MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Christian Cake Bakers and Gay Coffee Shop Owners: Why Freedom of Association Is for Everybody

Businesses shouldn't have to serve those who offend them.

A gay coffee shop owner in Seattle is getting viral attention for loudly ejecting a group of aggressive anti-abortion Christian activists from his business.

Members of Abolish Human Abortion had been handing out rather vivid posters outside the shop that seem to link gay acceptance to the prevalence of abortion. They then came inside Bedlam Coffee and received service—until shop owner Ben Borgman angrily threw them out, declaring their views and their posters offensive. Watch his profanity-laced tirade below:

It's very easy to watch Borgman's rant and decide that, no, his shop shouldn't have to play host to a group of people who were just outside handing out fliers that he found offensive and that he felt attacked him personally.

It's also easy to watch it and immediately think about the upcoming Supreme Court case about whether the government can force a baker to prepare wedding cakes for gay couples. And some, like the legal scholar Jonathan Turley, are doing exactly that. If a coffee shop owner doesn't want to serve a group whose positions he finds disagreeable and offensive, is that subtantially different from a baker refusing to do work for a same-sex marriage he finds offensive?

Washington State's public accommodation laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of "creed," so Borgman cannot simply boot people out of his coffee shop for having Christian religious beliefs. But over at The Stranger, a Seattle alt-weekly, Katie Herzog argues that this case isn't religious discrimination but a disagreement about political positions:

Not believing that woman should have autonomy over their own bodies is not actually a protected class in America, much like...gays. Looks like these folks have more in common than they thought.

She's saying that Borgman isn't kicking them out because they're Christians, which would violate the state's laws; he's kicking them out because he finds their extreme anti-abortion positions offensive. The fact that these positions are informed by their religious beliefs is not relevant.

What's fascinating about that argument is how it so closely tracks the response from bakers and florists who don't want to offer their services for gay weddings. They say that they're not discriminating against gay people: Gay people are more than welcome to come into their shops and buy cakes and flowers. Rather, they object to the concept of gay marriage and to the position that it should be treated similarly to heterosexual marriage, and they do not want to be forced to produce goods that suggest that they support it.

By trying to come up with a justification as to why Borgman should allowed to boot these guys from his coffee shop without running afoul of state antidiscrimination laws, Herzog is essentially making the same argument: that this isn't discrimination against people for their identities, but discrimination against certain views.

That's the sort of weird semantic contortions that come when you try to police the circumstances in which people can decline to do business with someone else. People want to preserve their own right to refuse to associate with others while limiting the others' ability to shun them. Using government authority to do this gives people an incentive to look for ways to punish people with whom you have disagreements.

But it's more responsible, ethical, and most of all mature to suggest that both the coffee shop owner and the baker should be able to decide for themselves when they'll extend their hospitality. With neither the coffee shop nor the baker does a refusal to do business with these customers cause real, recognizable harms that justify government intervention.

Photo Credit: Teerawat Winyarat / Dreamstime

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.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    But it's more responsible, ethical, and most of all mature to suggest that both the coffee shop owner and the baker should be able to decide for themselves when they'll extend their hospitality.

    Madness! Pure madness!

  • EscherEnigma||

    Based on how many "religious liberty" laws that add exceptions to non-discrimination laws allowing folks to discriminate against gay people, but don't add any exceptions for discriminating against religious folk?

    Yes. It is apparently "madness".

    (That is to say: I'm not personally opposed to doing away with non-discrimination law entirely. What I object to is requiring me to serve Christian assholes while allowing them to refuse me. Either we all have to play nice, or we all get to pull out the long knives if we so chose.)

  • EscherEnigma||

    I consider such requests to be about as reasonable as the "get government out of marriage" response to "legalize gay marriage". That's your goal. And while it'd be acceptable to me if you succeeded, the expected return-of-investment is too low for me to hitch my horse to that particular wagon.

    No, I'll invest my time, energy and money in strategies that have a better track record.

  • Tony||

    Religions don't have special protections. At least not any more than race and disability status. If you're talking about the free exercise clause, that's not a special protection, it's just a hedge against a common tyranny move. The other part of the first amendment is protecting me from your religion.

    And it remains the case that at the federal level you can't discriminate against Christians but a Christian can discriminate against gay people.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    You failed to make your point and resorted to namecalling.

    Religions don't receive special protections from other religions or businesses or anything else. Only from government. Your "constitution" argument shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what it is.

  • Leo Kovalensky||

    And it remains the case that at the federal level you can't discriminate against Christians but a Christian can discriminate against gay people.

    The correct answer to the problem is allow people to freely associate with whomever they want, not to force people who are diametrically opposed to each other to associate. That's what leads to violence.

  • Tony||

    Amazing how people lose agency when convenient. You mean the beating up of gay people is violence and Christians are doing it because they're small-minded idiots.

    Go get all the other antidiscrimination protections repealed first. You can't just say gays are the only group not protected. That would mean you think gays deserve to be less protected.

  • damikesc||

    Amazing how people lose agency when convenient. You mean the beating up of gay people is violence and Christians are doing it because they're small-minded idiots.

    Please list these assaults of gay folks by Christians.

    Please include evidence of religious affiliation as well.

    You can't just say gays are the only group not protected. That would mean you think gays deserve to be less protected.

    Can you explain why "Who you fuck" is a justifiable "protection" class?

  • EscherEnigma||

    ... wait, are you under the misconception that non-discrimination laws protecting religions have anything to do with the First Amendment?

    Dude, the First Amendment is entirely dandy with me kicking anyone out of my hypothetical comic book shop. Whites, blacks, Jews, Christians, Irish, British, man, woman, green fuzzy alien from Alpha Centauri... First Amendment don't care.

    The Federal law that prohibits me kicking out people based on protected classes (race, ethnicity, religion, national origin, sex, disability) is the Civil Rights Act (1964). And repealing that (in whole or in part) can be done without touching the Constitution.

    The main connection any of this has to the Constitution is the argument (that has so far not prevailed in any court) that non-discrimination laws violate the First Amendment. Until the SCOTUS finds that they do (and even the Masterpiece Cake Shop case currently before the SCOTUS isn't seeking that), you don't have to touch the constitution to add more non-discrimination laws.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Then I'm not sure what you're talking about. Unless the SCOTUS reverses fifty years of precedent, then nothing I'm interested in (keeping non-discrimination laws or expanding them) requires amending the constitution.

    And if the SCOTUS reverses fifty years of precedent and suddenly finds non-discrimination laws to be in violation of the First Amendment? Well, I've already said I'm okay with that outcome too.

    So yeah. Really not sure where this "amending the constitution" bit came up.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Kllxyzn|10.10.17 @ 2:04PM|#
    Take it up with the Constitution.

    Kllxyzn|10.10.17 @ 2:28PM|#
    I do enjoy, however, that you openly admit you don't have the ability to change the Constitution, and have nk intention of going through the proper process. Mask off and all that.

    You brought up the constitution and amending it.

  • reardensteel||

    Nice job remaining civil.
    Not sure what his problem is.
    He seems extremely angry/defensive for no apparent reason.

    And you make a very important point about the Civil Rights Act.

  • JuanQPublic||

    What I object to is requiring me to serve Christian assholes while allowing them to refuse me.

    And many others object as well, understandably. That's why privately-owned businesses should not be coerced by law to serve or not serve particular people.

    "Particular people" is the key term here, because therein lies what's bad and constitutionally questionable: its arbitrary law. And that kind of law is dangerous to everyone. It's a constantly changing set of criteria - categories of people - that are being selectively and arbitrarily "protected".

    The gay coffee shop owner should have the right to eject those people, and Aunt Betty should have the right to serve who she wants at her cake shop. People will make up their minds where their dollars go. But even more importantly, it isn't arbitrary law that operates on a government-prescribed set of criteria on people.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    They then came inside Bedlam Coffee and received service—until shop owner Ben Borgman angrily threw them out

    And then Bedlam Coffee lived up to its name.

  • BambiB||

    I sincerely hope they sue the pants off this hysterical homosexual loon.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    "I have tattoos, so make like a banana and split!"

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    A black rabbi walks into a trans tattoo parlor... you do the rest.

  • BambiB||

    ... and says, "anyone wanna buy a kosher foreskin?"

  • Hugh Akston||

    So RAISIN finally gets behind freedom of association now that it affects gayz?!

  • damikesc||

    You are aware that this is rather different, right?

    The bakers/florists didn't refuse to serve gays. Just not do their requested special wedding work.

    This jackass refused to serve these people...period. No special work required.

    She's saying that Borgman isn't kicking them out because they're Christians, which would violate the state's laws; he's kicking them out because he finds their extreme anti-abortion positions offensive. The fact that these positions are informed by their religious beliefs is not relevant.

    Except you cannot refuse all service unless somebody gives you a valid reason. The jackasses there weren't handing out fliers or making a scene in the coffee shop. And the bakers and florists didn't loudly and forcefully throw the gays out who wanted wedding cakes. They had, in fact, been selling them goods for years beforehand. And have said, repeatedly, they'd still do so today.

    You're confusing being asked to special, above-the-norm work with treating all customers equally. Nobody should have any right to demand special work. That is not what happened here. They didn't ask for special "no homo" coffee.

  • Microaggressor||

    They didn't ask for special "no homo" coffee.

    Where can I find this stuff.

  • Juice||

    Just use that cream-on-top milk.

  • XM||

    DUDE

  • John||

    Scott seems to be totally incapable of having an honest discussion of these issues. All of the bakeries who have run afoul of gay weddings made it clear they would happily serve gays. They just didn't want to sell them wedding cakes. Yet, Scott continually asserts that the bakeries refused to sell to gays under any circumstances. It is just a lie and a lie Scott seems determined to repeat.

  • EscherEnigma||

    All of the bakeries who have run afoul of gay weddings made it clear they would happily serve gays.
    Not all. Just the ones that faced lawsuits.

    Compare to Take the Cake in Toledo, Ohio, who cancelled an order for a birthday cake after Facebook-stalking the customer and discovering she was a lesbian. No claim there. Also no law that incentivizes a contrived excuse there.

    Or the pediatrician in Michigan who dropped a newborn patient because her mothers were lesbians. No contrived claim there. Also no law that incentivizes a contrived excuse there.

    Similarly, the Michigan auto-mechanic made no half-assed excuses for "objecting to the event, not the customer" when he declared he wouldn't do work for gay people.

    And so-on.

    Funny enough, you only hear this contrived "refusing the event, not the person" excuse when the person gets sued, which obviously only happens in states that have non-discrimination laws that cover gay people.

  • John||

    So what? That doesn't make the claim about the bakeries any less false. More importantly, those people in the cases you mention have a right to do what they did. I really don't care if people choose not to serve gays because I am quite sure someone else will happily take the gays' money. If some doctor or cake shop doesn't want to, that is their loss and their business.

  • EscherEnigma||

    "So what?"
    So I find your statement that "All of the bakeries who have run afoul of gay weddings made it clear they would happily serve gays" to be no more part of an "honest discussion of these issues" then you find Shackford's discussion.

    Which is funny in and of itself, as Shackford is pretty consistently against all non-discrimination laws that cover gay people.

  • John||

    Scott claims to be against such, but he never seems to be too upset when it happens. I have never believed his position on it. I think he claims to be against them knowing that they are likely to occur. I have never found him to have any good faith on this issue.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Scott claims to be against such, but he never seems to be too upset when it happens.
    Funny, that's (broadly) what I think of Libertarians and non-discrimination laws that don't cover gay people. You lot claim to be against them, but you never seem to be too upset about them.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    Yet, Scott continually asserts that the bakeries refused to sell to gays under any circumstances.

    You mean like here?

    What's fascinating about that argument is how it so closely tracks the response from bakers and florists who don't want to offer their services for gay weddings. They say that they're not discriminating against gay people: Gay people are more than welcome to come into their shops and buy cakes and flowers. Rather, they object to the concept of gay marriage and to the position that it should be treated similarly to heterosexual marriage, and they do not want to be forced to produce goods that suggest that they support it.

    You're a lying sack of shit, John.

  • BambiB||

    Maybe he'd get it if someone walked into a Jewish bakery and asked for a cake with a big red swastika on top?

  • ||

    So you're basically ok with anti-discrimination laws in general then?

  • damikesc||

    So you're basically ok with anti-discrimination laws in general then?

    I think they're terrible...but if they're there, they should be equally enforced. Make the law dead by showing how useless it is.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    And to a libertarian pushing radical freedom of association, what's relevant about this difference?

    Also not clear how a wedding cake from a bakery is "special, above-the-norm work," but one thing at a time.

  • damikesc||

    Also not clear how a wedding cake from a bakery is "special, above-the-norm work," but one thing at a time.

    Ever been to a bakery?

    They don't have wedding cakes sitting out at all times to be sold.

    They are made, individually, for each couple.

    Which, by definition, is above the norm.

  • EscherEnigma||

    I had a small sheet cake for the "wedding party", which we put our own toppers on top of, then a bunch of cupcakes† for everyone else. The flavors, decoration and so-on were from their catalogue.

    So yeah... not necessarily. Some people like to keep it simply.
    ________
    †No one was interested in standing around cutting cake.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Ever been to a bakery that specializes in made-to-order cakes?

    Bakeries like Masterpiece Cakes.

    Not all bakeries are the little shop on your corner. For some, custom cakes for events are the norm.

    Thanks for not answering what I indicated to be the more pressing question.

  • cc2||

    The argument the bakers make is that wedding cakes are an artistic expression and therefore protected by the First Amendment. Being forced to make a cake for a gay wedding is compelled speech. Does a Jewish baker need to bake a cake with a swastika on it? Or a moslem deli be forced to make ham sandwiches? This is the issue. There have also been issues with a photographer who was to be forced to come take pictures at a gay wedding (ewwwww).

  • cc2||

    The argument the bakers make is that wedding cakes are an artistic expression and therefore protected by the First Amendment. Being forced to make a cake for a gay wedding is compelled speech. Does a Jewish baker need to bake a cake with a swastika on it? Or a moslem deli be forced to make ham sandwiches? This is the issue. There have also been issues with a photographer who was to be forced to come take pictures at a gay wedding (ewwwww).

  • damikesc||

    It'd be comparable if the bakers or florists refused to sell gays regular cakes they sell to everybody or flowers they sell to everybody. They did not.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    As you point out, the custom cake requested for the gay wedding required the owner to use their talent to create something that was outside what they religiously felt comfortable doing.

    Violation to force people to do something for you they don't want to do. Freedom of association.
    Violation to force people to do something they religiously object to. Freedom of religion.

  • Microaggressor||

    Not believing that woman should have autonomy over their own bodies is not actually a protected class in America

    They just believe some classes need protection more than others. Inequality before the law, you might say. Privilege, is a word for it.

  • KBeckman||

    One that doesn't exist in Seattle.

    Part of their anti-discrimination laws is that you can't discriminate based on political affiliations.

  • BambiB||

    Well, it will all be academic in a decade or two. The government is going bankrupt, along with morality, intellect, worth ethic and respect for law.

    Back to the law of the jungle. Do what I say or I will kill you.

  • lafe.long||

    "But it's different because they're bible-thumping prolife nazi bigots. And they're WRONG.
    Any civilized, right-thinking person can plainly see the difference."

    But it's more responsible, ethical, and most of all mature to suggest that both the coffee shop owner and the baker should be able to decide for themselves when they'll extend their hospitality. With neither the coffee shop nor the baker does a refusal to do business with these customers cause real, recognizable harms that justify government intervention.

    Too late for this now.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    There's more to this story. It turns out that the building that houses Borgman's coffee shop is managed by a Muslim who, once he learned through this viral video that his tenant is preaching strict homosexuality, is threatening to refuse to renew the lease. But the land on which the building stands is owned by a Jewish family who, when they heard that the building on their land...

    And so on.

  • Lily Bulero||

    Wait, are you kidding me?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Is that what you think of me?

  • Lily Bulero||

    That you are the kind of person who would tell a joke on the Internet? I guess I *do* think that about you, about myself, and about most Reason commenters.

    So come on, don't make me look it up, is this for real, or a joke?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Look it up, Lily. Look it up.

    Look it up, Lily, Look it up.

  • Lily Bulero||

    Couldn't find it. Maybe I didn't look hard enough, or are you yanking my chain?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    You probably overlooked Infowars.

  • Lily Bulero||

    I usually do.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    You probably overlooked Infowars.

    That is, generally speaking, the prudent move.

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    Do you respond to every question with a question?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    YOUR FACE.

  • Necron 99||

    He walked right into that one.

  • BambiB||

    Brilliant! (and funny)

  • Rhywun||

    We've got gays, abortion, and Christians - and 10 comments is the best we can do?!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I shall do my part below.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    "Can you tolerate my presence?," Borgman, who is gay, continued, "If I go get my boyfriend right now and fuck him in the ass right here, you're going to tolerate that? You're going to sit right here and fucking watch it?"

    Wow, this is unbelievable. This guy's a top?

  • Rhywun||

    *sigh* Even assholes possess freedom of association....

  • Rhywun||

    *re-reads, considers adding "pun not intended", gives up*

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Aw, and I was going to give you so much credit.

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    "If I go get my boyfriend right now and fuck him in the ass right here, you're going to tolerate that? You're going to sit right here and fucking watch it?"

    As a Minnesotan I'd probably be forced to watch out of inherent niceness but I'd exude an aura of disapproval.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I wonder how much of their lovemaking is just for spite, at this point. Every couple gets to that point eventually, I guess.

  • The Laissez-Ferret||

    +1 Prairie Homo Companion

  • Mr. Dyslexic||

    Coffee, Cake, and Bukakke. Story at 11

  • Brandybuck||

    The Left's new slogan: Regulations for thee not for me.

  • BambiB||

    That's their old slogan.

    Their new slogan is, "Shut up. Do it my way. I want to fuck my boyfriend in the ass in front of you."

  • Lily Bulero||

    Is there any indication that these Christian protesters or any of their supporters want to invoke the force of the law against the coffee shop or its owner? Any discrimination lawsuits?

    Because all I see is the Christians replying to the owner's speech with counter-speech, which is supposedly the First Amendment paradigm.

  • Rhywun||

    Good question. How is this even news?

  • Brandybuck||

    It's newsworthy because we have been told by the infallible media that all gays as well as all correct thinking folk support the coercive cake making, that only eebil Christians would be opposed to compulsory baki

    The incident itself is not particularly newsworthy, but it does serve as a perfect argument against the prevailing narrative that it's okay to compel people to bake cakes. If one is for the compulsory policy then one must also be in favor of compulsory coffee making. And if one finds no problem kicking these people out then one must also find no problem with refusing to bake cakes.

    it's newsworthy because it demonstrates that compulsory baking was never about civil rights and fairness and touchy feely goodness, but all about some people thinking that deeply held religious beliefs are icky.

  • John||

    ^^THIS^^

  • John||

    That is a great point. I see no indication they are suing anyone. Assuming they are not, the Christians, in this case, should in no way be lumped in with the assholes suing the bakery. Why Scott chooses to do that is a bit of a mystery.

  • Rhywun||

    The interaction between the owner of Bedlam Coffee and the pro-life group was captured on video by one of the Christian group's members, was posted to Facebook, and has since gone viral.

    "Gone viral" *rolls eyes*

    Anyway, looks like the Christians got the ball rolling on making this "newsworthy".

  • John||

    Everyone has the right to free expression. The coffee shop owners can tell the Christians to fuck off and the Christians can put a video of them doing it on the internet allowing other Christians to fuck off. That is how free expression works. I honestly don't see why Scott finds this noteworthy or why it has anything to do with bakeries being sued out of business. If the people that own this coffee shop don't like their views going "viral" whatever that means, then they shouldn't shoot their mouths off. What else is there to say?

  • EscherEnigma||

    That is a great point. I see no indication they are suing anyone.
    If I recall correctly, Washington state is one of those where the state sues the person after hearing about the incident. It's not a citizen-to-citizen lawsuit.

    So even if one happens (which would be determined after the state investigates the claims), you wouldn't hear about it for a few months.

    There's a reason while it took five years for the Masterpiece Cake Shop case to reach the SCOTUS.

  • Jen G.||

    If the state has to bring charges then I don't suggest anyone hold their breath waiting for that to happen.

  • EscherEnigma||

    I wouldn't suggest anyone hold their breath, but my point was that it's too early to make claims of moral superiority based on a lawsuit or lack thereof.

  • Dallas Tom||

    But this is different because... shut-up!

  • John||

    The fact that these positions are informed by their religious beliefs is not relevant.

    Bullshit. That is like saying I am not kicking you out because you are Jewish, I am kicking you out because you are wearing a funny hat. Not all Christians agree with these guys on abortion, but not all Jews wear Yamikas.

    Suing bakeries was never about freedom or anything other than using government force to make objecting to homosexuality effectively illegal. There is absolutely zero chance any Progressive judge or legislature will ever apply the public accommodation laws to a favored group. The gay left knows this and thus are happy to stick it to their enemies knowing the same principles will never be applied to them.

  • BambiB||

    So maybe all that's left is to shoot them?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Why would anyone want to patronize an establishment where there's a distinct possibility your food will come to you with a foreign contaminant in the form of someone else's bodily fluid(s)?

  • John||

    Beyond that, why would someone go to a Progressive owned coffee shop in the first place? Come for the over-roasted bad coffee and organic vegan muffins and stay for the deep discussions of capitalism's role in enforcing oppressive gender norms?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    It's Seattle.

  • BambiB||

    Having lived in Seattle, I can say with certainty that Seattle is "icky".

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Mind you, the coffee and muffins still won't be free, whatever the owner may have to say about capitalism.

  • John||

    Well, we are all about the collective until you come for our shit. Then we are calling the cops man!!

  • EscherEnigma||

    I don't know, but McDonald's seems to do just fine so... /shrug

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    If I was a cop I'd pack my lunches.

  • Priscilla King||

    Unfortunately, as long as the face is located above the hands, the law of gravity will always make that possible. Everywhere.

    I know what you're suggesting...I'm finding it hard to picture in a coffee shop.

    But maybe I just don't hang out at the right kind of cafe.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Of course the real problem is that , back in the Civil Rights era, the country decided that Freedom of Association didn't apply to a place of business...that bigots shouldn't be able to decide they didn't want to serve the minorities they despised.

    That decision has always bothered me.

    I'm sorry, but THE GOVERNMENT should not discriminate. What individuals do on or with their own space and /or property is their business. We get to MOCK them. We get to decide to not patronize them. We shouldn't get to invade their place and force them to do business with us at gunpoint.

    Will this mean 'whites only' luncheon counters returning to the South? Maybe, though I doubt it. It should mean that bigots and jerks get to surround themselves with same...until they go out of business.

  • John||

    The creation of the public accommodation exception to the right to free association pretty much killed the right to free association and right to free exercise of religion with it. Once the courts said that the government forcing you to associate with people could be the price of running a business, the right free association was dead. People didn't realize it because majority hated racists and wanted integration. They never stopped to realize that they were giving the government the power to restrict any form of association simply by classifying it as bigotry.

    The CRA was an enormous mistake and affront to freedom in this country. People largely don't understand that because the truth about Jim Crow and how it worked has been sent down the memory hole. People think that Jim Crow was just laws that allowed discrimination. No, Jim Crow required discrimination. You could not legally run an integrated business if you wanted to. If they had just killed Jim Crow, the market would have killed segregation.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Indeed, since politicians not only lack scruples but also lack balls they would never have dared to pass the CRA if the majority still wanted segregation. It was just another example of running out in front of the parade and pretending to have led it all along.

  • John||

    The existence of laws that criminalized serving both races shows beyond all doubt that the market would have solved segregation. If it would not have and segregation would have continued on its own, there would have been no reason to ever pass the laws. The Jim Crow laws were not passed until the 1890s. And they were passed because the market was integrating the races and the powers that be didn't like it. All they had to do was get the law out of the way and segregation would have ended on its own.

  • Tony||

    The president had to send in the national guard to enforce integration. I guess the market was just having a lousy day?

  • John||

    In public schools, you lying half wit. We are talking about public accommodation laws, not forcing the government to serve both races.

  • Tony||

    Ah so the white people of those localities were only viciously racist and segregationist when it came to schools. When it came to sandwich shops, they were mostly agitating to integrate. What confused people!

  • John||

    Some of them were but most of them were not. if they had been, there would have been no reason to pass laws making it illegal to serve both races.

    I would say the average Southern white person in 1965 was no more bigoted and hateful towards blacks than you are towards Christians, non Progressives and straight people. Does the government need to come down and control you Tony?

  • Tony||

    Yes as everyone knows the poor nonracist white Southerners had Jim Crow imposed on them. Why, they were almost as much victims as black people. They were powerless to stop those elected officials from imposing a racist regime! And they never could figure out who elected those officials, apparently.

  • damikesc||

    Yes as everyone knows the poor nonracist white Southerners had Jim Crow imposed on them.

    Democrats passing laws to keep the races viciously opposed to one another?

    WHY I NEVER!!

  • John||

    They never sent the national guard to make businesses serve blacks. Jesus Christ Tony, don't you ever get tired of being pig ignorant? It can't be fun going through life being ignorant. Or at least I don't see how it could be. Yet, you really seem to take pride in it.

  • Longtobefree||

    At the risk of replying to Tony:

    The president did not send the national guard.
    He sent the 101st airborne US Army troops.
    In case your search engine does not know about Wikipedia - - -
    The next day, President Dwight D. Eisenhower ordered the 1,200-man 327th Airborne Battle Group of the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division from Fort Campbell, Kentucky, to escort the nine students into the school. By the same order, he federalized the entire 10,000-man Arkansas National Guard, in order to remove them from the control of Governor Faubus.

    And, oh by the way,
    In the United States, a federal statute known as the Posse Comitatus Act forbids the use of the United States Army, and through it, its offspring, the United States Air Force, as a posse comitatus or for law enforcement purposes without the approval of Congress. A directive from the Secretary of Defense prohibits the use of the United States Navy and United States Marine Corps for law enforcement.

    Republican President by the way.
    Democrat Governor.
    Times change.

  • Lily Bulero||

    "Once the courts said that the government forcing you to associate with people could be the price of running a business, the right free association was dead."

    To be fair, many people thought they were basically creating an emergency exception to business freedom.

    "Yeah, you can run your own business, unless you participate in racial discrimination which has historically been so harmful in this country!"

    Of course they were naive and unprincipled, yada yada, but this doesn't justify the stance I've heard from certain people that they can safely ignore the free-association, freedom-of-religion question until there's a serious movement to legalize segregated lunch counters, which means never.

  • Lily Bulero||

    It would be like refusing to work for legalized marijuana so long as meth remained illegal, because "the principle is the same hurr durr."

  • John||

    That is true. Jim Crow and segregation really was a problem and a national embarrassment. If you went back and time and told the people who supported the CRA that the logic behind it would someday be used to force a bakery to bake a wedding cake for a couple of upper-class gays, they would have thought you insane. Yet, here we are.

  • Lily Bulero||

    You can plug that sentence into a Mad Lib and it would generally be true of many prog initiatives: "If you went back and time and told the people who supported [insert prog initiative] that the logic behind it would someday be used to [insert weird outcome], they would have thought you insane. Yet, here we are."

  • Tony||

    You guys, always with the "We're not as bad as Saudi Arabia, so we're all done here."

  • John||

    No one owes you a wedding cake, Tony. It is a free country. They are free to despise you and your life choices as you are theirs. It is funny, you are the most hateful person on here. You love to hate people yet can't seem to grasp that other people have a right to hate you.

  • Tony||

    But they shouldn't have the right to refuse to serve me in a public accommodation business--if not because it's inherently wrong, then because everyone else gets that protection. The status quo is an endorsement of gays as second-class citizens, even compared to blacks. Do you endorse that regime?

    If not then I want to see you agitating FIRST for removing religion from anti-discrimination laws before you go on telling gays what they deserve. I'll believe you're sincere then. Who am I kidding, no I won't.

  • John||

    Yes they should Tony. They do not owe you their services any more than you owe them your money. The only reason you think they do is that you are a nasty fascist twit who sees it as your life's work to punish anyone who dares think differently from you.

  • Tony||

    Reread my argument and respond to what I wrote, please.

  • Juice||

    public accommodation business

    But that's anything and everything these days.

  • Tony||

    And are you really that inconvenienced because someone can't employ cops to drag black customers out?

  • damikesc||

    But they shouldn't have the right to refuse to serve me in a public accommodation business--if not because it's inherently wrong, then because everyone else gets that protection.

    You're not explaining why that is a federal concern. The businesses are private. They should not be required to do anything. The market will deal with them harshly enough. The market passes verdict and punishes wrong-doers far more quickly and efficiently than the government ever has or will.

    The status quo is an endorsement of gays as second-class citizens, even compared to blacks. Do you endorse that regime?

    How are gays "second class citizens"? Because a baker doesn't want to make them a cake? Truly, my heart bleeds.

    If not then I want to see you agitating FIRST for removing religion from anti-discrimination laws before you go on telling gays what they deserve. I'll believe you're sincere then. Who am I kidding, no I won't.

    Religious protections are expressly mentioned in the Constitutions.

    "Whom you fuck" protections are not.

  • Juice||

    It is a free country.

    Sure about that?

  • John||

    I am a hopeless optimist sometimes Juice.

  • Tony||

    The creation of regulations against poisoning customers pretty much killed the freedom from handwashing.

  • epsilon given||

    Nah, simple understanding of germ theory, combined with lawsuits against any company that didn't have a hand-washing policy whenever there was a disease outbreak (along with the resulting negative publicity) would have been sufficient to end the freedom from handwashing, just as economic pressure would have been sufficient to end segregation, had there not been unconstitutional laws forcing segregation.

    Laws passed by Democrats, oddly enough, the same Democrats who stayed in power by terrorizing blacks, Republicans, and anyone who broke the segregation laws, a la the KKK.

  • Brandybuck||

    ""I'm sorry, but THE GOVERNMENT should not discriminate. What individuals do on or with their own space and /or property is their business. We get to MOCK them. We get to decide to not patronize them. We shouldn't get to invade their place and force them to do business with us at gunpoint.""

    As with nearly every bit of legislation like this, the culture had already changed and the government was merely playing catchup. The Civil Rights Act was needed because the GOVENRMENT has institutionalized racism, but extending it to private businesses was not necessary because it was only the laws that shielded them from the consequences of their racism.

    Sure there would still be a handful of racist lunch counters, but most places would have just opened their doors to non-whites because the culture would have demanded it. Doesn't matter the color of the customer, their dollar were all green.

  • Priscilla King||

    Well, I *have* been in places that used to be "Black Only" and still obviously were that way in practice.

    Nobody said "Get your White self outa here." Nobody even directly accused me of being White, or not being Black. They just *stared*.

    So, fine, if that's what they want. I didn't go back. Not a problem.

    I think laws against discrimination should be enforced only when emergency medical treatment, etc., is involved.

  • BambiB||

    Which is the same argument that should be made in terms of employment.
    If the black woman is REALLY the better candidate, and you don't hire her, won't your competition hire her and beat your ass into the dirt?

    So let the market decide.

  • lafe.long||

    They then came inside Bedlam Coffee and received service

    Are we still doing phrasing?

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    Well, the owner did offer to "service" his boyfriend in front of them ...

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I've got outrage fatigue.

  • Tony||

    Is being against interracial marriage not the same as being racist against black people?

  • Citizen X - #6||

    A black person could be against interracial marriage, but outside of a Chapelle sketch is unlikely to be racist against black people.

  • Tony||

    The same retarded reply twice. I'm reaching my quota guys.

  • Tony||

    Black people never had the power to enforce their will. It's a complete distraction from the point. You know that. Plus I've never actually heard a black person express that opinion.

  • Tony||

    Fine, then the black person is racist. May we move on from your attempt to derail the fucking point?

  • damikesc||

    Black people never had the power to enforce their will.

    We had a black President for 8 years. Sure, he was shit, but he was there.

    Thus, your argument is now moot.

  • Edwin||

    technically, it's being racist against both blacks and whites. And in practice there are also some racist asshole black people who are against, just as there are some of the more typically fretted about whites who are against it.

    Noow whether said person thinks the government should enforce policies based on that is yet another question.

    Either way, both theoretically and in historic fact none of those discussions are even related to the issues in the article in question.

    There is no Jim Gay laws, no antigayKK, or anybody trying to enforce widespread non-integration of gays. It's flat out something that is not happening or even has any chance of happening in the future.

    Did that answer your question you disingenuous fuck?

  • John||

    Pretty much this. The day some state or locality makes it illegal for businesses to serve gays, is the day I will be concerned about this. People like Tony forever lie and pretend that Jim Crow was the absence of public accommodation laws. It wasn't. It was legally mandated segregation.

  • Edwin||

    like literally it's not even a theoretical possibility. These bakers just don't want to engage in the ceremony. Various reports from numerous of these lawsuits report that service was available elsewhere close by, like on th3 next block.

    There is no large contingent of people who are strong anti-gay bigots. Maybe maybe possibly theoretically you can find some in the boonies, but almost no one live in the boonies anymore. Christians believe homosexuality is a sin, but that's liturgical or whatever shit. It's obvious no large percentage ofnthembisngrinding their teeth about gays

  • Tony||

    Yet it's still legal at the federal level to discriminate against gays, whereas race and religion are protected. But I'll defer to your vast experience being gay in America. Obviously it's all been peaches and cream this whole time and our decades-long struggle to even be recognized as human beings was all just to annoy you personally.

    My point is obviously that you cannot simply be against gay marriage but be OK with gay people. That belief all by itself renders gay people as second-class citizens in your mind, if not subhuman. The Supreme Court said as much if you don't want to take it from me.

  • epsilon given||

    The Supreme Court didn't say you had to be for gay marriage. The Supreme Court merely said that that State can't deny a couple. marriage license solely based on the sex of the two parties applying for a license.

    You could be against gay marriage all you want, and still be ok with gay people all you want, so long as the First Amendment means anything, which, admittedly, is an iffy claim at best.

  • Lily Bulero||

    Good point, let's sue those Nation if Islam restaurants unless they agree to cater interracial weddings.

  • Longtobefree||

    By serving pork bar-b-que?

  • Lily Bulero||

    Demand that the menu include pork barbecue and margaritas.

  • Brian||

    I love the way left leavers understand the value of freedom of choice when it comes to abortion: a woman's body is her own.

    Now, if only they could expand and extend that concept beyond the uterus...

  • Tony||

    It's all perfectly consistent if you understand the concept of human well-being (for humans, not fetuses or long-cherished personal bigotries).

  • Horatio||

    Lemme guess as to who you nominate to be the arbiter of human well-being...

  • Tony||

    It's largely an objective matter (food, clothing, shelter, that kind of thing) but an informed democratic public can debate at the margins.

  • Brian||

    "It's my body: my choice… As long it's OK with everyone and democracy. Which is totally different from abortion regulations."

    Such a compelling slogan.

  • Tony||

    If 90% of the people want to make abortion illegal, what are you gonna do about it?

    "God says so" is no more compelling, even when you replace God with The Market or what the fuck ever.

  • Brian||

    I guess I'll just concede that regulating abortion is awesome, because why think good thoughts?

  • Vincent Milburn||

    The fetus of a human woman is human.

  • Tony||

    Well is it a fetus or a human?

  • Vincent Milburn||

    It's a human fetus. The two classifications are not mutually exclusive.

    Is the mother a human or a mother?

  • Tony||

    Apparently it's an oven for a fetus.

  • epsilon given||

    Silly Tony, the ovens for the fetus are found in hospitals, not people!

    Seriously, one major reason I'm pro-life is that all the arguments used to justify the pro-choice position are far too close to Nazi justifications for why we need to eliminate the infirm and the elderly (and, to a lesser extent, the Jews and other undesirables...)

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Religious nut: You're not willing to tolerate our presence?
    Shop owner: I find it extremely offensive.
    ...
    Shop owner: You'll tolerate my presence?
    Religious nut: We're tolerating you by sitting in your coffee shop.
    Shop owner: YOU'RE TOLERANT!?! Would be tolerant if I fucked my boyfriend in the ass right here? You're gonna tolerate that? You would probably sit here and watch.

    Clearly this is what happens when the gay fascists get cornered with their own twisting of the freedom of association. They make no sense.

  • damikesc||

    Shop owner: You'll tolerate my presence?
    Religious nut: We're tolerating you by sitting in your coffee shop.
    Shop owner: YOU'RE TOLERANT!?! Would be tolerant if I fucked my boyfriend in the ass right here? You're gonna tolerate that? You would probably sit here and watch.

    Having not watched said video --- seriously, who wants to see a drama queen? --- if this is an accurate description of the conversation, that owner is a fucking moron.

    I wouldn't be tolerant if a straight couple started ass fucking in the middle of a restaurant either. But the government should check to insure his shop passes cleanliness standards if this is his go-to to demonstrate tolerance.

    Why is the Left unable to differentiate "tolerance" and " acceptance"?

    Tolerance is "I don't kill you".
    "Acceptance" is "I support what you're doing"

    ALL I'm obligated to do is the former. The latter is my choice alone.

  • Mickey Rat||

    The activists have been saying for several years now that it should be acceptance that is required.

  • ToCa81||

    I wonder if we really need all these messy anti-discrimination laws for private businesses in the age of social media. We all know damn well that any business that holds beliefs like this gets plastered all over the interwebz. I support the right of any business to refuse service to any person for any reason. I also support abortion and gay marriage, so I personally wouldn't do business with any establishment that practiced discriminatory policies like this. Let the market dictate how much their moral stance is worth.

  • John||

    Pretty much. And I suspect both sides would find making economic decisions based on politics to be a pretty stupid way to live and the whole thing would go away fairly quickly. I really don't give a shit what someone I do business with thinks about politics. I care about what kind of service they provide. Living your life worrying about if the guy who runs your dry cleaners hasn't engaged in any wrong think is a pretty stupid and miserable way to live and one I think most people would find pretty unappealing.

  • Tony||

    Straight white Christian dudes decide we no longer need antidiscrimination laws.

  • John||

    yes Tony. No one cares about you. You are not special. Most people don't give a shit enough to hate you. Get over it.

  • Tony||

    Hey Red Me you are not exactly an appointed spokesman for this little chat space either.

  • ToCa81||

    I am neither Christian, nor entirely white. And please change your username. Tony is my real name, and I hate seeing it associated with constant idiocy on this site.

  • Tony||

    Tony is my real name too. I also happen to be upscale and exclusive.

  • Longtobefree||

    One out of three - - - -

  • damikesc||

    Straight white Christian dudes decide we no longer need antidiscrimination laws.

    Shall we go into the percentage of the population that is straight and Christian?

    Gays make up, maybe, 5%.

  • ||

    I think the point is more to be worrying about the guy that the dry cleaner is refusing service to.
    It's not the "wrong think" that matters - it's the act of refusing service, and the effect of that on the person who is the target of their bigotry.

  • John||

    To say that such a person is a victim of discrimination is to say that someone owes you their services. They do not. They are no more a "victim" than a business that you refuse to patronize is a "victim". Logically, there is no difference between a business saying "I won't sell to gays" and you saying "i won't go to a business that won't serve gays". Both you and the business are making the same decision and engaging in "discrimination" in the same sense.

    I don't care about the person refused service any more than I care about the business that you refuse to frequent. In both cases, each party is making a decision that they feel is in their best interests. And neither party is owed anything by the other.

  • Tony||

    But the business owner is owed the taxpayer-funded service of cops dragging out undesirable customers. Correct?

  • John||

    No dumb ass. The business owner has the same property rights we all do. The gay guy expects the cops to protect his rights. That doesn't mean he gives up any rights any more than anyone else does.

  • Tony||

    If it's a public accommodation business, he doesn't have exactly the same rights as the owner of a house. Is the problem that this is too complicated for you, or what?

  • epsilon given||

    The business owner is, or ought to be, free to hire anyone to come remove undesirables from his property.

    If it's undesirable to send cops out to enforce actions people disagree with, merely because they are funded by tax dollars, then perhaps we shouldn't be using cops in this way at all.

  • damikesc||

    But the business owner is owed the taxpayer-funded service of cops dragging out undesirable customers. Correct?

    The owner ALSO pays taxes for said police. And trespassing laws are on the books.

  • ||

    Who said anything about rights or victimhood? We're not talking about the government stepping in to protect anyone's right to be served.

    Personally, I would rather have a society where people aren't dicks to people because they are black or gay than otherwise. So there is value to me in punishing people who are dicks to black people and gays by refusing to serve them. We have a choice between a society which is tolerant of assholes or one which is tolerant of people who didn't do anything to anyone. I'd rather pick the latter.

  • John||

    I would rather a society where people left politics out of their economic decisions. Politics are poison and make any area of life they touch worse. We are never going to agree about gays or sex or a million other things. Yet, we still have to live together. The only way we can do that is to set those differences aside and do business with each other. The less we do that and the more we make economic war on our social and political enemies, the poorer and worse off we all are.

  • ||

    . Yet, we still have to live together. The only way we can do that is to set those differences aside and do business with each other.

    You mean like racists doing business with black people? Or Christians doing business with gays?

    Why is it that when racists refuse service to blacks, or Christians refuse service to gays, that's just their private right and their political opinion which should be respected. But when someone else wants to refuse service to a racist, that's injecting politics into economic decisions?

  • John||

    You mean like racists doing business with black people? Or Christians doing business with gays?

    Over the long term sure. But forcing them to do that is not going to help. It is just going to make things worse. I realize you love the idea of sticking it to your enemies. And good for you. Just understand, you are not doing yourself or them any good. You are just giving them an excuse to stick it to you. You go ahead and make your life based on your prejudices and politics. Honestly, it is probably the best you can do. I hold out hope for other people, however.

  • ||

    Who said anything about force? I'm talking about socially shunning them. You don't even think THAT should be ok. In the meantime, what about the harm done to the people being discriminated against? You act like there are only two parties involved - me, and the bigot I would discriminate against. But there are actually three - me, the bigot, and the person being discriminated against.
    For some reason that third person is a non-person in your view of the situation. Why is that?

  • John||

    Hazel, and when they shun you and you are in the minority, that is going to be okay? If you are run out of business because the cops show up and burn your business down or because a mob of people show up and burn it down because you hold an unpopular view, the result is the same.

    You really seem to think that any amount of oppression and nastiness is okay as long as people are doing it and not the government. No it really isn't. And you only think it is because you lack the imagination to understand that the mob and the shunning you are so happy about isn't always going to work in your favor. You want to run anyone who objects to homosexuality out of business, okay. What then are you going to say when society decides to run other people out of business for holding minority views that you like? When that happens, and it will, it won't be as fun anymore as it is now. Sadly, I doubt you will understand the connection.

  • ||

    If you have to equate organizing a boycott to arson, that's a sign that you just lost the argument.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You didn't say boycott.

    This is all about gay people feeling shunned by society so they want to force their abnormal behavior on other people.

    John is saying that everyone should be free to shun or refuse service to anyone for any reason.

    No gay cakes being forced on christian bakers and gay coffee shops can kick out religious people. Yeah, we all win because government would be mostly out of the whole thing except if a crime took place or someone continued to trespass on private property.

  • ||

    Actually John is saying that people shouldn't shun businesses because of their "political views", even if those political views involve actually refusing service to people on the basis of their sexual orientation. He think that's mean. He thinks it's totally cool to refuse service to a gay person, but there's something wrong about refusing to patronize the person who is refusing service to the gay person. THAT's what REALLY bothers him.

  • ||

    I agree. Although there is a contradiction in the way that those sort of private enforcement of norms is frequently condemned as "PC". There's a tension between saying "let the market decide", and condemning intolerance of the intolerant. If you want to let the market decide, you have to get out of the way of the market - and let it decide. Even if that means we have social norms that make expressing certain views verboten.

  • John||

    . Even if that means we have social norms that make expressing certain views verboten.

    It is good to see that Hazel had an orgasm today. Hopefully writing those words and the release that came with it, will put her in a good mood.

  • ||

    John thinks it should be totally cool to tell racist jokes in polite society, and nobody should say anything about it. Because that would be "PC".

  • John||

    yeah Hazel, that is exactly what I think. You called it. And hey there is nothing creepy at all about the prospect of society deciding to crush disfavored groups and making their economic decisions based on politics and various class and racial hatreds. What could possibly go wrong there? I am sure you can't see how anything could go wrong because you assume you will always be on the majority side. And considering how conformist you are, you might be right. Still, good luck with that.

  • ||

    Which disfavored groups are we talking about? The poor embattled white Christians? The white nationalists who just want to be dicks to black people ?
    Do we tolerate the people who just want to be assholes? Or the people who the assholes want to be assholes to? Do we stand by while the assholes get to be assholes to people because they don't like their skin color or sexual preferences? Because it would be SO MEAN to be intolerant of assholes? I mean, it's not like any disfavored groups, like blacks or gays, would be harmed by that right?

  • John||

    Any disfavored group. If you want to make it such that anyone who objects to homosexuality can't run a business, have fun with that. Just understand that once the mob realizes it has that power, it won't stop with the evil fundies. At some point, you will be changing your views to fit the majority or be told you can no longer make a living as well. AS I said, good luck with that. I don't think encouraging the mob to take economic revenge on people you don't like will work out well for anyone.

  • ||

    If you want to make it such that anyone who is gay can't run a business, have fun with that.

    FTFY.

  • damikesc||

    Do we tolerate the people who just want to be assholes? Or the people who the assholes want to be assholes to? Do we stand by while the assholes get to be assholes to people because they don't like their skin color or sexual preferences? Because it would be SO MEAN to be intolerant of assholes? I mean, it's not like any disfavored groups, like blacks or gays, would be harmed by that right?

    Always remember: The mob did end up killing Robespierre as well.

    Once you whip up the mob, good luck with controlling them.

    Do I LIKE racists being assholes to blacks? Nope, but that is life with the First Amendment. I don't like seeing criminals getting away with crimes due to "technicalities", but the Fourth and Fifth Amendment are far more important to me than a criminal getting away with a crime because the police decided to ignore them.

  • EscherEnigma||

    ... so are there two Johns here?

    Because just a few posts up, we have John saying
    I don't care about the person refused service any more than I care about the business that you refuse to frequent. In both cases, each party is making a decision that they feel is in their best interests.

    And here we have John saying
    there is nothing creepy at all about the prospect of society deciding to crush disfavored groups and making their economic decisions based on politics and various class and racial hatreds. What could possibly go wrong there?

    Legitimately confused if this is the same John flip-flopping on the moral acceptability of boycotts, or if there are two Johns that hold contradictory viewpoints.

  • John||

    WE are talking in two different sense. I don't care about the person in that I do not think they are owed a legal remedy. That fact does not, however, mean that living in a society that makes its economic decisions based on politics and tribal loyalty is a good idea.

    My point to Hazel was that she is no less of a bigot or being less discriminatory than the business. They are just discriminating based on different things.

  • ||

    John just doesn't see the internal contradiction in his own views.

  • John||

    That is because there are none Hazel. You are just too dim witted to understand them. It is one of the reasons why you are one of the more tiresome people on here. You are only able to grasp very simple arguments and have a very difficult time with fine distinctions like whether a behavior should entitle someone to legal remedy versus whether a behavior if it becomes the norm will be good for society. They are two totally different concepts the difference between them you can't grasp. You just can't grasp the idea that something can be good in one sense and bad in another. You see the world in very simple black and white terms.

  • ||

    You just haven't though through your beliefs very deeply John. You want to make hair-splitting rationalizations for holding contradictory positions depending on whether the target of the discrimination is someone you like, or you don't like. The driving motivation for you is that you want to shun others while protecting yourself from being shunned, just as Scott describes.

  • John||

    I have thought through them plenty deeply. You are just bull headed and either can't grasp or refuse to understand the difference. You are discriminating against the business. The business is discriminating against the gay person. Since no one owes you their association, no one in that situation is a "victim" in a meaningful sense.

    That being said, if it ever does get to the point where the majority of the country is making economic decisions based on political or social views separate from the economics of the decision, our society will be much poorer for it. If someone doesn't want to serve gays but will serve you and give you the best deal, who gives a shit? Why is it your responsibility to sacrifice for the gays or anyone else? It really isn't. And if you think it is, have fun. But, don't expect anyone else to follow you.

    Your problem is that you are like many Libertarians just as obsessed with government as any Prog. You seem unable to grasp the reality that society can on its own without the help of government engage in nasty and counterproductive things. And since you seem incapable of learning or ever modifying your views in any way, it is a waste of time to try and explain it to you. You enjoy not understanding things.

  • ||

    If someone doesn't want to serve gays but will serve you and give you the best deal, who gives a shit? Why is it your responsibility to sacrifice for the gays or anyone else?

    Because I care what sort of society I live in, and I want it to be a place where gay people can be themselves.

    You seem unable to grasp the reality that society can on its own without the help of government engage in nasty and counterproductive things.

    Oh no. I grasp that very much. That's exactly why I think we need social norms against bigotry.
    We need all sorts of informal private mechanism for maintaining a healthy society in the absence of government. That's how it works and how it was always going to work. The less government we have the more those private mechanisms will have to take over. Libertarianism was never going to be about anyone being an asshole to whoever they wanted with no social consequences whatsoever.

  • EscherEnigma||

    "WE are talking in two different sense. I don't care about the person in that I do not think they are owed a legal remedy. That fact does not, however, mean that living in a society that makes its economic decisions based on politics and tribal loyalty is a good idea."
    Okay, so what am I supposed to do? I'm gay. Baker refuses me service because he puts his faith in a holy book that literally calls for my death. Now regardless of what you think of him, what am I supposed to do?

    If I go back for a loaf of bread, a cookie, whatever, I'm putting money in the pocket of someone who refused me once already. Arguably, at this point I'm harassing and badgering the guy.

    If I don't go back, I'm making my "economic decisions based on politics and tribal loyalty", which you have labeled as not being a "good idea".

    Or is the problem just when I tell people about what happened? It's okay for me to not go back to the bakery, but if I say "yeah, I won't go there 'cause the owner is anti-gay" suddeny I'm the bad guy for being honest about my reasons, which where (before I talked about them) previously acceptable?

    I'm kind of thinking you've put me in a lose-lose situation here.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You go to a baker that is fine with making as much money as possible from everyone including gay people.

    If there isn't one then go to another town or start your own bakery.

    The other twisted thing about this is the bakers in question never said they would not let a gay couple buy something in their store. The bakers just did not want to create something from their talents that praised a gay wedding.

  • HenryC||

    It is the 1964 civil's right law that take away the right of a privately owned business to choose who can come into the shop if the shop is open to the public. Rand Paul said that is what troubled him about the Civil Rights Law, but in the whole he decide it was necessary to stop racial discrimination. He did not like it, but nothing else seemed to work. Now here we are discussing what is the some issue caused by other discrimination.

  • Juice||

    Even if your shop isn't really open to the public, it's considered to be open to the public. You can put a sign on the door saying "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" and you're still considered open to the public and a public accommodation. You don't ever get to decide that you're actually not open to the public.

  • Tony||

    Have membership requirements and charge a fee. There, you're a private club.

  • Tony||

    And by "private club" that means you get to have publicly funded armed goons drag undesirables out on your whim, but we're all for big government on that one.

  • Juice||

    No, Tony. We've been over this many many times. Even if cops didn't exist, a property owner still has the right to remove someone from his property by force if they won't leave willingly.

  • Tony||

    If cops don't exist then the alleged trespasser has a "right" to take the property by force if he is better armed.

    Or are rights things that are granted by the cosmos and enforced by fairies?

  • Juice||

    It's ultimately true that whoever has the biggest guns will win. So what? The question is what you want to use your guns for. Do you want to use them to force people into doing labor for you against their will or to protect your property?

  • Tony||

    I'd rather have a government with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force enforcing customer rights to be free from discrimination in public accommodations instead of enforcing business owner rights to expel customers for being the wrong race or sexual orientation. Because it comes down to that binary choice.

  • Juice||

    It's only a binary choice if you have a coercive state. So when there's a coercive state, you would prefer to use it to enforce involuntary servitude. I remember you calling it slavery at one point. It's your right to want involuntary servitude, I guess, but people who don't want to be your slave will fight you.

  • epsilon given||

    Unfortunately, no matter how you slice it, whether you have private police or public ones, rights are literally nothing more than things granted by the cosmos and enforced by fairies.

    We in the United States of America are merely fortunate we have the cosmos on our side, and just enough fairies to enforce our rights. Every time we appoint another buseaucrat, or pass another regulation, though, a fairy dies....

  • Juice||

    Why would there have to be a fee? Why does it have to be a club? Why can't it just be a private business open only to people the owner chooses to serve?

  • Tony||

    Meaning what? A list of names on the door? Or just a "we don't serve niggers" sign?

    If you don't see the problem with the latter then we're going to have to have a little history lesson before pressing on.

  • Juice||

    Meaning anything from that sign on the door to the owner asking you to leave his property.

    Again, all you're doing is begging the question now.

  • EscherEnigma||

    "If you don't see the problem with the latter then we're going to have to have a little history lesson before pressing on."
    I see a problem.

    South segregationists had more conviction of belief then modern anti-gay Christians. I could respect these folks more if they put "No Gays Allowed" signs up. But every time it's been proposed†, it's been described as an attack on Christians.
    ________
    †Seriously. Multiple states now, a "it's okay to discriminate against gay people" bill had a "so long as you publicly post your intent to do so" amendment. The amendments were attacked.

  • Tony||

    How is that a sensible alternative? Government is still imposing rules. Only now it's explicitly stating, not merely implicitly stating via neglect, that it's OK to treat gays differently in commerce than racial minorities.

    Apart from defending the concept of antidiscrimination law, I'm defending its equal applicability to sexual orientation. I'd like to think that libertarians can at least get that far even as they disagree with the existence of the laws. Otherwise I don't see how you get around the accusation that you want the law to single out gays as being the one group it's OK to discriminate against.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Assuming Tony is responding to me...
    "How is that a sensible alternative?"
    Mostly it's a sarcastic one, to draw the direct parallels between what Christians (today) are trying to do and racists (from before) succeeded at doing.

    That said, a frequent refrain from Libertarians/libertarians is that "the free market" will take care of things, and drive a discriminating business out of business. A major failing with this theory, however, is that for the "Free Market" to properly react, it needs correct and timely information.

    So by requiring an announcement of intention, a business isn't just telling the gay people that wander into the store thinking they'll be served that they wont' serve gay people, it tells everyone that the store doesn't serve gay people. And then everyone, not just gay people, have the complete information necessary to make an informed decision.

    But mostly I bring it up because it highlights that even folks that want to and intend to discriminate against gay people don't want people to actually know about it, and are very upset with the bad press coverage over their actions. They want to discriminate, but they don't want to to ever be called on it.

  • Tony||

    Yeah I misread, you were saying the Christians didn't like that little compromise.

    I agree. You'd think the last thing you'd be ashamed of admitting is what the All-Powerful Creator of the Cosmos told you to do.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    As usual, you lefties twist things. The Christians were not saying that gays could not use their store. The bakers did not feel comfortable religiously endorsing a gay wedding by making a special cake that they created.

    Fuck those people who don't follow the narrative that gay is normal and everyone is okay with gay behavior, ammirite?

  • Dace Highlander||

    So Sam's Club can discriminate?

  • Rich||

    The fact that these positions are informed by their religious beliefs is not relevant.

    OK, apparently we've determined that philosophy trumps religion. Let the lawsuits begin.

  • Tony||

    People want to preserve their own right to refuse to associate with others while limiting the others' ability to shun them. Using government authority to do this gives people an incentive to look for ways to punish people with whom you have disagreements.

    Not to beat a dead horse, but the point never seems to sink in with you people.

    In the absence of an anti-discrimination law, that means you have the right to summon the government to kick people our of your shop for being gay (or Christian or black). The absence of a law isn't more overall freedom, it's simply a tilting of the scales toward the shop owner. Your being against public accommodation anti-discriminaiton laws is not a small government position, it's a property rights position, which is to say you favor the choice to employ government goons to drag customers out of shops for being the wrong type of person.

    This is a regime we tried for a long time and decided it was necessary to legislate so that the government goons would be on the side of the customer. That's how bad it was and how poorly "freedom of association" was cutting it as an excuse.

  • Tony||

    "I can do whatever I want because government wrote up this piece of paper saying I own this piece of 5 billion-year-old dirt" is pretty shaky on small-government grounds, you have to admit.

  • Tony||

    And you think it's OK for government to force customers out of stores that are open to the public, at gunpoint, in order to validate and enforce the owner's bigotry against those customers.

  • Tony||

    "If only everyone acted nice all the time" isn't a response. Yeah we probably would need a lot less government if that were true, all around.

  • Juice||

    And you think it's OK for government to force customers out of stores that are open to the public

    If not everyone is invited to enter, how are they "open to the public"?

  • Tony||

    The courts have set more or less clear definitions for these things.

  • Juice||

    Uh huh. They said pretty much any business is a public accommodation. That's what the argument here is about.

  • Tony||

    And the holocaust against bigots continues.

  • Juice||

    Everyone has property rights, including bigots.

  • Tony||

    And you think the best possible society is one in which customers have no rights? Or all their usual rights minus antidiscrimination rights? Or what?

  • Juice||

    Customers have rights, of course. Everyone is a customer at some point. You don't have the right to another's labor, though.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Democrats love them some slaves, so forcing others to do work for you even when they don't want to is right up their alley.

  • Dace Highlander||

    Well is it ok to force white women out of the Miss Black America pageant?

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    It makes complete sense: your right to freedom of expression with wedding cakes ends where a person might throw a tantrum and break your shit, forcing you to call the cops! At that point, it's a matter for society.

    For example: you walk into a doctors office and ask for an abortion: he might just go crazy and kill you out of personal offense. And then we'd have to call the cops! Doh! Now we have to toss it to democracy, because of the interconnectedness of all things!

    That's what you get with property rights: big government.

  • Tony||

    Property is one of the biggest things government does. You need taxpayer-funded armed thugs pretty much everywhere to keep that concept afloat.

    Yet libertarians bitch when I want a tiny little healthcare subsidy.

  • Tony||

    I say protecting minorities from discrimination in commerce is a necessary government function.

    Who gets to decide who's right? Do tell!!

  • Tony||

    So... having a government-issued piece of paper entitling me to do what I please with a parcel of land in the legal jurisdiction of that government, a right enforced by taxpayer-salaried cops, is not government? And this is so because... it's devastating to your point?

  • Tony||

    We'll agree to disagree on what are legitimate functions of government. As long as you people stop trying to tell me that your way is the only correct way because God says so, or some version of that. Just defend your regime on its merits using real-world empirical tests of outcomes. Shouldn't be a problem, since it's the best way.

  • I'm Not Sure||

    Everybody discriminates in commerce. When you buy lunch at McDonald's, you're discriminating against Burger King, Jack in the Box and Taco Bell.

  • Tony||

    Really? Do you people live in mountainside caves or what?

  • epsilon given||

    Tony, the difference between enforcing property rights and enforcing anti-discrimination, is that the concept of property rights have proven a key element to preserving and advancing society, while anti-discrimination actively destroys it.

    Indeed, discrimination is the foundation of commerce. Don't believe me? Consider your own actions: when you go shopping, you undoubtedly discriminate against dozens of things for all sorts of reasons, some of them undoubtedly stupid.

    Racial discrimination is a stupid type of discrimination. Why should it be government's business, to force it (ie Jim Crow) or destroy it (ie Civil Rights Act)?

    Or maybe you need to be forced to purchase a cake from a baker who hates gays, because it's the Right Thing, and it will be good for your soul to be so tolerant of people you disagree with, right? Because, as you said before, who decides?

    Well, maybe the answer to your question is simple: everyone decides, and everyone does so with whatever information they can drudge up, that they consider important.

  • ||

    And everyone else has the right to employ government goons to drag the bigots off their property.
    It cuts both ways.

  • Tony||

    As long as we understand that there's nothing anti- or small-government about any of this. The conversation is entirely about who gets the goons on their side.

  • ||

    Everyone has an equal right to use the goons. What bothers me are the people who think that the REAL insult is when the goons are used against bigots. Using them against black and gays - that's just a normal natural right which everyone should respect. Using them against bigots is PC, SJW shit.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Basic property rights are a basic function of US government as well as American sovereignty, thereby keeping illegals off US property.

  • Brian||

    This implies that it would be totally ok to descriminate against gays, as long as you never call the cops.

    Why do you bother pretending these justifications?

    You can just come out and say what you really want and why.

  • Tony||

    If a business owner refuses to serve someone for being gay, in many states that means the business owner has the option of having armed government thugs (paid for in part by the customer's tax dollars) drag that customer out as a trespasser. That means theoretical lethal force if necessary. Everyone agrees that's an appropriate arrangement if we're talking about a private home or a private club or any other property that does not count as a public accommodation.

    What we don't agree on is one of two things: 1) that sexual orientation should be treated differently from race, religion, disability status, or sex in these matters or 2) that it's a better for society for the owner of a business open to the public to have the armed thugs on his side to enforce his bigotries that for the customers to have the right to come and go unmolested.

  • Brian||

    You really just can't come out and admit that you don't really care about gay people throwing tantrums in cake stores and people calling the cops, can you?

  • Tony||

    I don't think any of this is ever going to affect anyone in this room. I'm just trying to apply a consistent well-reasoned argument to the political discussion.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    You're not trying hard enough.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony, you never give a well-reasoned argument.

  • Juice||

    If a business owner refuses to serve someone for being gay, in many states that means the business owner has the option of having armed government thugs (paid for in part by the customer's tax dollars) drag that customer out as a trespasser.

    If the anti-abortion people in this story refused to leave this gay guy's coffee shop, he could call the cops to have them forcibly removed. If there is a coercive state and that state enforces private property rights, then they could be used to kick anyone out of any business in which they were trespassing. In other words, they wouldn't discriminate based on anything but who owns the property and who doesn't.

  • Tony||

    It would certainly depend on the reason for his kicking them out. And that would be relevant if they chose to sue. Which, being religious and thus protected, unlike gays, means they'd probably have a case.

  • Juice||

    Already resorting to begging the question, eh?

  • epsilon given||

    The owner of the business has just as much a right to kick his boyfriend off the property for being gay, as he does for kicking Christians off for being anti-gay.

    That's what it means to have property rights.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    *makes popcorn*

  • ToCa81||

    "Not to beat a dead horse, but the point never seems to sink in with you people."

    What do you mean, you people?

    Look at it this way Tony. A private business is akin to a personal residence. For instance, you have the right to kick anyone out of your house for any reason. If they refuse to leave, you have the right to call the cops to remove them. If you're kicking them out because they're black, gay, whatever, that makes you a shitty person and the rest of your neighbors will probably stop visiting too. Still doesn't preclude your right to kick them out though.

  • Tony||

    Nobody's talking about private property. You own a shop that has an "open" sign on it, that means you don't get to kick customers out who are black because they are black. It's a law, it's an imposition, but it was created for a reason.

    I take it you do get the point that taking the side against such laws means you simply favor the bigot getting the protection of taxpayer-funded goons?

  • Juice||

    Nobody's talking about private property.

    Everyone but you is talking about private property.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony does not know that business owned property is private property.

    Jesus dude, you are way out of your depth on this site. Try some place that requires less brainpower like Huffpo, NBC, CNN, WaPo.

  • John||

    The difference is that people like Tony don't think rights extend in any way to economic rights. The fact that you can kick a gay person out of your house, and admittedly Tony might object to that too, doesn't mean anything to Tony because he sees all economic activity as the property of the government. Therefore, in his view, the government can make serving anyone the government tells you to serve a condition of engaging in economic activity.

    Sadly, this is a view shared by a lot of people in this country. The right to contract and do business with whomever you please is every bit as fundamental as the right to kick someone you don't like out of your house. But thanks to Progs like Tony, we don't really have any economic rights in this country and can only make a living with the permission and grace of the government.

  • Tony||

    The government also makes not poisoning customers a condition of engaging in economic activity. And making your business accessible to the disabled. I could go on, but I'll stop here and let you tell me which of these do you think is an undue burden on economic freedom, if either.

  • Ecoli||

    Good grief, killing people with poison has nothing to do with CRA. I can't kill you for any reason besides self-defense.

    Try harder.

  • Tony||

    What about disability access? I remember Republicans bitching about that in the 90s. Is that a government imposition on economic rights, and disabled people should just fuck off so owners aren't burdened by concrete ramps?

    The point you are missing is that owning a business does not entitle a person to a full smorgasbord of unchecked rights. Neither does owning a house for that matter. One thing certain business owners are not entitled to do is discriminate based on race, religion, disability, etc. It's no different from a regulation against another bad thing.

    Of course we have to agree that discriminating is a bad thing. I think perhaps the problem is we can't get to that point yet.

  • Tony||

    But we were talking about access to places of business, not employment. Nobody disputes that the ADA improved disabled people's ability to access public spaces and commerce. There is indeed an interesting lack of progress with respect to employment.

  • Ecoli||

    We DO agree that discrimination is a bad thing. Bad things, contemptible things, die out unless you have the heavy hand of government holding a gun to your head and forcing you to do bad things.

    What good is created when a guy sinks his life savings into a restaurant and then discovers that he has to spend $100K (that he does not have) to make his restaurant ADA compliant, for example? Your answer seems to be "fuck you, bitch! Close your business and die.".

  • epsilon given||

    So now you're objecting to Dr. Kavorkian's activities? That's odd: you strike me as the type of person who would defend such things!

  • Eman||

    Its almost like laws can backfire on the people they're supposed to protect. Who could possibly have predicted such a thing?

  • John||

    The bigger lesson of the coffee shop incident is that I do not think that this whole affair is going to work out very well for gays. I am quite sure the video went viral and I have no doubt it didn't improve many people's opinion of gays or make them more likely to accept gays.

    If gays want to play the game of "accept us or we will run you out of business", I don't think they are going to like the results. Gays are still a small portion of society and have only recently been fully accepted by society. And no one likes a bully. Moreover, to the extent that people have accepted gays, a lot of it has been grudgingly. I don't people need that much of an excuse to go back to despising them.

    I do not think things like this video and the various bakery cases are going to result in anything good. Everyone can be hateful and nasty. And all suing businesses and engaging in the conduct shown in the video does is give people who don't like gays a ready-made rationalization to act on that. You are always better off leaving people alone and letting them accept you when they decide they will.

  • ||

    Concern troll much?

  • John||

    Unsurprisingly, Hazel, you can't understand what I am saying. Is your IQ above a 100? Are you aspy and maybe really good at some things but not at others? Seriously, what makes you so literal minded and dense?

  • ||

    I totally understand what you are saying. You think gays, and everyone who thinks gays should be accepted for that matter, should just suck it up until the day when christian conservatives decide to accept them, all on their own, with no social pressure involved. Because the people whose feelings we should really be concerned about, are the christians. We don't want to hurt their little feelings by being mean to them. They might get mad or something. Meanwhile, like I said, gays should just suck it up and accept being treated like shit - their feelings aren't important. We shouldn't worry about how they will respond to that.
    In other words, "we have power and you don't".

  • John||

    If they don't want to suck it up, then then they have no room to complain when people start going after them. Gays are a small minority. There is nothing that says their current favor with polite society will last. They are the last group that should want to get into the boycotting game.

  • ||

    I get it. Small minorities should just accept being treated like shit by majorities. Numerical might makes right.

  • epsilon given||

    Let's turn the tables: do you think Christians suing this business owner to obliviation is going to make this guy, and the LGBT community in general, more, or less, likely to embrace Christ as their Savior, and to convince them to change their ways?

    Similarly, if a Christian were to throw a similar tantrum against a group af gays, how do you think that would be received by the LGBT community, and the public in general?

    For a few anecdotes yo show that this isn't as concern-trolling as you think it is: in other forums, I have seen comments from people claiming to not care one way or another turn against gay rights because of the absolute "you must embrace us or you're a monster to be destroyed" tactics some in the LGBT community employ. These tactics can *easily* backfire.

  • ||

    Christians have been throwing tantrums about gays for hundreds of years. Gay people have suffered because of it. I could give a crap about the feelings of Christians. It's their turn to suck it up a bit.

  • Azathoth!!||

    EVERYONE has been throwing tantrums about gays for thousands of years. Gay people have suffered because of it.

    FTFY

    It's not just Christians. It's pretty much everyone. Even cultures where it was supposedly 'revered' couched that 'reverence' in terms that also required them to stay away and live lives outside the norm--often marked in some way so that they were easy to identify.

  • Tony||

    Oh thank you ever so much sir for "begrudgingly" accepting that I am a human being with at least some basic human rights. Ever so kind. We'll carry on now. What's most important is that you never have to get off your ass to do anything or trouble your pretty little head with anything more than "begrudging" new thoughts. You are, after all, in charge.

  • Ecoli||

    All true.

  • Ecoli||

    Do away with public accommodation laws entirely. They served their purpose and now only provide the means to allow vindictive assholes to use the power of the state (guns, jails, and forfeiture of assets) to persecute that have "wrong think".

    If businesses could legally do what the anal-probing coffee shop owner did, I doubt many gays would be cakeless, or Christians caffeineless. The market would pass its blind judgment on those who openly choose to be assholes.

  • John||

    I agree. In the end, I think most people would tire of making their economic decisions based on politics and decide making money was better than not making money.

  • Ecoli||

    Yep, exactly.

    Of course the CRA is here to stay because it is just too much fun dividing the country, for political purposes, along gender, racial, and other wedge issue lines. It won't end until blood runs in the streets. The US is balkanizing.

  • John||

    Sadly, you are probably right.

  • Tony||

    "I just want to hate blacks and gays in peace. Why are they so divisive!"

  • epsilon given||

    And I want blacks and gays to hate me in peace, too. Why do you want to control everyone's thoughts?

  • EscherEnigma||

    Do away with public accommodation laws entirely.
    Go for it.

    Get involved in local politics, make the argument that they're no longer needed, put pressure on your city council or whatever, and repeal the local laws. Then move on to the state-level, talking to your state legislators, arguing that these laws are no longer necessary and that we're all so much kinder then we once were. Once you succeed at that, it's time to take your anti-non-discrimination campaign nationwide, encouraging others to get involved in their own local politics and putting pressure on congress to repeal the CRA (1964) and all subsequent amendments to it.

    Trying to broaden the current "religious liberty" arguments against non-discrimination laws that include gay people, to more generalized "conscience exemption" arguments against all non-discrimination laws, is probably the best chance you'll get. You can even capitalize on this coffee-shop incident to try and argue that we're all better if such things are no longer punishable by law.

    This is probably the best chance you'll get.

    So go for it.

    And, on the off-chance you actually succeed? I'd be fine with that. I mean, I wouldn't bet on it, but I'd be okay with that outcome.

    But you have to hit all non-discrimination laws, not just the ones that cover gay people. That's just lazy.

  • Ecoli||

    You're right, it is not possible to end public accommodation laws. Such laws are very similar to Jim Crow laws, which were equally difficult to repeal.

    I am against ALL public accommodation laws. Such laws are in complete contradiction to free association rights. I am free to hate, or love whomever I please, and so are you, and Tony, and Michael Moore, and Richard Spencer.

  • Dace Highlander||

    Yes, I agree! Just ignoring ~some~ federal laws, like immigration, is really lazy! What's needed is to ignore ALL federal laws! Like ones on Gun Control. Ooops can't do that. How about ones regarding Taxes? No? Shit. Well there's got to be some other federal laws we can ignore.

  • Sigivald||

    To use an evergreen: That's different because shut up.

  • Sigivald||

    To use an evergreen: That's different because shut up.

  • Ecoli||

    VDH on left-wing virtue signaling:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/.....right-wing

  • Brian||

    This is completely a first amendment issue.

    Cake bakers aren't looking at gay people and saying, "You're gay, get out!"

    They're saying they don't want to make commercial art that opposes their own values.

  • Longtobefree||

    OMG!
    Please do not post facts or use logic; this is an internet comment section.
    Are you trying to ruin everyone's day?

  • Tony||

    "Commercial art" is one likely bit of legal nonsense the conservative justices are going to thread their endorsement of bigotry through. And you're going to like it even though it's obviously bullshit because of which team it endorses (team bigot). And next we can count on bags of Doritos being considered "commercial art," no doubt.

  • Brian||

    Actually, "this is all about police enforcing bigotry!" is a bit of nonsense/bullshit.

  • Tony||

    You act like "property rights" and "freedom of association" weren't the exact same excuses given when blacks were being kicked out of sandwich shops.

  • Brian||

    And you're still pretending that I didn't just bring up the first amendment.

  • Ecoli||

    And you are acting like we are still living in 1960, Tony. The government should not be in the business of forced association.

  • Ecoli||

    Tony, you are white, correct?

    In that case you just need to shut up.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com.....est-tool-/

  • epsilon given||

    Hey, Tony, I need you to do something for me. I need you to make me a cake that says "I hate fags and I love Jesus and Capitalism rocks!"

    If you're going to say, "but I don't bake cakes!" then I'm going to demand that you do for me whatever equivalent that your profession might be.

    You're going to do it, right? Because you don't discriminate, do you?

  • damikesc||

    "Commercial art" is one likely bit of legal nonsense the conservative justices are going to thread their endorsement of bigotry through. And you're going to like it even though it's obviously bullshit because of which team it endorses (team bigot). And next we can count on bags of Doritos being considered "commercial art," no doubt.

    Criminally coerced speech is the exact same thing as free speech.

  • EscherEnigma||

    First Amendment covers Freedom of Association as well.

    And as I've said before, the only reason the current crop of bakers/florists/whatever are trying to "expressive services" angle is because everything else they've tried failed to persuade the courts.

    Fact is, whats-his-name at Masterpiece Cake Shop rejected the customers, 'cause the customers were two men. If it'd been a man and a woman instead? They've had walked out with an order, not a lawsuit. And no amount of razzle-dazzle is going to disguise that.

    So you can try finding the magic words that make this discrimination all right rather then contemptible, but don't expect to fool anyone else. And hopefully you aren't fooling yourself either.

    Bottom line? Argue against non-discrimination laws if you like. There's good arguments there. But trying to carve this up into "this discrimination is fine, that discrimination isn't, this discrimination is fine, that discrimination isn't" isn't a winning proposition.

  • Brian||

    Im sorry, but this issue doesn't really reduce down to his one time this one guy did something.

    Do you have an actual argument? Or more "dazzle/dazzle"?

  • Ecoli||

    Contemptible should not be illegal.

  • Dace Highlander||

    Tomorrow's Headline Commercial

    I'd really like to buy a coffee. No! Get the Fuck Out! ('Everything is Beautiful' begins playing in background.) Because this discrimination is fine.

    I'd really like to buy a wedding cake. No! Get the Fuck Out! ('Darth Vader' theme begins playing in background.)
    Because this discrimination is not fine.

    Brought to you by people who say they know better than everyone else.

  • MikeyParks||

    Note to all involved: Don't go where you aren't wanted. And if you do manage to force yourself on unwilling people, don't drink the coffee or eat the cake!

  • Ecoli||

    good advice.

  • GeneralWeygand||

    There is no place worth being that does not want Maximé Weygand

  • newer_moses||

    Apples and oranges!

    Gay coffee shop owners (1) try to circumvent the terminology of the only rulebook that matters, i. e., FORNICATION; (2) label themselves by the manner in which they have sex, yet insist they 'have rights'...

    Christian bakers attempt followership to the only error-free thinker, Jesus Of Nazareth (Je suis; I am), although to this day, none of them actually understands the 4-layer meaning of scriptural wisdom. Proof, all still perish from ignorance like the rest of the world (multitude, moronic populace, mind-dead dogs, or gentiles).

  • Tony||

    Jesus was black and gay. Not that he existed.

  • Barry Gold||

    I've been mentioning this occasionally on my Facebook timeline: the only consistent position is that people should have the right to decide who to do business with.

    It's not a position I feel wholly comfortable with. It would wipe out not only the comparatively recent laws against discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or gender dysphoria, but also the 1960s era laws banning discrimination on race and religion.

    There is a _practical_ distinction at the moment: in the 1960s, discrimination against Blacks (and Jews) was widespread, especially in the South. So those discriminated against could face a great deal of difficulty finding someone who would serve them a meal in a restaurant, give them a ride in a taxi, etc. But in the 2010s, laws banning discrimination against gays are found _only_ in states where public opinion pretty strongly favors gay rights. So gays who sue bakeries over wedding cakes or photographers over wedding photos are really being bullied -- they have lots of alternatives and are imposing themselves on a minority of bakers/photogs. I think any liberal should be opposed to that if they think that through.

    It's a majority imposing its views on a minority, not because those who are "protected" by these laws need protection, but simply because that minority's views are unpopular.

    As a libertarian, I must hold to the consistent position even if it makes me uncomfortable. Especially in view of the above paragraph.

  • Joe Emenaker||

    "Businesses shouldn't have to serve those who offend them"

    OK... cripples offend me. Black people offend me. Women offend me. So, I'm good to show them the door?

  • epsilon given||

    Sure, I don't see why not. Assuming, of course, you have plenty of business otherwise.

    I seriously don't see why it should benefit either you or your potential customer base to be forced to serve those you find offensive.

  • SteveJay27||

    Excellent comment.

  • Uncle Jay||

    RE: Christian Cake Bakers and Gay Coffee Shop Owners: Why Freedom of Association Is for Everybody

    No, it isn't.
    Freedom of association is what our obvious betters oppressing says it is.
    Where have you been, Shackford?

  • I'm Not Sure||

  • Texasmotiv||

    I'm surprised now one brought this up... what does a gay man have to do with abortion?

  • Darr247||

    Now there just needs to be a few gay landlords that refuse to rent to straight couples ("straight" isn't a protected class, either), and a few pothead landlords in, say, Colorado, that refuse to rent to people unless they smoke pot daily... then the SCOTUS can sort it all out.

  • CarlaNee||

    Great, another day another news of people discriminating against other people. The first time I heard the news about the baker who refused to make the cake for the gay couple, I was like "if they don't want my business, I'll take it somewhere else". I actually told my gay cousin about websites such as https://ibride.com/ where he can shop for his suppliers anywhere in the world. He doesn't have to worry too much about it. But over the next few days, I've read similar more instances and now this. Will this ever end???

  • Priscilla King||

    Wow. All these comments, and nobody's even mentioned the reality that "gays" practice discrimination.

    We all know that most "gays" are not just White males, but WEALTHY White males. And do some of them ever hate to have to serve anyone who's not White, not male, and/or, most especially, not wealthy.

    I support their right to do what they choose in their own homes, no questions asked...but if we're going to talk about discrimination, let's talk about blatant elitism, because that's what's actually operating these days. Most bigots of any color would be delighted if their sister wanted to marry Tiger Woods; Joe from the ghetto, whose school friends think he's a fool because he's stayed off the drug scene and is actually trying to live on what he earns driving a delivery truck, may be the same color mix as Tiger but he's still a Completely Different Matter.

  • vek||

    I've been to this coffee shop. Silly Seattle hypocritical communists.

    I just don't get how they can't see the hypocrisy at least. If they could just see that alone it might fix a number of these stupid SJW type issues.

  • SteveJay27||

    Nonsense. You're in public business. You must serve all reasonable customers. Would you allow members of a racist church to ban African-Americans?

  • JuanQPublic||

    If it's a privately owned establishment, they should have freedom of association and religion. The customer doesn't have to go there and support the business. Furthermore, angrily protesting Betty Lou's Cakes in Anytown, USA isn't going to change minds. It's going to alienate people and further entrench their views.

    If it's a public institution, that's fair game.

  • readyontheright||

    Political Ideology is a protected class in the City of Seattle. So there is that.

  • Blandly Urbane||

    I don't know how often the "gay baker" issue plays out, but I will just say in the instance(s) I've read about where the baker has no issue at all with "gays" as customers, but only with "marriage."

    At a basic level perhaps a Christian does not care about the political aspect, but only the eternal. If the baker truly believes homosexuality is a sin that would separate someone from God, "delivering the cake" would be participating in a celebration they believe is death to those that want cake and to eat it as well.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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