that separated the 13 United States from England.

        The Constitution is the supreme law of the USA and all laws are inferior to it.

      3. I don’t doubt it. Libertarianism doesn’t permit your right to barge into someo e’s home and slap them around before raiding their fridge, then kicking them out for calling you a cunt. It just doesn’t allow for near enough freedom for Tony.

        This is quintessential narcissism on your part. You actually believe your entitled to take what you want from others, and invent justifications (essentially what all Marxian reasoning is) for why what’s theirs doesn’t really belong to them but actually is rightfully yours.

  23. I get the 1st amendment issue but why not tie in 8th (excessive fines), 13th (involuntary servitude), and 14th (equal treatment) arguments as well?

    1. You’re going to have to flesh the potential arguments out for me here.

      I’m following the 13th but not the 8th or 14th.

      1. For the 8th – the excessive fines resulted in the bakers losing their business, right? Seems excessive considering the violation. There are companies in Colorado that have been convicted of fraud, tax evasion, and other, non-violent crimes which led to fines that did not force the company out of business. Seems that the fine is motivated by the religion of the owner.

        For the 14th – the article lists another case from 2014 in which a Christian was denied a cake with Bible passages. The Colorado Civil Rights Division threw out the case. Looks like Colorado is applying the law differently, in terms of providing a service, based on religion.

  24. Re: Tony,

    t’s not written in the cosmos that free speech is a more important freedom than freedom from discrimination

    You’re conflating two totally different concepts. Speech is a right because you already have the ability to speak and express yourself. It imposes no burden on others, no obligations or requirements, save not to be the subject of physical aggression. This is a clear ans concise concept, self-evident in essence. Instead, by saying one has the right not to be discriminated against, you’re expecting someone else to provide you with this condition, which implies requiring others to do your bidding. This is completely contrary to the concept of right to speak.

    Both are government rules enforced by government agents.

    That’s a lie. You do not need government agents to enforce free speech. You can speak right now without necessitating agents to make your words travel the aether.

    If you favor the liberty of proprietors to kick people out for being gay, who does the kicking out?

    Who is talking about “kicking” anybody out? All that is being talked about is proprietors refusing to trade with peolle who are arbitrarily classified as belonging to a “protected class”.

    1. To Tony the concept of liberty is equal to tyranny. You see, liberty means acting without others imposing their will on you. But what about those who want to impose on you? They can only be stopped with force. So liberty is actually force, because it forces those who want to impose their will on you to stop. That right there is an imposition. Liberty is libertarians imposing their will on those who impose their will on others. It’s tyranny. Straight up.

      1. Take the case of cakes for gay weddings. The gay couple wants to compel the baker to make them a cake. The baker, who by not baking a cake is not imposing anything on anyone, is actually imposing on the gay couple. Because he, by doing nothing, is forcing the gay couple to not force him to bake them a cake.

        It’s tyranny.

        1. They’re not compelling them to make a cake. Making a cake is what they do. As a legal and philosophical entity in this discussion, these people are “cake bakers.” They’re compelling them only to treat them as they would any other customer. Just as they are compelled to treat their employees in a certain way, or people on the street. It’s called not living in anarchy. All you have to do is choose whose side you want the armed government goons to be on.

          1. They’re not compelling them to make a cake.

            Um, yes they are. They are getting the government involved.

            As a legal and philosophical entity in this discussion, these people are “cake bakers.”

            And unless they are slaves, they reserve the right to say “No” to any customer for any reason.

            They’re compelling them only to treat them as they would any other customer.

            I guess that answers it. You consider bakers to be slaves.

          2. They’re not compelling them to make a cake.

            Um, yes they are. They are getting the government involved.

            As a legal and philosophical entity in this discussion, these people are “cake bakers.”

            And unless they are slaves, they reserve the right to say “No” to any customer for any reason.

            They’re compelling them only to treat them as they would any other customer.

            I guess that answers it. You consider bakers to be slaves.

            1. Except they don’t have a right to say no to any customer for any reason. You may argue that they should have that right. I argue that they should be compelled to treat gay customers (or straight customers for that matter) the same way they are forced to treat customers based on race or religion.

              I want to see evidence that you ever agitated to repeal religion-based antidiscrimination policy before I believe you’re serious about this. Because it’s been some decades now that that’s been on the federal books. Or are libertarians just that ineffectual?

              1. Goalposts just went whoosh!

              2. The bakers just were honest about why they did not want to make the cake.

                They could have said not because they were too busy.

                Since you are not a Libertarian, we Libertarians think that people should not be forced to conduct business with anyone.

                1. I know. That’s fine. Just say that. Use the word “should” more often and we’ll disagree less. It’s when you insist that your arbitrary preference for owners (and the rich and powerful in pretty much every rights conflict) is ordained by the universe and mine are evil. Stop trying to sell me a religion and defend your preference for the owners’ rights over the customers’ on its merits.

                  1. Damn it Tony, you were so close to making sense. Oh well, maybe someday.

                    We don’t have a preference for the owners’ rights over the customers’ rights. We have a preference for the owners’ rights over the customers’ desires and demands. Here’s a hint: whenever you find two rights that seem to be in conflict, one of them is not a right! Rights are universal. That is, they can be exercised by all people, in the same way, at the same time.

          3. ‘They’re cake bakers’

            Hahahaha. Freshman philosophy student trying to play Socrates.

            They are not in fact compelled to treat people equally in any other context. They can buy things from others in a discriminatory manner, they can befriend people in a discriminatory manner, they can be nicer to some people than others.

            What it comes down is whether you believe in the concept private property. You don’t. And no government goons are necessary to evict trespassers; all I’m demanding is that the government goons not arrest someone for physically removing a trespasser from their property. If I give you fair warning that I want you to leave my property, and you knowingly refuse, I should be able to evict you, regardless of the reason.

    2. If you say the wrong words in North Korea, you get killed. Do those people have freedom of speech or not? Maybe you’d say they have the right, but it’s being suppressed by the government. But what happens if a private party suppresses my right to speech in the US, say by gagging me or burning down my printing press? Do I not take the matter to the government to resolve, invoking enforceable law on the matter?

      Your second bit is special pleading. It is necessarily implied in the policy of allowing proprietors to discriminate that they can call government agents to drag the offenders out. You don’t get to shove this aside simply because it is inconvenient to the coherence of your political worldview.

      1. Maybe you’d say they have the right, but it’s being suppressed by the government.

        B
        I
        N
        G
        O
        !

        But what happens if a private party suppresses my right to speech in the US, say by gagging me or burning down my printing press?

        Well golly gee. Gagging you and burning down your printing press are acts of force. Things that libertarians agree should be prohibited with legislation enforced by the government.

        Are you really that stupid? (that is a rhetorical question)

        1. So are the only valid rights the ones we can conceive of being expressed passively? That’s why I say you guys permit the least number of rights of anyone. Except curiously you do permit the right to own property and all the taxpayer-funded armed-goon protection that comes with. You can’t say that’s a passive right.

          But beneath that it’s simply dumb mysticism to say that North Koreans “have” a right to free speech. No they don’t. Their society knows no such concept. They speak freely only under fear of death. You can say I have the right to homestead on Jupiter but what the hell use is that?

          1. Except curiously you do permit the right to own property and all the taxpayer-funded armed-goon protection that comes with. You can’t say that’s a passive right.

            What is it being protected from? Oh yeah, theft. Vandalism. Acts of force. Things that are not passive.

            My goodness you are stupid. Or dishonest. Or both. I can never tell.

            1. Walking into a shop with an “open” sign on its door is not an act of aggression.

              Or do you wish to argue that somehow it becomes an act of aggression if the customer is black and the owner a racist?

              1. If the owner decides that they don’t want the person there, for whatever reason, and they refuse to leave, then yes. It’s called trespassing.

                1. That’s certainly not a self-contradictory policy preference like so many others you guys espouse. It only becomes so when you deny that it requires at least as much government to enforce as my policy preference.

                  You can pick the owner’s side over the customer’s and say that it’s more important to protect the owner’s choices than it is to protect the customer’s. But it’s not any more legitimate, by any argument or reason, than the alternative. It’s just a preference for owners.

                  1. An owner has rights over what he owns. A non-owner has no rights to what he does not own. There is no “this might go one way or might go the other”.

          2. I don’t expect you to do this here, but it would be a good exercise for you to write down some of the rights that you believe exist. You can start with “the right not to be killed.” You can write “the right to vote.” You can write “the right to marry one consenting adult of my choosing.” You can write “the right to have a baker make a custom wedding cake to my specifications,” because you think that right exists.

            Put them in order of precedence.

            Now I want you to add one more right that you probably didn’t think of: the right to sit here and do nothing. Put that on the list. Take a look at where it falls.

            The right not to do things, to be left alone, defeats almost all others. That’s at the heart of liberty. The right to sit and do nothing.

            1. The right to sit and do nothing is more important than the right not to be murdered? I like sitting and doing nothing more than your average person, but even I’m not sure I can get behind that.

              Also, am I sitting and doing nothing in a lawless hellscape, or a civilized society with rules and regulations? That kind of matters to me.

              1. “The right not to do things, to be left alone, defeats almost all others.”

                Reading comprehension.

          3. Re: Tony,

            So are the only valid rights the ones we can conceive of being expressed passively?

            No, you’re confusing rights with actions towards others. When it comes to which actions are valid and which are not, rights-based moral principles are determined in the negative, as in “I don’t have the right to take your life, your liberty or your property”, also known colloquially as “Negative Rights”.

            That’s why I say you guys permit the least number of rights of anyone.

            So what?

            Except curiously you do permit the right to own property and all the taxpayer-funded armed-goon protection that comes with. You can’t say that’s a passive right.

            I don’t need armed goons to stop you from robbing me. I told you this like a thousand times since I started posting here.

            But beneath that it’s simply dumb mysticism to say that North Koreans “have” a right to free speech.

            You do not know what “mysticism” means.

            They speak freely only under fear of death.

            Fearing death does not mean they don’t have the right to speak, only that they face death.

            You can say I have the right to homestead on Jupiter but what the hell use is that?

            That falls under the category “It’s your problem”.

            1. So what?

              So, since your philosophy is so rights-minimalist, and I like rights, I reject it. Duh.

              I don’t need armed goons to stop you from robbing me. I told you this like a thousand times since I started posting here.

              Speaking of special pleading. If you can’t do any better than this then I think I’ve won the argument. Are you saying that if I show up with a bigger arsenal than you have, suddenly I have the right to own your property? Yeah, didn’t think so. Do better.

              1. Re: Tony,

                So, since your philosophy is so rights-minimalist, and I like rights, I reject it.

                But then you’re not making an argument. You’re merely making your opinion be known. You haven’t presented a fundamental reason for having more rights, only that you like them.

                If you can’t do any better than this then I think I’ve won the argument.

                By fiat? Please. Grow up.

                There are more tha plenty of cases where people successfully defended their property from criminals. Just yesterday, I saw a report on a woman who ran over a thief with her SUV. So, tell me again, how it is that without government we would all be defenseless?

                Are you saying that if I show up with a bigger arsenal than you have, suddenly I have the right to own your property?

                If your intention is to show up with a bigger arsenal to take my property, it would only mean you’re a thief and a bully, and nothing better than that.

                Besides this, what you’re proposing comes with the implication that all property belongs to the government.

                1. You haven’t presented a fundamental reason for having more rights, only that you like them.

                  That’s true. And that is all he understands. He just assumes that we like our version of rights because that’s what we like. He cannot comprehend principles. It is beyond his mental capabilities.

                  1. Okay, well the only connecting principle between the few rights you do endorse is that in practice they favor the wealthy and the powerful over the poor and weak. Some principle. Let’s throw a freaking parade for that principle.

                    1. That must be why libertarians are such fans of criminal justice reform.

                      Go suck your own dick Tony. Libertarians favor equal freedom from compulsion for rich and poor alike; you’re the one arguing that special classes of people – rich people, business owners – don’t have the same rights as others; they need to be kneecapped to expiate the sin of belonging to a ‘perpetrator class’ because the core of your ideology seems to be the delineation of all people into ‘good guy/victim ‘ and ‘bad guy/perpetrator ‘ classes. Your way of thinking has all the nuance and sophistication of Michael Bay movie.

                2. You haven’t presented a fundamental reason for having more rights, only that you like them.

                  Good! So, exactly like you, I’m asserting that individual liberty is a value. I could go into pragmatic arguments for this or otherwise, but at bottom it is an arbitrary preference. The difference is you think individual liberty is compatible with having the least amount of actual individual rights, and I think that’s kind of self-contradictory and ludicrous. And unnecessary, since even the few rights you do endorse really do require government enforcement to mean anything.

                  So, tell me again, how it is that without government we would all be defenseless?

                  We all wouldn’t be. It’s just that there would be a government anyway, and its constitution would be a single sentence: “Give me your stuff or I shoot.” If you say your right to your property is based entirely on your ability to defend it, then that means I get to take it by force if I can, legitimately. Otherwise known as anarchy.

                  If your intention is to show up with a bigger arsenal to take my property, it would only mean you’re a thief and a bully, and nothing better than that.

                  Thief? But you just said the only reason it’s your property to begin with is your ability to use force. How the hell do I know how you acquired it? Why is it yours rather than mine? Who says? Your gun? Well, mine’s bigger, so there.

                  1. Good! So, exactly like you, I’m asserting that individual liberty is a value. I could go into pragmatic arguments for this or otherwise, but at bottom it is an arbitrary preference.

                    No Tony. It’s logic. What we support is logical. It is not self contradictory. We support the right to property. So do you. You don’t like it when people steal from you. It’s wrong. It’s an act of aggression. You don’t like it when people compel you to do things you don’t like under threats of violence. It’s an act of aggression.

                    Thing is, we support this for everyone. Not just ourselves. But for people we don’t like too.
                    And we do not support “rights” that contradict with basic principles like “people should be free from aggression.” So when someone like you claims that they want to be free from aggression, but at the same time wants to use government as a tool of aggression, we point out that you are logically inconsistent. How can you support both? You want group A to be free from aggression but group B to be able to use government as a tool of aggression against group C… It’s so confusing. So inconsistent. So illogical. So…. emotional.

                  2. But you just said the only reason it’s your property to begin with is your ability to use force.

                    It’s my property because I earned it. Because I worked for it. Because I spent time doing things for others, who in turn gave me a means of exchange, which I used to acquire that property.

                    It’s mine. If you want it, well then you are an aggressor. So I have every right to react to your aggression with force.

                    You really don’t get it, do you. You see no difference between initiating force and reacting to the initiation of force. It’s the same thing to you.

          4. Wrong; any positive right by definition infringes on a negative right. Your right to use my property violates my property rights. Your right to a safe space from criticism infringes on my right to speak freely; your ‘freedom from want’ infringe he’s upon the right of whoever is being expropriated to satisfy your want; and your right to some one else’s services infringes upon their right to render services or not render services as they please.

            The core concept here is voluntarism.

      2. Re: Tony,

        If you say the wrong words in North Korea, you get killed.

        The fact that government agents act like savages does not mean I lost the ability to speak. As long as my mind is sound and have control of my body, I can speak.

        Do those people have freedom of speech or not?

        Yes. What they don’t have is a government that treats them like human beings.

        Do I not take the matter to the government to resolve, invoking enforceable law on the matter?

        You can do whatever you want. What you propose only means government provides you with a recourse, but that doesn’t mean government guarantees your safety, which is what you’re describing – your safety, not speech per se. In any event, you have the right to repel an attack.

        Your second bit is special pleading.

        That’s a lie.

        It is necessarily implied in the policy of allowing proprietors to discriminate […]

        You’re begging the question. No policy is required to discriminate. You and I discriminate all the time; it is the basis of CHOICE.

        1. You don’t lose the ability to speak but you lose the ability to speak freely, dependent on what the law says. The constitution is not talking about vibrating vocal cords. (Do mutes have the right to free speech? What about mutes in North Korea?)

          “Allowing proprietors to discriminate” is another way of saying “not having a law against discrimination.” I’m referring of course specifically to race-, gender-, religion-, etc.-, based discrimination, not any old discrimination, such as is protected in law. It’s not begging the question, it’s clarifying your policy position, of which, in this discussion, there are only two: owners get to discriminate, or customers get to be free from discrimination. If anything the latter is the more “negative” or passive right, I would think. Owners simply have to keep their bigotry to themselves and nothing happens.

          1. “Allowing proprietors to discriminate” is another way of saying “not having a law against discrimination.”

            Yes.

            …or customers get to be free from discrimination

            Discrimination is inaction. It’s saying “No” and then doing nothing. Or saying “leave” after which the person who was asked to leave becomes a trespasser if they refuse.

            The “right” to be free from discrimination gives someone the power to use force of government on someone who says “No,” and to trespass with impunity.

            It is an act of aggression.

          2. Re: Tony,

            You don’t lose the ability to speak but you lose the ability to speak freely

            That’s not true in either case. Jut because there are rapists doesn’t mean women lost the ability to dress sexy. It only means that there are bad people out there who act like savages.

            “Allowing proprietors to discriminate” is another way of saying “not having a law against discrimination.”

            But then your proposition that this is policy is circular thinking, like saying that anything is policy if I allow it, or you allow it.

            I’m referring of course specifically to race-, gender-, religion-, etc.-, based discrimination[…]

            What’s the difference?

            Owners simply have to keep their bigotry to themselves and nothing happens.

            Should they be made to, though? No one says that bigots should be free of the consequences of their bigotry, such as loss of business or treated like a social pariah, but arguing that aggression should be applied to them is the same as appealing to criminal behavior as solution to perceived wrongs.

          3. So, by your lights, the Colorado Commission acted improperly in not punishing the bakery that refused to make William Jack’s bible quoting cakes?

      3. The proprietors can make trespassers leave by any means. Law enforcement is just a theoretically neutral agency to handle disputes. Rights do not deend on the existence of law enforcement. If they do then there are no rights, and no law can violate rights. That is an archsic and unelightened way of thinking about Man’s relarionships to other men and his relationship to this state and should be left in the Dark Ages.

        1. The police aren’t neutral, they are there to enforce whatever the law says. And the law can say either that the owner can kick people out for being black, or the law can say the owner can’t. It’s a basic rights conflict, and there is no “small government” option.

          1. There is a small government option. Freedom of association and people can be kicked out businesses for any reason.

            You don’t need police to kick people out of a business.

            Then you can get rid of all the government agencies and bureaucrats associated with wasting taxpayer money on forcing people to associate.

            1. You don’t need police to kick people out of a business.

              Again, special pleading. Of course you do, at least as a last resort. That’s what the freedom you want necessarily entails. Otherwise it’s just mano a mano.

          2. There is no rights conflict. A customer has no right to be on the business’ grounds, he is only there on the owner’s sufferance.

            Laws are made to protect people’s rights, law enforcement are created to be a neutral agency to avoid the messiness of people defending their rights by themselves. Rights precede Law and police are not a necessary factor fir Rights ir Law to exist.

  25. There is an impulse to frame every issue as a clash between the tolerant and the closed-minded.

    If you can think of a better way for me to show off my superior righteous indignation then I’m all ears. (To be clear, I’m all ears for your suggestions, not for opposing viewpoints.)

  26. Okay, based on a more extensive read,

    The baker did not deny the plaintiffs custom–he was perfectly willing to sell to them.

    The baker did not deny them a cake–he was perfectly willing to sell a cake to them.

    The baker did not deny them a wedding cake–the shop makes numerous types, and he was willing to sell any of them to the plaintiffs.

    So what’s the problem then?

    The plaintiffs wanted the baker to design, bake, decorate, and then sell them a cake. They didn’t want to compel the baker to sell them a cake–the plaintiffs wanted to compel the baker’s creativity.

    And there are idiots who, knowing all this, agree with them.

    1. Whether the act of making a cake is a form of expression is an interesting question, and I have no doubt it will be decided along the usual cynical partisan lines.

      1. Re: Tony,

        Whether the act of making a cake is a form of expression is an interesting question

        And one that should be treated as irrelevant, since the question here is one of property rights and not expression. Whether the buyer’s requirements are offensive or not to the eyes of the baker, what is at stake is the right of the baker to refuse to trade his wares, which is an argument based on property rights and not religious rights or speech.

        1. I get that you want the world to be a certain way, but the world isn’t that way. Can you make an argument that refers to the real world and not your fantasy quasi-anarchic hellscape?

          1. A hellscape where husband and husband can’t get a wedding cake at every single baker in the world. You’re like a cartoon leftist, I love it.

            I wonder how I’ll ever get over being turned town from that women’s only yoga class 🙁 it’s just a living hell I tell ya.

      2. You use the word “interesting” as if this clear logic by Azathoth crushes lefties forcing people to make cakes for people they don’t want to.

        The lefty line of insanity is just being destroyed so you want to change the subject,

        1. I genuinely believe that specific question to be interesting, and I actually haven’t made up my mind on it.

          By interesting I mean not easy to answer based on the norms we have available to us.

    2. I’m pretty sure there are people on the Supreme Court who think that policing thought and creativity are A-OK things the government should do because civilization, or something.

      I’m not really sure how this is going to go.

  27. It should be an open and shut case of first amendment rights.

    A specialty cake is an art (they even call it culinary arts). As such, it is definitely speech, and protected by the first amendment, regardless of public accommodation laws.

    It’s basically selling speech. No one can appeal to freedom of religion or some such to force an artist who works for commission to paint a pro-Catholic painting, and the same goes for gays and cakes.

    Sorry, but people do have the right to say no to you, even if you think they’re an asshole.

    1. it’s an “open and shut case” under the First,5th,and 13th Amendments.

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

      nobody has any “right” to the labor or property of another person.
      Under America’s concept of “contract law”,goods or services are exchanged under MUTUAL agreement,and no one can be forced to enter into a contract against their will. If one party doesn’t like the terms,there’s no mutual agreement,and no contract.
      that’s FREEDOM.

      In a FREE country,a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason,or no reason at all.
      But America is slowly losing it’s freedoms,to Political Correctness and the assault of socialism/communism.

  28. Is the baker being asked to decorate a cake in a manner different from a straight wedding? Does the cake itself have no features that identify the genders, orientations, or quantity of the people getting married?

  29. I’m officially over the edge and no longer care about the human race.

  30. Tony|6.30.17 @ 12:33PM|#
    “I did specifically set that argument aside, but you try running a business without roads leading to its parking lot, laws against theft and vandalism, and a thousand other things government has put in place to facilitate commerce.”

    Tony|6.30.17 @ 1:32PM|#
    “You don’t lose the ability to speak but you lose the ability to speak freely, dependent on what the law says.”

    Tony|6.30.17 @ 2:46PM|#
    “I get that you want the world to be a certain way, but the world isn’t that way. Can you make an argument that refers to the real world and not your fantasy quasi-anarchic hellscape?”

    Tony|6.30.17 @ 2:51PM|#
    “Okay, well the only connecting principle between the few rights you do endorse is that in practice they favor the wealthy and the powerful over the poor and weak.”

    Just recording some few of the most imbecilic claims of our resident lefty.

    I’m just re-posting Tony’s imbecilic ‘arguments’

    1. I like the idea of Bryan Caplan’s ideological Turing text, and I think Tony is a perfect mascot for failing the ideological Turing test.

      Has he ever said how old he is? I’m beginning to think he just finished his freshman year of college, and his last reading was a snippet from Deleuze and now he thinks he’s the smartest person the world.

      1. He’s about 35, and has been here since his views were roughly age-appropriate (i.e. since he was in his mid 20s). He has evolved in no way over that period of time.

        Reading a snippet of Deleuze is probably over-attributing. Blurb on a back cover, or reference in a Vox-splainer, at best.

  31. “and his last reading was a snippet from Deleuze ”

    What reading are you referring to? I think you’re the first to utter the name of this august personage, on this board, at least.

    1. If you’re looking for the reply button, it’s up there. ^

      1. Found it, I think. Now, what about that Tony, eh?

        1. I assume his head is exploding because someone thinks not baking gay wedding cakes might be OK.

          1. Brian|6.30.17 @ 9:32PM|#
            “I assume his head is exploding because someone thinks not baking gay wedding cakes might be OK.”

            Not a chance.
            Tony is ignorantly certain of his claims, such that NOTHING posted otherwise would have any effect on his fantasies at all.
            BTW, you’re conversing with one of the most imbecilic commenters ever to post here. That’s the idiot trueman.
            If you don’t believe me, ask him for a cite for one of his claims; trueman has either yet to master a web search, or he’s an imbecile posting lies.
            Or, actually, both.

  32. Not all progressives oppose free speech. I’m a Democrat running in VA.

    :

    Pavan was about liberty and gay rights. Gay parents have the right to be treated by the government the same way that the government treats straight parents. Pavan was well decided. Obergefell was also about liberty and gay rights. Two people have the right to get married, to spend the rest of our lives with the person that we love, and the state can’t dictate who is allowed to get married…

    In contrast, Masterpiece is not about gay rights. I’m sorry, my fellow Democrats, but it’s just not. It’s about free speech, just like the unruly conservative media has so noisily proclaimed. A broken clock is right twice a day…

    The right way to rid ourselves of this bigoted bakery is through Yelp. It’s through word of mouth, through letters to the editor, through picketing outside on the sidewalk. It’s through billboards emblazoned with declarations that “Masterpiece Cakeshop is Homophobic.” That’s how we rightly express our dissatisfaction. But we don’t send in the police to shut down their business, we don’t put them in jail. If Masterpiece Cakeshop loses this case, then it would be an assault on the very same civil liberties that Obergefell proudly championed.

    (excerpted from http://benhixon.com/2017/06/30…..ree-speech)

    1. The right way to rid yourselves of that bakery is to make your own and mind your own business! Your success would make the bakery irrelevant to “yourselves”. Instead they went shopping for lawsuits to destroy people’s lives. I mean all that crap about Yelp sure worked on Chick fila right?

    2. “two people have a right to get married”, **as marriage is defined**,which was man-woman.
      Obergefell was decided under false pretenses. Homosexuals already had the same,EQUAL right to marry,and many homosexuals DID marry man-woman,for many different reasons. Thus to claim homosexuals were denied the right to marry is FALSE,a lie. Marriage just isn’t what they wanted,they wanted a special right,to re-define marriage to suit their delusions and political agenda.(as we are seeing with all these LAWFARE suits.)

      OTOH,SCOTUS had NO authority to redefine marriage,that right belongs to society,through it’s elected representatives. and 31 of 50 US states voted AGAINST same-sex “marriage”.

      BTW,marriage is not about “any two people in love”,love was never any requirement for marriage. there always have been qualifications for two people to get married,and the foremost one was MAN-WOMAN,and for good reason.

  33. Once again gays were not being denied service! Gay people were being served by the cake shop, just not for the gay wedding. If someone wants me to bake a cake celebrating the Martyr that killed the gay infidels in Orlando, I would tell the person to get the f*ck out of my shop. His religion celebrates Martyrdom, can I be sued, fined or forced to bake the cake??? Am I an islamaphobic bigot? This isn’t a fight for rights, it is a campaign of intimidation and destruction. They were looking for a fight.

  34. No one has a Natural Right to enter another’s place of business nor to another’s service or prducts. Thus, barring entry or refusing service or trade, for any reason whatsoever, does not violate anyone’s rights in any way. It does not violate the NAP. It is valid exercise of Property Rights and the Freedom of Association.

    Public Accommodations laws grant unjust and unequal authority to customers. Customers reserve their right to not do business with someone for any stupid reason. Yet, PA denies businesses their right not do business with someone.

  35. Rotsa ruck. Econazi Germany just legalized gayness and passed a Kristallnacht-style censorship law fining Facebook et alii for whatever strikes them as “hate speech.” Did I mention the huge fines looting spree?

  36. Sorry but I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the LGBT community embracing Muslims but hating Christians. Muslims will throw them off a building but Christians will simply not bake you a cake and that’s somehow worse? WTF? LOL At any rate, I think all religion is stupid but so is the LGBT community ………….

    1. It’s about spite, they think their support of the Muslims hurts the Christians. They just don’t understand what would happen to them under Muslim rule and superimpose what Muslims would do to them on Christianity. The Handmaids tale has a story with some sort of Christian sect that acts like Muslims currently in Saudi Arabia. It’s insane, but they need something to complain about.

  37. It is already ok for companies that print T-shirts to decline to print some slogan they don’t like. Artists are free to decline to paint a portrait. The problem is that courts do not recognize cakes as “art”.

  38. My religion forbids frosting. Yet not one of you fuckers stood up for my feedom of speech.

  39. It does make me laugh that people pretend that this baker doesn’t hate gays. It’s not against the law to hate gays. He’s a stupid ass Christian cunt, a total scumbag, as all Christians are. Unfortunately, our constitution specifically allows the freedom to be a fucking stupid scumbag cunt (aka freedom of religion.)

  40. “They could have bought without incident. Everything in his shop was available to gays and straights and anyone else who walked in his door. What Phillips did was refuse to use his skills to design and bake a unique cake for a gay wedding.”

    This was an interesting part to me. In this case, wouldn’t it be reasonable to say that if you’re going to allow them to buy a cake you made that was already in the store, then how is creating a special cake distinguishable legally?

  41. Sorry folks, whether the bakery people agree or not, this case is not about “the message”, it is about LAW.
    If this is a private business, then he not only has the “right” to refuse service, he has the RESPONSIBILITY to refuse service. It is his/her business. The social fall-out might not be good business but that is the “invisible hand” that any free market business must deal with.
    The people that brought the suit are not obligated to use his bakery. Therefore, unless he violates a contract, he has harmed NO ONE! No harm, no foul (legally).
    However, the government puke that is harming this business man is committing a crime. Several by the sound of it.

    Law is essentially “do all you have agreed to do and do not encroach on other persons or their property”.

    I would be checking in with the State Constitution to see how badly these government pukes are trespassing on the liberty’s of the people.

    1. nobody has any “right” to the labor or property of another person.
      Under America’s concept of “contract law”,goods or services are exchanged under MUTUAL agreement,and no one can be forced to enter into a contract against their will. If one party doesn’t like the terms,there’s no mutual agreement,and no contract.
      that’s FREEDOM.

      In a FREE country,a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason,or no reason at all.
      But America is slowly losing it’s freedoms,to Political Correctness and the assault of socialism/communism.

  42. Tolerance is not approval. It also works both ways.

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

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

  44. I’m just waiting for a “we only serve Muslims” gun store to open. Then we’ll find out for sure what everyone REALLY feels about this issue.

  45. The author is ignoring Masterpiece Cakeshop’s customers were refused merely because they were having a wedding consistent with their creed. Not for what they wanted on the cake, not because there was some quality of the cake different than the hundreds of other cakes the business has made, but because the beliefs of the invited members of the public let them do something the owner’s didn’t.

    Can try and dress it up however they want but what the business is really asking for is a right to invite the general public – a group of all beliefs – and then require the responding to pass a religious orthodoxy test to actually buy the advertised product they came in to buy.

    There is a reason the public has recognized civil rights and this business knew every customer had a right to not share his beliefs before he opened his doors. If his beliefs won’t let him sell something while respecting the religious liberties and civil rights of the customer the solution is obvious, so obvious it’s the one Masterpiece Cakeshop has practiced for the last 5 years:

    Don’t offer that something to the public in the first place.

  46. “There is an impulse to frame every issue as a clash between the tolerant and the closed-minded.”

    That’s precisely what this case is. The couple in question and the civil rights establishment want to use the police power to force someone to do something he doesn’t want to do. They seem pretty intolerant and closed-minded.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.