Matt Walsh on Baking Cakes for Gay Men
I personally don’t dwell on this stuff, because–especially with my being an evangelical Christian–I am afraid it comes across as me fretting at night, worrying about homosexuals breaking down my door. That obviously is not the case. But, Matt Walsh’s blog post on all this stuff is so spot-on that I have to give a lengthy quotation from it:
A judge in Colorado has ordered a baker to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. This is like something out of a George Orwell acid trip. We now have judges forcing Christians to bake desserts for gay men. Let that sink in for a moment. This is actually happening. In America. In reality.
This baker, specifically targeted by this attention-seeking couple, initially declined to make a cake for the gay wedding because he had deep and profound religious objections to the ceremony. This left the gay couple with two options: 1) Go, like, find any other baker in the area. 2) Try to legally force the man to bake the cake, because FREEDOM.
Of course, as per usual, they went with option two. There is so much laughable hypocrisy in the “gay rights” movement that I have officially decided to stop parsing my words about it. Actually, I suppose I’ve never parsed my words about anything, so I’ll just continue with that strategy. It’s simple: you can’t FORCE people to associate with you and then turn around and preach about freedom of association. You see that, don’t you?
Meanwhile, a florist in Washington State faces penalties for declining to provide flowers for a gay wedding, and the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled against a photographer for deciding not to take pictures of a same-sex commitment ceremony. This, as a t-shirt company here in Kentucky is still embroiled in a legal battle for committing the crime of refusing to make t-shirts for a gay pride parade in Lexington. The owner even referred the gay pride parade organizers to other t-shirt companies who offer the same service for the same price; but that wasn’t good enough for these Freedom of Association Crusaders. They’ve dedicated the better part of two years to destroying this man and his business.
If a man has the right to choose who[m] he marries, a business owner surely must have the right to choose who[m] he serves. You can not argue for the first while actively attempting to undermine the second. Well, you can, but you’re a fraud, and I will call you a fraud.…
Well, freedom is a two way street. Freedom can’t be contained in your convenient little box. You can not achieve freedom for yourself by taking it away from your neighbor. You can not find freedom through tyranny.
Try to appreciate the irony. A gay wedding is, supposedly, a victory for freedom of association. Yet gay activists see no problem with forcing Christians to associate with it. The gays who pull these stunts are nothing but spiteful bullies. I wasn’t in charge of finding someone to make our cake for our wedding, but if I had been, and if I had accidentally ventured into a store owned by a Catholic-hating baker, and if that baker told me that he did not want to be a part of a Catholic ceremony, do you know what I’d do?
I’d find another baker. [Bold added.]
To reiterate, I am guessing that I’m personally more sensitive to the motivations of certain groups to run to the government for protection than Matt Walsh is, but nonetheless his analysis is dead-on. I just love that line: “We now have judges forcing Christians to bake desserts for gay men.”
It was an ALJ. Administrative Law Judge , not a completely real Judge. Judge Robert Spencer has made questionable rulings regarding campaign finance/free speech/issue committees…
In American administrative law, ALJs are Article I judges under the U.S. Constitution. As such, they do not exercise full judicial power, essentially, the power over life, liberty, and property. However, Article I judges and courts are not constrained to rendering opinions for only a “case or controversy” before them, and may render advisory opinions on a purely prospective basis, such as, e.g., Congressional reference cases assigned to the Court of Federal Claims. Agency ALJs do not have the power to offer such advisory opinions, as it would be in violation of the power afforded them under the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. §557. Unlike the agency, ALJs are not policy or rule makers.
ALJs are generally considered to be part of the executive branch, not the judicial branch, but the APA is designed to guarantee the decisional independence of ALJs. They have absolute immunity from liability for their judicial acts and are triers of fact “insulated from political influence”.[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_law_judge
All law in the United States is turning into “administrative law”. Primarily to get around the Constitution without (supposedly) violating it. Because what didn’t happen was a presumption of guilt of an offense, leading to a fine that if not paid will lead to jail time. No, no. It was just a bureaucrat following the administrative law.
This is the sort of merde, pardon my French, that we have had to put up with in Canada from “human rights tribunals” for a long time. The conservative government has finally taken steps to defang these awful things. But in Canada a preacher was put under a lifetime ban from preaching about homosexuality.
(Though the real hero in parliament on getting this law changed was a liberal mp.)
His analysis is not dead on. It’s a sloppy mess. It does not follow that a business owner has the freedom to discriminate because govt can’t discriminate against gays.
Freedom to marriage is not based on the 1st, freedom of association. It’s based on the 14th, the Equal Protection clause. The argument is that the Equal Protection clause is violated by a gender classification in the statute just as EP clause is violated by a racial classification (bans on interracial marriage are unconstitutional).
The Equal Protection clause does not limit a private business. If a business is prohibited form discriminating it’s because of a law passed by the legislature, not because of the US Constitution. Title II of the Civil Rights Act currently does not prevent a business from discriminating based on sexual orientation. If a law is violated, it’s a state or local law. The business owner would have to show that the govt does not have the power to enact this restriction on his business. It’s a tough argument for the state’s rights crowd to make because the state’s rights crowd does not believe the 14th incorporates the Bill of Rights.
You’re talking law. The rest of us are talking logic and morality. Don’t you know you can’t legislate morality!
Evil 🙂
Law is entirely irrelevant to reason, argumentation, philosophy, or logic.
It’s nothing more than an opinion backed by a gun. I would say the opinions don’t matter in the real world, but unfortunately they’re backed with a gun.
Pointing at what someone else says is law is argumentum ab auctoritate, or argument from authority. I don’t care what he says. i care about his rationale, and if you can’t provide that then his opinions are irrelevant to me unless he gets someone to try and shoot me for ignoring his opining.
“I don’t care what he says. i care about his rationale”
Correction:
Should be, “I don’t care what he says is true. I care about his rationale behind why he claims it is true.”
Yes, you can find legal grounding for these decisions. No, they wouldn’t be consistent with the “freedom of association”-based rhetoric normally used in defense of gay marriage.
This whole non-issue would go away if only people recognized that a property owner can decide not to enter into a trade agreement with anyone they want for any reason whatsoever.
Why aren’t these crusaders of social justice attacking consumers who refuse to buy the BET channel because they’re racist? Oh that’s right, it’s because they own money, not means of production. Thanks to Marx, the rules for owners of means of production are different from the rules for owners of money.
Great point: Why should a business owner have to sell a certain person a cake, when that person isn’t compelled to buy cake from a certain business? Or is that the next great shift in “civil rights” — all consumer purchases must be made through some sort of blind bidding program, in order that Christians don’t discriminatorily direct the majority of their fried chicken budget toward someone who shares their views? That Jewish NYC citizens visit the Palestinian Chicken place at least as often as they visit their uncle Marty’s deli?
I own a restaurant, and I’ll sell food and drink to most anyone with a pulse. But I shouldn’t be forced to, and I continue to reserve my right not to, until such time (perhaps quite near) as the courts inform me that said right has been recalled.
Why are you trying to make Christians stop buying Chick-fil-a?
Why aren’t anti-gay people being prosecuted for refusing to purchase goods from a store owned by a gay person? Is that not a violation of the store owner’s rights? If not, why not?
It appears you are wrong – property owners apparently cannot so choose. Perhaps you are arguing that they should be able to do so, which is a position based on dogma that property rights are more important than other rights.
“If a man has the right to choose who[m] he marries, a business owner surely must have the right to choose who[m] he serves.” The author would fail his syllogism exam.
What other rights are more important than property rights? And why wouldn’t a business owner not have the right to choose whom he serves? If he doesn’t have this right, then does a worker have a right to choose who he works for?
Come on razer. Of course there is the right to be served by people who hate you for whatever reason. The same counts for workers of course. Where would we be if we could not force people to serve/hire us?
Hmm forcing someone to serve me. Sounds a bit like slavery…
“It appears you are wrong – property owners apparently cannot so choose.”
I can’t be wrong about that because I didn’t actually say everyone really does have a choice to not trade. I recognize that property owners are being coerced. It’s why I said that this problem would go away IF ONLY everyone recognized that a property owner can decide to not enter into a trade agreement!
“Perhaps you are arguing that they should be able to do so, which is a position based on dogma that property rights are more important than other rights.”
Perhaps you are arguing that they should not be able to do so, which is a position based on dogma that property rights are not as important as other rights.
See what I did there?
Why is it “dogma” to hold property rights as more important than “other rights”, but it’s not dogma to hold “other rights” as more important than property rights? Dollars to none those “other rights” you speak of are either implicitly property rights themselves, or they are merely advocacies to enslave people to provide others with what they allegedly have a right to (free food, free medicine, free stuff that requires other people to work and produce).
““If a man has the right to choose who[m] he marries, a business owner surely must have the right to choose who[m] he serves.” The author would fail his syllogism exam.”
Why? Your logic is virtually non-existent. At least that guy would get a positive mark.
I think it your use of the word “recognize” that caused confusion. If you had said “agreed” instead I would agree with you – this problem would disappear, although it would not be a non-issue. However, not everyone does agree, so recognise is the wrong word.
Dogma is a set of principles laid down as incontrovertibly true. Saying that we should not hold property rights as the only incontrovertible right is not dogma. Eventually we must come to some principle which is held as dogma – this could be something like greatest good for greatest number, or efficiency, or something else. I do not believe property rights – or in fact any particular right- should be the fundamental dogma. It should be more like a principle, not a right. Rights will always come into conflict.
Dogma is a set of principles laid down as incontrovertibly true. Saying that we should not hold property rights as the only incontrovertible right is not dogma.
Why, because ‘property rights are not the only incontrovertible right’ is not a principle? Or is it a principle you don’t want to lay down as incontrovertibly true?
“Dogma” is first of all a convenient and intellectual sounding word (*1) to discredit opposing views without the need of actual arguments.
*1: Other also convenient words, some of which are rather blunt versions, are: Fascist, racist, cult/cultist, religion, fanatic, ideologue and yes also statist etc…
No, because it does not dis-allow property rights *being* the only incontrovertible right, only that we should not hold that to be true as an assumption.
That’s a dogma according to your definition of it, because you’re insinuating that it is incontrovertibly true that “it does not dis-allow property rights *being* the only incontrovertible right, only that we should not hold that to be true as an assumption.”
What would your definition of dogma be?
Harold:
“What would your definition of dogma be?”
Not a wikipedia entry for starters.
Well, that narrows it down a bit, but it is not tremendously helpful.
I quite like this one from Merriam Webster dictionary:
“a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted”
See – it is that accepted without question that makes it dogma, not it simply being accepted.
“I think it your use of the word “recognize” that caused confusion. If you had said “agreed” instead I would agree with you – this problem would disappear, although it would not be a non-issue. However, not everyone does agree, so recognise is the wrong word.”
If I had said “agreed” then that would have been contrary to my convictions concerning natural right.
The word “agreement” connotes a belief that private property is nothing but a social convention, capable of being present or not present merely by virtue of whatever whims suits the day.
I said “recognize” because my argument for private property is grounded on individual activity. It is not something that arises only after a second (or third, or fourth, etc) individual gives his OK to the first individual.
“Dogma is a set of principles laid down as incontrovertibly true.”
Is that statement right there incontrovertibly true? If it, you contradict yourself, and my argument is correct. If it isn’t, then my argument is still correct.
What then about your argument that agreement, not recognition, is what ground property? Is that not incontrovertibly true?
And your statement that you would have agreed with me if I had said “agreed” instead of “recognize”. Are you not incontrovertibly certain that I even wrote “recognize”? Maybe I said “agreed” and your eyes are deceiving you. And are you not incontrovertibly certain that you would know if you agreed with my argument or disagreed with it?
Attacking truth makes your own claims to truth self-detonate.
“Saying that we should not hold property rights as the only incontrovertible right is not dogma. ”
Yes it is, according to your definition of dogma. You just ssuggested that it is incontrovertibly true that we should not hold property rights as the only incontrovertible rights. For if you argue that private property rights are not the only incontrovertible rights, then you are arguing that other rights are not controvertible, i.e. they are incontrovertible.
“Eventually we must come to some principle which is held as dogma – this could be something like greatest good for greatest number, or efficiency, or something else. I do not believe property rights – or in fact any particular right- should be the fundamental dogma. It should be more like a principle, not a right. Rights will always come into conflict.”
Huh? You chastise me for grounding my convictions concerning property on “dogma”, and yet now you’re saying everyone must ground their convictions concerning property on dogma.
Is that incontrovertibly true?
Well, there’s evidence for a start. I mean in North Korea or socialist Zimbabwe, or Venezuela, people have their property taken from them on a regular basis. It’s a way of life in those places to expect whatever you make to be appropriated by the state.
Thus, property rights cannot be “incontrovertible” when they are being contravened right as we watch.
Gravity is incontrovertibly true (or at least, no one has found a loophole thus far), but human laws are merely agreements between men. You may be able to browbeat and brainwash a large number of people until they repeat the same pledge or something… but somewhere, someone will ask a question, “Why?”
Tel, property rights do not come and go on the basis of how many times they are violated.
Even if property rights are violated 999 times out of 1000 opportunities of choice, property rights would still be a valid concept.
Are you saying that it is literally impossible not to have the concept of private property?
Dogma is something laid down as true. Not to be confused with something that is true.
We usually say something is true if we can support it with evidence. I can support my definition of dogma, but there are other definitions, and I might have missed a bit. i cannot declare it is uncontoveribly true, but would be open to modifications supported by evidence. perhaps a dictionary quotation. Until then I am happy to use it as a working definition. That is not dogmatic.
You seem to be asserting that property rights are real and unavoidable and ought to be unmodifiable. if you can support that with evidence i may be open to pursuasion and i will retract my accusation of dogma. Please correct meif i have mis-interpreted what you are claiming.
“if you can support that with evidence i may be open to pursuasion”
Not only in the the United States, but so many governments all over the world, though out human history, give examples of the enforcement of property rights. There are countless times where people in court are being charged with property damage, for example. Why would this occur if not for the basic human right to property?
In law school, people learn about a whole subdivision of law called “Property Law.” I guess they are just following the established dogma.
Just because people hold something in very high regard does not mean they are dogmatic. The vast majority of people are in favor of the right to property. You are in the very small minority.
This is a joke right?
Throughout history men have been charged with a crime of infringing upon the sacred rights of the king. How could that be if the king didn’t have such rights?
“How could that be if the king didn’t have such rights?”
The king did have those rights at the time. Am I missing something?
so the king had a basic right to lop off heads?
I wasn’t referring to the “natural” right (if that’s what you’re talking about). I was talking about the rights as they were dictated by the law during those times.
““We can hardly define a right better than by saying that it is the range of action assigned to a particular will within the social order established by law.”
Positive law is only what is being enforced.
“property owners apparently cannot so choose”
This is false. Property owners still have the ability to choose albeit consequences imposed by government are now factored into their decision making.
“dogma that property rights are more important than other rights”
The distinction between property rights and human rights has always been a deliberate obfuscation in order to further political agendas:
“The right of ownership is, strictly speaking, quite as much a personal right—the right of one person against other persons—as a right to service, or a lease. It may be convenient for certain purposes to speak of rights over things, but in reality there can only be rights in respect of things against persons . . . Relations and intercourse arise exclusively between live beings; but goods as well as ideas are the object and the material of such relations; and when a right of ownership in a watch or a piece of land is granted to me by law, this means not only that the seller has entered into a personal obligation to deliver those things to me, but also that every person will be bound to recognize them as mine.” -Paul Vinogradoff
Also:
“Tricky phrases with favorable meanings and emotional appeal are being used today to imply a distinction between property rights and human rights.By implication, there are two sets of rights—one belonging to human beings and the other to property. Since human beings are more important, it is natural for the unwary to react in favor of human rights. Actually, there is no such distinction between property rights and human rights. The term property has no significance except as it applies to something owned by someone. Property itself has neither rights nor value, save only as human interests are involved. There are no rights but human rights, and what are spoken of as property rights are only the human rights of individuals to property. Expressed more accurately, the issue is not one of property rights versus human rights, but of the human rights of one person in the community versus the human rights of another.”
-Paul L. Poirot
“By implication, there are two sets of rights—one belonging to human beings and the other to property. ”
Poirot is being moronic here: No one but no one thinks “property rights” are rights possessed by material objects!
I’m glad Gene said it because those were initially my thoughts. Of course, Gene might want to give Poirot a more charitable reading if he can.
Of course, Gene might want to give Poirot a more charitable reading if he can.
Do you ask a tiger not to hunt?
Thank you Gene for the opportunity to use the word “humdinger”.
Poirot is being moronic here: No one but no one thinks “property rights” are rights possessed by material objects!
Poirot doesn’t say anyone thinks that, he say’s it’s the implication of “tricky phrases”. Like e.g. “property rights versus human rights”.
martinK gets it.
He does. http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2013/12/matt-walsh-on-baking-cakes-for-gay-men.html#comment-109413
Gene, nobody but nobody who believes property rights can be separated from human rights has to consciously accept the implications of their own premises, before the implication can be rightly shown as following from those premises.
The author of a false logical inference doesn’t have to accept he made a false logical inference, before we can know he made a false logical inference.
If you want to show Poirot as being “moronic”, i.e. wrong, is to show via logical argument why the implication does not follow as he claims it does.
If I made a distinction, for example if I distinguished “human behavior” from “other behavior”, then I would be imputing a non-human predicate to “other behavior.” That’s the implication from isolating “human” out of the totality of phenomena in the universe.
The same thing is true for separating and distinguishing “human rights” from “property rights.” There is an imputation of non-human predicate to “property rights.” Well, if there is nothing human about property rights, then that means just what Poriot said it implies, namely, that “property rights” are “out there”, in the material world of objects.
Hank:
“property owners apparently cannot so choose”
“This is false. Property owners still have the ability to choose albeit consequences imposed by government are now factored into their decision making.”
So people have “choice” in your mind, as long as they can choose death as an alternative to whatever is happening to them?
They cannot choose no receiving of aggression, if they are receiving it. That aggression prevents them from exercising their property rights.
We are in essential agreement. It’s just that many people on these comments have a very hard time with the concept of action for some reason so I must be careful in case I get bogged down in another discussion.
Sorry, but here is another good one for those who are interested:
“It is not the right of property which is protected, but the right to property. Property, per se, has no rights; but the individual—the man—has three great rights, equally sacred from arbitrary interference: the right to his life, the right to his liberty, the right to his property. . . . The three rights are so bound together as to be essentially one right. To give a man his life but deny him his liberty, is to take from him all that makes his life worth living. To give him his liberty but take from him the property which is the fruit and badge of his liberty, is to still leave him a slave.”
-George Sutherland
“It is not the right of property which is protected, but the right to property. ”
Again, Sutherland is being an idiot: no one thinks property rights are rights “of” property. That someone would try to put forward a position so stupid as being something “the enemy” believes makes me think he really can’t defend his position against his opponents actual views.
You made the same comment about Poirot, and there you were clearly wrong. He was not in imputing a logical implication but a linguistic one. He called it tricky phrase. Poirot is saying that it triggers an inner reaction in the listener, like Pro life for antiabortionist. That is not stupid at all, it’s a good rhetorical catch.
I would argue he is an imputing a logical implication.
By separating (distinguishing ) property rights and human rights, one is claiming there is something not human about property rights.
Also, you yourself are distinguishing logic from linguistics, which generates the same confusions as what occurred to Gene.
OK Harold, a hypothetical. In Rothbardtopia slavery is — of course — possible. So I own Bob as a slave and rent him out as a stud to women. But because I value Bob I refuse to rent him out to men. Is that OK, or do I have to rent him on demand? Do I have to rent him to precocious and curious children?
The point is simpler to make if I am the stud, and you insist on my services, but that gets us into whether that’s an ownership right in my body or some other kind of right. I don’t want to discuss that. So in my example Bob is my property, Bob-renting is my business.
Except for the gross out factor I don’t see much difference here. The baker doesn’t just sell flour, he sells labor and expertise.
In Rothbardtopia slavery is — of course — possible.
No it’s not.
Yes, it is. Bob can sell himself as a slave.
Rothbard denies that is slavery. He considers that a self-contradictory argument.
What you probably meant to say is that in WalterBlockopia, slavery is possible.
Sure, they are referring to the same ACTIONS, but they’re just using different terms.
You might be right. I am not up on the various flavors of dystopia.
Amend my comment to read “Rothbardian man-slave”. As long as Rothbard lets me rent Bob out as a catamite I’m content.
You do not value Bob that much – you have him as a slave. Are you suggesting that renting him out to women to have sex against his will is valuing him but renting him to men is not? My first thought was that there is not much difference, so yes, if we are to maintain anti-discrimination against homosexuals why not force you to rent him out to men?
However, there is a difference – the service offered to men is different to the service offered to women. In the cake example the baker could in principle remain unaware of the nature of the client – he would bake a cake exactly the same. The cake certainly is unaware of the nature of the client. Unless we are putting some narrow restrictions on the slave’s services, he could not remain unaware of the nature of the client, even if you could. He will be required to perform differently if rented to men. Thus there is some distinction between the baker and the slave-prostitute.
This difference becomes more obvious is you are the stud.
I think as discussed elsewhere, children are a different matter. As far as I know no-one has proposed an “equality of minors” act that would allow children to do all things adults do.
So if they asked for a different ornament on the cake, or a different size cake, that takes the curse off and the baker could refuse?
Secondly you have made a logiocal error. You concentrate on Bob’s feelings and performance. But Bob is the cake, I am the baker. For me renting Bob is exactly the same except for some reason I don’t want to rent him to men. Perhaps I fear that the sin of homosexuality will damn him and I care too much, or perhaps I just disapprove, or perhaps I know Bob won’t like it and find him more valuable grunteld not disgruntled. But in any case, how does it differ from *me* except in my mental state?
for *me* not from *me*
Indeed, Bob is the cake. The analogy is that the baker feels the cake would be damaged in some way by going to a gay wedding. I do not believe the cake is capable of being damaged in this way- and more importantly I don’t believe the baker believes this either. So the analogy between Bob and the cake is not a good one. The situations are different.
What your argument implies is that the guy renting the reception hall can nix gays because the hall persists, he gets it back, but the baker cannot because the cake is eaten. Or the singer can decline. You sure you want to pin your hat on that distinction? If not your argument fails and you haven’t addressed my point.
Don’t quite get your comment there. My distinction rests on Bob having qualities that you as an owner may reasonably care about being damaged. It is as if the baker said “I care for my cake, I would not want it to suffer by going to a gay wedding”
Your slave example requires the slave to be capable of suffering. Neither the hall nor the cake is capable of suffering, so the owner of either cannot really claim that he is nixing gays out of concern for their welfare.
So might my dining hall. I fear that it will be besmirched by a gay recepetion. You are narrowing your objection to the point where it’s toothless. Tbe baker has to bake but the guy renting the silverware can balk because he gets the silverware back.
I do not agree that the objection is narrowed to toothlessness, teeth can be quite narrow; maybe sharp ones *have* to be narrow. But perhaps I have got the wrong end of your stick as I can’t reconcile your comments with mine.
You say that because you value Bob, you would not rent him out to men. This implies that you think Bob would be damaged in some way. I took this to mean you were sparing Bob from something he would find unpleasant – you were reducing his suffering. Perhaps you meant that the value of Bob would be reduced if he had lain with men as women would then pay less. Either way, neither of these could reasonably apply to a cake. (At a stretch a hall or silverware could in principle be reduced in value, but I don’t think that is the argument here.)
You say you could not see much difference, but it seems clear to me. You as a slave owner try to reduce the suffering of your property the slave through compassion. As a baker it makes no sense to reduce the suffering of the cake. As a silverware renter, it makes no sense to have compassion for you knives and forks and spare them the suffering of being handles by homosexuals.
Putting it another way, what would you do if Bob were gay, or if you also owned Albert, who was gay?
Perhaps I believe that my silverware IS damaged. This is not even implausible. There are religions out there with notions of ritual purity. My forks, once touched by gay hands (or in another realistic hypothetical the hands of mensturating women) so they need not just washing but blessing or disinfecting before I can rent them again. Or I might belong to one of those religions.
Yes, you *may* believe such a thing. Even then I don’t think they believe the silverware is harmed itself, but has become “contaminated” and could in some way damage the next handler. It is not the knife and fork that actually suffer the damage. I don’t think the baker has suggested that is the reason in his case. I also think he would attract little sympathy if he were actually standing up for “cake rights”. How does he know if the cake is damaged by such a thing?
One could argue that he should have the right to do business with whoever he wants on whatever fruitloopy based reasoning, but that still leaves a difference between the slave owner and the baker. The slave owner has good reason to believe the slave could suffer.
Harold:
“Even then I don’t think they believe the silverware is harmed itself, but has become “contaminated” and could in some way damage the next handler.”
Harmed and contiminated mean the same thing in this particular context.
If a silverware provider/renter thinks his silverware is contaminated due to being touched by certain people, then there is an equivalence between that and Ken B thinking Bob will be harmed if he’s rented out to men, in terms of not wanting to trade for reasons of harming one’s “property”.
No, there is a distinction. The contamination of the silverware is unimportant unless it again comes into contact with a person – the silverware does not suffer. The harm to Bob is important even if he never has sex again. The harm to the silverware only occurs because it is your property. The harm to Bob occurs if you were to free him the next day. It rather depends on what Ken B meant by “valuing Bob”. If it was only as property to earn money as a prostitute, it is not clear that renting him to men would reduce that – it would increase his value as there would be more potential customers. I took it to mean that he had compassion for Bob. For the baker, this issue does not arise, since he will suffer no harm at all through the consumption of his cake at the gay wedding.
The silverware doesn’t have to suffer or not suffer. The point of reference of value is the owner, not the object.
If Ken B as owner of Murphy the slave considers Murphy to be contaminated due to contact with men, then this is the same general idea as Ken B as owner of silverware considering his silverware to be contaminated if coming into contact with gay men.
What you are doing, unintentionally, is putting the focus of valuation on Bob (which is understandable), when you should be putting the focus on Ken B as owner (in order to see the argument Ken B is making).
Don’t forget where this discussion started – Ken B proposed that there was not much difference between the baker and the slave owner. The difference IS that Bob can suffer and cutlery cannot. That is why I have focussed on Bob’s feelings.
It is possible that Ken B by valuing Bob meant in the same way as he would a knife and fork. If that is the case, then there is no difference, and no reason why he should not rent out Bob to men (without extra assumptions).
“This difference becomes more obvious is you are the stud.”
Yeah but the point is moot, since if I were the stud I’d be fully booked years in advance.
🙂
Oh man, this should result in some really delightful court cases.
I wonder if prostitutes in places where it’s legal, but where progressivism still runs rampant (say, Holland) could be sued for refusing to sell their services to someone of the same gender.
Isn’t that discrimination? If they’re operating a business and are “open to the public” do they not have to serve any willing and paying customer?
I often ask those favoring redistribution schemes (and I am one) how they distinguish that from sex? After all 1% of the populace control 99% of the pulchritude. Shouldn’t that be redistributed? ‘Tax’ beautiful women so that 2 nights out of 7 they must share their favors with ugly men, and tax the hunks similarly.
Ken B, you’re not really in favor of redistribution, because you are not willing to go out and use force to redistribute wealth.
What you mean to say is that contrary to me and other anarcho-capitalists, you are not willing to preach what you are practising. We on the other hand are. You are only in favor of hypocrisy. You want to convince others that you “support” or “advocate” for others to use force to redistribute wealth.
I thought we were responsible for what we wish our proxies to do.
I wish my proxies to tax you to pay for schools. I just don’t want them to tax as much, nor for a whole lot of crap like the drug war.
“I thought we were responsible for what we wish our proxies to do.”
So you’re responsible for the genocide in the middle east?
Shouldn’t you be locked up?
“I wish my proxies to tax you to pay for schools. I just don’t want them to tax as much, nor for a whole lot of crap like the drug war.”
So when a coercive institution acts whether you, Ken B, like it or not, then you’re saying that picking and choosing one or some of those things you like is them acting as your “proxy”, and disliking everything else is them not acting as your “proxy.”
Why don’t you fire your proxy, since clearly they are killing innocent people, blowing up hospitals and schools, kidnapping and caging up peaceful “drug” users (but not all drug users, because some drugs are A-OK!), spying on people, declaring themselves justified in killing anyone they want and they don’t have to provide any evidence to anyone, and on and on?
Why do you continue to consider them your “proxy”?
You’re a horrible judge of talent, Ken B. Remind me never to recommend you being hired in any HR department anywhere on planet Earth. Clearly your judgment is batshit insane.
“a position based on dogma that property rights are more important than other rights.”
All rights are property rights. Every single right a human being possesses is in some form a property right.
Right to life? Self-ownership.
Right to uninhibited movement? Limited to owned property.
Freedom of speech? Not in my living room!
Freedom of association? People can make whatever groups they want – on their own property.
http://mises.org/daily/2569
If your proposed right can be restated as a “freedom from” (e.g freedom from hunger, freedom from discrimination) it is not a right, but a demand on other people – and a violation of their actual rights based in ownership of property.
“Every single right a human being possesses is in some form a property right.”
As Voegelin pointed out, it is hard to imagine a more degenerate view of a human being than the Lockean one that he is a capital good somehow owned by itself.
It is also irredeemably dualist.
Almost as degenerate as calling man a political animal.
Us! Animals!
As Voegelin pointed out, it is hard to imagine a more degenerate view of a human being than the Lockean one that he is a capital good somehow owned by itself.
It’s hard to imagine a more lame statement then that.
OK -better to say a dogma that property rights are absolute.
All thought is absolute.
What is with the recoiling at absolutism? Does it remind you of your own death?
The statement “property rights held as absolute is dogma”, is a dogma itself.
…because it is an absolute statement about property rights being absolute.
Hmmm. Does this rule of inference really work?
The statement “the axiom of choice is about the existence of sets” is about the existence of sets.
The statement “the axiom of choice is hard to explain” is hard to explain.
The statement “the axiom of choice is the ninth axiom of ZFC” is the ninth axiom of ZFC.
“Does this rule of inference really work?”
Definitely.
“The statement “the axiom of choice is about the existence of sets” is about the existence of sets.
The statement “the axiom of choice is hard to explain” is hard to explain.
The statement “the axiom of choice is the ninth axiom of ZFC” is the ninth axiom of ZFC.”
All stated as incontrovertible truths.
Why?
The argument is not based on syllogism, it is based on consistency of principle.
When a minority group in a democratic society decides to stop pushing for a principle and start pushing for raw political power, they get themselves into a lot of trouble. For better or worse Democratic societies don’t offer long term political power to minority groups (and that’s by design).
Sadly the bonehead activists who cause this will end up punishing all the reasonable people, but take that one up with God.
AS Ken B might say Logic, logic! Not quite a syllogism, but close. It says IF a man has the right to choose who[m] he marries, [Then] a business owner surely must have the right to choose who[m] he serves.” The second statement appears to be presented as a logical consequence of the first. As the situations are quite different, it is not a valid consequence unless we add the massive simplifying principle that eliminates the differences. Something along the lines that “property rights are supreme” would do it. Maybe this is the principle that the author assumes. The activists are working on different principles. This is why the author fails to draw a logical conclusion.
Close only counts in horseshoes, hand-grenades, and sex.
It seems to me that logic suggests quite the reverse of what Walsh thinks on this point. Marriage is a more personal and permanent arrangement with more consequences for the actor than baking a cake. It has larger consequnces for the actor. So surely one should have MORE autonomy in making that choice than in making less consequential ones. But Walsh argues the other way around. He implies that since I get to choose my spouse then a fortiori I should get to choose whom I bake for. Backwards.
The principle is freedom of association between humans, as is clearly explained in the original article.
Only requires that most basic property right of being able to decide what you do with your own body. Hardly making property rights “supreme”; if you don’t own your body, what’s the point of some nominal property right elsewhere?
Didn’t you study law? In particular Willie Sutton’s law.
It doesn’t horrify me to discover you are an evangelical xtian ,it just confuses me. If you are a libertarian and believe in the non-aggression principle then consider this one small example. As a matter of history the bible teaches us that jews were slaves in Egypt. God working through Moses sent a plaque to Egypt that killed all the firstborn sons. Now surely there were hundreds , thousands of first born sons that had nothing to do with the pharohs (the states) decrees and yet this imaginary stone age deity that you choose to believe in murdered countless innocent males ( many of them children) to teach pharoh a lesson. Surely a greater violation of the non-aggression principle could not be imagined. Has you god ever been called to account for this crime?
There are countless instances where by x-tians own admission god has violated the non aggression principle.
Why do you then accept as true something that violates everything else you believe in and work for in this world and this life. For an atheist believing in a deity is akin to you believing in modern monetary theory. Its just a endless series of baseless assumptions and rationalizations
Death exists in the world. As such, God no more “murders” a young infant that dies than a 95-year old that dies.
“countless innocent males”
“All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” – Romans 3:23
What you mean by “innocent” (presumably, not having killed or stolen or anything that is generally accepted as evil) and what true innocence actually is (per the Bible, for contextual continuity) is vastly different.
It all make sense once you consider that, as creator of everything, God owns everything, and therefore can do with it as he pleases. Thus He can never violate libertarianism/non-aggression.
Of course it is hypocritical, but many laws prohibit freedom of association, like minimum wages, working regulations and financial regulations in general etc..
The truth is that “freedom of association” is just a catch phrase that sounds great, in reality such people want limited freedom of association and forced association. They just don’t realize it.
… reminds me of something …
Nelson Mandela
I am sure that the baker gave his absolute best to bake his best wedding cake ever…
You joke but I see this kind of thing everywhere, how statist advocacy implicitly endorses ridiculous personal decisionmaking:
Normal person: “wedding cake’s important, better do this right!”
Statist: “let’s give be job to someone opposed to the ceremony!!!”
Yes. The strange thing I ask myself is this. Isn’t this also obvious to this couple? I mean it is well known that it is really not wise to piss those off who serve you the soup, else they might spit (or worse) into it, right?
So what is the motivation for them to sue him? It must be a thing of principle or just having the power to do it. I wouldn’t be surprised in the least if they threw the wedding cake of that baker directly into the trash can and ordered a second one from a different baker anyway…
It’s a “smell the glove” thing.
I bet if he made a crappy cake they’d sue him.
It’s pretty deceiving isn’t it. People who want to initiate coercion against others to get what they want from them, have a social pass in doing so if it is presented under a banner of “equality”, of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc.
Blame the depraved and pathetic group of morons masquerading as “philosophers”. They are the ones who are teaching people to believe this garbage.
I wonder if a gay baker would bake a cake that said ” Marriage, created by God for a man and woman.”
I wonder if any hetros would find a judge to force this…
Or what if a group of white supremacists / KKK members came in and ordered a cake and wanted it to read, “The White Race Reigns Supreme” and the baker refused service to them too? You think they’d get much sympathy from a judge to cater to their specific demand?
No because that’s a good excuse not to trade with someone, when the standard is mob mentality and the mob happens to hate racism that day…
I would like to see 1 of the Colorado think tanks/political groups find all of the gay cake bakers and order a hetro marriage cake from each baker. Document the experience.
” Marriage is from God, between man and woman. No poop or fist in this cake.”
Crude I know, but it would be interesting. just to see how many comply. If any refuse, take it straight back to administrative law wannabe judge Robert Spencer.
Free association is so much easier…
IF this wouldn’t have went to court so quickly, a savvy investor could have catered to this market. Maybe set up a bakery the next street over. Truth be told, cake baking may be a specialized trade. Who would you rather have make your cake? I would not hire a car painter to paint my home. I would not hire a Chevy Corvette painter to paint my Ford Mustang.
I think the market will naturally segregate somewhat. Or at least there will be specialists who are talented enough to go both ways when designing, baking and decorating a wedding cake…
Sorry about the previous comment. It was uncalled for. This issue is frustrating for so many different reasons but mainly, it is a dangerous game when you give government approval to force people to behave a certain way. IT can cut both ways.
I would prefer the Church conduct marriage and the Sate have no interest, only in a property contractual manner, nothing else.
“It’s simple: you can’t FORCE people to associate with you and then turn around and preach about freedom of association. You see that, don’t you?”
does the same hold for civil rights? for say, blacks and whites?
Can I deprive one group of their civil rights and turn around and preach civil rights for all? Only if I want a career in politics.
Absolutely it does.
Time for libertarians to stop running away in fear from the race card like Dracula fleeing from a cross.
Freedom of association is absolute. You should be able to refuse to associate (including commercially) with any person for ANY reason. It’s none of the government’s business. Ever. Period.
Racism is evil and disgusting. I personally find it abhorrent. But I will NOT hire a gang of thugs to go beat you up, throw you in a cage, or tear down your place of business because you choose to practice it.
Gabby, that’s why I was trying to say in the blog post that I don’t know what Matt Walsh’s overall views are. It wouldn’t surprise me, for example, if he didn’t defend Rand Paul over the Civil Rights Act stuff when Paul was getting hammered by Rachel Maddow et al.
But yes, the principle is the same: Just as I (and I’m sure you) wouldn’t want the government to force a particular worker to work for a company that he or she dislikes, I don’t want the government forcing the reverse. In many cases the *reason* the employer doesn’t want to hire the worker might be despicable, but that doesn’t change the issue of being the owner of the business (or having powers delegated by the owners).
I don’t know about the specific incident, but that one case where Rand Paul spoke to a black college earlier this year was addressed:
http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/04/11/and-now-its-time-to-play-make-it-racist/
thanks Matt
[…] bake, against the counsel of that baker’s conscience, a wedding cake for a gay couple. (HT Bob Murphy) (To be crystal clear: the issue here is not attitudes toward gays. The issue is attitudes […]
Maybe I’m missing something, but there’s a nuanced angle to this argument that I think many people are missing and/or haven’t considered, and it flies directly in the face of the arguments being made by these uber-gay rights apologists and crusaders (fascists) and their allies. Bear with me here, as I can tell I’m going to be wordy trying to explain myself, but it seems to me the issue is as much or more about products/services offered rather than denying service to certain clientele based on sexual orientation or behavior. Don’t I have the right to be a baker but not necessarily offer cakes (or other desserts/pastries) to the public for any purpose and/or contain any message, whether it’s in support of gay marriage, the Boston Red Sox, Disney characters, or anything else I choose. In other words, a gay couple comes to me for my products/services, and I tell them I’ll gladly serve them anything from my EXISTING array of products/services, but there are some pre-ordained things I can not or will not do, and I’m not going to go out of my way to fulfill those SPECIFIC requests. What’s wrong with that?! I think there’s a subtlety there lost on those trying to make the argument, “Well, if they can refuse service to gay people, they can refuse it for blacks, Muslims, etc.” The thing is, they’re not refusing service to gay people – they can freely purchase cupcakes, muffins, cookies, or anything else as it exists presently, but they’ve just pre-determined that it’s not part of their business model to customize those products for certain things, like a gay wedding. To deny them that right is sheer lunacy, in my opinion. If you don’t agree, take this analogy as a thought exercise. Let’s say I own a lawn service. I mow, weed-eat, trim shrubs and limbs, and rake leaves, but for some reason, I just don’t like edging. Maybe I’m a little lazy or maybe I just don’t see the point and think it’s unnecessary, but ultimately that’s just not a service I offer, even though I’m fully capable. A homeowner comes to me seeking my yard maintenance services. While he could use the other services, his primary interest is in getting me to do his edging. I say I’m sorry, I just don’t do that particular service, but I will gladly do any of the other things – mow, weed-eat, trim work, rake leaves, etc. – for him at a specified price. In that circumstance, would we not rationally and logically expect the homeowner to either A) just accept my other services and the fact I won’t do edging, or B) go find another lawn service company that does edging? I think anybody proposing C) go find a judge/use the courts to force me to do edging work would be laughed at and considered insane. Someone please tell me where I’m wrong or where this analogy breaks down. I’m dying to see the logic behind it.
It’s pretty hard to argue that that a “gay wedding cake” is somehow a fundamentally different from a “straight wedding cake”. Besides, who cares if it is discrimination – the fundamental point is that discrimination ought to be permitted. Christian bakers should be free to refuse to deal with gay couples, and gay couples should be free to boycott the services of (what they perceive as) homophobic bakers, even if the offending baker is perfectly willing to serve them despite their beliefs.
Tellingly, nobody has claimed that there is a shortage of pro-gay wedding cake bakers. I would imagine that the vast majority of bakers are more interested in selling cake than making some moral point. This issue is solely about punishing people for their moral viewpoints and it cheapens the entire cause of gay rights.
Oh I don’t disagree….I think part of my point was just to say there’s another way around the argument that they’re discriminating/refusing service to gay people. That way they can say, “Look, we’ll gladly serve gay people, but only within the confines of our pre-determined products and services.” And the state should have no business dictating what those confines are or aren’t.
As for the point that it’s hard to argue a “gay wedding cake” is somehow fundamentally different than a “straight wedding cake,” I think the point from my analogy above applies in that the labor and resources required to edge is not fundamentally different than weed-eating, but I don’t think the state has the right to say that, if I own a lawn service, I must do edging and can’t rely solely on mowing and weed-eating.
I am still waiting for somebody to go on youtube and burn three hanging chains of books. The first chain would be the New Testament, 7 or so copies hanging vertically. The next chain would be the Tora and the final chain would be the Koran/Quran.
LIght them all on fire. Just for fun.
This misses the point. There should be presumption of freedom to do business with whom you want. By and large people are left to get on with it. Gardeners are free to offer lawn mowing without edging, and bakers can refuse to deal with Fred down the road because he hates his guts.
In some cases people believe that there has been systematic discrimination that causes more harm than good, based on irrational prejudice. It is only in these cases, specifically identified, that the law limits freedom to discriminate. There are arguments on both sides whether this is a good idea, but it should not be confused with a general control.
As I see it you can disagree on two broad counts. 1) You disagree in principle with any interference in freedom – even if that interference does more good than harm. 2) You may (or may) not disagree in principle, but do not believe that such interference will actually do more good than harm. This could be because you feel the initial discrimination did not cause so much harm and so does not warrant interference at all, or that the remedy will not address that harm.
Many arguments here ignore the fact that these restrictions are imposed for a reason. You may not agree with that reason, but surely it is difficult not to agree that a great many people have been discriminated against on the basis of race, gender or sexuality. As far as I know there is no mass discrimination against non-edging lawn care workers, so there is no need to legislate for their protection.
You’re still viewing this through the narrow lens that the baker/caterer is discriminating against the couple because they are gay instead of refusing to tailor/customize his work in support of an action/event/message that he does not agree with and wishes not to support. It’s a myopic way of looking at the situation and suggests a lack of critical thinking skills. If this were a white-supremacist group throwing a party and wanted a cake bearing a message in support of their cause or if this were a group of young men throwing a bachelor party and wanted a cake designed or carrying a message that didn’t cast the female of the species in the favorable light, we wouldn’t even think of second-guessing the baker’s refusal of service, and the situation most certainly wouldn’t be spun to say that the baker was discriminating against or refusing service to racists or misogynists, but his/her actions would be justified by the fact that they shouldn’t be forced to tailor their work to support a cause they don’t agree with or support. Why, then, in THIS case, is it spun to say the baker is discriminating against the person rather than using discretion in what messages or causes will be portrayed by their work?
The distinction I think you are pointing out is that he would not have refused to serve a gay man with a cake for his brother’s birthday, for example. It is not because they are gay per se, but only the ceremony he objects to. He does not have a “No Gays” sign in his shop.
However, it does not appear to be the case that the baker was happy to sell one of his standard cakes to the couple, but only objected to the design. It says he had deep and profound objections to the ceremony, not that he had objected to the design of the cake they wanted.
What if we use a racist analogy? A baker is a racist, and believes black people and white people should not marry. He refuses to bake a cake for their wedding. He would be happy to serve them a cake for a birthday. Does this qualify as discrimination based on race? Yes, I think clearly it does. Does the gay case count as discrimination based on sexual orientation. Equally clearly it does.
In response to your first paragraph, yes, that is the distinction I’m making.
As for the rest of it, to me, in this instance and with the analogy you provided of an interracial marriage, it ultimately falls under the banner of “there are just some forms of discrimination you cannot legislate against.”
In theory, we’re all given degrees of freedom and latitude to discriminate in how we conduct business in the public sphere, as buyers and sellers. Like with my original analogy, lawn service providers are not forced to perform certain tasks that normally fall under the banner of lawn care if they desire not to do those things just because the person seeking their services demands it. We wouldn’t expect an extremely left-leaning economic consultant – one who is adamantly in favor in converting to renewable fuels in very short order – to be forced to take on a research project what shows the relative benefits of fossil fuels over some forms of renewable energy.
No, in every instance, we say to the seller of these products and services, “Look, you can’t just refuse to serve someone just because of who they are (at least based on certain criteria), but you have every right to refuse service to someone asking you to put out a message or support a cause you’re just not on board with.”
It applies everywhere else; I just don’t understand why the homosexual community gets special treatment in this case.
“It applies everywhere else”
Well, I am not sure it applies in the race case either.
“it ultimately falls under the banner of “there are just some forms of discrimination you cannot legislate against.”. Maybe – you must draw the line somewhere. The courts may have got the line wrong in this case.
I bet $100k that if a law was passed that prevented buyers for refusing to deal with store owners because the store owners are gay, that the buyers MUST deal with gay sellers if the sellers ask to buy their money, then the same people who are so adament in attacking anti-sellers today who choose not to do business with gay buyers, would consider the law tyrannical, corporatism, fascism, etc.
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
Right, it’s an inherent contradiction that people only want things to work one-way.
I think a slightly better and more realistic/relatable example involves the one good we’re all sellers of, labor. Let’s say you’re a perfectly qualified accountant who happens to be a Democrat. FOX News wants to hire you, but you don’t want to work for FOX News because of your personal beliefs.
Isn’t that discrimination? Shouldn’t the government force you to sell your services to FOX news? Why can you pick and choose who you sell your services to, but a baker cannot?
I’m not sure that’s right, MF. I think a lot of the activists would be OK with such a law, especially for example if someone had been getting his dry cleaning done for years with somebody, then learned the guy was gay and so switched. It wouldn’t shock me for people to think the customer should be forced to keep using that dry cleaner, so long as the prices remained competitive blah blah blah.
I thought about that, but then I considered the idea that I have never in my entire life ever saw a crusader of equality, in writing, attack a bigoted buyer who refused to do business with a seller on the basis of race, sexual orientation, etc, let alone rabble roused for politicians or police to actually fine them or imprison them like they do with bigoted sellers.
Of course it could have happened at some point, but my argument above was based on experience.
You say a lot of activists would be OK with such a law, which I guess could happen, in that it would be a “surprise gift” that they never thought was possible so they never said anything about it or bribed politicians to do it.
It would be interesting to see if we can dig up blog posts or newspaper articles of active anti-capitalist equality fighters who treat seller rights the same as buyer rights, by attacking racist buyers and rabble rousing for laws against the behavior.
MF wrote:
I thought about that, but then I considered the idea that I have never in my entire life ever saw a crusader of equality, in writing, attack a bigoted buyer who refused to do business with a seller on the basis of race, sexual orientation, etc,…
But sure you have MF. Anti-discrimination in labor laws forces buyers of labor to buy the product of sellers of labor.
Hooters didn’t want to hire a guy; he sued and forced a buyer to buy the services he was selling.
I know what you “meant” MF but I’m pointing out that they have no principled objection to forcing people to buy something on the basis of anti-discrimination. I bet they would object if the Pentagon had a “no Muslim contractors” policy etc. Or school districts only buying lunches sold by white people etc.
I’m saying I can easliy imagine a scenario in which their reaction would be to force the consumer to buy something.
Let us not forget: ObamaCare.
I’ve been in those discussions. They switch between “Nestle doesn’t have a right to my patronage [when I boycott them for moral reasons]” and “I have a right to a cake” really smoothly.
Good point. It’s true, all buyers are also sellers and all sellers are also buyers.
I should have limited it to consumer goods and services buyers.
You have seen them attacking these individuals on the basis of their discrimination?
The key issue for me is liberty. Libertarian philosopher Jan Lester has an explicit theory of liberty that does not pre-suppose property rights: a “pre-propertarian” theory of liberty conceived of as an “absence of proactive impositions”. Property rights very effectively reduce (but do not entirely eliminate) proactive impositions and, thefore, preserve liberty in the best way we know how. Clearly, the gay couple is not being imposed upon by the Christian baker, as their situation has not been worsened in any way by the baker, i.e. prior to what it was before they attempted to buy a cake. Under a system of liberty, the couple is not entitled to the baker’s labor/services. Following Lester’s conception of liberty, they most certainly *have not* been imposed upon (notwithstanding their hurt feelings). But just as clearly, the baker *has* been imposed upon by the gay couple. Liberty is being thrown under the bus here.
Could a gay fashion designer be compelled by a judge to create a wedding dress for an Amish woman?
I hate reading outrageous stories like this, not just because they are outrageous, but also because it leaves me in an angry mood. Good article by Walsh, though.
I am of two minds about this. First I do not want anyone to be discriminated against because of how they choose to live their lives. By the same toke I do not want the state to force someone to do something they feel is an ethical violation of their belief system.
Thus we come to a cross roads of issue. In the end I believe I must side with those that refuse service due to a morale choice of not agreeing with a lifestyle decision. Would judge have made the same ruling if it had been polygamist wedding or finding out the wedding was between mother and son. I would have rejected making a cake in both those circumstances as well on morale grounds.
To me this illustrates why liberals cannot be trusted to defend civil liberties. Libertarians see the world as freedom vs. coercion while liberals view the world as oppressed vs. oppressors. They don’t understand the principles of liberty and will violate them as soon the person doing the violating is from an “oppressed group.”
That’s an excellent way to look at things, John.
It never ceases to amaze us the illogical and hypocritical lengths bigots go to justify their bigotry. Matt Walsh has illogic and hypocrisy down to an art form.