MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Why Not Force Somebody Who Hates You to Perform Your Wedding Ceremony?

And for the love of all that's good and holy, don't use "camp" as a wedding theme.The Hitching PostThe headlines all say something similar—a variation of "Ministers in Idaho city told to marry gay couples or go to jail." Headlines being what they are, they're factually accurate while being a little incomplete. The conflict is worthwhile to examine: One of the big fears of religious conservatives is that the legalization of same-sex marriages would result in the government forcing churches to perform gay wedding ceremonies. Is that what's going on here?

On a certain level, that's not quite what's happening. Donald and Evelynn Knapp are ordained ministers in Coeur d'Aline, Idaho. They run a business called The Hitching Post where they conduct wedding ceremonies. It's not a church, per se. Idaho is now recognizing gay marriages, so does that mean The Hitching Post is providing a public accommodation? A deputy city attorney for the city thinks it is, meaning the Knapps would be violating the city's anti-discrimination ordinance should they refuse gay couples. They could face fines (very likely) or jail time (probably not). The debate started all the way back in May, when the Knapps threatened to close their small chapel if forced to marry gays. That was when the issue was still under debate. Now gay marriage recognition has come to Idaho, and a gay couple came to the Knapps wanting to get married. They were turned away.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal group (mentioned last week in a fight between the City of Houston and Christian opponents of an anti-discrimination ordinance), is representing the Knapps against the city to halt enforcement of the law, and so there's lots of outrage to go around.

Eugene Volokh, over at The Washington Post, stepped away from all the outrage and emotional responses to explore whether the city could force a minister to marry a gay couple, even through the mechanism of a for-profit business rather than a church. His conclusion is that they probably could not:

Friday, the Knapps moved for a temporary restraining order, arguing that applying the antidiscrimination ordinance to them would be unconstitutional and would also violate Idaho’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. I think that has to be right: compelling them to speak words in ceremonies that they think are immoral is an unconstitutional speech compulsion. Given that the Free Speech Clause bars the government from requiring public school students to say the pledge of allegiance, or even from requiring drivers to display a slogan on their license plates (Wooley v. Maynard (1977)), the government can’t require ministers — or other private citizens — to speak the words in a ceremony, on pain of either having to close their business or face fines and jail time. (If the minister is required to conduct a ceremony that contains religious language, that would violate the Establishment Clause as well.)

I think the Knapps are also entitled to an exemption under the Idaho RFRA. The Knapps allege that “sincerely held religious beliefs prohibit them from performing, officiating, or solemnizing a wedding ceremony between anyone other than one man and one woman”; I know of no reason to think they’re lying about their beliefs. Requiring them to violate their beliefs (or close their business) is a substantial burden on their religious practice.

Read more analysis from Volokh here. He also weighed in on the Houston subpoena controversy from last week here.

We can argue whether baking a cake or taking photographs constitutes putting a stamp of approval on a wedding or if it's just a neutral service (not that it should matter to anybody who supports freedom of association). But certainly a minister performing a religious ceremony, regardless of whether the context is through a church or business, cannot be reasonably argued to be providing something that is content-neutral.

For heaven's sake, folks, don't try dragging somebody in to marry the two of you who doesn't want to marry the two of you. It's supposed to be the happiest day of your life. Here's a suggestion: If you're thinking of cutting out a distant relative from an invite to your wedding because he is posting anti-gay-marriage stuff on his Facebook wall, don't ask somebody with the exact same beliefs to perform the ceremony for you.

See my previous installments of "Why Not Force Somebody Who Hates You …" here and here

Photo Credit: The Hitching Post

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.

  • JW||

    Because, FYTW.

    It's not about equal treatment, but about teaching those troglodytes to heel.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Wait a second. Isn't that illegal? I thought personal performance couldn't be compelled due to the 13th Amendment (with exceptions, of course). I'm leaving aside for the moment the more obvious issue of this being compelled speech.

  • Pro Libertate||

    That's specific performance of personal services, that is.

  • Pro Libertate||

    That is²

    I hate Mondays. Especially the morning part.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I thought you did it on purpose, for purposeful emphasis.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Maybe I did. There's really no telling what my mind is doing on Monday mornings.

  • MegaloMonocle||

    Here's the deal, folks:

    Right now, there are thousands and thousands of pages of Federal Register that both (a) compel the performance of personal services and/or (b) compel speech of various kinds.

    We crossed this Rubicon long, long ago.

  • Free Society||

    Burn the federal register. Burn the federal everything.

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    200 years, one month, 27 days late, you are.

  • Free Society||

    Clearly the Brits weren't on their A-game.

  • Sosalty||

    Sorry, I don't read personal registars. Actually, I kinda think natural law and my conscience is all I have to follow. Can you and a billion buerocrats enforce petty laws if the populance doesn't give a twit about half of 'em?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Something something state issued license.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Yo, fuck that shit.

    There is precedent in the speech front for pretty hefty restrictions on licensed professions. Like attorney advertising, which used to be very restricted. Although I find myself wishing it was still that way, it's a clear violation of speech rights.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    it's a clear violation of speech rights

    Yes... and?

  • JW||

    There's nothing in the Constitution that says you can't engage in violent nudging.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Sadly, most people think it works that way. "Doesn't say we can't kill SoCons."

  • JW||

    "Show me were it doesn't say that I can't engage in human hunts. Huh? HUH?"

  • Pro Libertate||

    Got me there. Go chase the most dangerous game at will.

  • albo||

    Chasing fenced-in game at a reNedification camp isn't very sporting.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    As I mentioned earlier today, the Supreme Court has gotten around that little technicality:

    ""We find no merit in the remainder of appellant's contentions, including that of "involuntary servitude." As we have seen, 32 States prohibit racial discrimination in public accommodations. These laws but codify the common law innkeeper rule, which long predated the Thirteenth Amendment. It is difficult to believe that the Amendment was intended to abrogate this principle. Indeed, the opinion of the Court in the Civil Rights Cases is to the contrary as we have seen, it having noted with approval the laws of "all the States" prohibiting discrimination. We could not say that the requirements of the Act in this regard are in any way "akin to African slavery." Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328, 332 (1916).""

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/sup.....79_0241_ZO

  • Pro Libertate||

    It's a little different in this case, because it involves personal services, but you're right, the precedent is set.

  • robc||

    Public Accommodations is one of the worst ideas engrained in common law.

  • Fluffy||

    There are several holdovers in the common law that arise from its roots in medieval views of law, which were not exactly amenable to liberty.

    You have to remember that parts (not all, but parts) of the common law are there both to codify traditional feudal relationships and to empower the world view of the feudal aristocracy and clerisy.

    Feudal aristocrats and clerics who traveled around did not want innkeepers (mere commoners, and in trade to boot) to believe that they could decide whom to serve and whom not to serve. "Fuck you, commoner. Feed my fucking horse, and shut the fuck up," would have been their attitude, without apology.

  • perlhaqr||

    I absolutely agree. I used to argue this one with an ex of mine all the time, regarding smoking bans. She has asthma, and so, it's way more convenient for her personally if smoking is banned in places. And because restaurants, bars, etc, are all open to the public, it's totally reasonable to regulate the fuck out of them despite whatever the owner might want to do with the space they pay rent on, because public accommodation. And then in other arguments, she used to say that libertarians were selfish. *eyeroll*

  • Bill Dalasio||

    And then in other arguments, she used to say that libertarians were selfish.

    Well sure, perlhaqr. Your using your own property for your own benefit is selfishness. Their using your property for their own benefit is public-spiritedness.

  • Adans smith||

    no,you own a business ,your property rights are null and void.You work at the pleasure of the state

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    I think they should be allowed to not perform the ceremony but have to pay a penaltax.

    /John "Fuckwad" Roberts

  • Drake||

    Let's call it a jizya.

  • albo||

    Ewww. Let's not.

  • ||

    For heaven's sake, folks, don't try dragging somebody in to marry the two of you who doesn't want to marry the two of you. It's supposed to be the happiest day of your life.

    If you're a SJW malcontent, the only way you can be happy get any satisfaction at all, is to be able to get the government to force other people to do things they don't want to do.

  • ||

    Need edit button. I should have said 'the only way you can be happy get any satisfaction at all, is to be able to get the government to force other people to do things they don't want to do, or stop other people from doing things you don't like, just because'

  • Bill Dalasio||

    If you're a SJW malcontent, the only way you can be happy get any satisfaction at all, is to be able to get the government to force other people to do things they don't want to do.

    It's funny. Such people used to be called "bullies".

  • The Original Jason||

    Proposal:

    Establish a SJW hotel. We'll call it the Shitlord Hotel. It'll charge a base fee that's barely breaks even. Then, on top of that, it'll charge "privilege fees":
    50$ for being cis
    50$ for being straight
    50$ for being white
    50$ for being male
    50$ for being able
    Etc., etc.

    Less see how well that holds up in court. :-D

  • ||

    Here's a suggestion: If you're thinking of cutting out a distant relative from an invite to your wedding because he is posting anti-gay-marriage stuff on his Facebook wall, don't ask somebody with the exact same beliefs to perform the ceremony for you.

    Are the Knapps posting anti-gay-marriage stuff on a Facebook wall?

  • Ahem'||

    Who cares if they are. Find someone who is WILLING to perform the ceremony and get on with with your miserable fucking lives.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    So

    fucking

    tedious.

  • SusanM||

    So, why did they offer civil and interfaith ceremonies up until about a month ago?

    http://www.goodasyou.org/good_.....-case.html

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Because that's got nothing to do with gay ceremonies?

  • ||

    Maybe because up until about a month ago they could offer those services without the fear of being forced to perform a wedding that violates their religion. In any event who gives a flying fuck why they choose to do something? They have the right to offer whatever services to whoever they want.

  • ||

    So, why did they offer civil and interfaith ceremonies up until about a month ago?

    So a former hooker can't be raped as long as the rapist leaves money, right?

  • SusanM||

  • ||

    Well, your original question sounded a lot like this to me.

  • JW||

    Who cares? "I don't want to" should be the end of every public interaction.

    Consent is sexy.

  • trshmnster the terrible||

    Think what would happen if the SJWs' affirmative consent laws were expanded out to economic consent as well. They would cry salty tears of social injustice. It would be so tasty.

  • Warren's Strapon||

    This is why I hope I live long enough to see prostitution legalized. All it will take is one prostitute to refuse to see black clients for the SJW heads to explode.

  • perlhaqr||

    Consent is sexy.

  • perlhaqr||

    Damnit, there was supposed to be a series of text hearts after this.

    And, I mean, I agree with this statement in the way the people who usually say it mean it, too, but fuck, I think turning it around to stab the SJWs with is glorious.

  • trshmnster the terrible||

    Yeah, the server squirrels don't much care for angle brackets. However, your overall point is good.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    How about they just fucking felt like changing their policies? How about they have a right to offer whatever the hell service to whoever the hell they feel like and, if you want to force them to do something they don't want to, you're a bullying piece of shit?

    That work for you?

  • This Machine Wants Cake||

    Because the Law is a cudgel to beat down your enemies, not a shield to protect you from force or fraud. If you hide behind the Law, We will turn it against you and your ilk.

    COMPLY. OBEY. THE INNOCENT HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    "The debate started all the way back in May, when the Knapps threatened to close their small chapel if forced to marry gays. That was when the issue was still under debate. *Now gay marriage recognition has come to Idaho*..."

    You mean theres a *connection* between government recognition of SSM and the coercion of private businesses?

    Why didn't someone warn us about this?

    "They could face fines (very likely) or jail time (probably not)."

    So the law authorizes imprisonment for violators, but that part of the law "probably" won't be invoked against these ministers. OK, then, that's all right.

    "One of the big fears of religious conservatives is that the legalization of same-sex marriages would result in the government forcing churches to perform gay wedding ceremonies."

    Another fear is that the government will force business owners to violate their consciences. Well, at least *that* hasn't happened yet!

  • Almanian!||

    Th e "slippery sloper™" is just a Vast, Right-Wing Kochspiracy, GKC.

  • Zeb||

    We've been on the slippery slope for a long time. I'd rather be on the slippery slope with equal protection more intact. Why do people act like public accommodation laws never existed before gay marriage?

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    No, it's that these sorts suits against bakers, florists, T-shirt makers, wedding-chapel owners, etc. seem to have grown with the growth of the SSM movement.

    We've had public accomodation laws since 1965 (earlier in some states), but it wasn't until the SSM movement that we began hearing about forcing bakers to make Jim and Jacob a wedding cake.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    1964

  • Zeb||

    Not that this has any relevance to what the law should be, but I doubt many bakers would have given a shit if they were making a cake for some fags' solemnization ceremony before it became a political issue. It's definitely wrong to force someone to do something like that, but the harm caused is very small. In my view smaller than the harm caused by the unequal protection provided by old fashioned marriage laws.
    I find the possibility of forcing people to perform ceremonies much more troubling as you get into real speech and religion issues. No one's religion really forbids them from making a cake for a gay wedding, but performing a wedding is a whole other story.
    I would expect courts to come out more on the right side in that case (I also expect to be disappointed a lot).
    And I agree that it is really petty and assholey to try to get someone you know disapproves to solemnize you gay marriage. It's not as if officiants are in short supply. Pretty much anyone can become one with almost no effort. There are even plenty of churches who are happy to do gay weddings.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    "No one's religion really forbids them from making a cake for a gay wedding"

    How do you know this?

    How many gay weddings were catered by fundie bakers "before it became a political issue"? Unless we know that, we can't say they don't *really* have a religious objection.

  • kbolino||

    "No one's religion really forbids them from making a cake for a gay wedding"

    The only person to judge this effectively is the one who holds the belief. It is not your place nor mine to stand in coercive judgment of others with regard to the exercise of their own freedom.

  • Zeb||

    Yes, which is why I said "Not that this has any relevance to what the law should be". And of course people can (and probably do somewhere) believe anything. It's probably best not to take universal declarations like that too seriously.
    When it comes to religious freedom I believe that anything anyone claims to be their religion must be treated as such by the law. My comment about what people really believe about baking cakes is just a general observation and has nothing to do with what I think the law should be or how it should be applied.

  • perlhaqr||

    but the harm caused is very small

    It doesn't matter. The harm may be small, but the justification for causing it is even smaller.

    "But I really want that guy to bake me a cake!"

    Tough shit. He doesn't want to, and there is no way to justify forcing him to.

    And believe me, I'm firmly in support of homosexuals having the same state-recognition of marriage as heterosexuals. I went to a wedding for a lesbian couple last Friday and was deliriously happy to see their joy. But I'd have not gone to their wedding, and told them exactly why, if they'd done something like this.

  • Zeb||

    I agree. There is no justification for forcing anyone even if they just made up their objection on the spot to be a jerk.
    People who want to force bigots to bake them cakes are just being assholes, I agree completely.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    If someone you despise does not have a civil right that prevents the State from correcting his behavior and sifting his opinion, neither do YOU.

  • Pulseguy||

    Unless of course the baker is a Cakeafarian.

  • kbolino||

    We've had public accomodation laws since 1965 (earlier in some states), but it wasn't until the SSM movement that we began hearing about forcing bakers to make Jim and Jacob a wedding cake.

    Indeed, the public accomodation laws suddenly seem to have come out of the woodwork because all the people whose views were already trampled by them have already been silenced. This is a tacit admission of the effectiveness of the law by its opponents; so much so that they are willing to throw everyone already harmed by them under the bridge.

  • kbolino||

    so much so that they are willing to throw everyone already harmed by the law under the bridge.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    I can't say what all the "fundies"* were doing when these laws were first passed, but from progressive commenters, I hear that they were racists who didn't want to cater to blacks!

    And those who were indifferent to the principles at stake probably hadn't read their Niemoller.

    *I'm deliberately adopting the term sarcastically to describe the kind of people with religious objections to SSM.

  • kbolino||

    My point is that no one is going to champion the case of the racist who doesn't want to serve people because of the color of their skin. So the end result is going to be a carve-out for specific types of people, rather than a greater affirmation of freedom of association. No, you didn't initiate the injustice, but you are basically adopting the argument of "libertarian" proponents of same-sex marriage: yes, the law is unjust, but it should be unjust in my favor.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    The original point of these laws - whether we agree with it or not - was to protect vulnerable and marginalized groups, especially African-Americans.

    I think a consistent, nonlibertarian person can advocate laws for black people who had been sleeping in their cars because no motel would take them, without sliding all the way down the slope and passing laws to protect the feelings of people who have to go across the street to get a cake.

  • kbolino||

    I think a consistent, nonlibertarian person can advocate laws for black people who had been sleeping in their cars because no motel would take them, without sliding all the way down the slope and passing laws to protect the feelings of people who have to go across the street to get a cake.

    What is the "consistent, nonlibertarian" principle one can use to make this case?

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    To make exceptions to free association only to the extent necessary to protect vulnerable and marginalized groups from actual harm - eg, job loss and sleeping in your car as opposed to hurt feelings.

  • kbolino||

    To make exceptions to free association only to the extent necessary to protect vulnerable and marginalized groups from actual harm - eg, job loss and sleeping in your car as opposed to hurt feelings.

    Calling "job loss" and "sleeping in your car" harm is implying that a person is owed a job or owed a place to stay. It imposes upon the provider a burden to provide. Even if you call out the specific forms of "harm", it amounts to an entitlement for some and the forseeable consequence of creating entitlements is other people expanding them.

    The distinction is arbitrary and thus ultimately subject to being undermined by the very same "equality" arguments.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    "To make exceptions to free association only to the extent necessary to protect vulnerable and marginalized groups from actual harm..."

    So, if someone judges gays "vulnerable and marginalized" and not having cake a "harm", you're down with it, right?

  • Bill Dalasio||

    But, now you're guilty of the same thing as Zeb: "It's okay to coerce those icky old racists into renting black people a hotel room, but how dare you make me offer service to teh gehyz!" Either racists have rights or good Christian believers don't. You can't have it both ways.

  • trshmnster the terrible||

    The only way that the entirety of public accommodation and anti-discrimination can be tackled as a whole is from an "ends don't justify the means" argument.

    I try to highlight how hard it is to identify and avoid racists when you drive them underground. They're free to subtly subvert and intimidate minorities, but have been driven underground by anti-discrimination statutes. Without those statutes, Jim Bob can open the Racist Confederate Lynch Diner, and I am free to avoid both that Diner and any other affiliation with Jim Bob that may currently support his racist ways, since he is currently forced to hide them.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    It's largely because of the slippery slope that I'm skeptical of these "antidiscrimination" laws. If there were a way to protect only groups which are marginalized and oppressed in measurable, objective ways (eg, getting frozen out of the economy like black people under Jim Crow), then that would be one thing.

    But we now know that once we admit the principle of "antidiscrimination" laws, then the protected classes won't be limited to those who are oppressed in the economy. So we start by looking at Jim Crow companies where blacks are all janitors and whites are engineers and managers, and to address that situation we create laws which end up protecting the hurt feelings of cake-buyers.

    If there were some way to draw the line, I'd consider it. But whenever the people draw up laws to limit the scope of these laws, the courts say that the people themselves are being discriminatory.

  • kbolino||

    If there were some way to draw the line, I'd consider it. But whenever the people draw up laws to limit the scope of these laws, the courts say that the people themselves are being discriminatory.

    1. You are conflating "the people" with "the government"; if "the people" were all in agreement, the law would not be necessary.

    2. Setting aside that quibble, carving out specific cases is discriminatory by definition. Of course, discrimination is not inherently wrong, but the courts obviously have held that it is where "protected classes" are involved. Ultimately, if you're not willing to go after the concept of "protected classes" itself, you will always be subject to the "equalization" of them.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    At present, the only point I'm trying to make is that a non-libertarian, who isn't an absolutist for free association, can actually have worthwhile contribution to make in this "I want cake" discussion.

    If someone who isn't a libertarian says that when faced by massive economic harm, a group can seek government protection from discrimination - then don't cast that person out of civilized company - help them out with evidence that the latest candidate for protected status doesn't face Jim Crow style harm and so shouldn't have the "right" to violate free association.

    Then it will be time enough to defend the free association of the segregated companies and restaurants back in the Jim Crow days.

    Someone who separates these cases isn't a wicked hypocrite to be cast out of civilized society, but a reasonable person who may be open to your persuasion! And an ally against the latest protected-class agitation.

  • kbolino||

    I ain't casting anybody out. But a fair-weather friend is only good to have when the weather is fair. And since I can't control the weather...

  • Bluwater||

    Exactly! When it comes to discrimination, "wrong" and "illegal" are completely unrelated. Arguing that [and $2] will get you a coffee. One need not argue wrong/right. One must only obtain protected victim status. Instantly, now how you think/feel is the basis for such a claim. "I feel like I'm gay [prove me wrong], so you must do business with me."

    I being a white middle class male am not afforded the power of being in a victim class. The black baker can refuse my business... unless I claim that I am a gay white middle class male. I can now literally get around my whiteness by claiming to be gay, in which case, he must then do business with me and smile while doing so or the black baker is in violation of my civil rights [not because of my race, but because of how I claim that I think]. Ironic, huh?

    Anyone in business has certain customers they' rather lose. It doesn't have to be anything associated with a protected class, but merely an attitude expressed by the prospect customer. However, we have now entered an age when a prospect customer can claim violation of a victim status that the merchant wouldn't have even known existed and use that to punish the merchant. And we have put merchants in the position of having to prove a negative.... that the reason they didn't want their business had nothing to do with whatever the accuser claims as their victim status.

  • Robert||

    Even under the current laws you could operate the Racist Confederate Lynch Diner—Niggers Welcome!

  • kbolino||

    Even under the current laws you could operate the Racist Confederate Lynch Diner—Niggers Welcome!

    Was there a point to this bizarre non sequitur?

  • trshmnster the terrible||

    He's answering my example from above, where I said it's easier to avoid Jim Bob's Racist Confederate Lynch Diner than the subtle underground racism of today.

    I think the only way Robert's example would be legal is if it were run by a black woman who was a racial studies professor. I think merely the name would get a white guy fined and delicensed.

  • kbolino||

    He's answering my example from above

    Still, I think "niggers welcome" kind of undermines the concept of the "lynch diner", no? Unless they're welcome to be lynched, but then you're getting into actual crimes.

    I think merely the name would get a white guy fined and delicensed.

    Not directly, of course. But health and safety inspectors would make awfully frequent visits to the diner.

  • Bluwater||

    "Jim Bob can open the Racist Confederate Lynch Diner, and I am free to avoid both that Diner and any other affiliation with Jim Bob that may currently support his racist ways, since he is currently forced to hide them."

    Allowing people to openly express themselves and accept/reject business on whatever grounds they happen to prefer is in the public's best interests, especially those who they don't want to do business with.

    As per the cake baker, if you are a black or gay couple, would you prefer to know up front that the baker really doesn't want your business? Or would you rather put something in your mouth that was prepared by someone who is forced to do business with you and you have no idea how badly he despises what you stand for?

    There are subtle ways to really screw over anyone you are forced to do business with, and it really isn't in your best interests to have this information hidden.

  • Mark22||

    We've had public accomodation laws since 1965 (earlier in some states), but it wasn't until the SSM movement that we began hearing about forcing bakers to make Jim and Jacob a wedding cake.

    Along with the SSM movement, a lot of other things have changed. For example, there is a sizeable percentage of atheists in the US now. So perhaps it's high time we're having that debate.

    If atheists and homosexuals can be legally forced to do business with Christian conservatives, why should Christian conservatives not be forced to do business with atheists and homosexuals?

    Personally, I think all these groups should be free to do business or not to do business with whoever they want, for whatever reasons they want to. But for Christian groups to demand to be allowed to discriminate while at the same time wanting to maintain legal protection against discrimination for themselves seems hypocritical.

    (Note that freedom of religion does not mean that you are protected from private discrimination, so the Constitution is not the basis for these laws.)

  • ||

    We've been on the slippery slope for a long time. I'd rather be on the slippery slope with equal protection more intact. Why do people act like public accommodation laws never existed before gay marriage?

    I think in previous civil rights movements the slippery slope wasn't nearly as converging with a race to the bottom.

    Lot's of the arguments I've heard in favor of marriage equality consist of picking out the parts of marriage that I don't particularly like to begin with, declaring them obviously broken and inferior, and then arguing that they should be more inclusive.

    Race to the bottom aside, forcing a racist innkeeper to house a black man so he doesn't freeze to death is one thing, forcing a baker to perform for a gay wedding so they can have it and eat it too is quite different.

  • kbolino||

    Race to the bottom aside, forcing a racist innkeeper to house a black man so he doesn't freeze to death is one thing, forcing a baker to perform for a gay wedding so they can have it and eat it too is quite different.

    Now you're just haggling about the price.

    Once you accede that association can be violated, you lay the foundation for the slippery slope. Eminent domain started the same way.

  • ||

    Now you're just haggling about the price.

    Right enough. Forcing is the method at hand or under discussion not the method I would choose.

    But I am no anarchist, regardless of means, I would put the value of a man's life generally (though not exclusively) higher than a wedding cake (of any orientation).

  • Robert||

    Hey...prices matter!

  • ||

    Agreed, and any libertopia that doesn't involve haggling is no libertopia at all, IMO.

  • Bluwater||

    "Now you're just haggling about the price.

    Sure.... in the same way a girl who just lost her virginity to her boyfriend is now open season to any guy wanting sex. She terminated the status, so now it's haggling over who, right?

    Dumb argument. Principles [or exceptions to] always include limitations.

  • kbolino||

    Sure.... in the same way a girl who just lost her virginity to her boyfriend is now open season to any guy wanting sex. She terminated the status, so now it's haggling over who, right?

    Would you care to explain how this is analogous? Because all I see is histrionics.

    Principles [or exceptions to] always include limitations.

    Then they're not really principles, now are they?

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Shorter Zeb: I stand fully behind the rights of people I like to do things I approve of. Otherwise, fuck'em.

  • ||

    " So the law authorizes imprisonment for violators, but that part of the law "probably" won't be invoked against these ministers. OK, then, that's all right."

    What gets overlooked in most articles like this is what happens when you refuse to pay the fine. They throw you in jail. If you refuse to go to jail, they shoot you. IMO, all articles regarding the enforcement of laws or passage of new laws should have the headline

    "Government Threatens Death to All Who (fill in the blank)."

  • perlhaqr||

    Yep.

  • MegaloMonocle||

    "They could face fines (very likely) or jail time (probably not)."

    If you're facing fines, you're facing jail time (if you don't pay the fines).

  • VG Zaytsev||

    You just don't get it Eddie.

    Expanding government recognition of marriage to the 0.25% of US residents that wants to be in a SSM is worth the cost of restricting the freedom of association for the other 99.75% of the population

  • Almanian!||

    Yeah, this is all about teh powerz. As if we didn't know already.

    Fuck these people. I hope I have the opportunity to spit on one of these people's wedding cake someday.

  • Paul.||

    Imagine I walk into one of my local cupcake joints where their website has Michelle Obama pictures plastered over it. Then I tell them I'd like them to make a bunch of No on I594 themed cupcakes for my upcoming open-carry rally.

    They politely decline. I show up three weeks later flanked by three sheriff's deputies with a court order in my hand demanding they're going to do it or go to jail.

  • Almanian!||

    AND NOTHING ELSE HAPPENED

  • Pro Libertate||

    Of course, the answer is that this sort of thing is totally legal unless your views aren't popular with the right people. In that case, what you propose is a hate crime.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    One sure way to get to hear the crickets chirping is to ask a Liberal Lefty who is all worked up over this if he (or she) would require a Jewish baker to cater a neo-Nazi event. They're SIURE there's a difference other than "we like gays and we don't like Nazis", but they can't quite figure out how to say it…….

  • Paul.||

    "we like gays and we don't like Nazis", but they can't quite figure out how to say it…….

    That's it. That's what their argument comes down to. That's the total logic behind it. They just have the wind at their back is all.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    I would say that the wind is coming OUT of their back…..

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    There you go again CSPS, comparing gahyz to Nazis.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Hater.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Yes, I do hate self-righteous twits who, while raining odium on the self-righteous twits of eras past, behave in exactly the same way, telling everybody what they must do and believe.

  • tarran||

    Actually, they have a pat answer: "gays are victims of discrimination and are therefore deserving of the status of 'protected class', Nazis aren't."

    It becomes a bit of an exercise of rabbit hole spelunking to explore the implications.

  • Faceless Commenter||

    HAH. I'd like to see a Nazi get away with calling for the Fourth Reich in a public square or running for office on the Nazi Party ticket.

    In fact, it's time Nazis became a protected class, too! Same for child molesters, rapists, serial killers ... anyone else I can add to the diverse lefty constituency fruit salad?

  • Pulseguy||

    Middle class, middle aged white guys?

  • Faceless Commenter||

    I said fruit salad, not mayonnaise on white bread platter.

  • JW||

    See my comment re consent below.

    It seems to be a tad MIA.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    My personal variant of that is to demand The Stonewall lease itself out to the Westboro Baptist Church for Gay Pride Week.

  • Mark22||

    But that gets to the heart of the matter: Christians can discriminate against gays, but gays cannot discriminate against Christians.

  • marshaul||

    Wrong. They would say "neo-Nazis aren't a protected class."

    The correct rebuttal to their actual argument would be, "that means right and wrong is defined by the law, which is akin to might makes right."

    Or you could trash straw men all day. Either way.

  • Arizona_Guy||

    I've used the comparison that you run a catering company, and you're gay.

    Someone from a fundie church asks you to cater an event, you politely decline.

    You get sued for religious discrimination.

  • Pro Libertate||

    This is nothing less than thoughtcrime.

  • Paul.||

    Oooh, I've got another thought. What if a tee-shirt company forced to print Gay Pride tee shirts capitulated to the request but charged $1000 per tee-shirt? Would the court then also be forced to regulate pricing?

  • Almanian!||

    Ideas. Please don't give them any. Thank you.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    That would be discrimination, so ima say yes, unless they charged the same fee to straights.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I'm pretty sure this hypothetical shirt company was also charging straight people $1000 for gay pride shirts.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    I doubt the court would buy it.

  • MegaloMonocle||

    At $1K a shirt, the court can't afford to buy any.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    rimshot

  • Auric Demonocles||

    That's because the court is retarded.

  • ColonelEngineer||

    Dammit, don't give them ideas!

  • trshmnster the terrible||

    +1 marihuana tax act

    The wedding chapel could also issue a limited number of gay wedding "access stamps", charge $100k for the access stamp, and only open slots for the wedding on the Tuesday before Christmas or on the Wednesday after Memorial day.

    "Blackout restrictions may apply"

  • perlhaqr||

    Marijuana tax act, National Firearms Act, etc. There's all sorts of precedent for ridiculous taxes on things, I should think. But the practical answer would likely be "It's illegal when individuals do it".

  • Idle Hands||

    One of the big fears of religious conservatives is that the legalization of same-sex marriages would result in the government forcing churches to perform gay wedding ceremonies. Is that what's going on here?

    This is like the first time I think I've ever seen a journalist even express that concern. Most everybody else just repeats "Zey Hates te Gayz!!!" which may be true but makes for a tiresome talking point.

  • ||

    So, what if a gay couple wants to be married in a mosque? Are the Muslims forced to do the wedding?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Really, why aren't these zealots pursuing precisely this course of action?

  • ||

    For the same reason that PETA doesn't go around spray painting the leather jackets of biker gangs.

  • Paul.||

    Making Muslims support gay marriage is racist.

  • ||

    Let me guess. Because they don't want their heads cut off? Hmm, that's got me thinking, I hope they try it.

    It's sort of like this:

    Illegal Immigrant Children guaranteed 3 meals and 2nd helpings

    So, the first wookie wants American children to survive on one piece of raw broccoli and tofurkey on a cracker, and illegal immigrant children get guaranteed second helpings of meals?

    Is there something wrong with our government? I'm just asking, maybe it's just me.

  • Pulseguy||

    This is the reason they won't go after churches. They'd have to go after Mosques, too. And, we know they won't do that.

  • JW||

    Wait, so what happened to informed consent?

    I thought consent was what so was so motherfucking, sparkle pony important.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    "Why Not Force Somebody Who Hates You to Perform Your Wedding Ceremony?"

    It shows your power and dominance, like drinking mead out of your enemy's skull.

  • Drake||

    "I now pronounce you sodomite sinners..."

  • JW||

  • Warty||

    That's an interesting idea. Maybe performing a wedding is required under public accommodation laws. Sure, fine, whatever. But they could stipulate that they only perform a gay weddings following an unbearable 2-hour sermon about fire and brimstone and Sodom and Gomorrah, right?

  • Pro Libertate||

    And do you, hell-bound sinner, condemned by God, take this other hell-bound sinner, condemned by God, to have and to hold for all eternity in hateful sodomy hell?

  • Warty||

    Oh dad! We're all Calvinists!

  • Pro Libertate||

    If there is anyone here--other than the Almighty Himself, who doth curseth this unnatural union--who objects to this sodomoneous venture, speak now and show your contempt for the sin. And keep thusly speaking, for thine curses are thrice blessed in the eyes of Jesus.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    At what point in the ceremony would they bring out the ceremonial pillar of salt?

  • Pro Libertate||

    And lo, as God Himself did smite Sodom and Gomorrah with His divine wrath, so shall he smite this abomination and the community that allowed it.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    And if it actually comes to them being forced to perform such a ceremony, that's EXACTLY what I'd do.

    And trust me, that wedding cake I was forced to bake would taste like sardines.

  • perlhaqr||

    "Shockingly enough, when forced at gunpoint to bake a cake, I didn't do a very good job."

  • Bill Dalasio||

    And trust me, that wedding cake I was forced to bake would taste like sardines.

    Sardines? You're a much kinder soul than I am.

  • ||

    THAT'S where the Pillar of Salt goes ...

  • Idle Hands||

    Speaking of sodomites, I'm sure you saw what the Jaguars did to your Browns. We going to say Johnny Money Manziel next week?

  • ||

    Queerly beloved we are gathered here..

  • cavalier973||

    Mawath ith whath bwingth uth together today *slurp*.

  • Slammer||

    Why Not Force Somebody Who Hates You to Perform Your Wedding Ceremony?

    What's hate got to do with it?

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Yeah, "disagreement on socio-political issue" /= hate.

    I disagree with people who want to trample on religious freedom, but I can't say I *hate* them.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    I do.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    My options are limited, since I'm surrounded by such people, including family members.

    "OMG, the Supreme Court says *corporations* can deny women their *birth control!*"

  • The Late P Brooks||

    "I don't work on Cadillacs. Take that shitbox to somebody else."

    Should I expect to get sued?

  • Idle Hands||

    only if the customer is gay, black or a woman.

  • albo||

    But that Cadillac had no choice but to be a Cadillac from birth!

  • ||

    Who else drives Cadillacs?

  • Idle Hands||

    Bruce Springsteen? or was that his GF?

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    You can be sued if it's a *pink* Cadillac.

  • ||

    Has any gay organization spoken out against lawsuits like this? I'm thinking of the parallel between moderate gays and moderate muslims. Why aren't they speaking out against the radicals who are making their name synonymous with intolerant douchebags? The vast majority of gay people I know all roll their eyes when these lawsuits come up. Has Andrew Sullivan publicly castigated these idiots?

    I have to admit that I am one of the people who support SSM and thought that the people claiming that the gubbment would be forcing people to perform gay weddings were engaging in full on hyperbole. I guess I shouldn't have been so naive about that.

  • SusanM||

    Why aren't they speaking out against the radicals who are making their name synonymous with intolerant douchebags?

    There are plenty of people of whom you could ask that, aren't there?

    Once again, this is a business not a church. I don't know for sure but if it were a church I'd think it a safe bet that a state like Idaho would have some robust religious exemptions and thus this wouldn't be an issue.

    And I hate to say this but I feel kinda let down that Reason would jump on the "homos hate Jeebus" bandwagon so quickly.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Reason is trying to report on cases of businesses being forced to celebrate same-sex marriages, print gay rights T-shirts, etc. and a municipal government demanding ministers give up their sermons, in the name of fighting for gay rights.

    And Reason goes out of its way to signal that it hates what the religious nuts believe, but is just defending their right to believe it.

    In this very article, see the reference to "hate," to "outrage and emotional responses," etc.

  • ||

    And Reason goes out of its way to signal that it hates what the religious nuts believe, but is just defending their right to believe it.

    I would even add that Reason does a decent job of inaccurately equating a legitimate business disagreement with nutty rabid homophobic internet slander toward the end of the last full paragraph.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: SusanM,

    Once again, this is a business not a church.


    Meaningless distinction. Like saying "this is a house, not a church" or "this is a barn, not a church". A church is a congregation of people of a same faith coming to hear a sermon from a religious leader or participate in rituals that celebrate a God. That's a church. Who cares if the building makes money out of it? Only the state and statists care.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Who cares if the building makes money out of it?

    But profit making is evulll.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: VG Zaytsev,

    Jokes aside, you placed the finger on the (current) moral justification for differentiating between a church and a business: a business takes money from people.

    You and I know very well that a business TRADES goods for money, but in the tiny mind of statists, anti-market zealots and little red Marxian Tonys, a business TAKES from US or the COMMUNITY, which means the laws apply differently in their care.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    I'd take your point a step further. If the guy running the business organized as a non-profit (i.e. a church) and operated exactly as he has, only taking income as a salary, how would things be any different?

  • trshmnster the terrible||

    To clarify, it is only a meaningless distinction in a nation where freedom of association hasn't been entirely eviscerated. If freedom of association is gone, then only freedom of religion stands in the way of imposing certain acts of Commerce.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Once again, this is a business not a church.

    So what? Does the First Amendment protect freedom of church or freedom of religion? Are you saying that if they'd organized as a non-profit, you'd support their stance?

  • Sosalty||

    When you attempt to bargin off religious rights for perceived civil rights, social unrest will revisit us.

    But,here on Reason it's just an opportunity to have some fun at everyone's expense. These remarks strike close to home and are priceless.

  • KDN||

    Why aren't they speaking out against the radicals who are making their name synonymous with intolerant douchebags?

    Didn't you get the memo? Douchebag now only applies to white, aflluent, heterosexual men.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    I have to admit that I am one of the people who support SSM and thought that the people claiming that the gubbment would be forcing people to perform gay weddings were engaging in full on hyperbole. I guess I shouldn't have been so naive about that.

    I had no doubt that it would come to this. That's not a reason to deny equal protection under the law.

    But I'd love to see someone take this bullshit all the way to the SC and get the abominable Civil Rights Act thrown out...finally.

    (Yeah, dreaming...but a good dream)

  • ||

    Do you really think equal state marriage is worth threatening innocent people with the loss of property, freedom,or (as I explained above) life?

  • marshaul||

    "Do you really think equal state marriage is worth threatening innocent people with the loss of property, freedom,or (as I explained above) life?"

    That's a utilitarian argument, and I won't consider it.

    Marriage equality was "bonum per se" – right in and of itself.

    If bad people have used it as a springboard to do bad things, then we should fight those bad people & things.

  • marshaul||

    That being said, elimination of marriage licensure was always the most moral (and optimific, if that matters) means to the end.

  • MegaloMonocle||

    Well, Francisco, you are at least willing to accept responsibility for the foreseeable results of the position you supported.

    That puts you way ahead of most gay marriage proponents.

  • kbolino||

    RC,

    I've seen you make the case about "forseeable consequences are not unintended" w/r/t gay marriage and public accomodation, yet you vociferously defend your votes for third-party candidates even if the predictable consequence is an election of a candidate (regardless of party) who is less supportive of liberty than his major-party opponent.

    Care to square that circle?

  • MegaloMonocle||

    No prob, kb:

    My one vote for a third-party candidate is so extremely unlikely to be the deciding vote that I don't regard the Wrong Team Member winning as a foreseeable consequence of my choice.

  • kbolino||

    Ok fair enough, but could not the same argument be made of a nominally libertarian person supportive of SSM? He may not support the public accomodation/protected class forseeable consequence but his vote is not decisive, either.

  • MegaloMonocle||

    Sorry, not quite there.

    When I vote for the third party candidate, I want him/her/it to actually win. In fact, my vote is against the Wrong Team Member(s). The Wrong Team Member winning is just not a foreseeable result of the position I am taking or an action I am taking.

    If you support mandatory licensing of gay marriage through the EP, you are supporting public accommodation/protected class privileges because it is a package deal. Your individual support may not be decisive, but it is a foreseeable result of the position you are taking.

  • kbolino||

    That sounds like an argument of convenience. When you want them to, your intentions can trump forseeable consequences. You may not support first-past-the-post and winner-takes-all but those are the electoral realities of this country. In a 3-way race, your vote for your #1 candidate (third party) splits the opposition to your #3 candidate (major party) resulting in him getting more votes than your #2 candidate (major party). You didn't "intend" for #3 candidate to win, but you could have foreseen it.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Francisco D'Aconia,

    I had no doubt that it would come to this. That's not a reason to deny equal protection under the law.


    Would you agree that there's a difference between equality under the law and being granted a privilege under the law? The privilege of successfully compelling a person to trade with you, for instance.

  • kbolino||

    Would you agree that there's a difference between equality under the law and being granted a privilege under the law?

    Of course, the application of both results in where we are now. So which is kept and which is discarded?

  • OldMexican||

    Re: kbolino,

    So which is kept and which is discarded?


    Privileges are a total violation of the principle of equality under the law and a violation of individuals' rights. Privileges must be discarded completely; that means no affirmative action, no "special protections". Privileges are a Marxist construct, based on the assumption that our sense of being does not rest in the fact that we're human but that we're part of a group, defined in an arbitrary way.

  • kbolino||

    Agreed, yet they exist. So if you aren't willing to fight the existence so much as the expansion, then you're really arguing against equality under the law.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: kbolino,

    So if you aren't willing to fight the existence so much as the expansion, then you're really arguing against equality under the law.


    That's a non sequitur. I just established the difference between equality under the law and privilege or special protection, and yet you argue that by being against privilege I am against equality under the law!

  • kbolino||

    I just established the difference between equality under the law and privilege or special protection, and yet you argue that by being against privilege I am against equality under the law!

    The question is to what extent are you actually against the privilege as opposed to simply being against its expansion.

    Right now, it seems like gay marriage is the sum total of the war, rather than just one battle in a much broader war.

    I have little doubt of your sincerity, but most opponents of gay marriage, gays as protected classes, etc. would fight no further than the abolition of just those things.

    So then yes it is fair to say that they are opponents of equality under the law moreso than they are opponents of state-granted privileges.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    OM...protected classes are an abomination. They are EXACTLY the opposite of what they claim to be.

    Equal protection- yes
    Special privilege- no

  • Faceless Commenter||

    I imagine that reasonable gays don't organize. They just go about their lives and accept various social limitations, same as I do as a female who'll hold it in for a minute rather than charge into some reeking men's room.

  • Pulseguy||

    "reeking men's room?"

    I've been a bar owner and a hotel owner with public washrooms. Women's toilets are generally way grosser than are toilets for men.

  • Faceless Commenter||

    There's only one way to settle it, but I'd rather just concede the point.

  • albo||

    We start to punish people like this, we send a message that a belief test is required for those who want to be in the business of providing a service or accomodation to the public. How fair is that?

  • creech||

    The law may ban discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, but I wonder if the Hitching Post is banned from putting up, say,
    "Gays are disgusting perverts" signs on the walls, or if the ministers, while having to say the magic marriage words, are prohibited from adding -as most ministers do - words of their own choosing such as "The state of Idaho is forcing me to marry you
    disgusting perverts, so here goes...."

  • Auric Demonocles||

    "Dearly beloved, we are gathered hear today to keep me from going to jail because of this pair of litigious assholes and asshole fuckers..."

  • MegaloMonocle||

    I wonder if the Hitching Post is banned from putting up, say, "Gays are disgusting perverts" signs on the walls,

    Of course hate speech and creating a hostile environment against protected classes is prohibited. Duh.

  • John||

    Exactly. They could no more do that than hire black people and put up signs saying blacks are stupid. Hostile environment is the same as discrimination.

    That is what the Cosmotarians are Reason refuse to understand. Public accommodation laws don't just tell you who can do business with, they tell you what you can say about them.

  • RAHeinlein||

    Say, think, hire/fire, compensation levels, etc...

  • Pulseguy||

    I don't see why he couldn't say:

    "Despite this being against my religious beliefs these two people, while knowing that, on this most sacred and wonderful of days for them, on a day that is an expression of their love for each other, they chose instead to turn this into a political act. Accordingly I will perform their marriage under protest...."

  • Rhywun||

    Is that what's going on here?

    No. It's not a church.

    If religious non-church folks want to preserve their right to discriminate, they ought to put up "no gays" signs on their businesses. But of course they don't do that because that would be mean.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    They don't do that because it'd get them just as sued, but more quickly.

  • MegaloMonocle||

    One of the big fears of religious conservatives is that the legalization of same-sex marriages would result in the government forcing churches to perform gay wedding ceremonies. Is that what's going on here?

    Looks to me like that's exactly what's going on here.

    Unless you want the State to get into the business of saying what a "real" church is and what isn't. Because the "public accommodation" argument turns on sorting between "real" churches and "not-real" churches.

    These folks are ordained ministers. That should be the end of the inquiry. But, obviously, its not.

    You were warned, folks. And you laughed it off, believing that foreseeable consequences wouldn't happen solely because you didn't mean for them to happen. Which is just about the mental level of a five-year-old.

    Try to do better next time.

  • Zeb||

    Who are you talking to?

    I don't think that many claimed that things like this wouldn't happen. Just that it is an issue separate from whether marriages should be recognized legally.

  • MegaloMonocle||

    I don't think that many claimed that things like this wouldn't happen.

    All the Gay Marriage is a Constitutional Right crowd who refused to see that the Equal Protection argument for mandating licensing of gay marriages was a Trojan horse for making gaiety a protected class with all the privileges thereof.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Citing the inevitable attempt to get gays recognized as a protected class as an excuse to not provide equal protection under the law for gays is nothing more than a lame excuse to justify bigotry.

    TWO SEPARATE ISSUES!

  • John||

    No they are not. They are the same issue. I and various others have only explained equal protection to you about a hundred times. Why do you refuse to listen?

    They are exactly the same issue. When you say "gays deserve equal protection" you are saying "gays deserve protected class status. That is what equal protection means. It means the government can't discriminate against certain classes of people. It does not for 1000th time mean the government can never make any distinctions and must treat everyone equal regardless of the circumstances.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Bigot.

    When you say "gays deserve equal protection" you are saying "gays deserve protected class status

    Did you just actually write that?

    Red Tony thinks that "certain people", I'm guessing they would be people HE believes to be "less", are not entitled to equal protection under the law.

    EVERYONE GETS EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW! BIGOT!

    WHat they DON'T get is special privileges.

    TWO SEPARATE ISSUES. But nice attempt to justify your bigotry. Too bad you are using a non sequitur. Guess you'll need to find another excuse for your bigotry.

  • John||

    You are just trolling at this point. No one is this fucking stupid. Seriously, there is no way you are this dumb that you actually think that "equal protection" with in the context of the 14th Amendment does not revolve around who is and is not a protected class.

    I don't know what to tell you other than read a fucking book sometime and stop thinking words mean what you think they mean in every context and are not terms of art.

    Let me give you a clue "equal protection" is a legal term of art. It means something more than just "everyone must be treated the same". It is more complex that that.

    So yes, I did just write that. And it only strikes you as funny because you are a pig ignorant moron who doesn't even know enough about this subject to be dangerous.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Nice try, bigot.

    The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances.
    Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right. There is no clear rule for deciding when a classification is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has dictated the application of different tests depending on the type of classification and its effect on fundamental rights. Traditionally, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose."

    [emphasis mine]

    Please state your rational basis to a legitimate state purpose for not allowing gays to marry.

    Oh, and how many courts have sided with you, Red Tony? In case you aren't keeping up, that would be...wait for it...ZERO!

    Fuck off, bigot!

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Still waiting for that rational basis...

  • John||

    Traditionally, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose."

    On second thought, don't read a book. You are too fucking stupid to understand them.

    You just gave the rational basis test. Here is a hint, there are too other tests called intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny.

    And I am not a bigot. You in contrast are a complete fucking moron. You are so stupid you are not worth debating this with. And you have proven with this post, you are incapable of learning or getting any smarter.

    You are the dumbest person on here. Dumber than shreek. Even shreek is smarter than this.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Arizona.

    Conclusion:

    ...this court hereby declares Article 30, Section 1, of the Arizona Constitution; A.R.S § 25-101©; and A.R.S. § 25-125(A) unconstitutional because they deny same-sex couples the equal protection of the law.
  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Utah

    E. Equal Protection–Rational Basis Plaintiffs contend and the district court so found that the provisions cannot be sustained under rational basis review. Kitchen, 961 F. Supp. 2d at 1210-15. The State offered several rationales including (1) encouraging responsible procreation given the unique ability of opposite-gender couples to conceive, (2) effective parenting to benefit the offspring, and (3) proceeding with caution insofar as altering and expanding the definition of marriage. The district court rejected these rationales based on a lack of evidence and/or a lack of a rational connection between excluding same-gender couples from marriage and the asserted justification.2 Equal protection “is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.” City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985). Given the provisions in this case, we should look at the definition of marriage and the exclusion of same-gender couples and inquire whether “the classification . . . is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.” Id. at 440. To the extent the district court thought that the State had any obligation to produce evidence, surely it was incorrect. Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93, 110-11 (1979). Though the State is not precluded from relying upon evidence, rational basis analysis is a legal inquiry.
  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Alaska

    With this ruling, the Court hereby DECLARES that Alaska’s same-sex marriage laws are unconstitutional for violating the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Idaho

    III. Conclusion
    “Intentional discrimination on the basis of gender by state actors violates the Equal Protection Clause, particularly here, as here, the discrimination serves to ratify and perpetuate invidious, archaic, and overbroad stereotypes about the relative abilities of men and women.” J.E.B., 511 U.S. at 130–31. Idaho and Nevada’s same-sex marriage proscriptions are sex based, and these bans do serve to preserve “invidious, archaic, and overbroad stereotypes” concerning gender roles. The bans therefore must fail as impermissible gender discrimination.
  • trshmnster the terrible||

    Please state your rational basis to a legitimate state purpose for not allowing gays to marry.

    You do realize that the "rational basis" test is probably one of the most liberty robbing tests applied by the federal judiciary, right? It's like saying "separate but equal" and being oblivious to the racial connotations.

  • Sosalty||

    When the law 'respects' certain parties or classes, it has departed from being law and reverted to the whims of man.

  • MegaloMonocle||

    They are a package deal, Francisco. Recent events should be making that perfectly clear to you, should they not?

    Gay marriage supporters could have done it the hard way - state by state reformation of the laws.

    They decided to do it the easy way - get the friendly federal judiciary to step in. And if that came at the "price" of further violations of freedom of speech, association, and religion, well, I suspect most of them saw that as a bonus.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I'd say it's the real motivation.

    I've asked many SSM proponents what they thought of a compromise that enacted it and eliminated the public accomodations section of the civil rights act. Every non-libertarian denounced that idea as worse than the status quo.

  • Zeb||

    I'm sure it is some people's motivation. But you know what? What I and some other political weirdos think has had no influence on what various states and federal courts have done regarding gay marriage. So there is no contradiction or hypocrisy at all in being happy about one of the outcomes and unhappy about another.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Actually, they aren't a package deal.

    Getting gays protected class status was going to happen whether gay marriage was allowed or not.

    Two different things.

  • John||

    Getting gays protected class status was going to happen whether gay marriage was allowed or not.

    Two different things.

    So the fascists were going to win anyway, so you just surrender early and helped them out. How very French of you.

    And since when is "they are going to win anyway" and excuse to help out a bad cause?

  • kbolino||

    So the fascists were going to win anyway, so you just surrender early and helped them out. How very French of you.

    They've already "won". This battle was lost 40+ years ago.

    This argument hinges on the notion that libertarian support for same-sex marriage is decisive to the existence of gays as a protected class. Sure, in a state where it's a closely contested issue, you might be able to make that case. But when we're talking about federal judges, libertarians are irrelevant. We "have" what, 1 or 2 senators? And they're not even members of a libertarian party. Libertarians did not even enable any of this; let alone support it.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    So the fascists were going to win anyway, so you just surrender early and helped them out. How very French of you.

    Non sequitur.

  • John||

    Fransisco,

    You are too stupid to make that judgment. Shut up and let the adults talk you fucking moron.

  • MJGreen||

    Recognizing SSM is a bad cause?

  • Marshall Gill||

    Science that is convoluted! How do you get "equal protection" and fucking "protected class" in the same mother fucking sentence?!!

    Sure, equal protection based on "class".

  • John||

    I don't write the law, Marshal, I just read it. And how you get there is this. The government makes all kinds of disctinctions. It has to to function. The question becomes which distinctions are okay and which ones are not.

    What the courts have done is said that some kinds of distinction, those based on race and religion, are subject to a higher level of scrutiny such that they are more or less prohibited. It is getting being gay into that group that was the entire point of getting courts to mandate gay marriage.

    Its a pretty simple concept, unless you are Fransisco. Then it might as well be quantum physics.

  • Zeb||

    Gays were going to become a protected class in any case. It's a separate fight.

  • John||

    Why do you say that? There is no support for that in Congress. The courts had never been willing to do it. The only way it is happening is through the backdoor of gay marriage. That is why the Left decided to support gay marriage.

  • Zeb||

    Lots of states have done it. I don't see how you wouldn't see that that is the direction things are headed in.

    The problem is the whole notion of protected classes.

  • John||

    Lots of states have done it.

    Not true. Show me one that had. And even if they had, which I am unaware of one that did, it would have had religious conscience exceptions built in that this doesn't have.

  • Zeb||

    Lots have employment and housing anti-discrimination laws at least. You really think that it will never go any further than that?

  • John||

    I don't know Zeb. Regardless, maybe it was a bad idea to help them out.

  • Zeb||

    Maybe. I don't think I helped anyone out, though. I just say what I think. I didn't base any votes on the issue, or go out and campaign for it.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Why do you say that?

    Well, consider that Colorado, where the baker refused the SSM, doesn't allow SSM.

  • JW||

    ou were warned, folks. And you laughed it off, believing that foreseeable consequences wouldn't happen solely because you didn't mean for them to happen. Which is just about the mental level of a five-year-old.

    What about those of us who pretty much knew this would happen, knowing the current cultural/political climate, but didn't give a shit about that argument because actual rights aren't tangential to what malodorous cunts do to abuse those same rights on 3rd parties?

    That makes us at least, what, at the tween level?

  • tarran||

    John calls us retards and says that we "own it". ;)

  • John||

    Not retarded just mendacious. You knew it was going to happen and didn't care. Never once did any Libertarian I have seen ever condition their support for gay marriage on it not turning into this.

    The issue for Libertarians came down to one thing, they like gays and don't like SOCONs so they were perfectly happy to support something they knew would infringe on the rights of people they didn't like.

    That is what Libertarians own. And from now on every one of them who supported gay marriage might as well say "I support rights for people I like first and foremost and for people I don't when it doesn't involve doing anything hard".

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    derp

    *in retard voice*

    Red Tony can't distinguish between equal protection under the law and protected classes.

    *end retard voice*

    Red Tony is a bigot trying to justify his immoral position with unrelated, government induced consequences that will exist regardless of whether gay marriage is legal.

  • John||

    Red Tony can't distinguish between equal protection under the law and protected classes.

    No. They are the same issue. If you don't believe me ask Pro Liberate or RC or anyone else on this board who ever took a CONLAW class.

    You are just wrong on this. And despite any number of threads where it has been explained to you in simple terms, you are too bull headed and too in love with your ideology to listen.

    What exactly are you adding to this debate other than a completely erroneous and idiotic view of equal protection? You are making a complete fool of yourself to anyone who understands the issue. Yelling Red Tony doesn't help you here.

  • Pro Libertate||

    What I will say is that the current lawless state of the law means that any favored class will get favored legal treatment. The more lawless we become, the more blatantly that will be so.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    And on any number of threads I've rebuffed your claim.

    Here is the legal definition of equal protection.

    Please state your rational basis to a legitimate state purpose for not allowing gays to marry.

  • John||

    Please state your rational basis to a legitimate state purpose for not allowing gays to marry.

    No court ever has claimed there is no rational basis. States think marriage is for having children. That wins. Rational basis is so low even the progs don't think gay marriage bans don't pass it.

    The point was to raise the scrutiny to strict scrutiny like you do in cases involving race. And that is making them a protected class and the whole point.

    Just fuck yourself. I can understand you being wrong. But you are so smug and so fucking wrong and so stupid and unable to comprehend much of anything it is just ridiculous.

    You are just not a serious person. You are fucking moron who happens to mouth a few correct talking points. That is it.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Goalpost officially moved....yawn...

    And how many times have gay marriage bans been struck down under 14A. How many have survived the challenge? Um...ZERO!

  • Zeb||

    Here's why that is bullshit. There was no choice between gay marriage and gays not becoming a special protected class. They would have become a protected class with or without legally recognized gay marriage. That was already well on its way to happening before anyone imagined that we would get to the point we are at now so quickly. Libertarians' support or non-support for gay marriage would have made no difference to that at all, even assuming it made any difference at all to the gay marriage debate.

  • John||

    AGain. Zeb that is counter to the facts.

  • Zeb||

    Facts? What about all of the states who have passed anti-discrimination laws that apply to gay people? And you really don't think that federal law would eventually have gotten there?

    The only way to fix it is to get rid of protected classes.

  • John||

    What about all of the states who have passed anti-discrimination laws that apply to gay people?

    Which states? And see what kind of religious exemptions such states have.

  • Zeb||

    here's some

    That's for employment discrimination, but you don't really believe that that's as far as it will go.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    John, I really doubt you have never seen any libertarians say that. I came up to that position on my own when Vermont was debating civil unions back in 1999/2000, and that was 6 years before I even heard the word libertarian. "Let gay people get married if they want, but don't force churches to do it" is a pretty easy concept to come up with, even if it hasn't been the majority view.

  • John||

    "Let gay people get married if they want, but don't force churches to do it" is a pretty easy concept to come up with, even if it hasn't been the majority view.

    It is very hard for people who either really don't care and are happy to see people they don't like get stepped on or people like Fransisco who think "equal protection" means every always gets treated the same.

    This was a real test for Libertarians. It is easy to defend the rights of people you like and identify with you. When it is hard is protecting the rights of people you don't like. And the Libertarians failed. Its that simple.

  • MegaloMonocle||

    "Let gay people get married if they want, but don't force churches to do it" is a pretty easy concept to come up with,

    Its possible, maybe even probable, that SCOTUS will ultimately rule that churches aren't required to be public accommodations for gay marriage.

    That courtesy won't be extended to anyone else, though.

    By then, of course, the hunt will be on for a new group to extend privileges to in order to buy their votes and punish their enemies. And I fully expect way too many "libertarians" to be on board with it, now that they have tasted the sweet nectar of moral superiority enforced with the jackboot.

  • John||

    Of course they will. A good number of Libertarians let their ideology make them stupid.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Freedom is losing on so many fronts, all while I keep reading here how everything is getting better. Government-permitted and regulated privileges do not equal freedom.

  • Aloysious||

    Government-permitted and regulated privileges do not equal freedom.

    So much this.

  • Pro Libertate||

    It's the fundamental flaw of leftists who think ALL STATE is worth it to buy a few of those privileges, and even some "libertarians" who make the same mistake at times.

  • trshmnster the terrible||

    To be fair, sometimes it can be difficult to distinguish between an intermediate step towards liberty and a step in the opposite direction.

    I think that the entire privilege granting process is a step in the wrong direction, but I understand where people may disagree.

    Here's the thing, though. Allowing gay marriage and protected class status (whether those concepts are linked or not) simply grows the marriage and discrimination tendrils of government. This is one of the issues where I see value in zealotry on the part of libertarians. Holding out for delicensing or otherwise detangling marriage from the fedgov is much more principled than incrementally growing the fedgov's personal relationship reach.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Yes, and the same argument goes for getting government out of education.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Except it really isn't that difficult. If you're asking the state to give you a "right" to someone else's decision or action at gunpoint, you aren't pushing for freedom.

  • Robert||

    Government-permitted and regulated privileges do not equal freedom.


    Yes they do. Freedom is quantitative. If you don't think so, then for you freedom is impossible in any society of at least, say, 1,000 people. You'll never get all of them to allow you 100% freedom, which seems to be all you recognize. As long as there's one who's willing & able to steal from you, for instance, you don't have that state.

  • kbolino||

    Government and society are not the same thing, and so your objection is a red herring.

  • robc||

    Im pretty sure there is no natural law right to be issued a license by the state.

  • JW||

    There isn't. But I knew you'd say that.

    But, if you're going to have the state passing them out, they can't discriminate.

    Which has nothing to do with who's gonna do the marryin'.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Fuck, why can't people discriminate? Government I get, but people? We discriminate on any number of characteristics every single day.

  • JW||

    "They" being the state. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

    SLD applies.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Very well then. Carry on with your hate.

  • JW||

    Carry on with your hate.

    "Excellent..."

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Microaggressor!

  • Paul.||

    We discriminate on any number of characteristics every single day.

    "People with discriminating tastes"

    Who knew car companies were racist... and HOMOPHOBIC?!

  • Pro Libertate||

    Fine Corinthian leather? That sounds pro-European and anti-everyone else to me! I demand non-European options!

  • Paul.||

    I demand non-European options!

    Well sir, over here we have this Buick. We also have several other GM cars.

    Look, Mr. Libertate-- can I call you Pro? It's Pro, isn't it? What's it gonna take to get you into a car this afternoon?

    *looks over at your wife, then looks back at you*

  • Pro Libertate||

    I'll take it for $19,000, provided that's my walk-out-of-here price and that you throw in a social justice warranty.

  • Paul.||

    throw in a social justice warranty.

    How about you take the social justice undercoating instead? It's only $400 this week... but only if you buy today.

  • Robert||

    I'm pretty sure there is no natural law right to be issued a license by the state.


    That's one I can vouch for.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    I was hoping for pubescent 14 year old at least.

  • Marshall Gill||

    It is almost as if the government recognition of personal relationships had nothing to do with Liberty.

  • Homple||

    "Unless you want the State to get into the business of saying what a "real" church is and what isn't."

    The state is already in that business through allowing or disallowing tax exemptions. The IRS is the Pope in this matter.

  • Zeb||

    This is why we need a very broad interpretation of religious freedom. No one should be forced to do anything that could violate anyone's religious freedom.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    If you go that far, you have to be anarchist. Every law can violate someone's religious principles, even murder.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Tlaloc needs those childrens' hearts and tears!

  • Zeb||

    Sorry, I figured people would assume the "unless it violates another person's rights" part. Of course in that case, you have instant minarchy, so the courts will never do that either. But that's really the only way to have religious freedom. As long as top men are deciding what counts as religious activity, there can be no real religious freedom. Special exceptions to laws for religion are anathema to religious freedom.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Then you are actually saying that the religious freedom doesn't matter, since you can violate it (which is fine). The correct statement is "Force should only be used to stop someone from violating another person's rights."

  • robc||

    My broad interpretation of religious freedom says that state licensing of marriages is a violation of the 1st amendment.

  • Paul.||

    Religious freedom is a sideshow. It's about freedom.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    No one should be forced to do anything that could violate anyone's religious freedom morals.

    Given a general codification of the NAP and property rights, this would be acceptable.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    This, thank you.

  • Zeb||

    Or perhaps "No one should be forced to do anything. Period."

  • Rich||

    If the minister is required to conduct a ceremony that contains religious language, that would violate the Establishment Clause as well.

    With all due respect, what is "religious language"?

    Can the minister say "Dearly Beloved"? "Brothers and Sisters"? "Universe"?

  • ||

    All of this type of shit has only one purpose. It's to turn differing groups of people against each other so that they fight among themselves and ignore the criminals who are now in charge of our government, lest they see the guy behind the curtain and start calling for heads on pikes.

  • Faceless Commenter||

    Hear, hear.

  • Zeb||

    Which type of shit are you referring to?

  • Robert||

    You could just as well say it's to turn people against each other so they don't have time to become criminals. What makes you sure that if those people weren't fighting each other, they wouldn't unite to get your head on a pike?

  • Pro Libertate||

    You know, doesn't this line of reasoning give gays and any similarly treated protected class a huge veto power? Deny service to a gay person for any reason and face claims of discrimination? Where does this end?

  • Rich||

    Ah, but what if that violates the religious beliefs of the people being shoveled?

  • ||

    Don't worry, white debils and the patriarchy(white males, christians, tea baggers, libertarians, etc.) don't have rights. Rights are for the oppressed and their savior ruling class. Now if they can just get rid of them joos...

  • Lord Humungus||

    people cake.

  • ||

    Hansel and Gretel?

  • Paul.||

    From where I stand, it appears they already have that veto power.

  • OldMexican||

    It's not a church, per se.


    What did I tell you in the AM Links? That Reason will report on this while at the same time obfuscate the issue by saying "well, it isn't really a church..."

    I have the power of prescience!

  • Rich||

    You should start a church!

  • Slammer||

    I was just going to quote your post ;)

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Well the first amendment does say right of incorporated non profit religious institutions shall not be infringed...

  • Robert||

    If this wedding service is a small business that doesn't have silent investors, they may be better off reorganizing as a church & paying themselves for their work. Some of their compensation could even become tax-exempt parsonage, but even if none of it is, it gets their business out from under crap like this.

  • OldMexican||

    We can argue whether baking a cake or taking photographs constitutes putting a stamp of approval on a wedding[...]


    And the arguing would be a complete waste of time, as always, since the issue is not if people are entitled to a cake or a photo but what constitutes property and freedom of association; to compel a person to engage in trade against his will is a violation of both: it is thievery even if the person or persons engaging in the forced trade are paying, and it is slavery.

    Now I expect Tony to come here to explain to me that slavery means being dragged from Africa to America in chains and not the unjustified privation of liberty in 3... 2... 1...

  • WillMG||

    Shame Goldwater isn't around. He was worried about nonsense like this against private business back in the '60s with the Civil Rights Act.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Fuck, why can't people discriminate?

    *clutches chest, falls to floor*

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Scott Shackford,

    For heaven's sake, folks, don't try dragging somebody in to marry the two of you who doesn't want to marry the two of you.


    I don't think you understand what is going on yet, Mr. Shackford. This isn't about practicality. This isn't about supporting someone's competition when that someone refuses to comply or perform. This isn't about market forces.

    This is about COMPULSION. This is about COERCION. This is about POWER.

    Did you really think the gay couple who placed the complaint cares about your argument? Did you really think that this case is about righting a perceived wrong and not punishing an unbeliever, to make him or her see who is running the show? Did you really think this was not about VENGEANCE?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    One argument that might work is framing this as "Why do you insist on funding bigots?"

  • Paul.||

    It's about punishment. The idea that a gay couple can't get married because this church won't perform it is ludicrous. These are just like the ADA suits where a potential business is identified by lawyers, then the "victim" is sent in precisely to find violations. These suits are crafted for the specific function of punishing a political opposition.

    The state is compelled to issue marriage licenses to all comers. The issue is finished. Done. Fin. Es Todo. No mas. El Punto Final.

    This continued flogging doesn't address gay marriage in any way shape or form. It merely addresses people in the community that disagree with you. That's it, nothing more.

  • Tony||

    Yep, the gays are running the show. We denied ourselves equal rights just so we could come along later and slap our dicks in the faces of clergymen. Soon we will have UNLIMITED POWER. Today gay marriage, tomorrow blowing up Alderaan just for the lulz.

    And it's really just because we hate freedom. Just a taste issue. Yuck freedom. You are not allowed pleated trousers and you are not allowed freedom, because the gays say so.

    Nevermind that your definition of freedom is a society in which government goons drag people from lunch counters because they are black or gay.

  • WTF||

    Nevermind that your definition of freedom is a society in which government goons drag people from lunch counters because they are black or gay.

    Blacks getting dragged from lunch counters happened because of Jim Crow LAWS, passed and enforced by THE GOVERNMENT.

    Holy shit, you are more retarded every day.

  • Tony||

    It is a pretty weird assumption on your part that bigots are somehow less likely to try to influence public policy than others. I'd think they'd be more likely if anything, given their irrationally strong feelings.

    It remains true that to favor a right to discriminate, you're endorsing an entitlement to employ cops in enforcing discrimination. Does it not?

  • WTF||

    What you've just said... is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever seen. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having seen it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul...

  • MegaloMonocle||

    Its astonishing, really, that so many are still in denial about gay marriage - equal protection - privileged class, when it is playing out right in front of their eyes.

    C'mon, Scott. Admit it. This is playing out the way some of us predicted it would, and not in the way you hoped it would. Just admit it.

    Then you can move on to saying either (a) I was wrong and can no longer support gay marriage as an EP right because it is both intellectually dishonest and leads to violation of freedom or (b) yeah, fuck you bitter clingers, gay marriage is more important that your rights of association, speech, and religion.

    Which is it, Scott? Because you are running out of room, here. These are the two sides, just as you have been told since the beginning. There is no longer the option of supporting gay marriage, so long as other people's rights aren't violated.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Exhaulting teh gays is much more important than your petty 'rights' of religion, association and free expression.

    / Cosmo

  • Tony||

    A handful of friends of mine are now married, and just a few years ago they never thought they'd be allowed to get married.

    You will never, ever be affected by that in your entire life, unless you insist on getting your panties in a twist for no reason other than being a malcontent.

    There is no reasonable argument against marriage equality. Public accommodation is a separate argument altogether, and gays are still working on having the same rights as racial minorities in that regard. Which is to say, some more-or-less equivalence to the access to all aspects of society that straight white guys get 100% of the time no questions asked no bitching and no moaning, ever.

  • John||

    Your friends are as stupid as you are Tony. They could have gone to another state and gotten married or they could have just gotten married and said fuck the state. All they really wanted was to shove their boot on someone's throat.

    But we already knew you are a fascist piece of shit Tony. You don't need to remind us all of the time.

  • Tony||

    Why is getting the same rights as straight people shoving a boot on people's throat, but denying equal rights is freedom?

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Why is getting the same rights as straight people shoving a boot on people's throat, but denying equal rights is freedom?


    YOU DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO SOMEONE'S LABOR, YOU MORON!

    You don't have a right to being wed by someone who doesn't want to.

  • Tony||

    But you have a right to the labor of cops who will be escorting stubborn gay couples out of the Hitching Post?

    Note that I have not expressed an opinion either way on this specific issue (if you must know I think religious freedom should trump). But don't throw out nonsense like "no right to someone else's labor." If you think you are entitled to a right, then you think you are entitled to the labor of the people who enforce that right.

  • fuck you Belinda Carlisle||

    "But you have a right to the labor of cops who will be escorting stubborn gay couples out of the Hitching Post?"

    For...trespassing I guess?

    You're against trespassing? Are you drunk?

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    But you have a right to the labor of cops who will be escorting stubborn gay couples out of the Hitching Post?


    I TOLD you, I don't need no stinkin' cops. You keep asking a question that has been answered many times.

    But don't throw out nonsense like "no right to someone else's labor."


    It's not nonsense and you're an idiot for saying that it is nonsense, as if you worked for no remuneration.

    If you think you are entitled to a right,


    I don't. Your argument is thus baseless. I already have my rights (life, liberty and property), so I don't feel entitled to them or need to lay a claim on them. They're already mine.

    then you think you are entitled to the labor of the people who enforce that right.


    That doesn't even follow. If I feel entitled to something, I can always take it myself.

    Second fallacy: If there are people in the business of enforcing your rights, as you said, then saying that you're entitled to those services is a cliché, not an argument.

  • Mark22||

    But you have a right to the labor of cops who will be escorting stubborn gay couples out of the Hitching Post?

    They are trespassing, he paid his taxes, and he is law-abiding. What's so hard to understand about that?

  • perlhaqr||

    Who said anything about having a right to someone else's labor?

    He said his friends could finally get married. He didn't say his friends went out and found someone who didn't want to do it to perform the ceremony, in a place they weren't wanted.

    As an ordained minister, for years I was prohibited by the state from performing wedding ceremonies for homosexual couples. And this is the status quo that you and John seem to be supporting, because of the tangential issue of CRA 1965.

  • cavalier973||

    Straight people had a right to marry someone of the same sex, but homosexual people didn't?

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    A handful of friends of mine are now married, and just a few years ago they never thought they'd be allowed to get married.


    Congratulations to them.

    You will never, ever be affected by that in your entire life


    Never say Never.

    , unless you insist on getting your panties in a twist for no reason other than being a malcontent.


    What did I tell you, folks? That this is not about righting a perceived wrong but to punish the UNREPENTANT.

    It takes a little bit of time before the cultural Marxists open their mouths to let us know what they're really thinking. This is a religious crusade for them.

  • ClipperMiami||

    "For heaven's sake, folks, don't try dragging somebody in to marry the two of you who doesn't want to marry the two of you. It's supposed to be the happiest day of your life. "

    Because it has nothing whatsoever to do with "marriage" and "happy days" all al that ... it has to do with forcing people to bend to YOUR will or punishing them for not dosing so.

    Tolerance is no longer sufficient, active participation is now required.

  • Tony||

    The homophobes will die off and be remembered with contempt just as the racists. If you insist on making this a battle to the death, why choose the losing side when it's so obvious which side that will be?

  • ||

    We're not choosing the losing side. We're defending the rights of all sides to be treated equally under the law.
    Gays have the right to get married. Bigots have the right to not bake them cakes. What is so unfair about that?

  • Tony||

    It's unfair because in reality straight people will never have to suffer that indignity. But to me it's not about fairness, it's about for which purpose we're deploying taxpayer funded government goons: forcing public accommodations not to discriminate on sexual orientation, or dragging gays out of public accommodations because the proprietors are bigots. That's what having a right means--government enforces it.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    It's unfair because in reality straight people will never have to suffer that indignity.


    What a stupid thing to say. Can you get married in a Catholic church by a Catholic priest if you're NOT Catholic? You're quite the solipsist, Tony.

    it's about for which purpose we're deploying taxpayer funded government goons: forcing public accommodations not to discriminate on sexual orientation, or dragging gays out of public accommodations because the proprietors are bigots.


    How about NEITHER, Tony? Government doesn't have to be everywhere. The government is NOT God and people are NOT little children. Or maybe I spoke too soon in regards to you.

  • sarcasmic||

    The government is NOT God and people are NOT little children.

    Not to him.

  • Tony||

    Explain how neither is an option. You want proprietors of businesses that cater to the public to have the legal right to discriminate against customers based on race and sexual orientation. If they have that legal right, that means they get to call the cops to drag people out for being black or gay. I pay for those cops, and I don't want to pay for that.

  • WTF||

    First off, the retarded don't rule the night. They don't rule it. Nobody does. And they don't run in packs. And while they may not be as strong as apes, don't lock eyes with 'em, don't do it. Puts 'em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows. You might be screaming "No, no, no" and all they hear is "Who wants cake?" Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.

  • fuck you Belinda Carlisle||

    "If they have that legal right, that means they get to call the cops to drag people out for being black or gay. "

    Nope, I don't need the cops to escort trespassers off my property. And as a defense of slavery, Tony, that was pretty fucking weak.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Explain how neither is an option.


    You can take your business somewhere else.

    Lack of imagination, or just plain laziness, is part of a little red Marxian's job description, I surmise.

    You want proprietors of businesses that cater to the public to have the legal right to discriminate against customers based on race and sexual orientation.


    Or because of body smell or excess hair or whatever the reason. The reason is meaningless as it is THEIR goods or services, Tony - NOT mine or yours.

  • ||

    Are you also against paying for cops to protect neo-Nazi marches from people who want to throw bricks at them?

    I mean, hey it's all about WHICH SIDE the government deploys it's force on and I want it to be on MY SIDE, so let's just say the cops should be throwing bricks at neo-Nazis instead of protecting them from brick throwers.

    Racism is Bad! Therefore it should be ok to stone racists without government intervention.

  • Tony||

    I'm not making an argument about whether it's OK to employ cops to protect rights. I assume that's true. I'm making the argument that some libertarians fail to realize that they are arguing for employing cops to protect rights same as everyone else, except they're claiming they're taking the clearly nonaggressive position.

  • ||

    But to me it's not about fairness, it's about for which purpose we're deploying taxpayer funded government goons: forcing public accommodations not to discriminate on sexual orientation, or dragging gays out of public accommodations because the proprietors are bigots

    Are you not saying in this statement that you think government goon deployment should depend only on what you morally approve of or disapprove of?

  • An Innocent Man||

    So trespassing would no longer be a crime? If they were dragged out it would be because they were trespassing and refused the officers' requests to obey a lawful order and leave. Is this really that hard for you?

  • WTF||

    Tony is either retarded, completely dishonest, or some combination of both.

  • sarcasmic||

    ony is either retarded, completely dishonest, or some combination of both.

    Yes.

  • Tony||

    I'm not saying trespassing shouldn't be a crime, I'm saying you guys need to stop being disingenuous and claiming that the rights you are supporting don't come with any government goons. They do. You can't escape that fact. So stop with the whole jackboot-on-neck thing. I tend to sympathize more with the black guy being dragged out by cops for the crime of being black at the wrong lunch counter than I do the proprietor employing them for such. But I'm a normal human being.

  • Restoras||

    Well, the black guy is employing them too so it's a wash, right?

  • Tony||

    Only in a hypothetical alternate universe in which the likelihood of being dragged from a lunch counter because of your race was equal regardless of your race. In such a universe, the public accommodation law might not be necessary. Active racism is a legitimate target of government action because of the problem of having a racial underclass, not because people are thinking the wrong thoughts.

  • WTF||

    See? Completely retarded, with a soupcon of dishonesty thrown in for flavor. Or maybe he really is so stupid he can't see it. Whatever.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm saying you guys need to stop being disingenuous and claiming that the rights you are supporting don't come with any government goons.

    The right to say "No, I do not want to do business with you" doesn't require government goons.

  • Tony||

    What if the patron insists?

  • sarcasmic||

    What if the patron insists?

    Then they are trespassing, which is a separate issue.

  • trshmnster the terrible||

    What if the patron insists?

    The same thing that happens when a "patron" insists on forcing me into the "free electonics" business at my own residence. I invoke the "castle doctrine" and employ force in a way consistent with state law.

  • ||

    So rights should depend on which person we LIKE better?

  • Tony||

    In this case it's a genuine conflict of rights claims. You either protect the right of the bigot to discriminate or you protect the right of the patron to be free from discrimination. The latter was chosen as more valuable to society. Libertarians think the opposite. I don't know why, because as I've been saying neither side has the angels of nonaggression on its side.

  • ||

    Bullshit. You just said that nobody has a right to discriminate because the government defines all the rights.

    My question is how do we define rights? And more importantly, how do we define them in a consistent, fair, and EQUAL way?
    If the customer is free to discriminate against businesses they disapprove of, then the business should be free to discriminate against customers they disapprove of. That is equality.
    If some people have freedom of association and other people don't that is not equality.

  • sarcasmic||

    Libertarians think the opposite. I don't know why...

    Because one comes with an implied threat of force and the other does not.

    Can you tell which is which?

    No, no you probably cannot.

  • Restoras||

    That's what having a right means--government enforces it

    So, in a situation where say the government is forcing the citizens to comply with a law that violates a basic right, that basic right in fact doesn't exist?

  • Tony||

    You have to define "exist." If no people are allowed to practice a right, does it exist? Or does it exist as long as people can imagine it? Do I, thus, have a right to ride a unicorn to Jupiter?

    This is not a particularly fruitful discussion to me because it's about the meanings of words and thus rests on tautologies, but libertarians sure do obsess over it.

  • WTF||

    Sometimes that Derptard, he looks right into you. Right into your eyes. You know the thing about a Derptard, he's got... lifeless eyes, black eyes, like a doll's eye. When he comes at ya, doesn't seem to be livin'.

  • ||

    I get that you are not a natural rights person. Ok.

    But does that mean that all right have to be defined by what we morally approve of? You want the police to only be used to defend activities you morally approve of. You've stated that flat out. So basically you are saying that nobody should have a right to do things you morally disapprove of. How does that make you different than the people who created laws against sodomy and homosexuality years ago?

  • Tony||

    I am only different in that my moral claims are better. But you don't get to opt out of the decision--either you enforce discrimination or you enforce freedom from discrimination. What's the nonaggressive third way?

    But you're not wrong to point out that all law is fundamentally based on some moral claims winning out over others. A liberal society does not take a legally enforceable position on all moral questions, of course. But in many cases, including this one, it doesn't have a choice. Laws against sodomy are different in that there's generally no private actor barging into bedrooms trying to enforce an anti-sodomy morality. But at a basic level, it really is about one moral system (secular liberalism) winning out over another (theocratic douchebaggery). It has always been so.

  • ||

    I am only different in that my moral claims are better.

    Surely you realize that THEY thought that THEIR moral claims were better.
    You aren't different at all. You are exactly the same.

    The advance that secular liberalism brought about was in fact to allow people with different moral views their own private spheres in which they could act on those views. That includes the right to discriminate against people with different moral views. What you are doing isn't really secular liberalism, it is effectively the same as an establishment of religion. You are forcing other people to live according to your moral values, because you think your moral values are superior.

  • Restoras||

    Meanings of words are critical to thinking, reasoning, and understanding. Don't pretend you don't believe that.

    You believe in basic rights too, Tony.

    You believe you have the right to not go hungry. I don't but fair enough, the example will do. What you believe is that if the government decides you don't have that right then you are obliged to starve to death - since that right now no longer exists you're only recourse is to not eat until you die.

  • Tony||

    The right not to go hungry in practical reality means that government subsidizes food for people who can't otherwise access it. It would be unnecessary if food were magically always available to everyone, but that's not the case.

  • Restoras||

    Correct. And if the government decided the right no longer existed then it would be under no obligation to provide subsidies, and hungry people would starve.

  • trshmnster the terrible||

    Do I, thus, have a right to ride a unicorn to Jupiter?

    Yep. There's nothing controversial about that right. What is controversial is whether you can realize that right.

    I have the right to date a supermodel. That right in no way guarantees me a date. It only precludes the government from preventing me from going on that date, should hell freeze over.

    There's a difference between not preventing and actively enabling. One protects a right, the other creates a privilege.

  • Restoras||

    In Tonyland, privileges and rights are the same thing depending on what the government says.

  • Tony||

    I understand that there is a semantic distinction between not preventing and enabling, but I don't think there is a meaningful one with respect to a theory of government minimalism--especially one that allows for property rights enforcement, which is one of the rights at the heart of this debate. A business owner using public resources to enable his ability to run a business (having cops show up to boot out trespassers, for one) is by your definition a privilege.

  • trshmnster the terrible||

    Dismissing the difference between not preventing and enabling as mere semantic difference dismisses the entirety of the debate away. Not preventing (aka negative rights) are non-coercive. Enabling (aka privileges) are coercive.

    The entirety of the libertarian movement hinges on the fact that a right is only a right if it involves action (or forebearance) by consenting parties only. For example, if a baker consents (absent force or fraud) to bake you a cake, you have a right to the cake sans government interference. Otherwise, you merely have a privilege, which is subject to the tides of public opinion, coercion, and other negative influences. For example, if a Baker does not consent to bake you a cake, but is forced to by the government.

    Without acknowledging that distinction, you simply beg the question over and over and over.

    Regarding trespass, one general privilege that is not often disputed is the privilege to have police stop people from infringing your rights, including your right to exclusive control of your property. This is a very pragmatic privilege, thus it's uncontroversial nature. Generally, there is not a preprescribed proportionality between right violation and reactionary force. Having a neutral, (supposedly) level-headed arbiter is a practical way to avoid capital punishment for minor rights transgressions. IOW, it's better for the black guy to be dragged off by the cops than for him to be at the mercy of the racist.

  • Brian||

    Tony:

    A business owner using public resources to enable his ability to run a business (having cops show up to boot out trespassers, for one) is by your definition a privilege.

    Bullshit.

    Email from customer: "Hi, I'm a black gay guy, and I want a big, black, gay wedding cake."
    Website response: "I'm sorry. I don't make big black gay wedding cakes."
    Email from customer: "Oh yeah? We'll, I'm going to email you like 100 times an hour until I get my big black wedding cake!"
    Website response: "OK, I'm going to tell my email server to redirect all emails from you to oblivion. You enjoy yourself."

    Exactly where does the privilege of having cops show up to boot trespassers come into play?

    Or how about this example:

    Customer: "Oh, yeah? Well, I'm not leaving your store until I get my big, black, gay wedding cake!"
    Store owner: "Knock yourself out." Or "Watch this" as he kicks them out.

    In short, I don't need the government to discriminate against customers just because, if I want to have them thrown out for trespassing, I may avail myself of the police. First, I don't need the state to throw them out for trespassing at all.

    Y try to pretend that everyone's availing themselves of some government "privilege" (which, conveniently, is always something that have no choice but to pay for, support or have available) and then claim "See? They use public resources. Therefore, everything about it is open for debate." Not really. It's just lazy arguing.

  • Live Free or Die||

    I don't understand your argument. You're saying business owners lose their rights to freedom of association because they use public resources. Just about every citizen uses some public resource so can the government strip them of their rights? Why does the fact that a business owner uses public resources mean that they can lose rights when their customers also use public resources but keep their rights? It makes no sense to me.

  • cavalier973||

    If no people are allowed to practice a right, does it exist? Or does it exist as long as people can imagine it? Do I, thus, have a right to ride a unicorn to Jupiter?

    Just as long as I am not compelled to provide the unicorn.

  • cavalier973||

    Because, you know, I hate unicorns. Unnatural, God-forsaken perverts.

  • ||

    How about we let the proprieters hire a bouncer to throw people out.

  • Sosalty||

    "It's unfair because in reality straight people will never have to suffer that indignity."

    There need not be a conflict of rights here. One group is actively seeking out opportunities for the conflict, the other is practicing their right in a peaceful manner.

    Any indignity would be the result of attempting to force another to forego their religious freedom and getting turned away. Don't try to state the religious sought out bigoted activities when it's clear that the Gay couple (or some activist group) pushed this and are the aggressors of bigotry.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    The homophobes will die off and be remembered with contempt just as the racists.


    I beg to differ - bigots live forever, those that think in terms of groups. Like you, for instance.

    And don't tell me I'm wrong. You have accused me of atomistic thinking, by which you're NOT wrong but also you set yourself as a tomist - i.e. someone who thinks in terms of groups, you bigot.

  • Tony||

    It doesn't make sense to have a conversation about public policy and not talk about groups. If we were all islands, we could all set our own policy. Since we have to interact with other people, any policy we set will affect others. Realize that I think I'm on the side of individual freedom and that you're not, no matter what you say.

  • WTF||

    Realize that I think I'm on the side of individual freedom and that you're not, no matter what you say.

    We realize you are too retarded to understand what individual freedom actually is.

  • Tony||

    Is it something they teach in kindergarten? Because that's about the level you've raised this discussion to.

  • Restoras||

    Tony, if you wait until the thread has gone cold to make your points then you won't have to bother replying.

  • sarcasmic||

    We realize you are too retarded to understand what individual freedom actually is.

    He supports individuals having the freedom to force bigots to do things against their will! Freedom is power! Power to the people!

  • WTF||

    Yes! How can you be free if you are not free to force others to bend to your will and do things for you?
    Freedom is slavery!

  • kbolino||

    Realize that I think I'm on the side of individual freedom and that you're not, no matter what you say.

    Then go masturbate in the corner by yourself instead of subjecting the rest of us to it.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    It doesn't make sense to have a conversation about public policy and not talk about groups.


    What did I just say? You're a bigot.

    If we were all islands, we could all set our own policy.


    Non Sequitur. Even islands trade and deal with each other in peace.

    Since we have to interact with other people, any policy we set will affect others.


    I'm very tired of your Petitio Principii arguments, Tony. You keep framing all discussions around the inevitability of the State, which ipso facto turns any of your propositions into fallacies. It makes for very boring reading.

    I think I'm on the side of individual freedom and that you're not,


    I've heard that many times from propagandists that it makes me puke: "We're for real Democracy!" - Marxians. "We're for real Markets!" - Keynesians. "We're for the rights of the People!" - authoritarians.

  • kbolino||

    The homophobes will die off and be remembered with contempt just as the racists. If you insist on making this a battle to the death, why choose the losing side when it's so obvious which side that will be?

    Ah, here comes the communist to rush in and praise the Cultural Revolution.

  • MegaloMonocle||

    The homophobes will die off

    Ah, and as this result is desirable, then hurrying it along would also be desirable, I suppose?

  • kbolino||

    Welfare for those who agree with me, death for those who don't!

  • trshmnster the terrible||

    It's those damn Jews Kulaks racists homophobes, ruining everything for the Enlightened.

  • ||

    I think the analysis that RFRA would probably take care of this is sound.

    Although there is a pretty strong contradiction between the idea that you CAN force someone to bake a cake for a gay wedding, but you can't force them to actually SAY THINGS that support the wedding.

    What's really the difference between forcing someone to perform actions with their hands, and forcing them to perform actions with their mouth?

    Havn't we long recognized that a non-verbal action can be "speech"? If baking a cake with a burning American flag on it is speech, then why is baking a cake with two grooms on the top not speech?
    Isn't cake decoration a form of artistic expression?

  • John||

    Of course it is. And as RC points out above not discriminating means more than just serving or hiring people. It means not creating a hostile environment. And that is going to prohibit a whole lot of speech.

  • ||

    Actually there is a pretty good solution to this.

    You could say all they have to provide is an undecorated cake with no writing or figurines. The gay couple can pop the grooms on top themselves. Or do the writing of the names themselves.

  • Paul.||

    I agree with your overall sentiment but we trap ourselves when we frame this as "religious" freedom. The idea that you can only have freedom if you have some documented and state recognized religious objection to being forced into labor by a third party is dubious.

    A gay organization has (in my opinion) an absolute right to deny employment to someone they politically disagree with. Religion be damned.

    If society decides that individuals literally have no right to withhold their labor, we're entering a very scary place indeed.

  • ||

    Yes, freedom of conscience should be universally recognized, regardless of whether it is religiously based.

    It's like if you object to being drafted into a war for totally rational secular reasons, that doesn't count. It only counts when you are doing it because God spoke to you in the form of a Dog and told you it was wrong.

  • Paul.||

    . It only counts when you are doing it because God spoke to you in the form of a Dog and told you it was wrong.

    The good thing about that is if your dog is speaking to you you'll probably get a Section 8.

  • BuSab Agent||

    I am a pagan priestess. I have performed gay marriages, however I fully support the right of religious folks of all denominations to not be forced to do something they feel is wrong, because I want the right to not be forced to do something that I feel is wrong. The actions that I feel are wrong and that a Christian feels are wrong are two different spheres but the force of government used to violate our beliefs is the same.

  • AKCharle||

    Well you hit the nail on the head with the comment scolding gays to stop badgering, intimidating, and bulling people who do not agree with them. But the problem is badgering, intimidating, and bulling is what some elements of this group are out to do. They don't care if they win the case or not they just want the attention. Why? Who knows. It's infantile and annoying in "adults".

  • Tony||

    We learned it from watching Christians do it to us for centuries.

  • kbolino||

    We learned it from watching Christians do it to us for centuries.

    You're the Highlander now, are you?

  • WTF||

    And here you see the real motivation as well, using the coercive power of the state to punish those who dared to disagree with them.

  • Paul.||

    The contradictions of this are so easy to see, I'm a bit shocked that the people pushing it don't see it as well.

    Imagine for a moment that you're a consulting firm that caters specifically to LGBT businesses. Then Chick-Fil-A attempts to engage your firm to help boost sales and image. Given what we're seeing with this utterly tangential issue to gay marriage (but which is being framed as a gay marriage issue), your firm would HAVE to provide consulting services.

    The state has no moral ground to demand that any individual or group of individuals who have formed an association must "like" another because of some ephemeral goal of social harmony.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Well, if you think about where this goes, Nazism is no less legal than being a homosexual. So Nazi weddings can be compelled in synagogues.

  • ||

    Well according to Tony, he doesn't want to pay for cops to force synagogues to perform Nazi weddings, so he's totally fine THAT not being a right.

    Tony thinks that forced used to compell people to do things he thinks are good is ok, and forced used to allow people to do things he things are bad is wrong. So basically he thinks that the correct system is one in which cops force people to do all the things he morally approved of and stop them from doing all the things he morally disapproves of. To him, Rights are basically about how much power you have to force people to obey your will.

  • ||

    s/forced/force

  • An Innocent Man||

    Can a Starbucks in an open-carry state refuse me service if I walk in carrying?

  • Paul.||

    Yes.

  • An Innocent Man||

    I was called a segregationist on the Volokh comments because I oppose forcing people to associate with me that don't want to associate with me.

    It's shit like this that is going to make me withdraw my at-present unequivocal support for the movement.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    A handful of friends of mine are now married, and just a few years ago they never thought they'd be allowed to get married.

    If those people's feelings of self worth are contingent on the validation of their lives by some government bureaucrat, they're too fucking pathetic and worthless for me to give a shit about.

  • Tony||

    It's really none of my business that you've never been married or intend to get married. Hey, I'm with you, but I'm not going to make assumptions about your emotional state based on that choice. Some people find value in marriage. No skin off my back. It is constitutionally necessary that people have equal protection of the law, though.

  • kbolino||

    No skin off my back.

    But if they're paying less in taxes than they would individually, then it is skin off your back, isn't it? I mean, you're the guy who says tax breaks are handouts, so everyone who minimizes his tax burden is taking skin off your back, right?

  • Tony||

    Totally fair point. Ending the marriage subsidy is a truly noble aim. I do suggest waiting a while after gay people have finally gotten equal rights before arguing for sweeping the right away, for the sake of appearances. You don't want your movement to be associated with that of the bigots. Won't do you any good.

  • kbolino||

    Truly, your vacuous superficiality never ceases to amaze.

  • ||

    It's all about appearances with progressives. Social signalling and all that. One must make a big display of one's social conscience in order to show everyone else how right-thinking one is.

  • Tony||

    I made an explicitly practical suggestion. Don't associate your movement with that of bigots. You're likely to get nowhere that way.

  • kbolino||

    I made an explicitly practical suggestion. Don't associate your movement with that of bigots. You're likely to get nowhere that way.

    The left has associated with bigots and thugs for 100+ years and I'd hardly say they've gotten "nowhere".

  • An Innocent Man||

    It is constitutionally necessary that people have equal protection of the law, though.

    Agreed. How about, "No person shall be compelled to associate with any person that they don't want to." There, now we're all equal in the eyes of the law. See how simple that is?

  • Tony||

    I fully support you and Rand Paul making a federal case out of repealing the public accommodation piece of the CRA. It's so simple, and so freedomy. Why on earth does he pretend he never said that?

  • kbolino||

    Why on earth does he pretend he never said that?

    He never said he opposed every aspect of the Civil Rights Act, only the provisions concerning private, non-state actors. Since you are too stupid/mendacious to understand/admit that the government was the primary enforcer of racism prior to the 1960s, you of course do not understand the nuance of that position nor the importance of the CRA outside of its use as a cudgel to use against undesirables.

  • Tony||

    He said clearly that he believes that even public accommodations should be allowed to practice discrimination. He was embarrassed to say so but did anyway because he's just that principled. Now he just bitches that he was ever asked the question (talk about entitled).

    I get the argument, really. And I've said about a hundred times that the argument is not, in fact, more pro-freedom for individuals. Either you protect the individual right of business owners to discriminate or you protect the individual right of customers to be free of discrimination (a real social problem at the time, a real harm to them).

  • kbolino||

    So you make a lot of baseless assertions then get upset when people call you out.

    Rand Paul made a narrow and valid criticism of one part of the CRA which he has not repudiated. He has certainly done his best to make it clear that he is not supportive of businesses that discriminate, but it is their right to do so.

    There is no right to force somebody else to do something for you against their will, so it's not a conflict of rights, it's a conflict of a right and an entitlement.

  • Paul.||

    At least we have an admission that we're just hanging the other villagers because they did it to us. Not because there's any justice or righteousness in it.

    It's good to know humanity remains relatively unchanged since medieval times.

  • sarcasmic||

    I supported same sex marriage when I naively thought it was about legal protections for same sex couples. Then I realized it was all about initiating force against people who disagree, and the movement lost my support.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    You make me sad sarc.

    Two separate issues. I can be for equal protection for blacks and be against the Civil Rights Act.

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    How can you not see that in practical terms, "equal protection" means affirmative action, as well as forcing people to provide their labor against their will?

    DO you really think that the people pushing "equal protection" laws really want equal protection and not special privileges?

    Free speech zones, free contraception, forcing businesses to provide services... I mean, as such an intelligent poster, how are you note seeing this?

  • perlhaqr||

    Because the words mean different things, and we're supposed to be intelligent enough here to make the distinction?

    I mean, is it really that difficult to grasp the nuance of "I support the right of Bob's Confederate Diner to not hire or serve black people, because it's Bob's business, but I think that his choice to do so makes him an asshole and I'll never eat there, and I will suggest that others do the same."

    This is effectively the precise opposite of that. "equal protection under the law" means that the government cannot treat people differently. They can't have different laws for black people, or Chinese people, or gay people. Someone who takes a paycheck made out of tax money cannot discriminate against certain people, for whatever reason, during the performance of their job. If the state is going to issue marriage licenses (whether or not them doing so is a good thing or not) then they should issue them to any two consenting adults who apply for one, irrespective of their genders. (Not to ignore the plight of the polygamists, but there is actually a concrete difference between issuing a license to form a partnership between two people, and doing so for three+ people.)

    Affirmative action, protected classes for private business, etc; These are not required corollaries to equal protection. They have historically in this country accompanied them, but there is no logical necessity that they do so.

  • MegaloMonocle||

    I can be for equal protection for blacks and be against the Civil Rights Act.

    Theoretically, yes. But, given the way the law has evolved, you really don't have that choice any more.

    By pursuing this as an equal protection claim in our legal system, you must necessarily argue that gays are entitled to protected class status, because that's the only way, in our legal system today, to win an equal protection argument.

    Its a package deal.

    And even if you don't buy the legal analysis, the facts on the ground (namely, all these lawsuits against private parties) should convince you that, in reality, that's the way it works.

    As you were warned. Seriously, saying "I didn't mean for this to happen" after you were warned it would, cuts no ice.

  • trshmnster the terrible||

    This is where the disconnect is at. "equal protection" has a layman's meaning and a legal meaning. The layman's meaning has an implied "under the law" as a suffix. The legal meaning has an implied "as enforced and monitored by the government" as a suffix.

  • AKCharle||

    Look at it this way, what if a group wanted to sacrifice their children to Molech? Would the gov't say to the Christian churches, you must build an alter and accommodate these people irregardless of you belief system. Your open for Christians, you must be open for this group. Same thing, in the mind and heart of a Christian it will come to the same result. Our God would disown us and cast us out, and rightly so. God is sinless and cannot fellowship with sinners. Unless you have accepted the sacrifice of Jesus as atonement for your sins, repented of your sins, and live a life in obedience to Gods law, to love your neighbor as yourself and love the Lord your God with your whole heart, soul, mind, and strength, you are separated like tares from the wheat and cast out to be burned up. I know this sounds hard to some people but as Christians we understand and accept the need for this kind of separation from deliberate sin. Being forced to sin is a death sentence to us.

  • Tony||

    Love thy neighbors, just not the gay ones? But they increased your property value!

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Love thy neighbors, just not the gay ones?


    You don't have to love anybody, just respect their humanity by not committing acts of aggression against them - not taking their stuff, not hitting them or molesting them, not physically hurting them or murdering them. That's it.

  • Tony||

    Unless they have the temerity to step into a restaurant without the knowledge that the owner is a racist.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Unless they have the temerity to step into a restaurant without the knowledge that the owner is a racist.


    Ok, and? You say it as if there was a conclusion which is self-evident. There ISN'T. I'm willing to bet half the BBQ places in Alabama are owned by some kind of bigot. That hasn't stopped me from trading my dollars for their food, because I don't have to love the owners and neither do they have to love me. Greed trumps stupid ideas about people.

    But you want people to be Perfect, Tony, unaffected by greed. I get that.

  • Tony||

    They are perfectly entitled to be bigots, but not to act on it by forcing customers out because of their race. Discrimination is an action that harms people. We liberals have understood this for the better part of a century, and it's been codified in nearly universally admired civil rights law for 50 years.

  • kbolino||

    Discrimination is an action that harms people.

    Even with the left's redefinition of the word "discrimination" to mean "icky people not doing what we want", you still haven't demonstrated harm. You are not owed the services of another against his consent!

  • cavalier973||

    Liberals lose hit points whenever someone successfully avoids providing a service.

  • trshmnster the terrible||

    Unless they have the temerity to step into a restaurant without the knowledge that the owner is a racist.

    Thanks for the softball, Tony.

    See, it would be much more likely that Racist Ralph would openly voice and act out his racism if he werent fined and delicensed for doing so. Then, it becomes much less of a problem to try and sniff out the racists and avoid them.

    See, without anti-discrimination laws, Racist Ralph gets to test his bigotry in the marketplace of ideas. Either, he will succeed (in which case government, which is us, has no hope of being more moral than consumer, which is us) or he will fail (in which case, his business model has been rejected by the consumer, making government regulations superfluous).

    With anti-discrimination laws, Racist Ralph hides as Redneck Ralph, and many unsuspecting black folks eat their food with an unexpected helping

  • trshmnster the terrible||

    Of tobaccy spit, courtesy of Racist Redneck Ralph.

  • Tony||

    It's not about the marketplace of ideas, but the marketplace itself. The problem that needed addressing was that black people had a significantly diminished capacity to engage in the commerce of their own societies. They might not be able to use the bathroom anywhere on a long stretch of highway. That is not a matter of ideas competing, but of active harm to individual people. And if we waited for the marketplace of ideas, some parts of the South would still be enforcing Jim Crow to this day, I suspect. Why is the onus never on the awful racist assholes with you guys?

  • trshmnster the terrible||

    So you're effectively saying that if it wasn't for the government enforcing anti-discriminatory laws, the government would still be enforcing racist laws? At what point does the marketplace of ideas (or marketplace, period) come into play in this federalism issue?

    The awful racist assholes are cloaked by the government into looking like normal people, when they're still awful racist assholes. Now, instead of having an informed choice to not patronize awful racist assholes, I now pay the awful racist assholes with no knowledge. What you don't know won't hurt you, right?

    You want to ignore the roaches behind the fridge, I want to pull the fridge out and watch the roaches scatter.

  • Tony||

    I want minorities to be able to have the same access to the commerce in their communities as I do. I don't care if the owner is a bigot, I just care if he is entitled to have cops drag me out because of it.

  • Brian||

    Tony:

    I don't care if the owner is a bigot, I just care if he is entitled to have cops drag me out because of it.

    Then you should be OK if businesses that have no physical presence (I.e., web businesses) discriminate against people. After all, there's way someone can trespass, right?

    Oh wait, that's just bullshit. You really just want to use violence against peaceful bigots because you think that's cool, and the whole "cops" thing just sounds like a convenient excuse.

  • AKCharle||

    Yes, love your neighbor, hate their sin and don't be a part of it and offer them eternal life with God. Simple.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    It is constitutionally necessary that people have equal protection of the law, though.

    If only you were talking about contract law. If you want to leave all your worldly goods to whomever you choose, there is no reason for me or any other person to be involved. If you want to formalize via contract the economic responsibilities of your household, however you choose to define it, there is no reason for me or any other person to be involved.

    There's your equal protection.

  • BuSab Agent||

    I know. My great aunt got "gay married" in the 50's. She and Aunt Lily had reciprocal powers of attorney in case of incapacitating illness, had both names on the deed to the house and cars, and wills that left all their worldly good to each other. Of course no one in the family actually knew if they were lesbians or just really good friends.

  • Tony||

    Why aren't you barking at all the straights who are married? Aren't they the overwhelmingly bigger obstacle to this crusade to end marriage?

  • kbolino||

    Not everybody who's married to a member of the opposite sex is a hypocrite about this. They didn't make the laws, they simply took advantage of something available to them. I can recognize that most federal employees and welfare recipients (but I repeat myself) should not exist without wanting to kill them.

    However, insofar as "technocrats" would point to the large numbers of married people as evidence for the support of marriage, it is their own fallacious argument that is at fault, nothing more.

  • fuck you Belinda Carlisle||

    Look at this fucking retard, making the "you might call the cops to get trespassers off your property, therefore I can enslave you" argument.

    What kind of fucking moron even tries something that stupid, much less commits it to text and posts it?

  • Tony||

    At least you're addressing the point. It's one that thoughtful libertarians seem to like to tiptoe around and pretend nobody made it.

    The relevant distinction is between trespassing and being a customer at a business that counts as a public accommodation. Does a secular business doing marriages count? Up for debate. But whichever side you take, you don't get to claim that you aren't employing government agents to force people to do something against their will. It's the self-served extra moral credit you guys give yourself that bugs the shit out of me.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    The relevant distinction is between trespassing and being a customer at a business that counts as a public accommodation.


    The differences disappear the moment the customer is no longer welcome.

    Does a secular business doing marriages count?


    All businesses count. You make a distinction were none exists. A proprietor has the same rights as any other person. Little red Marxians such as yourself want to believe that this is not the case, but nobody cares anymore what little red Marxians such as yourself say or think.

  • Tony||

    As I said above, I wholeheartedly endorse a national movement by libertarians (and please invite the Republicans along) to rectify the great injustice of public accommodation civil rights law. Call up Sen. Paul today and tell him to stop being such a pussy. Surely he realizes the political boon of fighting against 60s-era civil rights law. I can hardly think of anything more important, in fact.

    But it still bugs the shit out of me when you claim that certain things ARE even when they're not, because your feelings trump reality.

  • OldMexican||

    Re Tony,

    But it still bugs the shit out of me when you claim that certain things ARE


    Who has made such arguments? Those are positivist arguments, which are contrary to Natural Rights arguments.

    Please, stop projecting.

  • fuck you Belinda Carlisle||

    "you don't get to claim that you aren't employing government agents to force people to do something against their will."

    Incorrect.

    As I have said, and you have avoided replying to, I don't need the police to deal with trespassers.

  • Tony||

    That's an idiotic evasion and you know it. Do you really want the determination of who is entitled to property to be which claimant has the biggest arsenal? Does that sound like a nice form of society to you?

  • fuck you Belinda Carlisle||

    "That's an idiotic evasion and you know it"

    That you can't counter.

    I win. Die in a hole now.

  • Tony||

    I just did counter it by pointing out that you are endorsing might-makes-right over civilized property law.

  • fuck you Belinda Carlisle||

    No, actually, you are. If I ask you to leave and you don't, you're the one aggressing. You're the one endorsing might makes right.

    I still win, and you can still die in a hole.

  • Tony||

    It's my house. I say so, just like you say so. Who are you to tell me otherwise?

  • fuck you Belinda Carlisle||

    Me, by KO.

  • WTF||

    Damn, you really are a dishonest little shit.

  • WTF||

    Damn, you really are a dishonest little shit.
    @ Tony, of course.

  • Keegan||

    Why would someone need an arsenal to politely escort someone out of their business?

  • MegaloMonocle||

    "An armed society is a polite society."

    People tend to get much more reasonable when they see they don't really have a choice.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    That's an idiotic evasion and you know it. Do you really want the determination of who is entitled to property to be which claimant has the biggest arsenal?


    This is the same kind of shit that unsophisticated little red Marxians pull every single time the conversation turns to property rights, when they conflate claim to property with aggression.

    The guy with the biggest guns does NOT have a claim to property, unless he uses the guns to stop anybody else from trespassing. If he uses it to take property, like the Soviets of old, then he's a criminal.

  • Tony||

    Says the anarchist. Yeah anarchy would work great if everyone simply agreed on the terms of every engagement at all times. And to think you're badmouthing utopians.

    He said he doesn't want the cops to enforce his claim to his property. All he needs is his gun. So if a "trespasser" shows up with a bigger gun, what is his claim, exactly? "I really must insist that you not trespass despite outgunning me, as I have declared that I have a right!"

  • fuck you Belinda Carlisle||

    " So if a "trespasser" shows up with a bigger gun, what is his claim, exactly?"

    Um, that he still owns the property.

    That you think showing up with a bigger gun confers ownership says all one needs to know about you and your obvious might makes right philosophy.

  • Tony||

    In the absence of a legal definition of ownership, whoever has the bigger gun will tend to get to park his ass on the property.

    Don't mistake me--I'm not engaging in this debate under the assumption that there exists a coherent counterargument. If you had one, I expect you'd have made it.

  • Keegan||

    In the absence of a legal definition of ownership, whoever has the bigger gun will tend to get to park his ass on the property.

    This appears to be an admission that you are actually saying might makes right.

  • fuck you Belinda Carlisle||

    I'd say I beat you like a rented mule, but I have more respect for my work animals.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Says the anarchist.


    Yes.

    anarchy would work great if everyone simply agreed on the terms of every engagement at all times.


    NOT trading is also agreeing, Tony. The rules are simple: Either we trade because we want to, or we don't.

    But the gay couple mentioned above did NOT like those simple rules, Tony - they felt entitled.

    In essence, your criticism against anarchism exactly describes what that couple did: bend the rules of civility. They OUTGUNNED the owners of the chapel. The State IS chaos, not anarchy.

    G'on, keep talking. The hole you're digging is getting bigger by the minute.

  • Tony||

    But the gay couple mentioned above did NOT like those simple rules, Tony - they felt entitled.

    In essence, your criticism against anarchism exactly describes what that couple did: bend the rules of civility.

    Well shit, looks like anarchy won't work then. What if we just exterminate everyone who might possibly disagree with you about the terms of something, and those who might at some point "bend the rules of civility"? It might work then.

    It boggles the mind that you don't see this unicorn shit for what it is. You actually believe in a political order that requires that no one ever be uncivil. You can't make this shit up.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Well shit, looks like anarchy won't work then.


    Looks like the point that the gay couple used the power of the state to bend the rules of civility just went way past you.

    Pfft! Over your head.

    I want to think that your obfuscations indicate that you're liar and a cheat and not that you're deranged, but maybe I am wrong.

  • Tony||

    Wait, what rules of civility are you talking about? The ones you made up inside your skull? I go by Miss Manners, personally, and I think civility requires people not to be fucking bigots.

  • Restoras||

    It's quite easy to be civil and still be a bigot. At least, assuming you know what civility means.

  • Tony||

    Well nobody's talking about policing people's thoughts, only actions. And it is impossible to practice bigotry in a civil way.

  • Restoras||

    I think you would specifically attempting to police the thoughts of other people. Maybe not right here, right now, but we've all seen how you think on other threads.

  • kbolino||

    And it is impossible to practice bigotry in a civil way.

    "I'm sorry, I don't wish to do business with you, please leave my place of business." is uncivil?

  • sarcasmic||

    you don't get to claim that you aren't employing government agents to force people to do something against their will

    How does someone saying "No, I will not do business with you." require government agents using force?

    It's the people who say "Yes. Yes you will." who require government agents using force.

  • Tony||

    It's the people who say "Yes. Yes you will." who require government agents using force.

    Only if the law supports their position. You want the law to support the position of the business owner. If the customer insists on staying, you think that it should be legitimate to employ either private or public force to expel (or kill?) the customer.

    Just nut up and acknowledge that. You're entitled to that opinion. But not to decorate yourself in freedom medals because you took it.

  • sarcasmic||

    You're moving the goalposts.

  • WTF||

    It's all he has.

  • Tony||

    You're being out-argued.

  • fuck you Belinda Carlisle||

    You already lost.

  • sarcasmic||

    You're being out-argued.

    Only if you consider fallacies to be valid arguments.

    Oh, yeah. This is Tony we're talking about. Mr fallacy fellator.

  • fuck you Belinda Carlisle||

    "If the customer insists on staying"

    Then they are endorsing a might makes right philosophy.

    You lose again.

  • Tony||

    You have two opinions on whether the customer has a right to be there, the owner's and the customer's. All you're doing is assuming the owner wins. But who wins is the entire fucking debate.

  • fuck you Belinda Carlisle||

    "All you're doing is assuming the owner wins"

    Lol.

    I crushed you.

  • Keegan||

    To be fair, Tony, you're the one who said the customer refused to leave. No one is assuming anything there, I think, because that's aggression, whether you believe the customer has a right to be there or not.

  • Tony||

    If the customer refuses to leave because the owner's reason for asking him to leave was because of his race, then the customer has a legally enforceable right to sit there as long as he damn well wants (talking about public accommodations). Forcing him out, according to law, would be considered the aggressive act.

  • Keegan||

    If the customer refuses to leave because the owner's reason for asking him to leave was because of his race, then the customer has a legally enforceable right to sit there as long as he damn well wants

    That's still aggression, and still trespassing, and the proper legal remedy is to seek a proper legal remedy, i.e. file suit.

    What you're doing is skipping the proper legal remedy and jumping to might makes right again.

  • Tony||

    It's very much not trespassing (again, talking about public accommodation). It would be trespassing if the owner's reason was that the customer didn't have a shirt on. If it's because of race, the customer has the upper hand. Of course the example is simplified--filing suit would be the course of action, but the outcome of that is some form of government action against the owner, right?

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    You have two opinions on whether the customer has a right to be there, the owner's and the customer's. All you're doing is assuming the owner wins.


    He's not assuming. If the person is the OWNER - as YOU concede above - then he gets to decide what happens in HIS property regarding the use of it.

    Looks like you simply want to wish the concept of "ownership" away. Quite disturbing, almost pitiful.

  • Tony||

    You want to claim that ownership entitles absolute rights even though it never has, at least outside of absolute monarchies. Ownership comes with taxpayer funded entitlements (like government guns backing up your claim). It's not illegitimate to say that it thus also comes with some public responsibility. Even you wouldn't argue that someone has a right to commit murder on his property. Not an absolute right. There is no cosmic distinction between that and not allowing discrimination in public accommodations. There is just you not having yet caught up to modern liberal civilization.

  • Keegan||

    Even you wouldn't argue that someone has a right to commit murder on his property. Not an absolute right. There is no cosmic distinction between that and not allowing discrimination in public accommodations.

    Ah. Murder is the same as discrimination, that's a sophisticated argument that I'll have to seriously consider.

  • Tony||

    Discrimination is not necessarily as morally wrong as murder, but we don't just have laws against murder.

  • sarcasmic||

    Discrimination is not necessarily as morally wrong as murder, but we don't just have laws against murder.

    My goodness! You're so right! I mean, saying "No" is a terrible crime! It's the moral equivalent of taking a life! I mean, when I tell my four year old kid that she can't stay up late, I might as well be killing her! I said "No" and saying "No" is just the same as murder! Oh the humanity!

  • Tony||

    I just said they weren't morally equivalent you halfwit.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    You want to claim that ownership entitles absolute rights


    I don't know what you mean by "absolute rights". Ownership means you own the property and its use. That's all.

    Ownership comes with taxpayer funded entitlements


    Yes, yes, and liberty exists because of the State, etc. etc. etc. Circular argument, all the way. Who gave the power to the State? The very same people who asked the State to grant them rights. Who grants rights to people? The State whose power comes from the People.

    Do you think you're the only little red Marxian parrot in the blogosphere, Tony? You can't even come up with your own ideas.

  • cavalier973||

    "Legalized trespassing" is still trespassing. It's still morally wrong, too.

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    Wow.

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    I congratulate you Tony. That is the dumbest thing I have ever read. I am still laughing, so I thank you.

  • ||

    All you're doing is assuming the owner wins. But who wins is the entire fucking debate.

    Tony's ethos in a nutshell.
    The law should do whatever makes my side win. Fuck principles. Fuck rights. Fuck equality. I want to WIN.

  • ||

    Absolutely. I support people having the right to do things that I think are wrong.

    I'm totally ok with government goons protecting Klan rallies and Neo-Nazi marches too.

    Being willing to use force to protect the right of someone else to do things you disagree with is a point of honor.

  • Tony||

    The Klan can speak, print pamphlets, and march all they want according to the first amendment, and I very much like that this is so as well. What the Klan can't do is prevent a Jew from going into a bakery.

  • ||

    Nice evasion. "A bakery." This is not just some random bakery we're talking about. We're talking about whether a Klansman can stop a Jew from entering HIS bakery, that he personally owns and operates. Not blobking the door to some other person's bakery who would be happy to do business with the Jew.

    And again, not your evading my response to the larger point you brought up which is whether it's ok to deploy government force in defense of people doing things you disapprove of.

  • Tony||

    He can't deny service to the Jew. That is not speech, that is action, and we can legislate against bad actions.

  • ||

    It's not action, it's inaction.

    Not doing something for someone else is not equivalent to harming them.

    Not baking you a cake doesn't harm you. You are free to go buy cake somewhere else.

  • Tony||

    What if all bakeries in town discriminated? What if there is only one bakery in town? The point is not to make it harder to live life for people because of how they were born.

    I have explained this ad nauseum. Either side gets government goons to enforce its will. How do you people consistently come down on the side of the privileged and powerful on every single issue?

  • Brian||

    Tony:

    What if all bakeries in town discriminated? What if there is only one bakery in town?

    Uh, so now we're legislating based on highly unlikely scenarios? That's smart policy making.

    Hey, what if everyone was rich? What if everyone was poor? What if everyone was black? What if everyone was gay? What if there was only one person in the town, and he was a gay, black man?

    I don't know, Tony. What if?

    The point is not to make it harder to live life for people because of how they were born.


    Oh, gee. Glad you straightened that out. We had no idea what the point was.

    I forget: intensions are all that matter. "Hey, we're trying to protect minorities." Sure, round up whoever you need to, then. WTF.

  • cavalier973||

    If we lived in an anarchic society, then the streets would be privately owned, and the owners could prevent the neo-Nazi's from marching down their streets, if they so wished.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Why aren't you barking at all the straights who are married?

    Gosh, Tony, I'm just too fucking lazy to lay out my philosophical position in detail on every topic in every comment. Here:

    If those people's feelings of self worth are contingent on the validation of their lives by some government bureaucrat, they're too fucking pathetic and worthless for me to give a shit about.

    Feel better now?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Should I be able to Force Simon and Schuster to publish my pornographic Judy Jetson comic, Tony? If not, why not.

  • Tony||

    Because there is no law or reasonable theoretical legal principle that says you are entitled to be published?

  • MegaloMonocle||

    Because there is no law or reasonable theoretical legal principle that says you are entitled to be published?

    Well, if its gay porn, you can say that the refusal to publish it is illegal discrimination against gay folks, and you've got a running start on applying a fairly well-established legal principle.

  • Restoras||

    According to you, if the government passed a law creating that right then he would be so entitled.

  • ||

    Is there some sort of principle you think defines what people should have the right to do, or not do, other than what you think is morally right or wrong?

    Surely you recognize that in a pluralistic society different people are going to have different views of what is morally right, yes?

  • Restoras||

    Morality is what the government says it is.

    So, if the government decides the populace of District 4 no longer has the right to free speech, they no longer have that right and government coercion to silence District 4 is justified and moral.

    If the government decides the populace of Province Orange no longer has the right to not go hungry, then government coercion to starve the population of Province Orange is justified and moral.

    It's all very simple.

  • Tony||

    Do you think there is some principle outside of moral axioms that you apply? Because libertarians are constantly droning on and on about morality, it seems to me.

    Of course people will disagree. It's why we don't require votes on policy to be unanimous. Some people will lose on policy. It's called living among other people.

  • trshmnster the terrible||

    Yep, it sucked for the Jews Kulaks gays blacks women shiites atheists homophobes when they lost on policy. But they live among other people, and those other people just don't agree.

  • lap83||

    Democracy means never having to tolerate losers

  • Tony||

    Are you implying that a system is possible in which everyone gets his way?

  • kbolino||

    Are you implying that a system is possible in which everyone gets his way?

    No such system is possible with more than 1 person (and even 1 person by himself is subject to the laws of nature). Hence we seek to maximize freedom and minimize coercion. You redefine both terms, so your opinion on the matter is as worthless as the words you use.

  • Tony||

    The opposite of freedom is not coercion. Vast amounts of freedom exist in societies today because of coercion by governments.

  • kbolino||

    Vast amounts of freedom exist in societies today because of coercion by governments.

    "My fellow Earthicans, we enjoy so much freedom, it's almost sickening. We're free to choose which hand our sex-monitoring chip is implanted in. And if we don't want to pay our taxes, why, we're free to spend a weekend with the Pain Monster!"

  • Live Free or Die||

    Definition of Doublethink: The holding of two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously and accepting both of them. Example: We're free because we're coerced (i.e., not free).

  • ||

    Do you think there is some principle outside of moral axioms that you apply?

    There are higher principles that govern how I think other people should be treated, beyond what I think is morally right. I want other people to be able to live by different moral codes than my own. And so I want a system that applies a higher principle of equality and non-discrimination amoung moral codes, to allow for a multitude of different philosophies and different communities to coexist side by side. The moral axioms that cannot be dispensed with must be distilled down to the minimal number required to allow people
    with different moralities to live in peace.

  • Tony||

    I want other people to be able to live by different moral codes than mine as well--to a degree. Not those who think it's morally permissible to murder. Not those who think it's morally permissible to exclude black people from their restaurants because they are black. I believe that there is such a thing as a bad moral system that deserves to be stamped out by society.

    But you're not telling the whole truth. You want everyone to live by a low-tax, small-government, socially liberal ethos and you probably don't want them to have much choice in the matter.

  • ||

    Are you seriously comparing not serving someone in a restaurant to murder?

    Get some perspective. In the larger scheme of things, not having someone bake a cake for your gay wedding is infinitessimally fucking trivial. It's NOTHING. On the other hand, not being able to open a business because you'll be forced to violate your religious beliefs if you do is a HUGE DEAL. You have no fucking sense of perspective.
    You want to turn this trivial thing - having to go shop somewhere else, into this massive injustice, and you're actually willing to commit huge injustices to correct it because you have no fucking respect for the people whose rights you are violating.

    God... man up and accept that not everyone in the universe is going to like you or accept you. And you don't have to like or accept them either. You don't have to force them entirely out of society in some sort of vendetta. Be a better human being.

  • Tony||

    In the larger scheme of things, not having someone bake a cake for your gay wedding is infinitessimally fucking trivial. It's NOTHING.

    Oh, how would you know? How many times have you tried to get gay married? How many other minority experiences do you feel entitled to speak for?

    On the other hand, not being able to open a business because you'll be forced to violate your religious beliefs if you do is a HUGE DEAL.

    If your religious beliefs require you to violate the civil rights of minorities, then they don't deserve government protection.

  • Brian||

    Tony:

    I believe that there is such a thing as a bad moral system that deserves to be stamped out by society.

    That is, when you're not objecting to the concept of morality altogether. Funny how that switches on and off.

    I think it's funny that you guys try to pretend that all social progress comes from the guns of the state. As if, seriously, all the progress gay people have made over the last several decades is due to allowing gays in the military, gay marriage, and now, making sure that cake bakers have to bake for gay people.

    That's a joke. Of course, you people don't want to go to parties and sound like assholes, admitting that, hey, you just like shoving your preferences down people's throats with state violence. So, you instead pretend that all social progress hinges on state violence, fines, penalties, etc. Which is laughable.

    So, you offer your contradictory reasons for wanting freedom in gay marriage but regulation in gay weddings. Apparently, businesses use public resources and deserve regulation (as if gay couples don't?), but gays deserve marriage because "equality". Gays have to get wedding cakes because we have to legislate morality (whether or not non-violent options are available), but, if someone thinks being gay is immoral, well, we can't go legislating morality, right? After all, not getting a wedding cake is like murder.

    It's all just bullshit excuses for pointing guns at people and making them comply. How progressive.

  • MegaloMonocle||

    Only if its lesbian porn, P.

  • Andrew S.||

    When I (Jewish) married my wife (not Jewish), we had two officiants, one Jewish and one Methodist. Our first choices were the Rabbi of the Synagogue I attended at the time, and a relative of my wife's who is a minister. Both declined.

    We decided to find others who were willing to do the ceremony. It went well. In Tony's world, we should've just stomped our feet and sued because we were being discriminated against, right? I mean, look at how Jews have been mistreated by the Church over the last, say, 2000 years.

  • Tony||

    If you read carefully you'd notice I think that religious freedom should trump. Religious officials should be able to refuse to marry people if they don't fit their religious criteria. Seems fair.

  • Andrew S.||

    So what the fuck are you arguing then?

  • Tony||

    It should be evident. But it's not that ministers should be forced to perform gay weddings.

  • Live Free or Die||

    Unless those ministers own a business where they perform weddings. Then you think they have no freedom of religion whatsoever because, somehow, the fact that those business owners use public services (just like ministers tied to a church also use public services) means the government can forget about freedom of religion.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Andrew S.

    Don't trust Tony's lip service to rights, religious or otherwise. He's a mendacious little red Marxian, untrustworthy.

  • Restoras||

    Rights don't exist to Tony unless the government says they do.

  • kbolino||

    If you read carefully you'd notice I think that religious freedom should trump.

    Well this is new. So you reverse previously held positions out of convenience, now?

    Or is it just that you see yourself in the role of religious arbiter, deciding what is and is not a "legitimate" religious belief?

  • Tony||

    I've never argued that clergy should be forced to defy their religions in weddings. These people believe in a space zombie who created the universe before fathering himself who for some reason cares about what members of the species homo sapiens do with their genitals. And this for some reason is afforded special protection by our government. Who they decide is entitled to be married using their weird rituals is a kind of minor point of doctrine considering all the other crazy shit.

  • kbolino||

    I've never argued that clergy should be forced to defy their religions ...

    Who the fuck was talking about "clergy"? We're talking about personal beliefs here, you fascist pig. People do not stop having a conscience and the right to follow it when they step outside of church.

  • cavalier973||

    The Resurrection spell revives the target; it doesn't turn him into an undead creature. If you can't even get something that simple correct, how am I supposed to take anything you say seriously?

  • Migrant Log Picker||

    You should really quit when you're behind, dumbass. That you choose to make it so clear how abjectly stupid you really are boggles any rational mind.

  • Carol314||

    Not wanting to perform a service for someone and hating someone are two entirely different things. It is possible, and even likely, that a minister might not wish to marry a gay couple for reasons other than hatred. Christian ministers are following rules that they did not make. Part of subscribing to a faith is submitting your personal desires and beliefs to a code of morality that you believe comes from God.

    Conservative Christians generally believe, that because of our fallen nature we have a tendency bend the rules according to what is easy, fashionable, or most personally desirable but that the morality put forth in the Bible comes from God and does not change. According to our U.S. Constitution they have every right to believe that and to live their lives accordingly. True, since the life of Jesus and the New Testament, all must be done in the spirit of love, but this does not mean condoning behavior that your beliefs tell you is objectionable.

    It is quite possible for the owners of a wedding chapel to lovingly suggest that a gay couple seek their wedding services elsewhere. What is hateful is showing disrespect for other people's beliefs by trying to force them to act against their conscience to further you own agenda.

  • Protagoronus||

    Tony-

    Couple comes in, asks to be married. Owner says no and does not really care if they hang out in the shop until closing time. You are calling for violence to force the owner into labor, correct?

  • Tony||

    Is the owner asserting a religious objection or is the marriage service entirely secular?

  • kbolino||

    It does not matter.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Would anybody care to explain to me the precise moral difference between the 19th century Christian busybodies who wanted to suppress all mention of homosexuality and who urged child welfare services to take Irish Immigrant children from their families lest they grow up in a Papist atmosphere, and the modern Liberal/Progressive buttinskis who want to suppress all opposition to homosexuality and urge child welfare services to take smokers' children from their families lest they grow up in a smokey atmosphere?

  • kbolino||

    There is none.

  • trshmnster the terrible||

    One did so in the name of God. The other did so in the name of Tolerance?

  • Paul.||

    Remember when "jailing your opposition" was something that was only said in the context of third world dictatorships?

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Yeah, but that was only because the Liberal/Progressive/Radical Left would have a hissy fit if anyone pointed out that it was SOP for the U.S.S.R. and The Peoples Republic Of China.

    We haven't rubbed their noses in that NEARLY enough…..

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    *Goes to lunch, gets some work done, comes back*

    BOOM! THREAD SHOT!

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Of course people will disagree. It's why we don't require votes on policy to be unanimous. Some people will lose on policy. It's called living among other people.

    So close.

    Don't toss that nugget of truth away. Stare at it a little while longer. What do you see?

    I'll tell you what I see: I see a compelling reason to limit the number and scope of State dicta, in order to minimize the level of control vocal activists are permitted to have over their fellow citizens.

  • Tony||

    And I'm saying that on this specific issue there is no such thing as getting the state out of the matter. Either it enforces a right to discriminate or it enforces a right to be free from discrimination.

  • trshmnster the terrible||

    You throw that word "right" around, but it doesn't mean what you think it means. Right =/= anything under the sun that you could want or need

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    And I'm saying that on this specific issue there is no such thing as getting the state out of the matter.


    Because otherwise you're going to tell on us, right?

    Either it enforces a right to discriminate or it enforces a right to be free from discrimination.


    You can't be free from discrimination. That's absurd. That calls for reading minds.

    Do you even think about these things with at least a modicum of profundity, Tony? Because, and I'm sorry for having to say this, your discourse is banal.

  • Tony||

    I can be entitled to eat at a restaurant of my choice and not be humiliated and booted out because of my sexual orientation. I can't make people decent and tolerant but I can have government prevent the systematic exclusion of vulnerable minorities from society. It's a social harm just like any other, just like the social harm of trespassing.

    But then you don't want government protecting you from trespassers. You want to do it yourself with your gun. So since I believe in this right, do I get to shoot bigoted restauranteurs?

  • Brian||

    but I can have government prevent the systematic exclusion of vulnerable minorities from society.

    You'd probably need government for "systematic" exclusion of minorities in the first place.

    I mean, come on, be honest: it's not like the entire "system" wants to exclude blacks and minorities from getting married, having cake, right?

  • Tony||

    It's surely less of a problem than it used to be. Some parts of the country had to be dragged kicking and screaming into a decent standard of civilization by the federal government. Maybe they should have not been ignorant bigots and we wouldn't have needed that. So, as with many other things, you take a success of activist government and use that as an argument that government isn't needed.

  • Brian||

    So, as with many other things, you take a success of activist government and use that as an argument that government isn't needed.

    Right, because clearly, racists are in the majority, when the government clamps down on racists. That's how democracy and the "will of the people" works...

    if you're not too stupid to notice the glaring contradiction.

  • lap83||

    "Why Not Force Somebody Who Hates You to Perform Your Wedding Ceremony?"

    I don't know if this was intentional, but it's sad that the argument appeals to the listener's sense of arrogant entitlement. It's like when you tell your dinner companion not to be a dick to the waiter so they don't spit in your food, because appealing to a sense of common decency won't work.

  • JFree||

    For you particularly stupid libertarians who simply went along with the 'gay marriage' parade thinking that it was 'sign' of growing libertarian beliefs; this is called 'blowback'.

    You had two freaking decades to frame the agenda here as - 'government should get out of marriage' rather than 'government should get more into marriage and change the rules as well. You failed. And not only did you fail, you failed to even recognize that the underlying goal of most of the more active proponents of gay marriage was cultural Marxism - to undermine cultural institutions that fostered bourgeois attitudes and prevented the proletariat from blahblahblah. Those cultural Marxists created all the different academic 'cultural studies' thangs in the 1960's - and those are the people who framed this issue in the way that met their needs.

    And now that it's done, they are free to use the instruments of legal force to compel their opponents to comply with the state's whims. What a freaking surprise.

    You libertarians are beyond stupid. You are an active menace to personal liberty.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: JFree,

    For you particularly stupid libertarians who simply went along with the 'gay marriage' parade thinking that it was 'sign' of growing libertarian beliefs; this is called 'blowback'.


    And for us libertarians who warned about this? Give us some sugar, baby!

  • JFree||

    Yes - they existed. But they couldn't even sway the rest of libertarians themselves to reframe this issue so that it could actually become a libertarian success story.

    This issue was so ripe to be repositioned 8 or so years ago when it first really began to gather public attention via court cases. But instead, libertarians simply chose to join itself and ride along with the phrase/meme of 'gay marriage'. And worse, propounded all sorts of nonsense about how tactically this would merely be a first step towards a longer-term 'government out of marriage' thang.

    So no sugar until your sort of libertarian actually gains influence over what broadly gets called 'libertarian'.

  • cavalier973||

    It's "marriage equality", not "gay marriage".

  • JFree||

    No it isn't. The issue is - it is none of the government's business AT ALL. Marriage (the word) was a religious institution at the time of the constitution - that means blanket 1st amendment prohibition on federal involvement. The only English law re marriage at the time was the specific establishment of it according to Anglican precepts - and we specifically chose NOT to establish a religion. States were exempt from 1st amendment until 1947 - so some of them did create marriage laws - and ALL of them were originally written as 'establishment' legislation.

    And the feds specifically got involved in marriage re a)their almost assuredly illegal war against Mormons and b)the first 'licensing' mandate on the states which was a direct result of pressure from Catholics (the Catholic Church refused to perform interdenominational marriages - so new immigrants immediately assumed the state should instead) and the 1920's KKK and progressives (who wanted the village to own the kiddies).

    Everything about this history says - undo all the previous mistakes. Instead we chose to compound all those mistakes and make the entanglement even worse

  • kbolino||

    And what were you doing to oppose this "cultural Marxism"?

  • Tony||

    In their defense, libertarians were pretty fucking useless in the marriage equality movement.

    As usual they were busy defending the real victims in America, billionaires who have to pay taxes.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    What the Klan can't do is prevent a Jew from going into a bakery.


    Not unless the Klan owns the bakery in question. Then they can close their doors on the Jew's face. As simple as that.

    The whole premise of your argumentation rests on denying property rights, like a good little red Marxian. That is all, nothing else. You keep throwing these bombs like "racists" and "The Klan" to poison the well but it doesn't work, Tony. Either an ethical principle is universal or it is not valid.

  • ||

    He seems to be arguing from moral outrage. How offensive it is that a bigot might be able to evict a homosexual from his premises! It's offensive so therefore this right shouldn't exist!

    He's like a mirror image of the anti-gay bigots on the right.

  • Tony||

    There was a time in this country's history when the idea of preventing discrimination in public accommodations was mainstream enough to become enshrined in widely admired federal law, and it was the fucking 60s. I didn't just make it up.

    I get it. You think Nazis should be able to call the police and have them escort Jews out of their Nazi bakeries. Just say so. It's a valid opinion in that at least it's not self-contradictory like so much of what you believe.

  • Tony||

    Except the part about how you think you're on the pro-individual-freedom side of things. You're not, you're just on the racist business owner's side. Not having the same access to the businesses in your community as the majority race, religion, or sexual orientation is a harm. It makes it more difficult for those minorities to make their way in life. Then you want to slap them with unrestrained capitalism and scold them for not succeeding as well as the majority?

    There is a faint moral underpinning that guides liberals' approach to policy: government should, in general, watch out for the more vulnerable. You guys have the interests of the least vulnerable covered quite well. Just don't call it freedom full stop. It's more freedom for certain people and less freedom for others. More freedom for bigots to discriminate and less freedom for minorities to secure food and lodging in their communities. That's pretty fucked up if you think about it.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I'm saying that on this specific issue there is no such thing as getting the state out of the matter.

    You can say it 'til you're blue in the face. You're wrong.

  • Tony||

    So explain why. I've been asking for a third alternative all fucking day and nobody has offered it. Either the cops enforce discrimination or they enforce nondiscrimination. The only feeble possibility for a third way is to sprinkle unicorn dust on America and hope people behave "civilly." (Meaning oppressed minorities have to be civil to bigots, of course.)

  • Brian||

    Tony:

    Either the cops enforce discrimination or they enforce nondiscrimination.

    You know, it is possible to discriminate without the cops.

    The fact that you can't open your mind and imagine a "third way" is your problem, not everyone else's.

  • Brian||

    Or, how about this, Tony:

    "Oh, Tony, you want to marry Steve? I don't want you to marry Steve. So, I'm coming over to your house and not leaving until you stop marrying Steve. Oh, you're going to call the cops? NOW IT"S UP FOR A VOTE, STUPID BITCH!"

    OK, so let's let people vote on whether or not they like gay's getting married. Sure, it's more equal, but, if we're going to have gay couples possibly calling the police from inside their homes, then they're using public resources, and so it's up for debate, and democracy. I mean, we can't just arbitrarily claim some "equal right" now can we?

  • Tony||

    So enlighten me. You're already typing, you might as well spell it out.

    What alternate universe did you weirdos grow up in? Maybe I'm just incurably biased by an education about the civil rights era that championed the participants in sit-ins and rejected the perpetrators of segregation. Do I have it all backward? Are the real heroes those brave souls standing up for "freedom of association," and the real villains those awful black trespassers?

  • Brian||

    So, basically we don't have freedom of association because "civil rights movement, duh"?

    Great argument. Right out of the mouth of a sixth grade social studies student.

  • Tony||

    We have freedom of association. It doesn't extend to discriminating based on race and a handful of other protected statuses in public accommodations. It doesn't extend to pedophile orgies either. Freedoms can conflict.

  • Brian||

    Funny, you could make the same case for letting democracy decide on whether gay marriage is a good idea. I mean, yeah, freedom of association, but, no pedophile orgies. Freedoms can conflict.

    It's funny how, one the one hand, you demand freedom of choice in association/marriage because equality, but, on the other, it has to be strictly regulated. You can decide not to do business with someone who's a jerk, but not because you don't like making gay wedding cakes. Because... equality. Whatever. Just be honest, and repeat after me: "I like government enforcing my subjective preferences."

  • Tony||

    It's subjective to prefer that people not harm minorities?

  • Brian||

    Tony:

    It's subjective to prefer that people not harm minorities?

    Yes, and for obvious reasons: why do you only prefer that people not harm minorities (i.e., implicitly certain, special minorities, instead of harming people, in general?

    Or, more specifically, why do you endorse harming certain minorities, as long as it ostensibly favors one of your preferred minorities, erroneously passing that off as "not harming minorities"?

    Listen, I agree with you on the main point: discriminating against blacks and gays sucks. It's irrational and bigoted. But, then, right when we're almost on the same page, you have to go all bully with state violence and start fining and shutting down businesses for no other reason then they consider greco-roman wrestling cakes as icky, and don't want to bake them. That's not exactly a cop shooting a firehose at you, you know.

    So, right when I start feeling sorry for you as a victim, you go all state violence asshole, and it just kills the mood for me. It's like watching a child playing on a playground and, thoroughly convinced that another child's broken the rules and in the right, suddenly starts beating the shit out of him. Sorry, I know the rules, too, but you just went pure dick head, and any moral high ground you had, you just lost. Because I consider harming peaceful people more evil than thinking certain people are icky, yet not harming any of them.

  • Tony||

    Can you read? You want state violence too! To expel trespassers who otherwise would be protected from antidiscrimination law. Neither of us is advocating not using state violence.

    And it's not special protected minorities. If someone discriminates against you because you are white, male, heterosexual, or Christian, it still applies.

  • Mark22||

    Huh? Being a gay man, I don't see how cops are be involved when some Christian nut decides not to do business with me.

    Nor, for that matter, do I see much benefit to cops trying to "enforce nondiscrimination". I mean, how do you imagine that works? They point a gun at the minister while he marries me?

    Your SJW stance is not just ineffective, it's harmful to the people you are claiming to help.

  • Sosalty||

    Let's see, to inspire your ceremony today, we take from the passages Romans, "__________" And just as soon as I've turned away from you and covered my eyes, you may kiss your bride, eh er groom, whatever. Now you may enjoy your cake made from horse manure.

  • Sosalty||

    This has a simple solution.

    The Christians can continue to respect the gay person, including their rights to union/marriage, ie; they'll recieve the same 1st rate service at Chick Filet, and the Gays can respect the Christians right to religion.

    Neither group needs to seek out the other and seek vengence. Oh, except that one group has starting this conflict that need not exist.

  • Moon W. Trash||

    Seems to me the easy solution would be to refuse service, without stating a reason. What are they going to do, lock you in the Mindsqueezer 6000 and suck the thoughts from your brain? Am I missing something in the law that compels anyone to give a reason for any action they take, regardless of whether that reason can be judged "good or "ill"?

    Of course, the response would soon be a legal requirement to provide a certified psych report to prove that you were NOT refusing service because of someone's position on the Pre-Approve Persons list (which I assume would be ranked, with more Naughty Points on your record depending upon whom you dislike). I mean, if you can't control your thoughts, the government has to, key-rrrrect?

  • Agent Cupcake||

    Hi Tony,

    I hope you're still reading this. I've only been reading Reason a few months and your comments confuse me. You've said in the past that you consider yourself more libertarian than most of the people here but I'm not sure how you can claim that since your opinions seem to jive more often with straight up progressives. In this instance, you're claiming that the gay or racially disenfranchised are more deserving of special protection from the state. At what point is it enough in your opinion? When can we get rid of affirmative action, for example. And how does your answer maximize freedom?

    How do you justify demanding labor from someone who doesn't want to give it?

    Please excuse typos, I'm on my iPad.

  • Tony||

    Oh I'm no libertarian. I have noted that often I agree with the columnist more than the commenters do.

    At what point is it enough in your opinion?

    When all people regardless of how they were born have an equal opportunity to participate and succeed in their communities.

    But I'm not here to defend affirmative action policies (which I have some issues with), I'm here to point out that libertarians are in fact supporting "affirmative action" for people who would discriminate. Freedom of association is what it's called; what it entails is that taxpayer funded cops show up to enforce a discriminatory regime. I don't want to pay for cops who do that. That's all.

  • Mark22||

    I'm here to point out that libertarians are in fact supporting "affirmative action" for people who would discriminate. Freedom of association is what it's called; what it entails is that taxpayer funded cops show up to enforce a discriminatory regime. I don't want to pay for cops who do that. That's all.

    In what way does it require cops to show up if I don't want to do business with you? What is there to "enforce"? How does my refusal to do business with someone cost you money?

  • Tony||

    You get to call people trespassers and cops get called on trespassers.

    This law was not made up to address a nonexistent problem.

  • Mark22||

    You get to call people trespassers and cops get called on trespassers.

    If I don't want them on my property, they are trespassers.

    This law was not made up to address a nonexistent problem.

    Yes, it was: businesses denying gay men and women service or employment is not a problem, either morally or in the real world.

  • Agent Cupcake||

    Thanks for the clarification.

    Your "I don't want to pay for it" argument sounds like my arguement against welfare and other social programs (including Obamacare). In those cases, the taxpayer funded IRS also enforces a discriminatory regime.

    I think someone else said it earlier, your moral argument seems to be that your side is right, mine is wrong, which seems to lack principle. If you could be assured that cops would not drag away a gay guy from a bakery that didn't want to make his wedding cake, would you also be cool if the cops didn't come when I refused to pay taxes that went to welfare recipients?

  • Tony||

    No. You pay taxes and they pay for some things you don't like. Obviously it has to work that way. That is not my point: my point is that if you get rid of anti-discrimination laws for businesses that cater to the public, you'll be paying for government to enforce discrimination. Discrimination being a bad thing? We are clear on that?

  • Sevo||

    Tony|10.21.14 @ 9:42AM|#
    ..."my point is that if you get rid of anti-discrimination laws for businesses that cater to the public, you'll be paying for government to enforce discrimination."

    Which, shitstain, is a bald-faced lie; exactly what you constantly post.

  • Arizona_Guy||

    Try this scenario:

    (phone rings) "Bigots Bakery, how may I help you?"

    "Will you bake a cake for my gay wedding?"

    "No, I don't bake for gay weddings."
    (hangs up phone)

    See, no third party needed to "enforce discrimination"

  • XM||

    If I can't marry a friend of mine so she can get her citizenship or get me some tax relief, I'm going to sue for being discriminated. The concept of "monogamy" or "commitment" is also definition of marriage that's set by some right winger.

    In the state of CA my right to eat a dog or shark fin soup is also restricted.

    Discrimination....discrimination is everywhere!

  • Agent Cupcake||

    Also, Tony, would you object to an imam being forced to perform a same sex wedding? How would you handle a same sex couple requesting such a ceremony, knowing homosexuality was not only not tolerated but actively despised in Islam?

  • Tony||

    I have already answered this question.

  • Mark22||

    Generally, I think Christians businesses shouldn't be forced to serve people they don't like. However, I still find the Christian position a bit hypocritical, because there are strong anti-discrimination protections for Christians and I don't see social conservatives offering to give those up. How can you argue that a Christian business owner should be able to discriminate against a gay man when a gay business owner is not allowed to discriminate against a Christian? Seems to me that if we want to uphold freedom of association for business owners, then it should work the same for everybody.

  • Agent Cupcake||

    If a Christian walked into a gay-owned bakery and asked for a giant cake that said GOD HATES FAGS, I hope that the gay person would point to the door.

    I think companies should be able to discriminate against anyone for any reason.

  • Vincent Milburn||

    I believe the readings for the service will come from the book of Deuteronomy.

  • AK07||

    When saying about New Year 2015, January 1 2015 is the very first day in the New Year 2015, in the Georgian Calendar and also falls exactly after a week after the previous year's Christmas day. So people all over the world are celebrating the new year 2015 with high honor. People celebrate the New Year day by sending New Year 2015 Greetings, New Year SMS and Messages wishes and Quotes to their loved ones. Now a days some changes are occurred and most of the people are celebrating the Happy New Year with Social networking sites. They share Happy New Year 2015 Wallpapers, New Year Quotes and messages to friends via Facebook and WhatsApp.

  • Jonathan G||

    "Why Not Force Somebody Who Hates You To Perform Your Wedding Ceremony?" Um this is why you're an idiot Scott Shackford. Cause this type of behavior will only lead to totalitarianism not unlike seen in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. You should as a religious minister have the right to marry or not to marry whoever you choose. This is an abhorrent violation of the 1st amendment.

  • TxJack 112||

    This article hits at the core of the real issue, marriage is a religious sacrament. The Bans passed across the US have asked the government to make a judgment on a moral issue, not a legal one. If we are truly to follow the Constitution, you cannot deny one group of people equal protection under the law because you have a moral objection to their lifestyle. Marriage is defined by the Church, not the Court. This ordinance is governmental overreach because it would be no different if a minister refused to marry two satanists, or a Christian minister, two Muslims. We need to fight to get the government out of the "business of marriage". If every couple, straight or gay were issued the same document, a certificate of civil union to cover the LEGAL issues related to a committed relationship and left the MARRIAGE part to the Church, the fight fades because there is nothing to fight about. Gay couples cannot demand Churches be forced by the government to act in way counter to their spiritual beliefs since that is clearly a violation of the 1st amendment.

  • sankar||

    If you read carefully you'd notice I think that religious freedom should trump.

    Happy New year 2015

  • sankar||

    If you read carefully you'd notice I think that religious freedom should trump.

    Happy New year 2015

  • juniad1996||

    New Year is the time at which a new calendar year begins and the calendar’s year count increments by one. Printable Coloring Pages And Sheets Many cultures celebrate the event in some manner.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online