Donald Trump

The Libertarian Case FOR Serving Sarah Huckabee Sanders (and Other People You Disagree With)

Her money is green, and you can talk to her while she's chowing down.

|

White House

My colleague Robby Soave has already published a libertarian defense of refusing to serve White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Over the weekend, Sanders and her party were bounced from the Red Hen, a restaurant in Virginia. The restaurant's owner said "this feels like the moment in our democracy when people have to make uncomfortable actions and decisions to uphold their morals."

Well, sure, knock yourself out. The doctrinaire libertarian defense of the owner is pretty straightforward: A business owner should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, good, bad, and stupid. (Note: Such a position is not the law of the land due to various antidiscrimination laws). Just as an anti-gay cake baker should be able to pass on making a wedding cake, or a racist can refuse service because she doesn't like the skin color of a potential customer, the Red Hen's owner should be able to kick out this or that customer just because.

Those arguments make sense, I guess. But I think the decision to withhold service is usually illiberal and damaging to civil discourse, which, like property rights, is also something we should value as libertarians. Unlike many of my Reason colleagues, I don't get too bothered with laws that mandate equal treatment under the law at businesses that are open to the public. If you want to be a private club so you can discriminate for x or y reason, go right ahead. But there is a social value in saying that businesses that claim to be open to the public will not be allowed to exclude individuals or groups unless they are being specifically disruptive. It's one thing to kick out a rowdy party of women at a restaurant. It's another to refuse to serve women at all.

Libertarians are quick to point out that capitalism works to break down prejudice and bias precisely because everyone's money is green. The profit motive can trump tribal, political, or ideological prejudices. Once a racist, a homophobe, or a NeverTrumper starts working side by side with or serving the object of their scorn, it's quite possible that meaningful conversation will take place. Who knows, people may even find common ground and start building out from that toward a better, more-inclusive society? There are also questions of proportion here. As press secretary, Sanders is an habitual liar (that is the job of a press secretary, regardless of who she serves), but she's also not, I don't know, Henry Kissinger at the height of the Vietnam War, or even Stephen Miller, the Trump adviser credited with engineering the controversial family-separation policy talking place on our southern border.

From a strictly pragmatic level, did the bouncing of Sarah Huckabee Sanders do anything to undermine Trump's support or policies? No, of course not. If anything, it simply hardens the hearts of his supporters. It's no secret that Donald Trump is the troll in chief, an expert hand at making people who disagree with him act like total jerks. Time and again, for instance, the media gets blinded by its Trump Delusion Syndrome and makes serious mistakes (most recently, consider the case of the girl that wasn't separated at the border). Nobody wins in a pissing contest but everybody ends up getting wet, right? In the wake of the incident, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), surely one of the least-impressive members of the group that Mark Twain called America's only native criminal class, has called for a non-stop campaign of public shaming of anyone associated with the Trump administration. "For these members of his cabinet who remain and try to defend him they're not going to be able to go to a restaurant, they're not going to be able to stop at a gasoline station," she dreams.

Good luck with all that, Rep. Waters. America is already staggering under the weight of every goddamn thing we do being hyper-politicized. One of the creators of Twitte just apologized for eating a Chick-fil-A, for god's sake. If you want to actually change somebody's mind, you're far better off using unexpected opportunities to demonstrate essential humanity to your enemies and opponents, rather than fulfill stereotypes. Perhaps it would have been a smaller story (or none at all) if the Red Hen owner had taken a few minutes at the end of the meal to sit down with Sanders and explain the nature of her grievances with various Trump policies. I suspect that sort of treatment would go farther than kicking Sanders the hell out.

As with most things, of course, this all really just life imitating Seinfeld. Here's a clip from an episode in which Jerry clears out a restaurant by forcing customers to find out whether the owner agrees with them on the issue of abortion. It's very funny, but I know I don't want to live in this sort of world.

NEXT: Trump Era Has Been Great News for New York Times Company's Shareholders

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. Nick’s on the Trump Train

    MAGA

    1. I sincerely doubt that, but it’s a perfectly rational post. Kudos Nick!

  2. Her money is green and you can talk to her while she’s chowing down.

    That’s what I want, my waiter pillorying me over federal policy while I try to eat my meal in peace. No thanks, refuse to serve me. You’re doing me the bigger favor.

    1. No thanks, refuse to serve me. You’re doing me the bigger favor.

      Does that sort of reverse psychology work with Mrs. Paul?

      1. Likely it works better than sobbing and begging works with Mrs. Chipper.

        1. Sorry you were denied, John. She is, after all, taken.

      2. Ha, trick question. There IS no Mrs. Paul!

        What color is the boathouse in Hereford… riiight.

        1. There is no Mrs Paul?!?!?

          Then who makes all those fish sticks??

          1. It’s actually Misters Paul. Just got shortened over time to Mr(s)

          2. Are you a gay fish?

    2. It is not as if Sanders makes policy. Her job is is to give the official administration explanation. She is just a PR flack, like any other press secretary.

      1. “… you can talk to her while she’s chowing down”
        Just what I want when I’m out at a restaurant – some stranger feeling entitled to start a conversation with me about their political feelinz. cuz I need a serving of wokeness to pair with the appetizer

  3. The Hair vs. The Jacket?

    [mind blown]

    1. No offense to Robby, but this definitely is going to the jacket. To paraphrase O’Rourke: “Age and guile beat youth and a excellent haircut.”

  4. The doctrinaire libertarian defense of the owner is pretty straightforward: A business owner should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, good, bad, and stupid.

    Absolutely. And I’m glad to see an article attempting to pull a part what are two completely separate questions. What is the legal response to this situation? In libertopia, the answer is not a god damned thing.

    The other, and what is a more important question, is how people should act in this situation? What is the moral response? What is the correct activity an individual should take in this situation. And a cry for dialogue is the most important here.

    That’s not even discussing the very real likelihood that these types of interactions actually lead to more powerful government in the long run, but further putting government as a topic of singular importance in society. When really it should be viewed with suspicion and well apart from the average person’s day to day life.

    1. A political philosophy is probably not the best source of morality. And the only moral compass that would be helpful and desperately needed today is “mercy”. If people were more merciful toward one another these issues would never arise

      1. A political philosophy is probably not the best source of morality.

        I agree. But I feel too many libertarians don’t want to discuss the other necessary part of morality. Many modern political beliefs DO try to equate it with morality. The repugnant idea I so often see that confirms this, is people who believe that voting for more welfare is equivalent to a charitable act.

        Libertarianism seeks to remove this bullshit from politics, as it should. But they are then often afraid to answer the very real question of what is correct after this. I see this here too, where people are just like “who cares what anyone does?” You can still care what happens, and not believe the government should fuck people with a gun if they disagree.

        1. Bingo. You are on a roll today BUCS.

          1. Now do bakers, John

            1. Sure. Saying something is a bad idea is not the same as saying it should be illegal. Do you not understand the concept of defending someone’s right to do something you disagree with?

              1. I understand it. I just don’t remember this appeal to decency before

                1. From me or John? As I think I’m fairly consistent on this idea.

                  1. John

                2. That is because the baker was being run out of business by the government. What I or anyone else thinks of his actions was besides the point. You don’t understand how this works do you?

                  1. I see your point now

        2. A political philosophy is probably not the best source of morality.

          Not best, not bad, not really even a source at all.

          Politics is the expression of conduct upon the group (ie. the polity.) This conduct is based upon pre-existing morality. Metaphysically speaking a political philosophy presupposes the existence of a moral philosophy. We know this because politics requires a group acting in some form of concert, while morality does not.

          That’s really party of our problem, too many people with an opinion of ‘how things should be’ have no fucking clue how things actually are.

    2. Agreed. Should it be allowed, yes. Is it a good decision, No.

      Things can be unwise, rude, or even wrong without being illegal. Why do people have such a hard time with this concept?

  5. Gillespie is consistent here if you read his past semi-defense of Gary’s “bake the cake” position. Notably, he was never as explicit in his defense of Johnson’s position. He’s wrong, but consistent in being wrong.

  6. Sarah Sanders’ mistake was not ordering a same-sex wedding cake from the Red Hen.

  7. http://pjmedia.com/trending/mi…..d-protest/

    How about everyone agrees that whatever you think about refusing service at your restaurant, following the person to another restaurant to “protest them” makes you a fascist douche bag worthy of scorn?

    1. …following the person to another restaurant to “protest them”…

      So woke. Extremely woke. Plus tolerant. Future activist. Maybe even ready to be an ‘activist journalist’.

      1. They are just making it obvious they can never be trusted with power again

      2. Or a community organizer.

      3. I see the word ‘woke’ used more frequently lately. Is it just a word that has been misapplied or is it actually an acronym like ‘willfully overlooking knowledgeable edification”?
        Hey, we old fuckers should know this shit too.

        1. It means that you’ve woke to the evils of the world. In particular, this is going to be racism/sexism type issues. As opposed to woke to the evil of, say, thunder storms.

          1. And heaven forfend you dare to be woke to the evils of collectivism.

        2. To me it evokes wide-eyed, Jonestown-massacre-level cultic indoctrination.
          “Hey man, are you woke? Have you been woke about evil? You won’t experience salvation otherwise”

        3. It seems to have come out of the intersection (overlap to the point of congruence?) of hipsters and SJWs.

    2. Protesting government goons for their service to anti-human policies = fascism?

      1. Yes attacking people for their politics is facist tactics you nasty moron

        1. But attacking people for how they were born = religious freedom.

          1. It’s not “attacking people” for refusing to celebrate their marriage. But, I can see how some are playing fast and loose with freedom of association here so I can see where you might see a double standard

            1. No one is playing fast and lose with anything except you. You are the one who cannot grasp that this is a different situation than the government forcing someone to do something

              1. This is the same situation — an act of conscience — as that involving a pharmacist who won’t do his job, or a baker who refuses to serve a customer consequent to intolerance, or an employer who lords his religious preferences over employees with respect to health insurance.

                One difference is that the Red Hen incident did not necessarily derive from superstition.

                1. And here comes the idiot to make my comparison look ludicrous

                2. lol, Don’t forget the social worker who provides poor customer service.

          2. Tony,

            Attacking people for how they were born is only religious freedom if your religion says you have the supernatural power to read the minds of the authors of this websites.

        2. Many consider fascism to be a politico-economic philosophy that describes state-private arrangements of a public good. For example. Some consider it slang for a government philosophy of oppression. For example. There’s no definition of fascism where chasing people out of a restaurant or shouting them down is fascism.

          1. Yeah, it’s more just mob rule

  8. This probably won’t get 200+ comments.

    1. Did Robby’s? I’ll have to go check it now.

    2. Good fucking God, it’s almost up to 300 as of 6:30pm ET. How is that even fucking possible? It’s not like it’s an abortion or a circumcision thread. What could people possibly be debating screeching about? I’d go and look but I’m afraid to find out.

  9. My main takeaway from this thing is that “The Red Hen” is a perfect name for a restaurant owned by a petty prog

    1. If you you do not protest Trump, you do not eat!

          1. Funny thing, that. My father-in-law never knew his dad, and when he was 10, his mom gave him and his 2 siblings to the care of the gov’t/catholic church. He was always curious of his ancestry and found out near his 80th birthday earlier this year through Ancestry that he is 60% Ashkenazi. He wanted a 2nd opinion (he is no fan of Israel and rants about our (US) support all the time), so he went with another DNA company and it came back slightly higher. I suggested he quit while he was behind.

            A good friend of his son always said he was of Jewish heritage. Before the results came back, I asked the friend what percentage he thought it would be and he said 80%. Not a bad guess.
            I realize he isn’t technically Jewish unless his mom is, and she wasn’t. That said, this line of thinking is now a little behind the times since we now have DNA tests.

            I was using () as subtraction, btw.

            1. I just love calling people Jews. The original chosen people of our Lord.

              1. James in 2017 and prior: Haha, love those jokes about Jews!

                James in 2018 (after he finds out his wife and kids are Ashkenazi): Stop making fun of Jews, you anti-semite!

                1. Well he messed up. Jews have the best jokes about Jews.

                  1. You’re so right (((BUCS)))

            2. Matrilineal descent is based on more than the relative certainty of kinship. It fits the fact that maternal cousins are more likely to help with babysitting.

            3. Pretty certain the first Christian was of substantial Jewish heritage.

    2. Good catch!

    3. Chicken Little would be a better name. Progs think the sky is falling (as in global warming, we’re all going to die unless they buy a Prius and dig up some new iron ore to make it, and have it shipped across the country to them and they can charge it up in their garage with power created by a coal burning plant 500 miles away, transmitted on lossy high voltage power lines.)

      They so desperately want to find some meaning in their lives they think a president supported by 40 percent of Americans is a proto-Hitler who must be resisted at every turn, along with anyone who serves in his administration, voted for him, or thinks he’s not all bad all the time. Now they’re calling for Kevin McHale to be banned from the NBA, just for attending a Trump rally.

  10. The staff of the Red Hen just can’t see eye-to-eye with Sanders.

    (Why is it always Red with these people?!)

    1. Maybe thoughts of Col. Sanders triggered them

      1. Eye think that was a “lazy” comment.

  11. You morons are telling me that after endless bullshit about how property rights means gays and blacks are fucked if that’s what shop owners want, we’re finally finding nuance after this government goon gets booted from a restaurant?

    At least this little episode makes it easy enough to see who has any fucking principles or who’s just a team red zombie.

    1. No, no nuance. Sanders can be thrown out of any joint that wants throwin’ her out.

      1. And it wouldn’t even be illegal.

        Let me know when the Trumpist gangs start targeting libturds for execution. The only thing keeping us from that end place of political tribalism is obesity and diabetes.

        1. Ok, he’s finally lost it.

          1. I know fascist hysteria when I see it. Thankfully they’re all too fucking fat and glued to cable news to actually pose a threat.

            1. “fascist hysteria”

              Is that “ghost pirates” or “ghost pirates”?

                1. MOTHERfucker now I am totally lost. Pitate ghosts you say?

              1. Think Rwanda without the muscle capacity to handle machetes.

                1. So, fey soyboys like yourself?

                  1. My weapon of choice is the witty retort.

                    1. Do you plan to deploy it at some point?

                    2. *slow clap*

                    3. So, you’re unarmed

                    4. Yeah, a witty retort combined with a muscular black guy with a machete. In your dreams, Tony. In your dreams.

                2. You seem to be confused about how much muscle power is required to pull the trigger on a rifle.

            2. Meh … it’s relatively easy to anger the local drug dealers that the progressives patronize and then duck as you watch the collateral damage.

            3. I know fascist hysteria when I see it.
              Every morning, in the mirror.

              How’s the goose-step Tony?

          2. He’s an idiot. And I think Scalise and Paul would point out the left is already targeting Republicans.

        2. Am I the only one who is wondering what the fuck Tony thinks he is talking about?

          1. Nice try! It’s a trick question: Tony never thinks.

          2. Mr. Chop, allow me to assist you.

            You may link your screen name to this, or possibly this one.

            You’re welcome.

        3. Actually government says if she were thrown out for being female a protected minority it would be illegal. Don’t you give a shit about anything Tony?

          1. But she was thrown out for being the spokesperson for evil.

            1. Wait. So you’ve called her a Government Goon and a Spokesperson for Evil, using the same language conservatives use to describe, say, the IRS (which takes money by force) and abortionists (who take life by force), and yet YOU are somehow are justified in using this hyperbole because . . . why now?

              I didn’t vote for Trump, I don’t like Trump (then again, I don’t tend to carry any politician’s water), but I can’t think of one single thing he’s done that’s “evil.” In line with what every bloated politician does to mess with our lives in the name of “our own good,” yes. He’s typical in that way, as is just about every member of Congress, conservative or progressive.

              But EVIL? Tell me, then, what constitutes his “evil” to you?

              1. Sigh. Dontcha know that anyone who disagrees with any part of the utopian liberal (or conservative) vision is EVIL?

              2. Taking children away from parents to score xenophobic political points with cousinfucking morons?

                1. It’s only evil when Trump does it.

                2. I dunno, you’re the one who sounds like a cousinfucking moron, for not realizing that this was done under Obama’s regime as well (and let’s not even talk about the Chosen One’s drone strike policies that separated children from their parents by, you know, KILLING THEM?where were your liberal tears then?)

                  And not realizing as well that this is a result of a lack of coherent immigration policy by CONGRESS, made up of evil Democrats and evil Republicans, who refuse to acknowledge that in order to even have the very government they comprise, one must have a country with boundaries that are impermeable? And not taking to task some of the parents who cross the border with their children knowing the consequences, and yet they do it anyway?

                  This a complex issue, with lots of players yet you seem incapable of teasing out those complexities and insist instead on being another libertarded bandwagoner who is compelled to hop on top of the outrage du jour because it makes you look compassionate.

  12. “Unlike many of my Reason colleagues, I don’t get too bothered with laws that mandate equal treatment under the law at businesses that are open to the public. If you want to be a private club so you can discriminate for x or y reason, go right ahead. But there is a social value in saying that businesses that claim to be open to the public will not be allowed to exclude individuals or groups unless they are being specifically disruptive. It’s one thing to kick out a rowdy party of women at a restaurant. It’s another to refuse to serve women at all.”

    This goes beyond the “civil rights” laws, which have a specific list of suspect classifications where you’re not allowed to discriminate, while allowing discrimination for other reasons.

    Gillespie would have a law listing, apparently, only one acceptable reason to discriminate against (paying) customers – “they are being specifically disruptive.” No other reason for denying service is to be allowed.

    Unless they call themselves a members-only club (like Costco?).

    1. He buys way too much into public accommodation laws. A business can choose who is allowed on its property and how business is to be conducted. I’d only prefer that establishments make these quirks known up front. Just because a business doesn’t require membership doesn’t mean it can’t be selective of who they allow to become patrons.

      1. Nick buys into public accommodation laws, but why? His only rationale is that there is “social value,” whatever that means. If that’s the case, why does he think it’s OK for private organizations to discriminate? Is there no social value in banning discrimination by them? And what does he mean by businesses that are open to the public, which shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate except when customers are disruptive? Does that include colleges? Can they not discriminate at all – it’s first come, first serve until capacity is reached? I honestly would like to know the principles behind his views, because tossing away freedom of association so casually is hardly the hallmark of a libertarian.

    2. This is the problem with Gillespie’s take: it’s garbage.

      Why is it so hard to say: a baker can refuse service and a restaurant can refuse service, but depending on the circumstances, you may be an asshole for doing so.

      1. It’s fear of everyone taking advantage of it. That’s at it’s core. Many are very convinced that people are so racist and regressive that without the law in the way lynchings will begin again.

        1. And this horrifying cesspool of racist monsters is… the place where everyone wants to move to, evidently. Which really doesn’t make any sense to me, much like how I have no interest in moving to either Venezuela or North Korea.

        2. And, yet, it’s the libertarians who are less likely to let so-called regressive/racist attitudes win out over making a bit of dough. As a cabinet-making friend of mine says, “I’ll do work for anyone as long as they’re not directly pointing a gun at me or my family.” So I just don’t get the problem. So what if a few “extremists” decide once or twice a year to refuse someone service. They seem to be doing it peaceably (so far), and there are plenty of other options for folks to give their money to.

          If someone kicked me out of their restaurant because, say, I drove up in a sports car and they thought that was anti-working class, I’d be puzzled, but not outraged. Ultimately, who cares? Don’t make a big stink about it, and it won’t become a thing. There are plenty of other places that will take my dollar.

          1. Everyone seems to forget that the people who were told(not asked) to leave the restaurant did so calmly and quietly.

            The fuss was made later, when the leftists started crowing about what they’d done.

            As with all evil, this is wholly a creation of the left.

            1. You’re right. And I’m not talking about Ms. Sanders in particular, but about this type of thing in general. I wouldn’t want to dine or patronize any place I wasn’t wanted, regardless of the reason.

      2. He says why it’s hard: there’s “social value” in dispensing with such a basic freedom. Clear as mud….

    3. “It’s another to refuse to serve women at all.”

      What about “ladies’ night”? That sure sounds discriminatory to me.

    4. He’s not calling for a law against kicking out well behaved people. He’s calling for a social norm. I think we can all agree that it is rude to kick a person out of your business, but that you have the right to be rude, and on occasion, being rude is the right thing to do.

  13. “this feels like the moment in our democracy when people have to make uncomfortable actions and decisions to uphold their morals.”

    Said the baker in the cake shop.

  14. Sorry this is wrong. It’s about time we started holding each other accountable for political beliefs. Because if we fail to do that then we will have a Nazi apocalypse. This Red Hen debacle was a watershed moment because it encourages people to express the truth, as uncomfortable as it is. I would never want to feed Himmler or Goebbels no matter how green their money. Also, everyone has a crazy stance on one issue or another (abortion, immigration, gay marriage, etc), and it’s about time we exposed it. In fact the people demanding ‘civility’ are the biggest fascists. “Everyone’s a nutter,” as a wise man once chided.

    1. I legitimately think Progressives are fascists.

      They deliberately race-bait poor Blacks, and farm them in projects. They keep them beholden to the party with welfare, while enacting regulations that guarantee unemployment in historic Black areas. They practice racial eugenics by putting most abortion clinics in predominantly Black neighborhoods. Blacks make up 13% of the population and account for almost 40% of abortions.
      The Dixiecrats are alive and well and calling themselves “Woke”.

      Illegal immigration is a boon to progressive businesses who can staff their farms and factory floors with 20 workers for the price of one legal immigrant. Why build your factory overseas when you can import the same slave labor here? Why pay $120 a day for a nanny when Maria will do the job for $5 and a bag of rice?
      That’s why leftists don’t want to make legal immigration easier and would rather allow illegals to exist in a grey zone.

      Anyone who has looked at a sonogram of a fetus at 6 months cannot reasonably deny the humanity. Every abortion at that stage breaks bones, ruptures organs, silences an active brain and stops a beating heart. Throughout Europe it is illegal to perform late term abortions, but in Burgerland it’s a sacrament.
      Well, actually it was legal in Germany from 1938 to 45. Heck, if the kid was ugly or slow, you could abort postpartum. So progressive.

      I honestly hate what most of them (really) stand for, and will now refuse to serve or engage the monsters.

      1. They practice racial eugenics by putting most abortion clinics in predominantly Black neighborhoods.

        A.) The rent is probably cheaper there.

        B.) Most businesses locate near their customers, if possible.

        Blacks make up 13% of the population and account for almost 40% of abortions.

        See? Customers.

  15. When dining in Lexington, I recommend Kenney’s. Best Fried Chicken in the Old Dominion.

  16. ” I suspect that sort of treatment would go farther than kicking Sanders the hell out.”

    It wouldn’t and you know it. You wouldn’t be writing about the Red Hen’s owner if she hadn’t kicked out the flack. Same goes for all the other writers who’ve glommed onto this story.

  17. Will the author treat us to the similar libertarian case for doing your job and serving the public as a professional pharmacist, or doing your job and serving the public as a Kentucky county clerk, or doing your job and serving the public as a baker of fancy cakes?

    1. he already has.

  18. I don’t recall any articles taking christian bakers to task for refusing service. Maybe if it had been a gay couple being thrown out you might have found it less objectionable?

    1. Gays, blacks, atheists, uppity women, Muslims, journalists, immigrants . . . the faux libertarian right is comfortable with discrimination against plenty of people.

    2. Are you serious? You have obviously never read Gillespie. This whole publication was all in on a candidate that openly called for fining Christian bakers. Go back to Vox

      1. I went searching through his post history, didn’t see any articles from him talking about how horrible it is to be a bigot and blame it on your imaginary friend. You are welcome to prove me wrong.

        1. So much troll

          1. Still waiting for so much as a single post to back your claim. Just one.

        2. No you didn’t. They’re there.

          1. Feel free to show me a single one, if they’re all over the place you should have no trouble proving me wrong.

        3. Hey guys, I’ve seen where this line of argument goes, how about I save you guys the trouble?

          I remind you there’s no articles where he gives bigots the same sort of condemnation he gave to this woman for kicking out a specific person.

          You insist I’m wrong.
          I repeatedly ask you to site any evidence to support your claim.
          You then tell me you don’t have to.
          I remind you that claims without evidence is just wishful thinking.
          You inform me your imaginary friend is sending me to hell.

    3. I don’t recall any articles taking christian bakers to task for refusing service. Maybe if it had been a gay couple being thrown out you might have found it less objectionable?

      Have you not read the article you’re commenting on?

  19. If you want to actually change somebody’s mind, you’re far better off using unexpected opportunities to demonstrate essential humanity to your enemies and opponents

    What if I just want to whine for attention like a little bitch?

    1. Then you too could be president of the United States.

      1. Shoot for the stars, kid

      2. Ba-zing!

        I laugh at the occasionally Tony post.

  20. Nobody wins in a pissing contest but everybody ends up getting wet, right?

    Look, there’s a reason I call it “pulling a Reese”.

  21. It’s lame to turn down $$ from anyone, even Satan. The restaurant was stupid, but it’s their right to be stupid.

  22. Jeebus! Can’t the civil war just start already so we can get it over with? I’m getting so bored with these small escalations of hostility. I’m 100% sure some leftist violent attack will be what sets it off, because why would they feel bad for “killing LITERAL Nazis” right???

    Also, Nick, you’re such a tool. Actually admitting that you don’t really believe in freedom of association as an absolute. HOLY SHIT. How in fucks name have you held such an esteemed position at a libertarian publisher for so long??? That’s just unmasking what most people already know are your real left leaning beliefs. I stand by my statement that most of the writers here are just “Leftists who understand economics a bit.”

    1. Well, at least Katherine Mangu-Ward is an anarcho-capitalist. Or is slouching ever so slowly thataway.

  23. “But there is a social value in saying that businesses that claim to be open to the public will not be allowed to exclude individuals or groups unless they are being specifically disruptive.”

    So if I hang a sign in the window saying I am not open to the public, but only to people with purple hair and two earrings in the left ear can I deny service? We either have property rights and freedom of association or we don’t.

  24. Unlike many of my Reason colleagues, I don’t get too bothered with laws that mandate equal treatment under the law at businesses that are open to the public. If you want to be a private club so you can discriminate for x or y reason, go right ahead.

    Fuck being a private club. It’s a private business. Sure, the front door is unlocked and anyone could possibly walk in, even those who are unwelcome. Those who are unwelcome will be asked to leave. No memberships, no dues. Just a private business and not a public accommodation.

    Thankfully you said ‘unlike your Reason colleagues’. I would hate to think the whole outfit agrees with your stance of not being a “doctrinaire libertarian”.

    1. Can anyone just open their doors and serve food in exchange for money? If so, I’m free this afternoon, and this might be an opportunity for me to make some extra cash. I mean, I have an oven.

      SHOULD they be treated as a private business? I think so. In my view, they shouldn’t necessarily be subject to zoning laws, safety inspections, worker’s laws, restrictions on what they serve, when they’re open, whether they can serve alcohol and how much, etc. But they are. And these types of regulation actually help a great many restaurants by working to artificially increase the barrier to entry and therefore limit competition. I think those regulations suck, but they are what they are.

      So the stance that they’re a public business and that this is distinct from a private club is pretty accurate IMO.

      1. So if you post on the door who you will and will not serve are you then free to discriminate?

        1. If this were America still it would be!

          I’d DEFINITELY have a No Hippies policy. I fuckin’ hate hippies. And no fat, ugly lesbians. I hate them too. Only hot lesbians in my business!

        2. It’s not about posting signs. It’s about government ALREADY having forcibly made private businesses “public” through regulation and all the shit that goes along with it. As a bonus for being part of the public business club, you get to join in the fun of keeping your competitors out. For example, if you own a restaurant, you’ll be delighted to know that I would have been in big trouble if I decided to go through with my idea this afternoon. Don’t worry, hungry people went to your establishment today, not mine.

          Restaurants are not as big of a deal than, say, pharmacies. If you wanted to compete with CVS, you would go to jail for quite a long time if you decided to open shop in your living room. So now that we’ve erected this artificially high barrier to entry, we have to be careful about what we call “private businesses”. In certain industries, there’s really no such thing, unfortunately. It’s why CVS and Walgreens are in effect PUBLIC businesses because they enjoy the protectionism racket that the government created. And also why they shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate (but that’s the other thread…).

  25. Sell soap. Might take care of both the hippies and the ugly lesbians.

    1. LOL

      ZING!

      In all fairness I don’t hate ALL ugly lesbians. Some of them are alright to get hammered with, because they’re basically dudes with tits. I dated a girl who had a butch lesbian mother in high school, she was pretty hilarious. She’d always be bitching about her girlfriend nagging here just like a dude!

  26. As usual the free market will resolve this issue. The owner already resigned her post on the local board, closed the restaurant for a few days, got clobbered with bad press and reviews. I get to vote on election day and everyday with where I spend my money.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.