MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

LGBT Rights vs. Religious Freedom Looms Large at #AtlanticLGBT Summit

Welcome to the minefield that is discussing sexuality and gender issues circa 2015.

Atlantic Live/TwitterAtlantic Live/TwitterDuring a lunch break at The Atlantic LGBT summit Thursday, attendees were invited to watch an informal panel discussion on transgender civil rights. Panelists included several transgender activists, as well as several non-trans panelists included for their expertise on legal issues (such as Equal Employment Opportunity Commissioner Chai Feldblum) or proximity to the conversation (such as an Atlantic staff writer who covers social justice). This, it turns out, was problematic. 

On her first turn speaking, a trans woman named Allyson Robinson started by criticizing the fact that less than half of the nine panelists were transgender. Good cisgender allies would have declined the invitation to participate, she suggested, because they were taking up space that could have gone to trans people. The audience and other panel members nodded along enthusiastically. 

Erasing marginalized people from discourse about their own communities has long been a problem, of course. But the fact remains that, at the moment, there are no trans EEOC commissioners. There is no trans executive of the American Civil Liberties Union D.C., or on the White House outreach team. Considering that this was not a panel on the trans experience per se but a dialogue on legal barriers to equality, the inclusion of cisgender people who work directly on these issues hardly seems a mystery or a microaggression. 

Commissioner Feldblum and moderator Steve Clemons pushed back slightly, defending the inclusion of non-trans panelists on these grounds. No good. Before long, those who thought having cis people on the panel was OK were branded complicit in the fact that trans people are often the targets of physical violence. Once again, nods and murmurs of approval from the audience. 

Welcome to the minefield that is discussing LGBTIQ* issues circa 2015. By the time panelists had sorted out who was micro- or macro-agressing against whom, there was little time left for the planned topic of the panel, trans civil rights. (Unless the right to be on an Atlantic panel is at the forefront of the trans agenda.) 

It was one of many mind-boggling moments during the summit, an event filled with both thought-provoking speakers and brain-numbing PC platitudes; heartwarming displays of how far society has come on LGBT issues mixed with troubling signs of where the wind is blowing. It's important to note that the summit was organized by centrist publication The Atlantic and underwritten by big businesses such as Deloitte, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and the American Federation of Teachers. It featured federal employees, former and current legislators, and one Sex in the City star. Nothing about this event could be described as remotely "fringe." 

Those who stuck out most during the day's sessions were figures like David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, and writer and pundit Andrew Sullivan. Boaz and Sullivan are both gay and have long histories of gay-rights activism. But their belief in religious freedom set them apart from most of the crowd and speakers gathered yesterday. One of the biggest cheers of the day, in fact, came after an audience member accused Boaz of being "on the wrong side of history."

Boaz had been discussing "Identity in the Workplace" with EEOC Commissioner Feldblum. (Watch the whole thing here.) Both touched on the historic alliance between libertarians and the LGBT community when it comes to political activism. But with this community's main focus shifting from repealing discriminatory laws—like those that prohibited sodomy, same-sex marriage, or 'don't ask, don't tell' in the military—to enacting discriminatory laws, the area of common ground seems to be shrinking. 

Scott Shackford pondered this "libertarian-gay divorce" in Reason's November 2015 issue. "Now that government discrimination is largely tamed, gay activists are going after private behavior, using the government as a bludgeon," wrote Shackford. "After a long alliance with libertarians, the two camps could be settling into a new series of conflicts."

After yesterday's summit, I'm pretty sure we should start drawing up the divorce papers. Again and again, people scoffed at the ideas of religious liberty and of furthering LGBT equality via non-governmental means. 

MarkKawar/TwitterMarkKawar/Twitter

In contrast, Boaz stated: "I think we have millions of small businesses, and I would like to leave the heavy hand of government out of their relationships with their customers and their employees as much as possible." 

"I think it is an illiberal attitude to say to a person with strong religious views, 'You have to participate in a ceremony like a gay wedding that offends your religious sensibilities," he continued. 

Feldblum, however, dismissed the idea that religious beliefs could ever justify discrimination. "When someone has not been educated [about tolerance of LGBT individuals] and wants to keep discriminating," she said, "there is only one federal government, there is only one state government, one local government that can say: We will not tolerate this in our society." 

The EEOC just brought its first two cases alleging discrimination against a transgender person, she noted, and while one of the employers had already settled, the other, a funeral home, is fighting back.

With a religious exemption to non-discrimination laws, the funeral home owner "could say, 'well, actually, we're religiously based,'" said Feldblum, raising her arms high and rolling her eyes. "It's a funeral home! We do not want to allow that and the only thing that can protect us is a law that doesn't have [a religious] exemption." 

It's a strange statement for someone who started the session by declaring it a "myth" that those discriminated against by employers because of their sexuality or gender expression have no recourse. The EEOC has ruled that the federal prohibition on sex discrimination (established as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) does indeed extend to gay and trans people. "When you hear that in 29 states there's no recourse if you've been discriminated at work ... that's a myth, in terms of current law," said Feldblum. "You can come to the EEOC and file a charge and we'll investigate."

Over the past two years the agency has received about 2,300 complaints from those alleging discrimination because of their gender identity or sexual orientation and has tackled about 200 of those claims, she said.

@HmelMel/Twitter@HmelMel/Twitter

Live Twitter commentary from those watching the discussion was almost exclusively on Feldblum's side. After calling religious exemptions "nonsense," one user even tweeted (without a hint of irony):

Yo. 'Free Country' does NOT mean freedom to restrict others' freedoms. 

Besides the conviction that someone's right to shop for cake anywhere trumps someone else's freedom of conscience, here's some other conventional wisdom gleaned from the summit: 

  • Being "safe" means not just freedom from actual or threatened physical violence but also avoiding offensive or hurtful language. 
  • Laws that are redundant or practically unenforceable are still worthwhile for their "symbolic" power. (Says Scott Shackford: "I remember when people defended anti-sodomy laws as symbolic."
  • Anything short of unconditional affirmation of minority-activist goals is a form of "erasure." The correct response when talking about politics and policy is to assess who has the most potent victim-profile and then defer to them. By assessing people on things like race, gender expression, and sexuality rather than the content of their ideas, we are showing them proper respect. 

The urge to police people's language at the summit was also strong—comically so, at times. During one Q&A session, an aggrieved audience member suggested panelists watch their use of the word "states" when referring to American land, as it was exclusionary to those who live in U.S. territories.

And it was impossible not to notice a contradictory impulse in so many of those gathered. At the same time as people praised the non-binary "gender spectrum," they reinforced old tropes about masculinity and femininity, and the centrality of biology to both. One speaker said he knew his daughter was trans from a young age because Nicole—assigned male at birth, like her twin brother—liked to dress in pink and avoided boy toys. Another speaker described a man as being "in touch with his feminine side" because "he cries a lot." (Nothing regressive and gender-stereotypical to see here!)

For years, feminists have fought against the idea that there's something inherent in girlhood or womanhood that explains most of the gendered preferences and traits foisted on us. Now this viewpoint gets a pass, as long as it's espoused by the LGBTIQ community rather than the usual old patriarchy.

The saving grace of the summit, for me, was some real talk from Andrew Sullivan. In the final session of the summit, titled "The Paradox of Progress," Sullivan pretty much played the role of Reality in the South Park "Safe Space" episode: 

"I always was engaged in civil rights politics in order not to be engaged in civil rights politics," said Sullivan. But despite the gay rights movement's "tectonic" gains, a paradox common to activist- movements has emerged:

Somehow the more success you have, the remaining things that are not fully done become, in some people's minds, the worst form of oppression they've ever experienced in their lives. You can see this all over these college campuses right now. 

Sullivan fears that young activists will "cling to victimhood and not see the opportunity that they now have, which was built upon by generations of people that have lived through pain and suffering, and a generation that died unbelievably tragic deaths... And not to do that, given what [prior generations of activists] gave, and what they sacrificed—to revert to this sort of whiny, victimhood, constant sense of oppression—is to do a disservice to all the people that made this moment possible."

Sullivan also criticized today's LGBT activists from a tactical standpoint. "What helped the gay rights movement succeed finally was a strategy of pointing out what we have in common with the majority, and appealing to that center ground, and making very strategic arguments about that," said Sullivan.

And avoiding the kind of model where by you instantly accuse the entire society of being bigoted, and constantly frame your position as one of beleaguered victimization that needs to be accommodated at all costs and has no tolerance for any of the in-between stuff that people feel.

[...] Why do we abandon that strategy now? Why do we abandon the strategy of engagement with straight people, explaining our stories, building up that dialogue and that commonality? ... The blanket bigotry towards large swaths of this country who may disagree with us right now or have disagreed with us in the past is not just morally wrong, it's politically counterproductive. 

Calling himself more of a "classical liberal" on these issues, Sullivan stressed that "religious freedom is fundamental to this country," and said he is "extremely queasy about any attempt to corral or coerce the religious faith of anybody." Audience members on Twitter branded Sullivan's statements offensive, misogynist, and transphobic. See his whole session here. 

* Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, and questioning

Photo Credit: Atlantic Live/Twitter

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.

  • Suell||

    LGBTSTFU

  • Homple||

    "LGBTSTFU", I'm going to appropriate that.

  • Suell||

    I picked it up from somewhere, I forget.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Suell: Acronym Appropriator.

    I'd watch it.

  • Suell||

    Was that yours? Thought I'd picked it up from some other wretched hive of scum and villainy.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    No, I am not that creative, I was just being festive (it's the season).

  • Mint Berry Crunch||

    Fans of the show simply call it S:AA. Which was appropriated from fans of L&O:SVU. Which was appropriated from fans of ST:TNG.....

  • Hank Phillips||

    Very altruistic stewardship, citizen, to pick up others' scat in addition to your own.

  • Real American||

    instinct

  • Hank Phillips||

    The Pró-State movement is already making its presence felt, I see.

  • Suicidy||

    That needs to be a t-shirt. I think I'll make a bunch and sell them.

  • CZmacure||

    less aggressive but gets the point across : QUILTBAG

  • DevilDocNowCiv||

    Suell,

    Gesundheit! And this story amazes this 56 y/o guy who has seen gay go from an unmentioned issue except as ridicule in my youth, to becoming OK, to become fascisticly pushing around meek religious stores that serve gay patrons in a sincerely friendly way beause they refuse to stomp on a cross, or something. Now the spectrum has continued to where the movement is going to "unperson" two formerly stalwart gay spokesmen who fought the public relations battle to get from the outcast status of my youth to today. I'm glad this movement doesn't have access to guillotines; they remind me of another righteous group in the past, "eating their own."

  • Notorious UGCC||

    "Erasing marginalized people from discourse about their own communities has long been a problem, of course. But the fact remains that"

    ....the fact remains that these activists are nuttier than a barrel of Planters peanuts.

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    ...without the shells. They are tender as fuck because they have no shells.

  • Real American||

    well, some of them had shells, but cut them off and now are just NUTS.

  • IceTrey||

    Since peanuts are actually legumes your statement means they aren't nutty at all.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    Lean closer, and I'll explain my meaning in terms you can understand.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    "SPERGSPERGSPERGSPERGSPERGSPERG"

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    I gave up on the various acronymic variations and just go with LGBTQWERTY.

  • JayWye||

    I prefer Mike Adam's versions GBLT,pronounced GiBLeT.

  • Homple||

    "and a generation that died unbelievably tragic deaths."

    World War I Europeans?

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    More likely lynchings and such. "Generation" doesn't have to mean that everyone experienced the evil, and here it is clear he is talking about the LGBTQWERTY subset of the generation.

  • Elizabeth Nolan Brown||

    He was talking about AIDS

  • AdamJ||

    Yeah but still.

  • AlmightyJB||

    What does dying of Aids have to do with activism? I'm not trying to be flippant about it. Is that "you kids don't know what hardship is" gonna sell anyways?

  • CZmacure||

    In the activist catechism, activists needed Government in the person of Ronald Reagan to do stuff for them, and he didn't.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Instead, he had the CIA bombard the gay community with AIDS-infected blankets.

  • DevilDocNowCiv||

    Red,

    Thanks for introducing some sound history into this thread. My textbook stopped with the CIA introducing crack to black neighborhoods.

  • Hank Phillips||

    The quote clearly contained "tragic," pay attention!

  • ||

    There may be a case for people dying off from the anally inflicted death sentence suffering rather more tragic deaths than Europukes in the War. Further, seems like the modifier "unbelievably" would not be applicable to the War, wheras it certainly was to them that was afflicted by the gay cancer.

  • DevilDocNowCiv||

    Limp,

    It wasn't gay cancer. That was an unofficial diagnoses from ER's, because Docs were seeing formerly unseen cancers in clearly gay patients. No, it's not more tragic to die from an easy-to-protect-yourself-from STD or drug use (injection tools sharing passing blood around) disease than from deaths and horror-story war wounds.

    The key WW I tragedy is that national civilian and military leaders on the Allied side ignored a major lesson from our Civil War that the Germans paid attention to - don't make head-one charges with infantry against high rates of opposing fire, as the infantry'll get cut down like grass and probably not achieve their goal. This lesson was demonstrated in our Civil War with quickly reloadable single shot rifles. It was even more emphatic with the later developed machine guns available for WW I.

    Yet Allied leadership did it repeatedly, loosing tens of thousands of men over many efforts before they reluctantly stopped.That specific, tragic bit of incompetence is almost never discussed, but so much of military history is not that interesting to many. Many other episodes of tragic incompetence were part of WW I, and amateur and certainly professional military historians can elaborate at length. The comparison of a voluntary activity resulting in a wasting death, attended by loved ones and celebrated as a local hero in many cases, is not even a close comparison.

  • hpearce||

    LGBT vs Religious Freedom looms large because enforcing the concept of Religious Freedom as a separate issue from Freedom of Belief is a major problem ! Does it merely represent the concept of Freedom of Belief via freedom of religious belief? Or does it represent freedom of religious belief/religious freedom as a special privilege for those with religious beliefs?
    The courts and conservatives seem to believe in the "special privilege" view; but as a libertarian I only accept the generic concept of Freedom of Belief.

    What does Reason and the Libertarian Party believe? And what consequences does it have for supporting a constitutional right that might be inherently discriminatory against other beliefs ?

  • R C Dean||

    LGBTQWERTY is only in opposition to religious freedom when it harnesses the government to go after religious people for their beliefs.

  • hpearce||

    I disagree with you. Only my opinion.
    My view is that the left-wing is attacking Freedom of Religion as a discrimination in order to attack the general concept of freedom of belief.
    I never hear the left-wing support court decisions for religious belief/religious freedom when they only have to say that "I hope the court has the same opinion/decision for other beliefs". But they always seem to attack the court decision

  • ||

    "My view is that the left-wing is attacking Freedom of Religion as a discrimination in order to attack the general concept of freedom of belief"

    This is absolutely true. And, in fact, the attacks on the right to bear arms are also geared toward obliterating the freedom of belief and the criminalisation of unapproved thoughts and imagery.

  • CZmacure||

    You're right. This goes beyond religion. It's about the Left and the LGBT wanting to force others to accept things they accept. Funny how the Left and the LGBT will out of one mouth say what they do in private is no one else's businesses, but then they want to force their business on people who want nothing to do with them.

  • SIV||

    Shoot the Atheists. PROBLEM SOLVED!

  • AlmightyJB||

    I am pretty well armed so...

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    Religious Freedom is just a poor substitute for individual freedom, which is the only freedom which matters -- the right, and duty, to control yourself and your property, regardless of harm to self or the others' distaste.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    The First Amendment is something of a canary in the coal mine. If the LGBLTs are willing to step all over it, imagine what they'll do to other rights?

  • EscherEnigma||

    The First Amendment has nothing to do with non-discrimination law. Prior to the CRA (1964) it was perfectly legal to kick someone out of your bakery because they the wrong religion, nationality, skin color and so-on.

  • MarioLanza||

    They hate religious freedom, freedom of speech is next and freedom of assembly is after that.

  • Juice||

    What does Reason and the Libertarian Party believe?

    I find it funny whenever someone is talking to a typical libertarian and brings up the Libertarian Party. It seems like they assume that libertarians are mostly members of the Libertarian Party or at least keep tabs on what the party is doing.

  • AlmightyJB||

    There's a Party?

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    At Reason HQ sometimes.

  • d3x / dt3||

    Just look for the party with no women present.

  • ||

    Let's get outta here, this place is a sausage fest.

  • Swiss Servator||

  • Not okay||

    With cocktails and everything.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    What does Reason and the Libertarian Party believe?

    That government force is justified when used against bigots.

  • Chip Chipperson||

    Freedom of conscience is being used interchangeably with freedom of religion in this case, because it's people of religious conscience in particular who are being targeted by the social justice mobs. As opposed to, say, conscientious objectors to military service or other secular activities of conscience.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Like the Methodist White Terror's right to send men with guns to kick in your grandparents' door under the 18th Amendment? to kidnap your kids for jihad under the Selective Service Act, 13th Amendment be damned? Religious freedom is an oxymoron. Because superstition is irrational its dupes have to send men with guns out to coerce people, and kill a few as examples. The Middle East is the birth-forcers' ideal.

  • Trshmnstr, terror of the trash||

    Religious freedom is an oxymoron.

    All these atheists are such better protectors of freedom.

    Perhaps, just perhaps, people will find and use any opportunity to exploit in their lust for power.

  • Trshmnstr, terror of the trash||

    But you're probably right, liberty loving religious folks don't really exist.

  • Chip Chipperson||

    Not to mention all the guys who, you know, wrote the fucking constitution.

  • DesigNate||

    I liked you better when you were Michael Hihn.

  • DesigNate||

    I liked you better when you were Michael Hihn.

  • ||

    There no way to formulate religious freedom so that it includes some legitimate power to violate the rights of others. As such, it's logicly impossible for it to come in conflict with any other freedoms (furthermore, this goes for any legitimate freedoms--a freedom can not attack another freedom). The only way there could be a conflict here is if at least one of the sides here is not actually claiming a legitimate freedom, but rather demanding exercise of power in violation of some other freedom.

  • JayWye||

    people have no "right" to another person's property or labor without their consent.
    Therefore,they should not have to serve you in their private businesses; so-called "public accommodation" laws are unconstitutional per the 1st,5th,and 13th amendments.
    That a person opens a business doesn't mean they relinquish their Constitutional rights.

  • DesigNate||

    All your businesses are belong to us.

    /progressives

  • ||

    Also, it's absurd that the culture's got so stupid that it seems like we need to have freedom of conscience spelt out. The founders didn't do it because it's so fundamentally obvious a character of moral beings. Heck, there were objections even to coming out and articulating other less obvious freedoms, such as the right to bear arms, on the grounds that they were so obviously innate to the human condition that enshrining them in law would actually serve to weaken the claim, which, it seems, it may have.

  • CZmacure||

    I'm not religious, but I support the right of a religious person to say "no". I would ask the Left where was their outrage when Mozilla fired their CEO because he supported traditional marriage or when LGBT gay bars refused women

  • R C Dean||

    a dialogue on legal barriers to equality

    Could someone point out to me the statutes or regulations that explicitly discriminate against transgender folks?

    Because it sounds like this entire meeting is a giant stolen base: counting the lack of special protections for transgender folks as discrimination or a "legal barrier to equality". Bigoted a-holes who are not in government are not a legal barrier to equality, or the source of the kind discrimination that would violate somebody's civil rights.

  • hpearce||

    I support discrimination by non-government entities as a civil right ! Something the left_wing doesn't do by supporting anti-discrimination laws.

  • Chip Chipperson||

    What I don't understand is why anyone would want to do business with someone who's being forced to do so at gunpoint.

  • CZmacure||

    This is relatively understandable if you read the stories of traveling groups of "Negro" musicians in the Jim Crow south. If the only hotel in every town is run by a person who does not wish to accommodate you, it is rather significant...

    (... I'm not really sure I buy the wholesale restriction of trade represented by the whole "public accommodation" legal rationale, but IANAL...)

    ... just saying I can understand why "anyone" would want to do business with someone who might not wish to do business with them : no alternative.

  • JayWye||

    the fact that "no alternative exists" doesn't mean squat. That's an opportunity for someone to create an alternative,not that one should be forced to act against their own free choice. it's their *private* property.

    it's basic contract law; two parties come to mutual agreement based on mutually agreed-to terms. If one party doesn't agree,there's no contract.

  • SimonD||

    Not to mention that Jim Crow wasn't private enterprise, it was government mandated and enforced (more specifically, Democrat-enforced)

  • Real American||

    they don't want to do business with these people. They want to punish them for BADTHINK.

  • block30||

    Better than I said it. Punished for bad think, and enforced by the government!!

  • block30||

    Because they are exercising power over someone else. The gay cake thing has people shoving their gay marriage in the face of people they KNOW don't support gay marriage. It's about sticking the knife in and twisting because you CAN and your target CAN'T do a damned thing about it.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Men with guns shooting up abortion clinics, on the other hand...

  • d3x / dt3||

    You tell 'em, Tulpa! I mean "Hank".

  • DJF||

    And the Cult of Victimology continues in its downward spiral while furiously punching upward against it supporters. Since how can you be a real victim if you have any supporters.

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    The inequality brigades, whether Krugman inequality, LGBTQWERTY, race, class, students, or whatever, can't complain about inequality until they first divide society into unequal classes.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    This article made my head hurt. I assume ENB has been partaking in the overuse of alcohol and/or drugs after covering this event.

  • BakedPenguin||

    She's a libertarian. She should be doing that anyway, unless she has a religious objection.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    More than usual, though.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Governments controlled by men of her "faith" usually have men with guns making sure there is no libertarian party. The offending force law here is the Income Tax Amendment voted by the same bigots who brought us Prohibition. Without the income tax the whining Pró-State movement isn't "forced" to pay for anything--not even for shoving wands up people's orifices against their will.

  • Lord at War||

    I could tell when she called "The Atlantic" a "centrist" publication.

    You know, where Conner Freidderdorffuck is the resident "right-winger'...

  • MJGreen - Docile Citizen||

    LGBTIQ. When did "intersex" pop up?

    Feldblum, however, dismissed the idea that religious beliefs could ever justify discrimination. "When someone has not been educated [about tolerance of LGBT individuals] and wants to keep discriminating"

    That's it. They can't simply have different beliefs or tastes; they've not been educated properly. Of course this is the head of the EEOC.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I just want constant discrimination protection because I am constantly questioning my sexuality.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    You missed that conversation last month. I suggested the movement letters were beginning to look like that Matrix screensaver.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I think intersex is hermaphrodites.

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    Ah, union of the Venn circles, not intersection.

  • d3x / dt3||

    I think that is what they mean as well. Of course, true intersexuality (ambiguous genitalia, testicular feminization syndrome) is rather rare, so it's hard to understand exactly what they mean here.

  • ||

    +1 Jamie Curtis

  • GamerFromJump||

    -1 That scene in True Lies.

  • Suicidy||

    Transtesticles?

  • Hank Phillips||

    Note to foreign readers: BIGOT, n. One who is obstinately and zealously attached to an opinion that you do not entertain.

  • GILMORE™||

    Not quite right

    "'a person whose habitual state of mind includes an obstinate, irrational, or unfair intolerance of ideas, opinions, ethnicities, or beliefs that differ from their own, and intolerance of the people who hold them.[1][2]""

    The key part there is that bigots are intolerant of certain views/people, refusing to entertain them, permit them to be aired in public, or to be granted any equal status in society.

    merely having different opinions is not bigotry. it is the act of insisting that certain opinions/people are "Unacceptable" at all, and demanding that they be repressed and ostracized, and never tolerated.

  • d3x / dt3||

    Gotta be Tulpa.

  • CptNerd||

    Does seem to have a uniformity of content if not style.

  • Mickey Rat||

    It is a entry from Ambrose Bierce's "The Devil's Dictionary"

  • Eman||

    i thought it stood for Bisexual Intersex Gay post-Op Transgender.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    "After yesterday's summit, I'm pretty sure we [libertarians and gay activists] should start drawing up the divorce papers."

    SoCons are so sorry, and they'd love to have coffee with you sometime if you want to talk about it.

    Maybe we could introduce you to this guy we know, Frank Meyer -

    "Meyer was not merely arguing that traditionalists and libertarians should tolerate one another and cooperate against a common enemy. His contention was that while they could differ in their emphases, a traditionalist had to be libertarian and a libertarian had to be traditionalist, or else each would be abandoning his own foundations. Meyer disliked the “fusionism” label precisely because it misrepresented his project as hammering together two different materials."

  • R C Dean||

    Who could have foreseen that the LGBTSTFU activists were going to use the Total State to hammer anyone who doesn't tow their party lion?

  • SimonD||

    Umm...., anyone who's been paying attention to people ever since they banded together to steal their neighbors cows.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Um, didn't German National Socialism and Soviet International Socialism hammer out a similar "united front" cooperation when Positive Christianity took over Poland? Democrats are commie dupes, true, but communism is dead meat. What is coercing and murdering us today is islamo-christian fascism. Once the LP has replaced the GOP those fun-loving folks will no longer be threatened into circling their wagons, and won't attract socialist vultures.

  • GILMORE™||

    ""islamo-christian""

    You misspelled "intellectually dishonest equivocation"

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I know this makes me worse than hitler, but LGBT rights are my rights. There is no special category.

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    The only rights which matter are individual rights. Socialists can emulate socialism with contracts, but individualists in a socialist society are shit outta luck.

    The problem with espousing individual rights is all the numbskulls who whine about who is to protect them from the big bad corporations, as if government gives a shit. Occupy Wall Street was a classic example -- they got the fat cat cronyism right, but them expect government to stop it, ignoring that half Obama's cabinet came from Wall Street, and ignoring that government created slavery, Jim Crow segregation, anti-gay laws, and above all else, rich fat cats who are immune to government regulation because they are the government.

  • PapayaSF||

    +1

  • Hank Phillips||

    None of the looter whiners knows the definition of an individual right. In this they resemble their oppressors, for I have never met two christianofascists who agree on any meaningful definition of "god."

  • DesigNate||

    It's hard to meet a unicorn and ask their opinion.

  • JayWye||

    contracts are by MUTUAL agreement to terms; if one party doesn't agree with the terms,there's no contract. the terms MAY be negotiable,if both parties are willing. If one party will not negotiate,there's no deal,unless the other gives in and accepts the terms as they are. AFAIK,one cannot be forced into a contract.

  • prolefeed||

    It was one of many mind-boggling moments during the summit

    If by "mind-boggling" you mean "fairly predictable", then sure.

    It's a summit of the perpetually aggrieved. The squabbling is baked right in.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    If they feel oppressed by the presence of Chai Feldblum on their panel, it isn't difficult at all to imagine how the presence of a libertarian would make them feel.

  • Sevo||

    Bizzaro on micro-agression:
    http://bizarro.com/

  • Ken Shultz||

    Is the The Atlantic LGBT Summit like the 2015 Paris United Nations Climate Change Conference in that they get to make binding laws for us without any input or approval from Congress?

    Or is the Obama Administration discriminating against LGBTI in that way?

  • Hank Phillips||

    Not binding as a treaty. The Petition Project made the Kyoto Protocol a dead letter. Without most of the senate pretending that water vapor isn't a greenhouse gas, those transfer payments from producers to nonproducers cannot become the Supreme law of the Land. Gay people, like hippies, or swingers like to party and be happy, and for that reason are envied, hated and coerced by pulpit-thumping mystical bigots. This engenders resentment which makes them vulnerable to pseudoscientific collectivist superstitions no less dangerous than christians with torches and pitchforks. The problem is the continued existence of God's Own Party, just as in 1940s Germany.

  • Suicidy||

    Are you off your meds?

  • AlmightyJB||

    So where do transvestites fit into this spectrum? Or are they part of the evil cis race?

  • AlmightyJB||

    Also Jenner says she still likes women. Aren't most trans "gay"? So shouldn't Jenners group get their own acronym? Or do they have to combine acronyms like some common peasant? Or does the other group have to? Since Jenner is now a women and still likes women does that makes her trans gay? If she liked men would that makes her cis trans? Or is that a slur. Isn't calling her trans othering her from actual womenhood.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Those questions are for Donald Trump since he has the hugest brain

  • GamerFromJump||

    And here I thought the statement "I'm a lesbian in a man's body" was just a crude joke.

  • Mint Berry Crunch||

    Hey, not all us cis people are evil. I'm so tolerant, I was watching the work of transvestite film directors before it was cool.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Oh great now I have to split cis into separate classes. Seems like it would be easier for you to just be evil

  • AlmightyJB||

    Also, you know that you can't claim to be libertarian and also claim to be not evil right?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Just because I want to get rid of the income tax, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, ObamaCare, the food stamp program, OSHA, the EPA, and the National Labor Relations Board doesn't necessarily mean I'm evil, though.

    It's being a Redskins' fan that's unforgivable.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Isn't exploiting orphans evil? Because if it isn't , then I'm going to stop doing it

  • Ken Shultz||

    It depends on the race of the orphans.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Jobs are assigned based on racist and sexist stereotypes of course. I'm not some amateur.

  • ||

  • AlmightyJB||

    What's awesome is that Bela Lagosi is in it.

  • ||

    Lugosi is in many of Ed Wood's films, they were friends. If you want to see a really charming, not-too-fictionalized story about Ed Wood and his films, watch Tim Burton's Ed Wood. It's a really great film.

  • Suicidy||

    Bela Lugosi's dead.

  • Hank Phillips||

    As damsels in distress. Republicans attack them, other mystical socialists leap to their simulated defense and try to enlist them into a competing lynch mob.

  • d3x / dt3||

    Hi Mary.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    The Stan/Loretta sequence from *Life of Brian* is now public policy. I'm not even kidding.

  • Eric L||

    "At the same time as people praised the non-binary "gender spectrum," they reinforced old tropes about masculinity and femininity, and the centrality of biology to both. One speaker said he knew his daughter was trans from a young age because Nicole—assigned male at birth, like her twin brother—liked to dress in pink..."

    This father is on the wrong side of history. He needs to check his privilege.
    Historically, the color red and its derivative pink were associated with Mars, the God of War, and were worn by males. Brooks Brothers sold men’s (and boy’s) pink oxford cloth shirts as far back as the 1920s. It was not until 1949 that they sold pink clothing in their women’s department.

  • d3x / dt3||

    Time to write a strongly-worded letter!

  • Not okay||

    Seems unlikely, I've seen old photos and everyone was wearing black or white.

  • Hank Phillips||

    My grandpa wore sepia overalls.

  • hpearce||

    The LGBT was always left-wing. And any view that they were going to change simply because libertarians supported their rights was pretty delusional IMHO.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Making unqualified generalizations about a large group of people is always a mistake.

    Am I supposed to think that Justin Raimondo is a leftist now?

    If anything was delusional, it was thinking that swing voters wouldn't break for leftists because the right was openly hostile to LGBT--and wanted to use the government to discriminate against them. Incidentally, there are a lot of whites that break for the left because they think the Republicans are racist against blacks, too. Get rid of that, and maybe we'll be able to beat the progressives on ObamaCare, the watermelons on climate change, etc.

    If and when the left can't use gay marriage as a wedge anymore, it'll be a huge victory for the right.

  • Not okay||

    He obviously means the vast majority and he is most certainly correct.

  • Doctor Whom||

    I'm old enough to remember when LGBT (or at least gay male) activism had a strong libertarian component. Then the movement made a Faustian bargain with freedom-hating political correctness. I left the movement because it prioritized bigger government as its own reward over actual rights for actual gay people and even joined forces with the religious right to fight for greater government control over my body. But, of course, anyone who says so is immediately branded as a self-loathing LCR.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Low Credit Rating?

  • PapayaSF||

    I think it means Log Cabin Republican here.

  • Ken Shultz||

    There was a Faustian bargain between the GOP and social conservatives, too.

    Goldwater denounced the religious right.

    Ronald Regan never even bothered to throw them a bone.

    Somehow, after that, the values of the religious "right" is what a lot of people think of as being on the right.

    I still think anybody who wants other people's rights voted up or down should go back to calling themselves Southern Democrats. That's why they originally called themselves Democrats. Popular Sovereignty means voters in the states should decide whether blacks have rights at the ballot box.

    The Democrats still believe our rights can be overturned at the ballot box, whether it's the right to refuse to buy health insurance or the right to own a gun. Anybody who thinks a gay individual's rights should be voted up or down at the ballot box ideologically belongs in the Democratic Party.

    And they'll find that they aren't entirely unwelcome over there. As the LGBTI movement learned in the wake of California's Proposition 8, there are plenty of evangelical blacks and socially conservative Latinos who are more than happy to vote for the government to discriminate against gay people.

  • Seamus||

    Goldwater denounced the religious right.

    Only after he became a has-been. Back when he was running for president, he was denouncing the Supreme Court's school prayer decisions.

    Ronald Regan never even bothered to throw them a bone.

    Sounds like you never heard of the Mexico City policy. Or the appointment of C. Everett Koop. Or the yearly presidential addresses to the March for Life.

  • Hank Phillips||

    My Taral ex-girlfriend introduced me to a gay couple who voted the GOP ticket because "the democrats are communists and want to confiscate our money." They were unfazed by the observation that the republicans are looters too, for they imagined there was a difference of degree. This sort of delusion is often caused by use of teevee.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    If I were ENB, I'd ask for a raise. This is no way to spend a weekend.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I strongly suspect that Robbie has to pay to post.

    Wouldn't that explain a lot?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Robbie spends his weekend reading the campus circulars. A warning to robbie: you don't want to be the old man in the club.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    That's your job.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    That's why come the advice. I know.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    Once again, it's Troll Appreciation Saturday.

    So let's get right to our first article, about a Netherlands couple shopping for circumcisers.

  • GamerFromJump||

    I have it on good authority that you can get automatic ones at the Hardware Store.

  • Mint Berry Crunch||

    Totally off-topic, possibly re-post, auto-playing video, and absolutely horrible:

    Teen gets dragged into woodchipper on first day of work

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Totally ON TOPIC

  • DEG||

    Absolutely horrible is right.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Did somebody say gag order?

  • Notorious UGCC||

    Actor Steve Carell Packed On The Pounds For His Role In Financial Comedy Drama The Big Short By Indulging In His Favourite Deep Dish Pizzas

  • ||

    I am not going to read this.

    There is not such thing as LGBT rights.

    No class of people exists that have rights that people outside that class do not have. Period.

  • R C Dean||

    Yep. That's the stolen base.

    What they are talking about doesn't seem to be discrimination by government, which would be a violation of rights.

    Nope. What they are talking about is privileges for LGBTers. Special legal powers and protections based on their class/status.

    But calling it what it is doesn't sell. Nobody wants to say they are in favor of LGBT privileges. So, they lie about what they want.

  • ||

    *I did glance over it a bit and ENB isnt claiming such.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Did anyone say ENB was saying that? My post was about the summit itself, not about ENB 's position.

  • ||

    No, that was just a disclaimer. I didn't want anyone interpreting my comment as accusing her of that. After reading over it I thought they might.

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    The only right is the right of individuals to control themselves and their property. Everything else comes from that. Even socialism can be simulated with contracts.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I think there is a sharp distinction between our real rights and our legal rights.

    To me, governments don't even need to be especially democratic to be legitimate. Some kings and queens were quite popular. To my mind, legitimacy comes from the government closely approximating our real rights in law.

    The closer the government gets to approximating our real rights in law, however, the more confused people get about the distinction between our real rights and our legal rights. They think that we wouldn't have, say, freedom of religion if it weren't for the First Amendment.

    If, say, the Second Amendment were repealed tomorrow, our real rights would still exist regardless of the law. My support for things like the Second Amendment is about wanting the government and its laws to approximate our real rights--and nothing more. When the government violates our rights, it doesn't make our rights go away. It just erodes the legitimacy of the government.

  • Vernon Depner||

    No class of people exists that have rights that people outside that class do not have.

    That's not entirely true. Women have more rights than men in matters of reproduction.

  • Hank Phillips||

    To Republicans, your rights end where their sacred duty begins.

  • d3x / dt3||

    Hi Mary.

  • AlmightyJB||

  • Je Suis Reason (Fmr. AuH20)||

    This was forseeable. There were a number of articles about where the gay rights movement goes post gay marriage from lgbt activist types and they all wanted a big push on the trans thing and the gender thing generally. The religious liberty thing is more of an old war with one side feeling like it can win a big victory.

    I think what some people don't realize is that there has always been a far-left component of LGBT activism that is very much about radical societal rethink. They went along with gay marriage, but reluctantly (because monogamy is a straight person thing). Now that that's over, their response seems to be, "Look, fine, we gave you your bourgeoisie "marriage", even though its a patriarchal classist racist institution, can we now please get back to really queering the societal order? Really pushing for radical (read:left wing) solutions?"

    As to why the rest of the gay community doesn't tell them to fuck off, I think its because these people have been activists forever and get a lot of institutional respect for logevity and also commitment to the cause of gay rights. In some ways, I think their extremism almost gives them some "holier than thou, queerer than thou" (more where the gay movement and feminism intersect).

    Anyway, I'd be worried if I were a white gay man. These activist types HATE gay dudes, especially white gay men. I fully expect a the gay men who just want to fuck/make money and the feminist lesbians will split even more visibly in the future

  • R C Dean||

    This was forseeable.

    And, indeed, foreseen.

  • GILMORE™||

    "I think what some people don't realize is that there has always been a far-left component of LGBT activism"

    .......this is an unexpected development.......

  • Hank Phillips||

    Radical means consistent, as in having integrity. Hence, a consistent looter is a goosestepping socialist, a consistent opponent of coercion is a libertarian and a consistent mohammedan is a suicide bomber. Radical can be good; it depends on the values involved.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    In Freeport, IL, they're finally getting around to replacing the Victory statue on top of their Civil War monument.

    The original statue was toppled from the pedestal by a lightning strike in 1960.

    The old statue was made of terra cotta. The new statue, made of bronze, has been brought to town and they plan to put it on top of the monument soon.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    Back in the before time - almost four months ago - David Boaz said: "Today’s unjust *but hopefully temporary* wave of fines against small business owners pales in comparison" to the persecution of gays back when sodomy was illegal. So he was Deeply Offended at all the conservative rhetoric about persecution of religious dissenters.

    Now Boaz's old allies - including someone from the federal government's "anti-discrimination" bureaucracy - avow that not even the First Amendment should stand in the way of the persecution of private businesses.

    And "[o]ne of the biggest cheers of the day, in fact, came after an audience member accused Boaz of being "on the wrong side of history."

    *And* Andrew Sullivan himself - the old gay-activist warhorse - got called a bigot for defending religious freedom.

    And Sullivan's and Boaz's "belief in religious freedom set them apart from most of the crowd and speakers."

    Yeah, I'm sure the persecution of private business will be "temporary."

  • Voros McCracken||

    I don't understand how people don't get that _most_ people treat fights (whether violent ones or political ones) like actual contests: the goal is not to defend principles, the goal is to win.

    And anything that gets in the way of one side "winning," well most of the people on that side aren't going to stand for it. And most of the people on the other side are going to advocate it in the strongest possible of ways (until it's no longer useful. Then it will, of course, be discarded.)

  • Notorious UGCC||

    Yes, but I thought that libertarians were like drunk [ethnicity omitted], challenging all comers - SoCons, SoLibs, other libertarians, etc.

    So the fight they're trying to win is a down-the-line fight for every single libertarian principle. A lonely struggle, but a struggle libertarians enjoy fighting.

    That's what I've been told.

    Now they pick and choose who they're going to fight based on cultural affinity?

  • Hank Phillips||

    Based on immediacy of threat, with non-Pyrrhic allocation of resources.

  • Hank Phillips||

    To understand what nationalsocialists mean by religious freedom it helps to recall George Orwell's translation of the sign over the entry gate at Auschwitz: Freedom is Slavery. Clearly, what mystical bigots mean by religious freedom has not changed since protestants and catholics were free to burn each other (and semites) alive.

  • True Scottsman||

    "Arbeit macht frei"
    Translation: work will make (you) free

    I have no idea why you are so obtuse, Hank. What are you trying to argue here? From reading your posts, I get that you really hate religion, but what that has to do with nazis eludes me. Why are you conflating Christians with nazis? Oh right, because your burning hatred for Christianity makes you say really stupid shit.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    emphasis added in the phrase "but hopefully temporary"

  • Mike Laursen||

    re: At the same time as people praised the non-binary "gender spectrum," they reinforced old tropes about masculinity and femininity, and the centrality of biology to both.

    I've been trying to get my head around this contradiction. One of my son's schoolmates and friends started dressing in girls' clothes in kindergarten, and his parents took it as his being intelligent and artistic, and a "brave" fighter against gender-specific stereotypical clothing. I kind of bought that argument.

    But then, about a year later, the boy declared he wants to become a girl. The parents decided to go with it, and he is now a she with a girl's name. The parents now argue that the former boy is obviously really a girl because she is interested in girly things.

    Isn't that the exact opposite argument?

    There's a lot I don't know about what is going on inside the kid's head, but it seemed to me he really was a boy who was interested in girl's clothing, but found it less of a hassle at seven years old to just pass as a girl. But, who knows.

  • lap83||

    Why does someone need to BE a certain gender to be interested in things that are stereotypical of that gender. It seems so old fashioned to me

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Go play with your dolls and makeup and stay away from the more masculine pursuits, like sports and war.

  • GILMORE™||

    And cooking.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Men don't cook or show their feelings.

  • Trshmnstr, terror of the trash||

  • GILMORE™||

  • Vernon Depner||

    The most extreme expression of sexism possible is transsexualism.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    No, it's ubersexual.

  • Hank Phillips||

    If I were republican it would be my duty to have the sheriff and CPS go "fix" the situation with guns and a warrant. Imagine, a kid picking out the kind of clothes it prefers! That's child abuse!

  • Mike Laursen||

    I didn't follow your comment. Have there been any cases of Republicans doing that?

  • Suicidy||

    You're an idiot. Have you gotten your doctoral. dissertation published yet? Is your PH.D. In Dumbfuckedness official yet?

  • GILMORE™||

    I get the "Bacon" part, and the "Lettuce", and the "Tomato"..... but what the hell's a G?

  • ||

    Gorgonzola. I know, I know; cheese on a BLT? But it's actually crazy good.

  • GILMORE™||

    ...and why are all these fags at a sandwich conference?

  • lap83||

    Gouda sounds tastier

  • ||

    Gouda would be interesting. As would Gruyere. Oooohh, or Garrotxa. Or even a Gloucester.

    Cheese is good.

  • GILMORE™||

    You're all insane and cheese should never be on a BLT in any form.

    You can have a grilled cheese with bacon and tomato....

    or you can have have a BLT.

    But never the twain shall meet, and never shall there be any CatDog gender-bending of the sacrosanct purity and genius of either. This is law and you should rot in hell for even thinking of violating it.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Provolone is good with bacon. Fact.

  • GILMORE™||

    Sure. And if you put 2 pieces of bread around it and call it a PB sandwich no one will say boo.

  • ||

    I hear you, but...I've gone over to the dark side. I just can't help it, it's my nature. Plus...cheese.

    Spargel: Elzar had been seduced by the dark side of cooking: cilantro, mango salsa, raspberry vinaigrette!

    Bender: That drizzler!

  • pan fried wylie||

    Can anyone explain to me the difference between Religious Belief and "i believe I'm a different sex than i was born with"?

  • GILMORE™||

    One involves dressing up in robes and hanging out with a bunch of child molesters, and one involves.... .... .... let me get back to you on that.

  • PapayaSF||

    I would love to see poll numbers regarding the LGBT crowd's opinion of Muslim immigration. The Euro LGBT crowd has had some issues with it.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

  • PapayaSF||

    Oh, I'm well aware of that. I think there are multiple aspects: the general PC/libertarian attitude (pro-immigration no matter what), the xenophilic "swarthy guys are hot" tendency, and the practical problem that Islamic theology and culture are explicitly anti-gay. It's the conflict between the first and the last that I find interesting.

  • Suicidy||

    Isn't it ironic that the left has such a huge boner to bring Muslims here by the millions, even though those same Muslims would gladly see the gays slaughtered.

  • PapayaSF||

    I think it's a real issue that will probably help get Trump elected....

  • Rockabilly||

    GayWeddingCakes at Muslim Bakeries?

    http://tinyurl.com/q2n9f29

  • Suicidy||

    What about Muslim wedding cakes at gay bakeries?

  • GILMORE™||

    "an audience member accused Boaz of being "on the wrong side of history.""

    Someone out there isn't much of a student of history.

    How many millions died before Western Society came up with (and accepted) the idea of "Religious Pluralism"?

    It wasn't just a speed-bump on the way to a Secular Humanist monopoly on 'enlightenment'. Never mind that inevitable claims of the latter were used to justify the most inhuman crimes of history.

  • Eric L||

    "Someone out there isn't much of a student of history."

    See my above post regarding the color pink as being perceived as feminine or historically associated with women. I have found that many who use the phrase "wrong side of history" do not have a good grasp on history.

  • RAHeinlein||

    OT: Is anyone experiencing problems with Reason's pop-up ads? These things are taking over every time I log-on or refresh. I'm on a new MacBook, so not sure if this is the problem.

  • PapayaSF||

    I find that clicking outside them makes them go away. If not, maybe install an ad blocker.

  • RAHeinlein||

    Thanks.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "And it was impossible not to notice a contradictory impulse in so many of those gathered. At the same time as people praised the non-binary "gender spectrum," they reinforced old tropes about masculinity and femininity, and the centrality of biology to both."

    That is hardly surprising. The logic of transgenderism seems to require it. One cannot be inherently oriented to something which is entirely a mere social construct, there must be something deeper to it or it is something that can be changed. But the logic of radical forms of feminism requires there be no differences between men and women even to the point of denying biology. It is either cognitive dissonance or having to call out somebody as wrong.

  • BearOdinson||

    I am sorry but the majority of this Trans stuff is nonsense. And should be completely separate from gay, lesbian or bi issues. There are a whole host of things that turn people on. But that doesn't change basic the basic biology of the human species. A gay man is still a man (XY, testosterone, penis and testicles, higher ratio of grey to white brain matter, etc). Same for a lesbian woman (XX, estrogen, vagina, uterus, ovaries, higher ratio of white to grey brain matter etc.)

    And it doesn't force me to do anything if another person wants to have sex with other consenting adults in ways I may not find sexy.

    But the human species has two sexes: male and female. And just because a tiny portion of humans are born with ambiguous genitalia or a genetic disorder that gives an extra chromosome doesn't change that. Anymore than any other birth defect reflects what a healthy human is.

    Doesn't mean someone can't try to change from one to the other. That is between them and a doctor. But cutting off a penis and testicles, and injecting estrogen doesn't change the genetics of a person.

  • GILMORE™||

    " the majority of this Trans stuff is nonsense. "

    It should be frequently noted... that this "Trans Stuff" is less than 1% of the population.

    so 'the majority' of the trans-stuff is just another slice off that.

    cringey. pun. intended.

  • pan fried wylie||

    The hormones are not sexually exclusive.

  • BearOdinson||

    Of course, but women have far greater ratio of estrogen to testosterone and me the opposite. And this ratio does vary over the course of one's life, both in the short term and the long term.
    But, in general, these are the basic sex hormones.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Now you are just being regressive. ENB will be so disappointed.

  • BearOdinson||

    I know. It must be so frustrating to the acronym crowd that there are still some of us cavemen around. (Nothing in this post should be interpreted as trying to demean Neanderthals, Australopithicus, Homo Erectus or any other of the Hominini before or after the split from Chimpanzees.)

  • GILMORE™||

    "avoiding offensive or hurtful language."

    Translation = the desire to have exclusive right to the arbitrary power to tell anyone and everyone to SHUT UP CUZ FEELINS

  • BearOdinson||

    In Nevada, outside of the two most populous counties, prostitution is legal. So if a lesbian goes to a brothel, and the girl the lesbian wants isn't down with that, that sounds like "discrimination".
    What the hell is the difference between this and the baker?

  • GILMORE™||

    Um, cake tastes better than dyke pussy?

  • BearOdinson||

    I may have to see some empirical evidence. Although I am not sure pornhub accurately reflects the "typical" lesbian.

  • pan fried wylie||

    ditto for cakehub.com

  • Notorious UGCC||

    Why not do the equivalent of viewing both, and watch American Pie?

  • pan fried wylie||

    and accomplish neither cake nor porn, the ultimate solution!

  • Hank Phillips||

    The Republican platform committee is adding a plank to ban cakehub.com

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    There is no difference. The right to refuse service is an inalienable human right. We have a simple word for any system that can force one person to perform services to another.

  • GILMORE™||

    'The correct response when talking about politics and policy is to assess who has the most potent victim-profile and then defer to them."

    ""....and the wolf will live with the lamb, and the leopard will lie down with the goat. The calf, the young lion, and the fatling will be together, and a child will lead them."""

    I think this conference was missing one very-opinionated fat black tranny to scream at them, "YALL MOTHAFUCKERS AINT KNOW SHIT BOUT NOFFIN NOW SHUT A FUCK UP AND GIMME MAH FOOT MASSAGE, BITCHES"

  • Vampire||

    "When someone has not been educated [about tolerance of LGBT individuals] and wants to keep discriminating," she said, "there is only one federal government, there is only one state government, one local government that can say: We will not tolerate this in our society."

    And whoever advocates state sanctioned violence, the same state that discriminated against lbgt individuals, can really go fuck themselves.

    The individuals who hold such desires of state violence are going to wreck the movement. Folks who hide behind the state, who hides behind it's standing armies, and advocate they violate the liberty of individuals are douchebags, and deserve no respect or help.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    "there is only one federal government, there is only one state government, one local government"

    Ein volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer!"

  • Trshmnstr, terror of the trash||

    The individuals who hold such desires of state violence are going to wreck the movement.

    What movement? The movement has achieved their main purpose. The only people left in the "movement" are those who wear brown shirts and jackboots.

  • Vampire||

    I thought you liked it when I stepped on your face with my boot.........

    ^throws boots in trash.

  • GILMORE™||

    "When someone has not been educated [about tolerance of LGBT individuals] and wants to keep discriminating," she said, "there is only one federal government, there is only one state government, one local government that can say: We will not tolerate this in our society." "

    That isn't even a coherent sentence... or even coherent independent clauses.

    "When someone has not been educated and wants to keep discriminating,"....

    There is a presumption that all 'discrimination' is a product of some missing 'education'.... rather than simply *differing opinions*.

    The presumption is that there *are no other valid views*. There is only one correct view, and you either will repeat it exactly as dictated to you, or you are being willfully obtuse.

    To the latter point -- if the person has already been informed of the politically-approved opinion to have (aka "education"), and refuses to accept it, that they are "irrational" or "incapable of reason" (despite there being no actual rational claims made) ... or Choosing to maintain a different POV out of willful, stubborn hate. There is no possible alternative "reasonable" view, or one not motivated by bias and hate.

    And the only solution on offer to ensure that this Monopoly POV is strictly maintained... is government force. Oh, they start by claiming its "education", but they don't even pause for breath before insisting that this education will be delivered at the point of a gun.

  • Hank Phillips||

    So... who taught their infiltrators that the initiation of force is Good? Holy? Rewarding? Dutiful? Benevolent? Faithful? Necessary? Inevitable? Ordained? Democratic? Constitutional? Justified? Desirable? Valuable? Educational? Tolerable? Enlightened? Ethical? Correct? Right? Proper? Wholesome? Deserved? Edifying?

  • GILMORE™||

    no.

  • Mindyourbusiness||

    Judge, is that you?

  • Hank Phillips||

    Communo-fascists always cross-dress to infiltate whiners with an axe to grind. By standing on our platform and not helping republican christianofascism beat, roll, arrest and otherwise coerce these folks, we remain part of the solution.

  • BearOdinson||

    People should be understanding and patient with friends, family and co-workers who are having some identity issues. If a boy wants to play with dolls or the girl wants to play with guns and trucks. Fine let them. Let them even go through their phases. It is part of learning who they are. But the vast majority of boys tend towards certain behaviors and girls tend towards others. And a handful of poorly designed studies with vanishingly small sample sizes run by people who make no effort to hide their biases shouldn't negate thousands of years of wisdom by almost all human cultures.

    And to indulge in a child's delusions that a boy IS a girl is nothing short of child abuse.

  • Hank Phillips||

    David Boaz of the Constrictor Institute is absolutely right! Yessir, God's Own Party has 18 times the number of voters as that godless, dope-legalizing, demon rum-approving, birth-control-pill-popping, gay marriage-permitting, tax-repealing, open-carry anarchist bunch of scofflaws calling themselves the Libertarian Party. But those jerks have drawn away 3% of our national vote (reduced to 1% by Nixon-subsidy accounting techniques applied to secret electronic ballots)--jeopardizing the Pró-State movement. But Ram Johnson is here to do something about it.
    Google: "life begins at erection" or go to Youtube http://tinyurl.com/pnv5836
    Don't let the libertarians hand Amerikkka over to That Jezebel. Every contribution to the Ram Johnson campaign will be re-warded with a free Pró-State examination.

  • d3x / dt3||

    Maybe Mary.

  • d3x / dt3||

    Maybe Mary.

  • GILMORE™||

    Its too retarded to be Tulpa. He's a contrarian attention-whore, but he's not crazy-incoherent.

  • Rockabilly||

    What about eunuch rights? Will Mr Hankey speak for them? Well Mr Hankey???

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weelryxQx48

  • Careless||

    You really just can't give these idiots an inch. That's what it comes down to

  • Issue Ninja||

    Christian baker refuses bake a cake for a gay wedding because religious belief. Baker is fined $135,000 by the government http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/c.....y-wedding/

    Muslim truckers refuse to haul alcohol because of religious belief. Government (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) sues on their behalf and gets them $240,000 from the trucking company. http://www.overdriveonline.com.....l-alcohol/

  • Homple||

    The trucking outfit got what's coming to it for hiring religious fundamentalist loons. Others will be more cautious.

  • Hank Phillips||

    There are bootleggers among the Saracen blackamoors. Search: "Sharia Law One Shot of Alcohol is 80 Lashes"

  • PapayaSF||

    The double standards are astonishing. In the old days they were used to protect American citizens and traditions. Now they're used to attack them.

  • Rockabilly||

    And who will speak for the eunuch? Apparently not the EEOC!!!

  • JayWye||

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

  • JayWye||

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

  • JayWye||

    Everybody has not only the natural right to discriminate, but the absolute requirement and duty to do so. Discrimination is fundamental to the exercise of the faculty of reason.

    Discriminating for or against is simply the ability to discriminate what is desirable, versus what is not desirable.

    The right to discriminate for healthy and desirable actions and the ability to discriminate against undesirable and unhealthy actions is fundamental to our freedom of association and religion.

    The shorthand of "discriminate against" is the problem here. That phrase has become code for "someone who opposes the statist agenda." All by itself, it lacks both accuracy and precision, and is thus lacking in any moral force.

    Now, if you wish to discuss discrimination against a state of being, versus a choice of actions ("lifestyle"), then we're talking about something real. Discrimination either for, or against, based on either false relationships, or on irrelevant states of being, is simply stupidity and/or ignorance gone to seed. But judging another's actions or stated beliefs is a fundamental right, precisely because it is a fundamental obligation for all human beings.

    originally by John Stevens,NRO 7-22-14

  • Real American||

    Never understood why the gays threw in with the trannies. Trannies are certifiably insane while Gays insist homosexuality is not a mental disorder. If the gays were smart, they'd drop these lunatics like an bad habit.

  • Vernon Depner||

    That won't be necessary—the "gender identity" crowd is already ostracizing Gays.

  • CZmacure||

    Well the only reason why homosexuality was declassified as a mental disorder was political pressure and threats.

    "“The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association yielded suddenly and completely to political pressure when in 1973 it removed homosexuality as a treatable aberrant condition. A political firestorm had been created by gay activists within psychiatry, with intense opposition to normalizing homosexuality coming from a few outspoken psychiatrists who were demonized and even threatened, rather than scientifically refuted. Psychiatry’s House of Delegates sidestepped the conflict by putting the matter to a vote of the membership, marking for the first time in the history of healthcare that a diagnosis or lack of diagnosis was decided by popular vote than by scientific evidence…”(page 9)"

    1974 – the entire membership of the APA was polled for their support or rejection of the Board’s decision. žOf the 10,000 voting members, nearly 40% opposed the Board’s decision to normalize homosexuality. Decision was hardly unanimous. (Controversially, a survey conducted in 1979 asked 10,000 psychiatrists if they felt homosexuality “usually represented a pathological adaptation.” ž69% of respondents said “yes,” and ž60% said homosexual men were less capable of “mature, loving relationships” than heterosexual men.)

  • TimothyLane||

    The goal of homosexual activists was never the legal tolerance that they claimed they sought, but rather mandated approval. It's certainly understandable that they aren't happy when others call their behavior immoral, but the fact remains that they have no right to demand the moral approval of religions. And, in practice, this really just means hostility to Christians, since they've already shown (in their response to tests in heavily Muslim Dearborn) that they won't take the chance of challenging Muslim business owners.

  • Rayson||

    "Allyson Robinson started by criticizing the fact that less than half of the nine panelists were transgender. Good cisgender allies would have declined the invitation to participate, she suggested, because they were taking up space that could have gone to trans people."

    I would normally call belittling your allies like that a dick move, but these guys have too much in common with Walter Peck for that to work.

  • Rayson||

    "Allyson Robinson started by criticizing the fact that less than half of the nine panelists were transgender. Good cisgender allies would have declined the invitation to participate, she suggested, because they were taking up space that could have gone to trans people."

    I would normally call belittling your allies like that a dick move, but these guys have too much in common with Walter Peck for that to work.

  • ||

    "t's important to note that the summit was organized by centrist publication The Atlantic and underwritten by big businesses such as Deloitte, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and the American Federation of Teachers. It featured federal employees, former and current legislators, and one Sex in the City star. Nothing about this event could be described as remotely "fringe.""

    Funny. So the cis-organizations that support non-cis speech are supposed to shut the fuck up. They choose finance non-cis speakers and then are acting "wrongfully" when they finance some cis speakers of that panel.

    "For years, feminists have fought against the idea that there's something inherent in girlhood or womanhood that explains most of the gendered preferences and traits foisted on us."

    And they've been contradictory in that, too. The extreme "social constructionism" stance is amusing, at best. Affirming evolution (natural selection) when opposing conservative religion. Affirming partial genetic determinism when it comes to homosexuality. Denying evolution when it comes to womanhood (sexual selection). This isn't new.

  • ||

    Well, I know this thread isn't closed, but I was really hoping to see more references to dyke pussy.

    Kind of disappointed.

  • ||

    Gender identity is established in early childhood ("between three and six years old," according to Hattaway Communications research associate Nicholle Manners); for parents, helping children transition to their preferred gender identity at a young age is the only humane position.

    Really?!?!?! Because this stands in stark contrast to *tons* of gender and sexual preference research. Not that I believe the current research to be infallible or even necessarily true, but this statement, and it's included policy proscriptions seem like rather blatant pseudo-science rotted to the core with political activism.

  • Woodchippin' 4 Jesus||

    No one, not even Roger Williams, believed in religious liberty. If there be guillotines in 1650, he would have gladly beheaded George Fox & his band of Merry Quakers

  • Fun at Parties||

    Loved this blog and how it speaks volumes of truth about when those whom are given an inch want to take a mile.

  • EscherEnigma||

    "I remember when people defended anti-sodomy laws as symbolic."

    Yep. That was just a couple of months ago. Both Virginia and Texas, I think. But hey, let's pretend legalistic symbolism is a liberal thing.

    As to the bakers...

    If baking a cake is "participating in a ceremony", then how can you bake a cake for anyone of a different religion without offending your religious sensibilities? Surely a good Christian baker wouldn't want to participate in a heathen ceremony, but if they bake a cake for someone that happens to be Wiccan, that's what they just did. Where's the liberty for *that* baker?

    What about the baker that thinks the Bible prohibits the mixing of races (a formerly common notion, now less popular)? Surely a cake for a mixed race couple offends their religious sensibilities. Where's the liberty for *that* baker?

    How come the only religious liberty anyone seems to care about is the liberty to stick it to gay people?

    Or, to put it in other words... if people were serious about the whole "religious liberty" thing, they wouldn't be so focused on gay people. They would be arguing that "because God" should be a trump card to *all* non-discrimination laws. But so long as people are whining about non-discrimination laws *only* when they come to gay people? Yeah, that's not a principled stand for religious liberty. It's just a stand for sticking it to the gays.

  • ||

    "If baking a cake is "participating in a ceremony", then how can you bake a cake for anyone of a different religion without offending your religious sensibilities?"

    If the buyers use the cake to throw it a clown, then providing it is not part of a religious ceremony. Unless there's some clown religion. That raises another thing, namely defining "religion". That's the "law unto oneself" problem. In order to get around that, it's mostly traditional religions - size, scope, history, and such - that are accepted. (See traffic lights, and drugs.) Which also serves to explain the focus on homosexuality versus blackness. Whatever anti-black doctrine you imagine does not appear to be part of said traditional religion, whereas anti-gay marriage quite literally (?) is. Further as to why there's a focus on the gay conflict: a) it's a current conflict; and b) there's some chance of success. -- The classically liberal stance is freedom of contract, freedom to discriminate (negative liberty); nothing here contradicts that.

  • MarioLanza||

    "It's just a stand for sticking it to the gays."

    Right. The "victimized" parties had to actively seek out these bakeries and they could have gone down the street. Oregon state government officials colluded in this process. Then the state government fined the Oregon bakers $100,000. That is almost the same as the average workplace injury settlement for LOSING AN ARM.

    Now, I know. Those poor dears. They had to drive down the street to get another bakery. Driving down the street vs losing an arm. Pretty much equivalent.

  • Win Bear||

    Calling himself more of a "classical liberal" on these issues, Sullivan stressed that "religious freedom is fundamental to this country," and said he is "extremely queasy about any attempt to corral or coerce the religious faith of anybody."

    I think positive rights under civil rights legislation should be reciprocal to be fair. That is, if you claim the positive right not to be discriminated against by other businesses because of your membership in a certain class, you must extend the same positive right towards others. That means that for religion there is a choice: either give up civil rights protections and discriminate as much as you like, or claim civil rights protections and abide by them reciprocally. Right now, religions assert positive rights against others, but refuse to honor the same rights reciprocally.

  • ||

    Agreed, in distant theory. But this is a balancing act. If "religion" is partially denied its right to discriminate freely, is its insistence on positive rights a matter of compensation for that, temporarily? Cf. a classical liberal paying taxes and using public goods/utilizing positive rights.

  • Win Bear||

    If "religion" is partially denied its right to discriminate freely, is its insistence on positive rights a matter of compensation for that, temporarily?

    It's not about "compensation", it's about who libertarians ally with. Christian politics is fundamentally opposed to libertarianism; if they attempt to ally with libertarians on gaining exemptions from obligations under civil rights legislation, it's not in defense of liberty, it's because it gets them closer to the non-libertarian society they actually want, a society in which government favors Christians.

    An alliance with Christian conservatives on political matters is bad for libertarians. Many people see through the hypocrisy of Christian conservatives and their pseudo-liberal arguments, and allying with them on anything taints libertarianism with the same hypocrisy. Furthermore, Christian conservatives bring nothing to the table: they don't have a lot of power to begin with, and they would stab libertarians in the back whenever it serves their purpose.

    Libertarians shouldn't advocate infringing free association or freedom of speech of Christians any further, but when these people come knocking asking for help in their political fights, we should tell them to get lost.

  • Arthur45||

    Why has this country spent so much time catering to the desires of LBGTers? I don't want to hear about them, see them, or smell them.Let them return to their closets where they didn't interfere with normal folks

  • MarioLanza||

    Identifying as a blind person and being blinded surgically. Identifying as a minority person and having skin permanently dyed. Identifying as a hand-less person and having a hand amputation. There are all people with these psycho-pathologies - and we can call them pathologies.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online