text:
Burn Her! She Would Act Like a Witch in a Situation That Will Never Come Up!
The anti-pizzeria mob loses its mind
Someone please tell me if my progression here is inaccurate in any way:
1) Family owners of small-town Indiana pizzeria spend zero time or energy commenting on gay issues.
2) TV reporter from South Bend walks inside the pizzeria to ask the owners what they think of the controversial Religious Restoration Freedom Act. Owner Crystal O'Connor responds, "If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no….We are a Christian establishment." O'Connor also says—actually promises is the characterization here—that the establishment will continue to serve any gay or non-Christian person that walks through their door.
3) The Internet explodes with insults directed at the O'Connor family and its business, including a high school girls golf coach in Indiana who tweets "Who's going to Walkerton, IN to burn down #memoriespizza w me?" Many of the enraged critics assert, inaccurately, that Memories Pizza discriminates against gay customers.
4) In the face of the backlash, the O'Connors close the pizzeria temporarily, and say they may never reopen, and in fact might leave the state. "I don't know if we will reopen, or if we can, if it's safe to reopen," Crystal O'Connor tells The Blaze. "I'm just a little guy who had a little business that I probably don't have anymore," Kevin O'Connor tells the L.A. Times.
Rod Dreher titles his useful post on this grotesque affair "Into the Christian Closet," and it's apt considering the progression above. If only these non-activist restaurateurs had simply kept their views to themselves when asked by a reporter, April Fool's would have been like any other day for them.
But as it stands, they're now being trashed not just by social-justice mobs from afar, but by powerful politicians where they live and work. Democratic State Sen. Jim Arnold represents the O'Connors's district. This is what he said about his constituents:
"The vast majority of people in this country are not going to stand by and watch that kind of activity unfold," he said. "If that's their stand I hope they enjoy eating their pizza because I don't think anyone else is going to."
Sen. Arnold says he's upset by the news because of the negative attention it's bringing to a town he says is a great community.
He said this kind of thinking has no place in this town. And the Religious Freedom Restoration Law is not an excuse for them to discriminate.
"This is America and if people say they're not going to serve them and they feel this is some kind of defense, which by the way doesn't take effect until July 1, but if they feel it's some kind of defense, I think they're sadly mistaken[.]"
Almost every word out of Sen. Arnold's mouth was wrong, horrifying, or both.
1) The O'Connors did not say "they're not going to serve them," they in fact stressed the opposite.
2) The "kind of activity" that Arnold contends "the vast majority of people in this country are not going to stand by and watch" is expressing a disfavored opinion to a reporter. The pizzeria discriminated against nobody; merely said that it would choose not to serve a gay wedding if asked. Which it never, ever would be, because who asks a small-town pizzeria to cater a heterosexual wedding, let alone a gay one?
3) This kind of thinking has no place in this town is—what's the word?—totalitarian. Sen. Arnold is explicitly ganging up with "the vast majority" against someone guilty of thoughtcrime. This is a true statement regardless of your opinion of the underlying thought.
There is no to-be-sure paragraph about what happened yesterday. A virtual mob, acting at least partly on bogus information, gleefully trashed a business that hasn't (to my knowledge) discriminated against a flea. After which a local pol stood up and yelled "Encore!" The good news is that a crowdfunding effort has raised/pledged nearly $50,000 to the O'Connors.
The bad news, for those of us on the suddenly victorious side of the gay marriage debate, is that too many people are acting like sore winners, not merely content with the revolutionary step of removing state discrimination against same-sex couples in the legal recognition of marriage, but seeking to use state power to punish anyone who refuses to lend their business services to wedding ceremonies they find objectionable. That's not persuasion, that's force, and force tends to be the anti-persuasion among those who are on the receiving end of it.
Jonathan Rauch had a great piece for Reason two years ago about free speech and gay rights, arguing persuasively that when a minority is hopelessly outnumbered both in public opinion and in law, maximal free expression (and I would add, free association) is their most potent weapon—often, it's all they've got. To fight uphill all these long decades, then get to the top, only to start wielding majoritarianism against the suddenly disfavored minority position? That's ugly stuff.
There is another way: The Mo'Ne Davis/Joey Casselberry way, the Branch Rickey/Bobby Bragan way. Or if you don't like baseball, the Matt Stolhandske/Klein family bakery way.
Don't know that last story? Stolhandske is an evangelical pro-gay marriage activist who is nonetheless raising money for the Portland bakery that was fined $150,000 by the state of Oregon for refusing to work a gay wedding. Explained he: "this is what an olive branch looks like. I am not rewarding their behavior, but rather loving them in spite of it. It is time for these two communities, which both cite genuine love as our motivation, to put aside our prejudices and put down our pitchforks to clear the path for progress."
In other words, discussion, persuasion, strategic forgiveness, tolerance. Tactics worth considering, in a year when the Supreme Court is likely to codify the culture's amazing shift on gay marriage into law.
Photo Credit: Jakob Dettner
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.
The bad news, for those of us on the suddenly victorious side of the gay marriage debate, is that too many people are acting like sore winners, not merely content with the revolutionary step of removing state discrimination against same-sex couples in the legal recognition of marriage, but seeking to use state power to punish anyone who refuses to lend their business services to wedding ceremonies they find objectionable. That's not persuasion, that's force, and force tends to be the anti-persuasion among those who are on the receiving end of it.
That's because force is the only language these people understand, Matt. They're not motivated by a moral desire for equality, they're motivated by a desire for power and control over other people's lives, jumping on the equality bandwagon is just a means to it.
I also don't think I'm on the winning side of the gay marriage debate anymore. If I were on the winning side, I imagine the gay rights movement would look a bit more like a bunch of loving people coming together in matrimony and a bit less like an angry lynch mob thirsting for blood.
It's not fair to simply conflate the gay rights movement with the SJW/witch hunting brigade of the left. It's being done in the name of gay rights, but that doesn't mean they're all the same people. Conflating the two gives the witch hunters what they want: the co-opting of a genuine movement for their own self-aggrandizement.
I sort of agree. But, my own personal experience of those who pushed for gay marriage, amongst gays, were all blood thirsty lynchers. Most of my gay friends were pretty blase about the whole thing. The others I know who were blood thirsty lynchers, non gays, were all recent converts to the whole gay marriage thing and were wearing it as a badge to show how enlightened they are.
Gay rights is one thing. Gay marriage is another thing. And, forcing people and/or ruining their lives if they choose not to wish to take part is just totalitarianism. It has nothing to do with rights whatsoever.
The others I know who were blood thirsty lynchers, non gays, were all recent converts to the whole gay marriage thing and were wearing it as a badge to show how enlightened they are.
Stupidity can be tolerated, but the only sane response to enlightenment is a punch in the face.
"And, forcing people and/or ruining their lives if they choose not to wish to take part is just totalitarianism."
Correct me if I am wrong, but don't we have some pretty strict anti-bullying internet laws out there?
Isn't every pro-gay and SJW liberal who posts direct threats against this family and their kids guilty under the law? I seem to remember multiple instances where innocuous and general posts put some people in trouble. There are much worse posts in this case, in many cases by journalists in main stream publications, aren't those attacking this family be guilty here?
And what about every paper that published this family denies service to gay people? Since this if false, and is libel, and there are laws against that. Can't this family sue hundreds of papers?
Or is it that certain political movements are above the law and can do anything they want with no consequence, while if any of their opponents so much as look the wrong way there is an uproar.
That only matters when its the wrong group doing the bullying
Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post did a hit job op/ed piece on the pizza place, misidentifying the situation as saying the pizza place 'would not serve gays' at all, and then comparing it to the Jim Crow lunch counter days. Way to fan the flames, Mr. Nationally-Syndicated columnist! No reason to let the facts get in the way of a good diatribe.
Well said MJG.
The problem you're describing is with suckers who fall into the clutches of the leftist cabal that controls the media. The "bunch of loving people coming together in matrimony" vastly outnumber the "angy lynch mob" but they don't make for interesting reading.
And how many in this lynch mob are straight white middle class people? A lot of them I suspect.
Oh absolutely. And that pisses me off to no end. And it gives ammunition to certain posters here who repeatedly, collectively tarnish the whole tribe. "Look what THEY do - I told you so!!" Fuck that shit.
Yeah, straight white middle class people ain't no proper tribe!
We should ban white people.
I think he/she is referring to the gay-rights tribe. The way some people claim that gay-rights advocates wanted to force conservatives to cater their weddings ALL ALONG.
When really the people screaming for this .. .this is probably the first time they have ever been involved in the "cause" in any way.
The way some people claim that gay-rights advocates wanted to force conservatives to cater their weddings ALL ALONG.
Was there ever any question that certain people were going to push for another protected class so they can force property owners to their will?
That's a given, and would happen whether or not gays demanded their right to marry.
They are two separate issues and are completely independent of each other. Those conflating them are doing so to maintain the status quo.
"If we let them fags marry, next thing you know they'll be pushing to be a protected class."
It's a nonsequitur.
They are two separate issues and are completely independent of each other
Not in the context of the court arguments that were used to ratify gay marriage using equal protection arguments.
Such accommodations amount to adding sexual orientation to the list of protected classes, which allows the panoply of false rights to inhere to gays.
Such accommodations amount to adding sexual orientation to the list of protected classes, which allows the panoply of false rights to inhere to gays.
No...it doesn't.
Gays may marry because of the equal protection clause of 14A. They have always had that right, regardless of what was being done in practice.
Adding a group to the list of protected classes in the CRA requires a legislation. No judge may add gays to that list nor may he force a legislator to add them to that list. There are no "court arguments" for forcing legislation.
You can allow gay marriage under the Constitution without passing legislation making gays a protected class.
Yeah, I get it...and the reason "this is probably the first time they have ever been involved in the 'cause' in any way" is because you prefer it to be that way. At least I don't see any other reasoning behind it.
When really the people screaming for this .. .this is probably the first time they have ever been involved in the "cause" in any way.
If it walks like a truly gay Scotsman and talks like a truly gay Scotsman...
As one opposed and who has been opposed since the start, I see much of the opposite side of the coin.
People who 100% support Martina Navratilova in every facet of her life and career, who *still* listen to Freddy Mercury's music and watch Clark Gable's movies (and go to church on Sun.) get trashed as right-wing, fundamentalist homophobes because they think Ellen DeGeneres is ugly, irritating, and uses her sexuality as both a club and a crutch.
30 years ago, I was a far-left radical. Now, I'm a homophobic bigot. The only problem is my views haven't changed.
I'm sure it's exactly the people I'm most comfortable with them being...for sure
This is exactly right. 50 years ago they were holding the firehoses at Selma. 70 years ago they were locking Japanese in internment camps. 100 years ago they were demanding loyalty oaths from German-Americans and holding screenings of 'Birth of a Nation' at the White House.
The bigots are really the same people they always were, they've just decided that now they hate different people than they used to.
And if it becomes politically advantageous to start hating gays, or jews, or blacks or anybody else tomorrow, they'll go right back to hating them with gusto.
This is exactly right. 50 years ago Democrats were holding the firehoses at Selma. 70 years ago Democrats were locking Japanese in internment camps. 100 years ago Democrats were demanding loyalty oaths from German-Americans and holding screenings of 'Birth of a Nation' at the White House.
The bigots are really the same people they always were, why are we trusting that they're doing something good now?
All they do is done with the goal of amassing more power over individuals--can dismantling religious freedom be anything else?
Believing in the right to free association as it has been recently been put to the test in the sphere of 'gay rights' is not about hate. Using 'gay rights' as the way to use the power of law to beat those who may wish to use their right to free association is about hate.
And if it becomes politically advantageous to start hating gays, or jews, or blacks or anybody else tomorrow, they'll go right back to hating them with gusto.
Pretty sure a whole lot of 'em are already there regarding Jews.
They also pretty openly hate gays or blacks who leave the Dem/prog reservation, and not with "dog whistle" coded language either.
look what happened yo this pizza place sucks, but the idea that gay marriage activism = jim crow is fucking retarded and ignorant.
Most of the jim crow comparisons are coming from the gay marriage activist side of the debate.
Is it equally retarded and ignorant to claim that a business announcing it would not provide one specific service to gay people in one specific set of circumstances (a service, I might add, which the business does not advertise and has apparently never performed for anybody in their nearly 10 years in operation) is equal to segregated lunch counters?
Then maybe the majority ought to go to the media, go on facebook, go online, and actively shout out against that minority. The fact that they don't means something as well.
The "bunch of loving people coming together in matrimony" vastly outnumber the "angy lynch mob"
They do?
In this case there are....let's see.....zero. There are zero 'loving people coming together in matrimony'. There is only a mob. A mob formed not because anyone did anything--but because someone expressed an opinion at odds with SJW demands.
And this is how it will always be because the loving people coming together in matrimony aren't going to tarnish their wedding by using it as a political bludgeon.
The mob will always outnumber them because they are a subset of a small percentage of the population--the mob isn't. The mob is every SJW asshole and anyone they can shame into joining.
Viscount Irish, Slayer of Huns|4.1.15 @ 10:45AM|#
Tonio, this subject has driven you insane.
None of us thought this was popular, we supported it because it was the right thing to do. You don't support it because you're gay and are allowing your sexual orientation to overwhelm your principles.
"Rather than engage the overwhelming public rejection of this, and the implicit failure of libertarianism to win the hearts and minds of the public, you double down on the idiocy and keep wondering why people don't like libertarians more."
What idiocy is that, Tonio? Supporting something unpopular because you think it's right and because you believe in religious liberty as well as every other kind of liberty?
Where I come from, that's called having a spine rather than pathetically caving to the mob.
Tonio|4.1.15 @ 11:33AM|#
You don't support it because you're gay and are allowing your sexual orientation to overwhelm your principles.
I don't? Where did I write that? Show me.
Seriously. Show me where I fucking wrote that. You're projecting.
I put it to you, Sir, that you are the one who is emotionally affected by this, having been driven into tantrum mode by an unpleasant truth.
Tonio is a perfect example of the vindictive, hateful "gay rights" advocate.
The whole world must learn of our loving, tolerant and peaceful ways... BY FORCE!
The bad news, for those of us on the suddenly victorious side of the gay marriage debate, is that too many people are acting like sore winners, not merely content with the revolutionary step of removing state discrimination against same-sex couples in the legal recognition of marriage, but seeking to use state power to punish anyone who refuses to lend their business services to wedding ceremonies they find objectionable.
Foreseeable consequences are not unintended.
You can't say you weren't warned. You were used. I wonder if you have learned anything from this.
I've learned that it's still an irrational argument to claim we shouldn't allow gay rights because gays might behave badly if we do.
"We have to eliminate their freedoms so that we can preserve our own! Huzzah!"
I've learned that it's still an irrational argument to claim we shouldn't allow gay rights because gays might behave badly if we do.
My objection has never been to gay marriage. My objection has been that gay marriage was obviously being used by hate-filled activists as a stalking horse for precisely what we are seeing now.
They were never seeking equal rights, is the problem. They were seeking special, government-enforced privileges.
When you see a camel's nose, you can usually be pretty sure there's an entire, stinking camel not far behind. It was pretty obvious to anumber of us that gay marriage was the camel's nose. Welp, here's the rest of the camel.
The issue wasn't "gays might behave badly". It was that "these activists will, no question, behave badly", because (a) that's who they are and (b) the track they took for gay marriage was obviously the first step toward where we are now.
I've learned that it's still an irrational argument to claim we shouldn't allow gay rights because
gaysoutrage hustlers and well-meaning simpletons might behave badly if we do.
Sorry, RC, but no. The problem is with PA laws and the race/outrage industry that has spring up around it. They're considered sacrosanct now.
Maybe you should have been present at the first Constitutional convention to warn the Framers about their silly ideas of freedom of association. I warned them nothing good would come of it.
The problem is with PA laws and the race/outrage industry that has spring up around it.
And gay marriage via the courts was obviously an attempt to expand the scope of that problem statute.
Sorry, but if you supported the courts imposing gay marriage licensing and recognition via the EP, instead of opposing this route and telling the pro-gay marriage folks to do it, what's the word, "democratically", then you enabled the problem.
Because you mistakenly believed "gay marriage" and "special privileges" could be disentangled. Theoretically, they could. As being pushed in real life, they can't.
You were suckered.
And gay marriage via the courts was obviously an attempt to expand the scope of that problem statute.
Maybe it was, but so what? That still doesn't diminish, in any way, that equal protection correctly extends to gays in all things governmental (SLD applies).
Giving into the hecklers veto because bad things might arise from doing the right thing is no way to run a country. This is the same argument that the gun and book banners run.
agreed other JW. there is no state interest in saying gays cannot engage in state sponsored activities that steaights can. equal protection does not a special class make. and 10 years ago this same poison was pointed against gays rather than those with a religious drive to disassociate or discriminate against them.
this was not a story that *started* with gay marriage folks.
Maybe you should have been present at the first Constitutional convention to warn the Framers about their silly ideas of freedom of association. I warned them nothing good would come of it.
Is this a pro-gay rights argument that boils down to mistakes were made and bad laws were passed in the past, the best we can do is live with them?
I'm with RC, I wasn't against the gay rights movement because I hate gays. I was against it because it's objectively filled with hypocrisy and self-denial. Consistent cries of 'there is no slippery slope' while actively lengthening and tilting legislation that has/had nothing to do with sexuality. Routine genuflections along the lines of "Well, now that we're not (as) discriminated against, whom do *we* discriminate against?" All under the self-effacing flag of a relatively quiet sub-fraction of a niche minority that was only conditionally repressed to begin with.
People would ask questions like if Brittany Spears can get married and divorced in a weekend, why can't a gay man? Pointing out that judging Britney Spears is just as much a moral decision as judging a gay man or that the two had nothing to do with one another were considered *only* in a homophobic/anti-movement context, without any consideration of obvious truth or objectivity.
I was against it because it's objectively filled with hypocrisy and self-denial.
So, you'd deny slaves the right to be free because of the potential of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson? Or ban guns because a 2 year old might shoot himself with daddy's gun?
When did libertarians become rights utilitarians?
they didnt, marriage is not a right and the government has no place in it other than enforcing the contract
Equal protection under the law is, however, a right.
Unless you're an anarchist, then it's a non sequitur. But granting the need for at least a minimal state, it's a right.
But granting the need for at least a minimal state, it's a right.
1. I fail to see how delivering pizzas to gay weddings or even gay weddings themselves grants the need for even a minimal state.
2. The pizzeria is under no obligation to legally provide catering services to anyone regardless of race, creed, color, religion or lack thereof, gender or lack thereof, or sexual orientation or lack thereof. The law(s all of them), as is/was, is equal.
3. We are nowhere near any conception of a state of anarchy and you use it as a specter or sophistry to justify further government social intervention. In '64 when there were zero pizzerias and a handful of restaurants in Walkerton, IN for a black man to walk in to (at their own risk) and no way for said black man to access food otherwise, you *might* have a point. In 2015 when a gay couple can have a Lou Malnati's pizza overnighted from Chicagoland to Walkerton, IN for effectively the same price and a phone call (let alone simply patronizing another pizzeria in Walkerton) your need for expanding a non-minimal government rings loudly anti-libertarian.
So, you'd deny slaves the right to be free because of the potential of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson?
I would argue that slaves were free well before Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons were born. I'd further question the successful attainment of equality by our society/government after incurring Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the CRA.
Distinguishing the movement and individual rights are critical to libertarian ideology. Why, if equality in all facets of life (at least I don't figure post-secondary education, *private* golf clubs, or pizzerias to be the explicit domain of our government) is so crucial, do libertarians so willingly ascribe the government as judge and enforcer when it has such a rich history of division, oppression, class warfare, and generally fucking things up?
I would argue that slaves were free well before Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons were born.
Don't be so fucking obtuse.
Why, if equality in all facets of life (at least I don't figure post-secondary education, *private* golf clubs, or pizzerias to be the explicit domain of our government) is so crucial, do libertarians so willingly ascribe the government as judge and enforcer when it has such a rich history of division, oppression, class warfare, and generally fucking things up?
You seem to very, very unclear as to the concept of equal rights.
It's not about whether or not everyone gets a goody bag at the end of the party.
The problem wasn't 'gays might behave badly if we allow gay rights'. The problem was marriage is not a 'right'. It is a personal relationship that doesn't have a damn thing to do with the legitimate powers of government. Government IS the entity that enforces 'rights' - even if those 'rights' are believed to predate government.
The second you head down the path of asserting a 'marriage right'; then you are asserting that government needs to get more involved in marriage. And the second you assert that then you lose all ability to assert that government will somehow withdraw itself from marriage after it gets more deeply involved.
I personally don't remember when it became obvious to me that this issue/agenda was developing in a way that was transparently NOT libertarian at all. But it was definitely many years ago. And what really annoys me is how much of a self-inflicted lost opportunity this issue has turned into. There is no growing libertarian moment. There is no generational acceptance of anything that is remotely 'libertarian' that might offer some future electoral hope. There is only the same-old-same-old irrelevance for all ideas of liberty - a vague understanding of the ideas and a bigger resentment of them by older folks who vote, and a complete buy-in to identity fear-mongering politics conformity by the young.
Marriage is certainly a right. It's a right to freedom of association, and for some it's a right to free religious practice. It's exactly the same rights that allow this pizzeria owner to refuse anyone service for any reason he can come up with, or none at all.
People (on both sides) are placing way too much emphasis on the word "marriage". The fact is you have the right to call an apple a banana, and you're free to have a "banana" bowl on your kitchen counter.
The issue here is that whiny, but vocal people are pretending they have the right to make everyone else call their favorite fruit by a different name.
Actually modern libertarians are way too busy attaching the word 'right' to basic concepts of freedom - and thus undermining that very freedom. For a LONG time, people were FREE to call themselves 'married' (or call themselves a banana). That is the basis of the common law recognition of something that it too called 'marriage'. That people did not need permission to do something in the absence of a law or a bureaucrat or a preacher. That people were, by default, free. And that that state of freedom often created similar situations/contexts whenever the individuals did need to use a court (eg who does the property go to on someone's death, which adult is responsible for this minor child).
But that is not remotely a 'right'.
I'm foreign, maybe there's a language or cultural barrier here.
You seem to be saying that despite rights predating government, only government can enforce rights? I'd say I'm the principal enforcer of my own rights.
I see what you're getting at here, but it kind of depends on if you think government is the source of rights, or if your existence is?
Maybe it's splitting hairs.
Holger - "Natural rights" were invented to limit absolutist govt or divine right or create basis for social contract or justify regicide. That's a response to government existence. The promise to not violate those rights is still the social contract legitimacy of the US government
but irrelevant to marriage.
Legal tradition in the US is common law which predates legislatures/constitutions/'rights'/statutes (the stuff of civil law). Just court judge and litigants. The presumption is that you are free to do something unless you are prohibited from doing it. re marriage - judges don't define, they merely acknowledge whether it seems to exist or not.
Legal tradition in most of rest of world is civil/codified law. re marriage - Catholic/Lutheran/Anglican canon law was folded into civil law when churches were established. The legal presumption is that you are not free to do something unless you are given permission/right to do it.
During 20th century, the US gradually outlawed common law marriage. Replaced it with civil law. Copied the old canon laws that everyone else had. Politicians could now buy votes with entitlements. But we kept marital disputes in common law courts. The result is poo flinging. People now think they need state permission and bleat about 'their rights'. Pols pander and pigs snuffle for entitlements. Judges are now seeing that disputes of gay couples are the same as straight couples - but civil law is anti-helpful in dealing with actual disputes.
"Marriage is certainly a right."
Your decision to form a relationship with someone is a right. Sodomy and other sex acts are a right. But marriage (in modern times) is basically a state's recognition of a relationship.
If we say marriage is a "right", and can be redefined without limits (let's say the only limit is it can't hurt someone) then the government really has to reach a libertarian level to accommodate endless forms of relationships.
Commitment, monogamy, love, and formation of a family are all marriage concepts rooted in tradition. As it is now, I don't see why someone can't marry essentially for tax purposes, and meet his sexual needs outside of home. That would be some sort of open marriage.
Gay folks don't like their relationship being compared to bestiality, but I see some similarities. And pet owners don't ask their pet's consent to own them. They could easily rename their relationship as "husband and wife" and receive tax breaks by reporting the pet as a spouse.
Expanded marriage rights is obviously great news for libertarians, because the courts can't logically legalize gay marriage but ban prostitution. But I think there's still some room for debate on whether states should set their own standards on marriage and civil unions.
The language about "gay rights" is stupid. People have rights. Gays have no claim to any special rights or privileges other than those that devolve to them by virtue of being a person. Many of the "gay rights" activists seem to want special rights for gays. No one has the right to force someone else to associate with them against their will. No one has the right to force someone to believe what they want them to believe. No one has the right to penalize someone for thinking incorrect thoughts. That includes anyone who labels themselves as "gay" or any SJW a--holes.
Foreseeable consequences be damned, sir! Where are your principles?
/cosmotarian knucklehead
If foreseeable consequences were actually a serious object of consideration, there'd be even less libertarians then there are now.
I wouldn't say that. I would say that it is often inherently difficult to control a movement when that movement becomes victorious. For lots of reasons. One in particular is that the mob-mentality people suddenly switch sides and join the winning team.
Hazel, you are often a level head, with well thought out points and good argument.
But this is just stupid--"One in particular is that the mob-mentality people suddenly switch sides and join the winning team."
What is happening now is what was always intended. A claw of government is sinking into a place where it could find no purchase before and those that got it there want to see blood.
And there has been no 'switching of sides' to fuel this.
Nope. You're seeing nefarious motives where there is no need to. Most gay people just want to get married and enjoy the same benefits of marriage that hetero couples do. That's all. They do not care whether christian bakers are forced to cater their wedding. There is not some vast gay conspiracy to make everyone kowtow to gayness and join in gay celebrations.
And there clearly has been massive side-switching as you can tell by the poll numbers. That is a simple fact. This is just the first chance that all those new converts have had to display the fervencey of their faith.
Well, polls say what the pollsters creating them want them to say.
And I don't think you're understanding--gay anything is incidental. It was a means to an end.
This path expands the state. That was the goal. Not gay marriage.
No, there it isn't some grand plan to expand the state. By Occam's razor, Mr. Meade's explanation is clearly the most sensible one. There is not need to posit a statist conspiracy behind gay rights (or race, or gender) revanchists. The reaction is entirely organic.
Movements may ostensibly exist to achieve a goal (and to defeat an ideological enemy), but they really serve to give people emotional fulfillment as well as a sense of superiority to others. Once the enemy is routed, people in the movement still have a psychological investment in the conflict (some will even make careers out of it), so they will keep expanding the goals in order to justify the movement's continued activity. Like warlords who need war to stay relevant and employed. 'All we want is to ward off the enemy. The enemy is routed? Well, we must capture them now. Captured? Kill them, as punishment for past wrongs. They're dead? Take their land as reparations too. What now? Kill their families, as their children would surely be just as bad as them...' and so on.
And of course, people only want equality when they have less than everyone else; once they're equal, they want more. Add to that the natural desire to punish one's perceived aggressors, and I see no need to think there was ever any plan. Just people behaving as they've always behaved. Those who use it to expand the state are just opportunists jumping on the badwagon.
Good comment.
It is so true, I actually had visualization of a screenplay. Gonna send it off to Clint.
Is there any evidence of mob mentality people switching sides in this case? I've seen no indication of such, so I'm wandering if this isn't just a No True Scotsman argument.
WHO responds well to FORCE which involves harming people for their beliefs or lifestyles? I can't think of anyone.
I can't stand the religious BS either- as a sex worker rights activist we deal with it constantly. We see that faith based Orgs have taken it upon themselves to 'save the whores with Jesus' and these orgs get all the funding and are allowed to position themselves up against law enforcement. They are attacking prostitution while claiming to be rescuing people from 'sex slavery'. Politicians have happily jumped on that political bandwagon. Through the 'woozle effect' narratives based out of religious motivations (as well as feminist ideologies) become fact with the help of the media and opportunistic politicians. It's NUTS!!! But trying to force these people to pull their heads out let alone force them to care about the damage they are causing so many people? You can't force sociopaths to have empathy anymore than you can force these crazy people to empathize or change for the better.
There's always going to be some moralizing jerks who want to control everyone else's behaviors.
I have the flu and likely shouldn't be posting right now. When I stated 'up against law-enforcement' I meant parallel to law-enforcement as in working alongside and with law enforcement.
There's always going to be some moralizing jerks who want to control everyone else's behaviors
DE, I don't mean this in a snarky way, but I can't tell if you're referring to the conservative Christians behind the RFRA or the fundamentalist progressives attacking pizza parlors.
I guess that's just more evidence that Progressivism is really just another religion at this point, and a fundamentalist one at that...
Hello there.I speak as one of 'these people' you are speaking of.Actually,the decision these Christians are making is out of a deep conviction[motivation]of their moral beliefs.Tell me,where is the 'power' and the 'control' you speak of here? These business owners didn't say anything about NOT serving homosexuals,just that their convictions won't allow them to engage in a same sex wedding.Sounds to me like you are the one who is doing the controlling and using power to trample on others Constitutional rights.Freedom of religion is still very free.Grand Moff Serious Man says it best....poor 'winners'.I have to inquire,did you read the entire article here? You speak of control and power,but the pizzeria simply stated they would not cater a wedding,they said they serve all people.It was the 'poor winners' that said they wanted to burn down the place.Hmmm,perhaps second grade reading and comprehension is the first order of the day.
And the Religious Freedom Restoration Law is not an excuse for them to discriminate.
"This is America and if people say they're not going to serve them and they feel this is some kind of defense, which by the way doesn't take effect until July 1, but if they feel it's some kind of defense, I think they're sadly mistaken[.]"
Don't forget the part where it would in fact be legal for them to discriminate against gay people already, because these people aren't in one of the few municipalities that includes them as a protected class.
Eh, its not surprising. One only has to look at college campuses to know what progs think of the rights of those who disagree with them. Anyone who didn't see this coming is an idiot.
That the "we just want to get married" sentiment has turned in to the "we NEED to force you to approve of our lifestyle" decree is both unfortunate and completely predictable.
It's sick, and I'm gtg with people marrying whoever they want.
It seems like only yesterday when they were saying "how does *my* marriage affect *you*?"
Remember when they just wanted to be left alone to live in peace?
Hey, if you don't like gay weddings, don't go to one. Though, if you do avoid going to one, you might have to lose everything you own and be cast out from society. So...
Oh, don't be silly you don't have to actually go. You just have to publicly declare your allegiance to the correct thoughts and not say or do anything contradictory to that public perception. That's enough.
I can remember years ago when opponents of gay marriage brought up scenarios wherein people who disagree with said marriage would be forced to participate. The Left mocked this as fear-mongering. "We would never do that! We just want tolerance!" Uh-huh.
Ten or so years ago in my state they pushed a referendum that would add homosexuals to the list of protected classes, the whole time mocking those who said it was a ruse to redefine marriage. Before the ink was dry the very same people who were mocking those who said it was a ploy to redefine marriage initiated a lawsuit challenging the definition of marriage saying it discriminated against a protected class.
Leftists are liars. Plain and simple. The end justifies the means, and if the means means lying, then lying is what they do.
Leftists are liars. Plain and simple. The end justifies the means, and if the means means lying, then lying is what they do.
See Harry Reid for reference.
There is no to-be-sure paragraph about what happened yesterday.
Uh-huh. Spoken like a true cosmotarian!!1
This is a really depressing episode. Fuck these Twitter/Yelp warriors, and double-fuck this Chuck Schumer wannabe, Jim Arnold.
A virtual mob, acting at least partly on bogus information,
That's too kind. It wasn't bogus information. They were lying and deliberately twisting the owner's words. It's the same annoying BS you see in most Internet discussions, but this time there could be a real world cost to it. It's infuriating.
The "COMPLY OR DIE" reaction from the left here is emblematic of their larger world view. If you dare disagree on anything, whether access, or gay marriage, or global warming, or anything, you're an "other", and you must be shunned (if you're lucky it's only that).
Replaced "shunned" with "destroyed" and you're spot-on.
It is still a bad and unnecessary law.
(And shriek would know from bad and unnecessary.)
People being forced to take part in abortions and gay marriages is why these laws exist. We already had religious freedom. These laws are BACKLASH. Not against gay marriage, but against being forced into participating in gay marriage.
People don't like to be forced into things. They get their backs up. This is a mistake on the part of the gay rights movement. Gay discrimination was over. Now....it will come back.
It's adorable that you probably actually think you're a civil libertarian
Was this a reply to Pulseguy? For what he just said or from previous comments?
Hmph. The person who made that swastika pizza image no doubt regards him/herself as mighty clever indeed. Heroic too. A great Crusader for Civil Rights, deserving of a large statue.
Just wondering how many establishments refuse to provide pizza to *stoners* ….
"Who's going to Walkerton, IN to burn down #memoriespizza w me?"
You know who else destroyed the businesses of people who had the wrong religious beliefs?
That is an exceedingly long list that starts in prehistoric times. I'll sum up thusly: every religion or philosophy that got a hold of political power.
Just in case you ever wondered what kind of people participated in Kristallnacht, behold the golf and softball coach.
The worst part is the coach should be fired for trying to incite a riot, if not brought up on criminal charges. Thank goodness for union protection from the market and most law.
Hitler, Godammit! The answer is always HITLER!
Yes, yes, we understand you, WTF. Relax.
No do tell us - and don't be vague - is the answer Right Wing Pigeons from Outer Space?
Like a nazi-themed version of kids sunday school where every answer is Jesus.
This 5 Minutes Hate brought to you by Pizza Hut.
Nationwide outrage delivery in 30 minutes or less or you next one is freeeee!
Wouldn't it more likely be brought to you by abortion-hating Domino's?
Avoid the noid. And abortion. And teh gays.
...brought to you by Pizza Hate?
You know who else pre-emptively refused to serve hypothetical social engagements?
Nice Matt. I feel like you're kind of warming to us. Group hug?
I'm not in line to get any hugs, hamilton, but I did find the Alt-Text exemplary.
This is a great example of why there is no need to use government force to prohibit businesses from discriminating.
When a group of people acquire the means to push people around, members of that group will push people around.
We should remember this when we decide to whoop for special treatment of folks who squawk about being oppressed.
What we need are adults in the room who are willing to tell the mob when they have won, and tell them that it's important to not kill all the fleeing stragglers.
Libertarians appear to be those adults.
After helping rouse them to a murderous outrage in the fist place.
Did well.on the first part, failing miserably on the followup.
"The gay rights community has essentially achieved total victory on the issue of gay marriage and now is going across the battlefield "shooting the wounded," National Review Online's Jonah Goldberg says."
"for those of us on the suddenly victorious side of the gay marriage debate"
Oh, boy, those libertarians who think they and the gay activists form an "us" are in for a rude shock.
"You want bigotry and discrimination to be legal? [Donald Sutherland style screaming]"
I have it bookmarked for this exact situation.
Just remember, we are on the backwards ones clinging to outdated and brutish social norms, while the progressive left flies past us on the road toward a more enlightened, advanced, and ultimately kinder way of living, with true human decency for all.
Utopia can be achieved by force, or did you forget that lesson?
They are immanentizing the fuck out of the eschaton, and you BETTER not get in the way hetero-cis-shithead-clinger.
The bad news, for those of us on the suddenly victorious side of the gay marriage debate, is that too many people are acting like sore winners[...]
You're being too kind. People like Democratic State Sen. Jim Arnold and the rest of the bullies are acting exactly like those communist revolutionaries that took over governments on the aftermath of World War 2, taking on dissenters and whoever they perceived as enemies of the revolution. It is not only concerning, it is frightening. It has to be the most illiberal thing you can witness today.
Right now this expression of hatred has limited itself to ugly threats and pranks, but how long before people are made to submit through violent acts? Wasn't that supposed to be the very thing gays and lesbians fought against?
If only these non-activist restaurateurs had simply kept their views to themselves when asked by a reporter, April Fool's would have been like any other day for them.
And I guess that is what all of this comes to: shutting up, not speaking, keeping your thoughts to yourself. Otherwise, it is Kristalnacht for you. How can this be defended?
It is not only concerning, it is frightening.
It really is, and for the life of me I'm not sure how we got to this point.
You better agree with me motherfucker, or else.
Probably taxation.
History has a nasty habit of repeating itself.
Wasn't that supposed to be the very thing gays and lesbians fought against?
This idea that gays and lesbians can't or would never have any punitive tendencies towards other people is the dumbest meme on the thread.
Plenty of gay people just wanted honest and equal recognition of their cohabitation.
A whole Hell of a lot of those on the gay marriage bus saw it as a cudgel to slam people with whom they shared a mutual disliking.
Which side was more representative? I honestly don't know, but the fuckheads are certainly the loudest and get the most attention.
Victim groups are always morally pure; they are like God's right had: brutal, perhaps at times, but when they are brutal, we can surely assume that the receiver of the brutality thoroughly deserved it.
How long before gay rights activists start angrily quoting scripture: ""Truly I tell you, not one stone of this pizza parlor here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."
He said this kind of thinking has no place in this town.
And there goes the mask! It's off and running on it's own! It's moving like a tremendous machine!
" arguing persuasively that when a minority is hopelessly outnumbered both in public opinion and in law, maximal free [removed]and I would add, free association) is their most potent weapon.."
No, there IS another one. It's just unpleasant.
Also. Is the idea that people shouldn't be forced to violate their beliefs really a hopelessly outnumbered minority viewpoint?
Paying taxes violates my beliefs. So...yes?
Also. Is the idea that people shouldn't be forced to violate their beliefs really a hopelessly outnumbered minority viewpoint?
Uh yes? Freedom of association has been dead for a long time. Even most of the people supporting the RRFA only support it in this limited targeted sense. They aren't defending the rights of non-religious bigots or racists to freely associate.
Exactly. You would have to reverse the entire apparatus of the civil rights movement if you want true "freedom of association". That is simply not going to happen.
Alt-text WINNAH!
The views on gay marriage and being gay in general have switched so quickly that I can't fathom how progs are not more sensitive to those who haven't caught up to the new normal. Just 15 years ago in high school we called each other fags and I thought being gay was maybe the worst thing someone could be. I have grown up and I understand a lot more about the world now than I did then. I don't give a shit what other people do with their time.
When you have a person like my grandfather who was born in the 30s how the fuck do you expect him to change his views? 80% of his life has been experienced with gays being the lowest class of person (not at all helped by the government's treatment of homosexuals). All of the sudden you want a person like that to ditch everything they have seen and known because you say so.
It was only in 2013 that Democrats added gay marriage to the party platform…
They are on a power trip roll and can't stop to smell the roses even if they wanted to?
For the connoisseurs of the Kulturkampf battles over "anti-gay" restaurants I'm offering this thread from 2012. Yep, Chick-fil-A!.
Everything that could be said was already said years ago. Right here. Even the cast is mostly the same.
Whatever happened to Randian? He was so delightful.
He's still around as The Tone Police, but his life situation changed and he cannot participate as much as he used to.
Prison, huh?
Fed's finally found that hard drive, eh?
I am more and more agreeing with John's thesis that the progs are relying on violent mob tactics. And if the target of the mob fights back - or, God forbid - defends himself with a firearm - then that will be reported as a "clash," with demands for the arrest of the person who defended himself.
The Ferguson shopkeepers, strangely, didn't have protection against the rioters, even though the National Guard had been called up and alerted to the forthcoming prosecution press conference. And people seriously defended the rioters as helping draw attention to alleged abuses in Ferguson. And when the Oathkeepers volunteered to help the shopkeepers defend themselves, they were accused of provocation.
So the progs don't *support* mob violence - oh, no - they simply contextualize it, discuss how useful it is, and denounce any practical measures of self-defense which the victims may take.
You remember the chapter in That Hideous Strength where the butch police chief of the NICE talked about inciting a riot and then using the press to discredit the innocents in the local population, who were really only defending themselves? That's where we're headed.
Headed? We're there.
See, also, Ferguson.
i find it astounding how these people seem to see the world in 2 big venn diagram circles that do not overlap at all.
the idea that i could be (as i am) a supporter of gay marriage but at the same time (gasp) a supporter of the freedom of association and individual self determination that would, say, allow someone to refuse to preside over or make a cake for a gay wedding just seems to break their brains.
wake up guys. your own liberty comes with a price: you have to give it to others too.
wanna bet this same crowd would support the right of a baker not to make a neo nazi wedding cake?
i mean, this is not a tricky set of nuance.
you have the right to go into the house of anyone who invites you, but you cannot come in mine unless i invite you. by the same token, i cannot come in yours.
i may be angry about not being able to sit in your den, but if i demanded a law to require you to let me, would you be OK with that?
how about if i just set off a firestorm of criticism for you being an anti-lithuanian bigot and we harass you on the internet and picket your home?
Impossible. If you believe a Christian should not be forced by threat of government mandated bankruptcy to provide gay weddings with cakes and flowers, you are on the side of bigotry and oppression.
"You are either with us or you are against us."
"make a neo nazi wedding cake"
that is a belief, not a person. unless, you believe one being gay is a disease or mental illness that is curable.
What if we find out that bigotry is genetic
does that make bigots a protected class?
Ha, I can see it now, a Nazi pride parade with guys on a float dressed as SS officers dancing to "Born this way."
The SSM supporters for the last ten years or so have been casually characterizing their opponents as paragons of evil, "bigot", mentally diseased "homophobe", and any disagreement with their premises as "hate". Well, this is what you get from that rhetoric and those tactics. The Reason staff writers have been gleefully sowing those dragon's teeth themselves all these years. To now bemoan the mindless skeleton's that have been called forth is something, but Welch, this may not have been your intent, but you are not innocent of what has been wrought.
We can't just stop fighting for good causes because we're afraid that our side will go overboard. This is a danger inherent in all revolutions. It's not a reason to not have revolutions.
It is a reason to fight like hell to stop your side when it's about to cross the line from justice to injustice.
You can avoid rhetoric that demonizes and dehumanizes your opponents. Reason.embraced such rhetoric and continues to, as shown by Soave's and Gillespie's posts from yesterday. You are responsible for the monster you helped to put in motion.
I'd argue that "your side" stops being "your side" once those who cross the line from justice to injustice outnumber those with an interest in justice.
See: the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution... well, just about any revolution outside (arguably) our own.
IT- emphasis being on "arguably" - because, "arguably" one could say the same thing about the abandonment of the spirit of 1776 by those who wanted a big, fat central government and were determined to do it and would stop at nothing, including murder, to get it and keep it.
We can't just stop fighting for good causes because we're afraid that our side will go overboard.
There's your mistake. What these activists were working for wasn't a good cause, because it wasn't equal rights or even gay marriage.
It was special, state-enforced privileges, advanced under a tissue-thin (one might even say transparent) pretext.
You were suckered. You were used.
Pawns in what is, essentially, a sectarian war, albeit with one side steadfastly maintaining it is not religious for the advantage in power and another steadfastly hiding behind the fact that it is for the dwindling advantage in freedom.
Marriage equality is a good cause. That is what WE fought for. Whever anyone else was interested in does not negate the justice of the same-sex marriage cause.
The cause was state control, marriage equality was just a cover.
State control is a horrible cause.
Your cause was just, so it does not matter that you fought dirty?
Where did we fight dirty? I don't recall any libertarian articles telling people to make twitter death threats against Christian pizza joints.
Marriage equality is a good cause.
Civil Unions with the same rights as marriage wasn't good enough, though. Nothing is ever enough it seems. It actually had to be *called* "marriage". When will it ever be good enough, though. What's next?
I would argue that revolutions should be avoided. I'd rather things be done the English way than the French way: gradually change the institutions and laws that are necessary, rather than chopping off heads and burning down churches. Consider that in the span of 200 years France has had six republics, two restored monarchies, and three military dictatorships, while Britain over the same span has had but a single continuous more or less Republican state without a single civil way. Gradualism is in my book decidedly superior to revolutionism, which is driven more by emotion than reason, and therefore is nearly inherently violent.
And harder to stop when they cross the line from justice to injustice.
Sometimes I think the Westboro Baptists were the greatest false flag ever conceived. They behave in such a uniformly loathsome fashion that nobody wants to be associated with them, and then in any of these 'culture war' battles, the socially conservative side gets equated with them. In some cases deliberately. I've seen numerous stories about gay marriage opponents illustrated with stock photos of the Westboro Baptists.
Factor in that Fred Phelps was a longtime Democrat and financially supported Al Gore's campaign, and it really makes you go hmm...
I think it's simpler than that. The WBC has made offensiveness into a (tax exempt) business plan, they make a lot of money settling law suits when someone is goaded into attacking them or violating their rights to be offensive.
Greasing the wheels of the outrage machine is just good business practice.
That's because the liberal strategy is to argue a ridiculous extreme. It' s predictable,.boring and can leave their opponent speechless, in a state of shock. That's how stupid people pick the "winning" side to join, and why there are soo many of them.
The parallels to this and gamergate are hilarious and depressing. Sending death threats is the worstest thing evar, unless the left is doing it.
Lets burn him down!
Sending death threatsEVERYTHING is the worstest thing evar, unless the left is doing it.
So are we calling this Pizzagate or Pizzaghazi?
Riff Raff Kulturkampf
So are we calling this Pizzagate or Pizzaghazi?
I'd rather switch over to the "-ghazi" suffix. "(Blank)gate" is so 1975.
I think this whole thing says something about human nature. For a lot of people, maybe most people, there is nothing quite like the feeling of righteous indignation. They get a rush, a good feeling, if they can frame a situation as right vs. wrong, and put themselves on the "right" side and anyone who opposes them on the "wrong" side. That moral outrage makes them feel superior. That's really the basis of team politics, and why I think politics in general is pure evil.
He is on to us! GET HIM!
It's politics as a positional good.
Being on the "right side" doesn't just make them feel good, it also signals their place in the social hierarchy.
Thanks for the excellent link!
This... This is terrifying.
Thank you for this article.
As I posted yesterday, I feel like libertarians are like the lone voice of reason at a lynch mob. Maybe the mob was aroused by a just cause, but now that they have taken over, they are howling for someone to lynch. And we're standing here, in the middle of mob that we initially helped get started (for perfectly good reasons), trying to stop them from getting out of control.
I have been in this situation before, not a literal lynch mob, but a situation where I got a bunch of people together to work out a situation, and in the end, they couldn't stop at just resolving the immediate issue, it had to result in banning and exiling people.
Why? A) Because most of the people with the lynch-mob mentality were newcomers to the cause who felt some sort of perverse need to show everyone they were on the right side by being extra-zealous about it. B) Because they were afraid that not banning and exiling everyone on the "wrong" side would result in more "conflict".
The point is, it takes tremendous courage to be on the right side of a winning issue and then NOT go overboard and take revenge on the losing side. Which is what is happening right now. We have this insane mob mentality where a few Christian conservatives who merely don't want to participate in a marriage ceremony they don't support are being viciously attacked by a howling mob. And that mob is not merely boycotting them, but demanding that laws be passed to exile them from commerce.
"And we're standing here, in the middle of mob that we initially helped get started (for perfectly good reasons), trying to stop them from getting out of control."
I agree, but this doesn't make libertarians "the lone voice of reason." It makes them (choose your metaphor) Dr. Frankenstein, or the Sorcerer's Apprentice.
Libertarians had one opportunity after another to insert some moderation into the debate. "I'll support your gay marriage bill if you meet our concerns, and include a clause in the bill that no private company, even if it's for-profit, be forced to service a gay wedding." As one of the few groups to simultaneously support govt-recognized SSM *and* freedom of association for profit-making businesses, libertarians were ideally placed to promote such compromise measures.
But no such luck - after all, the issue of freedom of association is *totally unconnected* to the government recognizing SSM, so lots of libertarians simply put on their pompoms and rejoiced as these bills passed with no protection for secular business.
The supporters of the SSM bills rejected protections for for-profit business, not because it was an unrelated issue but because they *wanted* to force SSM on business owners.
And now? "OMG how could we have predicted that the monster we created would go off and behave so badly!"
Your history is wrong. Same sex marriage was legalized by the COURTS. The courts do not have the power to amend the laws to tack on protections for private businesses. So that was never really an option.
Also, I am fairly confident that the lynch mob here is NOT composed of the same people who have been fighting for marriage equality. Based on my experience, I would bet that 99% of these people are newcomrers who are signalling their moral correctness by being extra zealous.
I don't think there was EVER a plan to force religious conservatives to cater gay weddings, that just happened as an accidental side effect after the battle was won, and all the late-coming converts latched onto it.
"Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in Illinois since a law signed by Governor Pat Quinn on November 20, 2013 took effect on June 1, 2014."
Which was moot since a court victory was inevitable at that point anyway.
They were not aware of it at the time the bill was passed. They rejected conscience protection for secular businesses.
And of course the fact that the courts establish SSM without protections for religious freedom is an argument against judicial involvement in the issue.
"Also, I am fairly confident that the lynch mob here is NOT composed of the same people who have been fighting for marriage equality."
That is sufficiently counterintuitive that I would like to see some evidence.
It's not counterintuitive to me, having lived through a similar experience.
Then to the extent that you are at liberty to do so, could you educate me?
'But, it can't be, men as brilliant as Martin Heidegger, or Carl Orff, or Werner Hiesenberg would never work with the Nazis!' Well, they did.
I am sure plenty of people who have been in the movement are today among the ones taking it 'too far.' Many of them are angry, thew want vindication for what they've been through, or are afraid that if they stop now, if they don't go 'too far' the tide will be rolled back and they will lose ground. In any case, a quick look at the people and organizations calling for the boycott of Indiana are fixtures in the movement.
Why take only what you're entitled to, when you can get away with so much more?
If only we had listened to you about the nefarious plans of those conniving fags.
Ah, yes, you have decisively rebutted my argument that libertarians should have supported protections for profit-making business in the SSM statutes.
Libertarians were never really in a position of influence such that they could have a meaningful role in determining legislation or make bargains on that level.
Conservatives were, and it's hard to imagine how they could have handled it worse.
OTOH, libertarians were in a position where they could have forwarded some alternatives to gay marriage (such as civil unions for all, or removing marriage as a governmental concern). This they failed to do, in favor of hopping on the bandwagon of the latest fad.
This is akin to the 80's, when Reason came out in favor of break dancing.
The freedom of association question would remain, regardless.
"Libertarians were never really in a position of influence such that they could have a meaningful role in determining legislation or make bargains on that level."
Well, it was an occasion at least to make a contribution to the debate, saying "we're for SSM *and* free association, so let's have a bill which embody both principles."
Then they could have been soundly defeated, but at least libertarians would be able to say "I told you so," and distinguish themselves from the lynch mob.
This is true
Yep, and "libertarians" did not do this. Damn us all!
Agreed on your first point, but your other hand doesn't match my experience. I guess I have to look at what CATO and similar orgs proposed over the years, but I certainly recall plenty of talk about getting govt out of marriage, or going with civil unions for all instead of marriage for all. There was enough talk that Richard Epstein wrote a pretty convincing reason as to why the libertarian option of removing the state from marriage is not feasible. It was out there.
This is why the strange collective judgments that always pop up in these threads (libertarians are responsible! you all have to own this!) is so stupid and petty. Some people "hopped on the bandwagon," some were there when the bandwagon first set off, many see it as the only realistic solution and accept it for that.
Why would we propose some sort of silly fig leaf?
Removing government from the marriage business is the libertarian ideal, but it's not happening in my lifetime, so I don't waste much time fighting for it.
The whole 'civil unions' thing was just stupid. If we are going to grant gay marriage the same legal protections and requirements as traditional marriage, then there is no practical reason to make up a new name for it. The only purpose is ceremonial - to mark gay marriage and gay people as separate from everyone else. That's not a compromise that I'm willing to make.
My counterproposal is simple: When it was religious conservatives standing in the way of equality under the law, I opposed them, and having won that fight, I will now oppose the current gang of SJW idiots, because they are now the greater danger to liberty.
"Removing government from the marriage business is the libertarian ideal, but it's not happening in my lifetime, so I don't waste much time fighting for it."
This ideal is desirable for a whole host of reasons more important than mere paperwork that lead me to prefer people stop wasting breath on 'gay marriage' and focus on the more important issue of state meddling in marriage altogether. To me, the latter is the one that's important.
"I will now oppose the current gang of SJW idiots, because they are now the greater danger to liberty."
Yeah, good luck reversing the momentum of history. Me, I'm just building an ark.
The point is, it takes tremendous courage to be on the right side of a winning issue and then NOT go overboard and take revenge on the losing side.
Most people are tremendously ignorant of reason and not much less than that are the scores of profoundly unintelligent people. Emotion and happenstance might guide a person to be on the right side of an issue, but it takes rational thinking to craft a response to the issue that is compliant with principles of justice.
We live in a democracy of sorts, principles of justice inevitably yield to principals of popularity.
I don't understand why you're so determined that libertarians have some responsibility for this.
There's been a lot of go-along-to get-along from libertarians because the idea of letting anyone who wants to marry get married falls in line with general libertarian principles--but those who adhered strictly to those principles have been derided quite often. And those few libertarians who actually objected.....well. Let's just say that it's disconcerting watching an SJW rip through a thin libertarian cocoon.
But the go-along-to get-along group was never in a position to do more than be swept along with the tide. They had no hope of ever being 'the adults in the room'.
The only responsibility they bear is to the libertarians who warned them that, while SSM was a laudable idea, the path this was taking wasn't laudable at all.
Uh, some of us did that. Repeatedly. And the usual gang of snarkclowns personalized it, made fun of KULTURWARS, and talked about bigotry. Some people in this thread can barely keep the confirmation bias and dissonance in their pants.
Kristallnacht. Coming to a "free" country near you.
The Social Justice Outrage Machine is running at warp speed.
Why would we consider the Stolhandske story an example to emulate? Mr. Stolhandske (and others who think the way he does) say that people who choose not to participate in same-sex wedding ceremonies due to religious concerns should be loved "in spite of" acting on their beliefs? Thanks, but that sort of back-handed "tolerance" isn't what is required here. We need the real thing, which does NOT include the smarmy condescension...
Great write-up, Matt. Knocked it out of the park. OTOH, this:
There is no to-be-sure paragraph about what happened yesterday
is a point apparently lost on most people, even to include most of the editorialists on this site (for whom the "to be sure" *was* the point of their editorializing).
No one on Reason needs to establish their socially tolerant bonafides, and I appreciate that you are willing to commit to a full-throated defense of principle over re-establishing those bonafides. Even though there will no doubt be some who misleadingly characterize you as a socially conservative nut, no one reading this OP or the rest of your work on Reason in fairness will construe you as such.
"no one reading this OP or the rest of your work on Reason in fairness will construe you as such."
The key phrase is "in fairness." What do you think the SJW commitment to fairness is?
Libertarians are dead people walking by default in the eyes of SJWs, their opinion is less than worthless.
Even though there will no doubt be some who misleadingly characterize you as a socially conservative nut
No one is going to do that other than the sockpuppet trolls in contrast to the many who pound the other reason writers as progressives and SJW for continuing to find gay marriage opponent's views distasteful even while defending their right to live by those distasteful views.
Unless you are talking about other websites then sure they will, but they classify all the Reason writers as Socons no matter what they write.
Excellent point.
(for whom the "to be sure" *was* the point of their editorializing).
Of course! Very astute of you to pick that out. Robby's whole reason for writing here is to burnish his cool kid credentials.
Even though there will no doubt be some who misleadingly characterize you as a socially conservative nut
Hence the frequent inclusion of some to-be-sures.
I think they made their big announcement about not serving gay weddings so they could martyr themselves, claim victimhood and raise tons of cash. They only had TWO yelp reviews before this happened so I don't think they were doing all that well. Now, they're 40K richer. Before long, they'll have a book deal and a reality show.
Has anyone started a petition to stop the gofundme fund for these bigoted assholes? Because I would sign it and share it with everyone I know.
Stop it. I can't handle any more of this mincing little goosesteppers right now.
It is a great business plan. 40k? That is what I call a retirement fund! Off to Hawaii for life!
The second one is the worst. Not only do they show no remorse for these people being threatened, they actually argue that they should have the right to stop OTHER PEOPLE from giving money to the victims.
Tangential to what I noted below: Clinton Foundation receiving donations from foreign governments who uphold laws where being gay is punishable by death? Totally cool, fuck you for even bringing it up, fake scandal. Apple having a business HQ in the same circumstances? That's fine too.
Pizzeria that'll serve gay customers without issue but won't cater a gay wedding? UNACCEPTABLE BIGOTRY!
Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. Some of those foreign governments are run by scary brown men who are pretty damn violent. I would much rather bully some middle-class white people who won't murder my family in response to my tactics. Good grief!
Just checked, they are closing in on $150k.
Re: Scruffy Nerfherder,
I think they made their big announcement about not serving gay weddings so they could martyr themselves, claim victimhood and raise tons of cash.
Yeah, pizzeria owners are so forward-looking.
It is no surprise that they made an investment in a very large oven, just like someone else did...
The muffin man, who lives on Drury Lane?
King Nebuchadnezzar?
Self-loathing Pillsbury Dough Boy?
You can always count on Gawkermedia to take the dumbest position possible.
I knew it would be a goldmine, I admit it.
40k being fuck-you money? Huh? What?
Holy narratives, Batman!
herp derp tag closing is hard when you've been dazzled by such bullshit. "Big announcement"?
That is enough for a Jeep Grand Cherokee, bub. Do you know how rare those vehicles are?
An endless torrent of vitriol and actual threats of violence towards those who decline to provide service to bake a cake or pizza, silence when it comes to those who actively attempt to exterminate all homosexuals.
Identity politics and the calculus of "privilege" and "oppression", baby. Gotta love it.
That would be because the gay mafia are true cowards. Never will you ever see them get in the face of any "islamic". They know that is very dangerous.
Kind of like how you'll never see "peta" go into a biker bar and throw paint on the leathers. They know they'll get their asses kicked.
Same with union thugs. They'll only punk people they know are no threat.
All of this is based on leftism: Cowards…intellectually dishonest…breathtakingly immature and juvenile…and at times, deadly and violent.
Agreed, but let's not leave out the blue bellies and the grunts, because, unlike the gay mafia, the peta crowd or the union thugs, the cops and the GI joes are the state's privileged purveyors of violence and they have the biggest, most lethal weapons.
Sort of like all the "black brunch" protests taking place in SWPL-y urban havens full of weak white liberals. No way in hell would they try to pull that stuff in a place where the dominant clothing features are cowboy boots and giant belt buckles.
If I owned a restaurant of some kind I would refuse to cater or make special order products for a gay wedding. I'm an atheist and a libertarian and I would refuse service for no other reason than to assert the right to do so.
The same right to free association that morally legitimizes the right of gays to freely contract with one another, obliges them and the SJW gangsters to recognize that other people have the right to freely contract for themselves as well. Demanding respect and recognition of your rights is a two way street, attacking Christian bakers for not supporting gay marriage undermines the very legitimacy of gay marriage.
I've been toying with the idea of starting a business, the name of which is "I Reserve the Right to Refuse Service".
I don't think I would get very far in the permission process.
You'd have mine.
Maybe a trash service could get by.
*narrows gaze*
I'd demand that all white customers say 'the n word' before ordering. That could make an SJW's head explode. Who would I be discriminating against?
You're not there to approve of my lifestyle But to sell pizza! Now shut up and get back to business!
Maybe it's time laws were passed that required business owners to sign a document that says if they exercise any type of religious expression or opinion during business hours they automatically lose there license and their property is forfeited. There is no place for " free expression" if you enter the public square- religion belongs in the closet
(Actually, I think this might be a troll)
I think its obvious to everyone but you. You're the one that got bent out of shape because some Christians tried to abuse the little power they had and as a consequence they almost got run out of town. I would say that the only thing regretful about this whole experience is that a bigger target wasn't taken down.
Troll would be the middle comment. html fail.
If you believe that is a troll, then I admire your blissful unawareness of the Salon commentariat.
Yeah, I've already had an earful of the "roadzzzzzz, therefore everything private is public" on this. I'm sure it's obvious that that's one of my very favorite arguments.
Roads lead to the rape crisis center, so why still can't I become a counselor there? (pretending, for a moment, that they are discriminating against me because I am a man, not because I'm a three time convicted rapist ;)
The 'religion belongs in the closet' line makes it pretty obvious that's a troll.
Maybe, maybe not. You know full well the earnestness with which some SJW zealots express themselves. As do most of us here. Some of that zealotry includes a fanatical hatred of religion.
There is no place for " free expression" if you enter the public square-
religionhomosexuality belongs in the closet
It's rather fascinating and disturbing that this commenter did not notice this connection..
Sounds like the commenter was trolling the other idiots.
If the idiots never realize it's a troll though, is the joke on the idiots, or on the troll?
"this kind of thinking has no place in this town"
Words fail me, as they usually do these days.
Other than you have some moral objection or the thought of two people of the same gender have sex creeps you out, please tell me exactly how same sex marriage impacts your life. I don't mean the BS rationale about society and the moral foundation of the US and all the other right wing crap, but specifically how same sex marriage will impact YOU, personally. My guess is for 99.9% of us the answer is it won't. On the other side, please tell me how your desire to be accept and have your life choices sanctioned by society means your rights trump mine? Exactly how do you fight for equality by making yourself superior to others in terms of civil rights? The last important question that has to be asked in regard to this situation is simply this.... WHO IN THE HELL ORDERS PIZZA FOR A WEDDING?
I think I'd blame the reporter who posed the hypothetical, and the overly-polite business people who answered the hypothetical instead of saying, "look, guy, are you ordering a pizza or what? We don't do politics."
You would think stewert and colberts shows would have taught everyone not to give,an interview.
Why can't we as a society just accept that 'friends who want to remain friends don't discuss religion and politics.' I never discuss politics with people I know. Ever. I made the mistake once of being politely honest: a colleague asked me how I felt about Obama (apparently he meant it rhetorically); I said I wasn't very fond of him. In those exact, very mild, words. He gave me a wide-eyed stare like I had just pulled a turd out of my ass and ate it right in front of him. How could I possible 'not be very fond' of that great great man? No more politics for me.
Remember the old days...back in 2013?
"Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association called the DOMA verdict "the greatest threat to the First Amendment in history." The Liberty Institute said the rulings will mean "attempts to use government to punish those who disagree" and "create a climate of fear and oppression."
"It's a bit rich for these groups to complain that the court is infringing on their freedom to infringe on the freedom of gays. Advocates of same-sex marriage are not trying to exclude heterosexuals from matrimony. They are only asking to be free to practice it, as well."
This is a trend. The DOMA verdict was symptomatic not causal. Understanding this is apparently beyond many people.
The person using the hammer of government force to restrict the rights of his neighbors is always wrong. If it is a christian using the government to prevent gays from marrying, or a homosexual using the government to prevent christians from following the tenets of their faith.
Assholes exist on all sides.
You can't win this debate, it seems. Every person I debate on this always comes back with "Well, should they be able to refuse black people if they didn't want to?"
Once you mention that the CRA was probably not the best idea, they come back with "Ha! I knew you were a racist RepubliKKKan!"
It seems most people are totally ok with protected classes and the special privileges that come with being one.
It's probably a lost cause, but why not ask, "is there any group which *shouldn't* be a protected class? If so, then you've admitted the need for distinctions - so explain why your ideas of new protected classes should be adopted."
Or ask if they personally would be willing to put a gun in their face and force them to? If the answer is no than ask them why they want the government to then.
Freedom of Association has it's parellels with afreedom of Speech. They both say you are free to be the asshole because some day everyone might think I'm the asshole which is fine but I don't want to ask permission to be one. Government force is not an appropriate response to hurting someones feelings or offending them.
They have a long list of groups that shouldn't be protected, actually. 'Bigotry' now has an Orwellian meaning apparently.
It's like an American version of ISIS.
First the victory on the battlefield, followed by the ritual public beheadings, lest the conquered begin to have second thoughts.
"A virtual mob, acting at least partly on bogus information, gleefully trashed a business that hasn't (to my knowledge) discriminated against a flea"
Well, "short of violence", who are we to complain? They're "wrong"
Whoa wait just a minute , "She would act like a Witch", "Burn her"??? Yeah I think some people who are "Witches" by their personal religion are taking offense at the title of this article.
You can't talk about religious freedom on one hand and smack someone with the other.
No we're not, fuck off slaver.
Seriously? It's a reference to witch-hunters, not witches. I don't think self-identified witches, of all people, are going to deny the history of violent anti-witch hysteria.
That's it precisely. People who are uncomfortable with the cultural baggage associated with the word "witch" invariably choose to call them selves wiccan or neo-pagan. If a neo-pagan calls herself a witch (which I have) it means they are not going to be upset or insulted when people point out the awfulness and stereotypes of the Burning Times.
Burn? Nope see if they float.
Fuck Jim Arnold. Evil asshole. It's unconscionable this politician would side with the angry mob. Fuck. Him.
As for all this insanity. I always wondered, as a historian by degree and an enthusiast, what it would have been like to live in certain eras of human history.
Salem wasn't one of them. Yet, it's what we're witnessing unfold before our very eyes.
How about being a German, living in America, circa 1917-1922?
How about being Japanese, living on the west coast, circa 1941-1945?
How about being a male operator of a day care center, anywheresville USA, during the 80s and 90s?
Or an Italian in Montreal circa 1940-43.
Italians were interned too. True story!
The male day care operator hits close to home. That family in Boston that were thrown in prison for a crime they didn't commit still sends chills down my spine. Coakley that cunt.
You know who else was named Adolph?
The King of Sweden?
Thanks Switz, I now have Cab Calloway floating through my head.
The founder of Adidas?
The famous mathematician Hurwitz, who once taught Einstein?
Good article Matt.
The bad news, for those of us on the suddenly victorious side of the gay marriage debate
If you are a libertarian and think you are on the "victorious side of the gay marriage debate", you have likely lost your way when it comes to being a libertarian. Actual libertarians do NOT want the state to define marriage, nor partition our population into "married" and "non-married" people and treat those two groups differently. That you openly advocated for the government to do just that, as a libertarian, you are actually on the losing side of the gay marriage debate.
The libertarian activism in the so-called gay marriage debate is to insist that politicians and government bureaucrats mind their own fucking business. The libertarian activism does NOT include using the coercive power of the state to redefine a 10,000 year old institution to include something it obvious include.
Being a libertarian means agitating for LESS government intervention into our personal lives, not agitating for more.
That's all well and good, but it ignores the fact that the status quo is "unequal-treatment under existing law"
Your critique makes sense were we all in the same boat. We're not. You might not consider it a privilege to have the government rubber-stamp your personal associations, but others would like to have the same ability to sneer at it that you do.
It's deliciously ironic that the only reason my husband and I got a marriage certificate was so we could get an apartment together. In Virginia at that time, the law forbade the renting of apartments to unmarried opposite sex roommates. If we had been gay, we would have not needed to get married to live together.
You do realize the SJW's have no recollection of that. They also have no recollection of birth control being illegal.
And if they do have recollection of it, it's only to merely enforce that all barriers to whatever their cause du jour is must come down. Note that their cause is NEVER freedom in general, it's only freedom in ever-narrowing specifics; they want to reserve the right to ruin the lives of anyone who doesn't agree with them.
Right, the problem is unequal treatment under the law. That the laws are unjust to begin with is irrelevant to the issue of inequality under the law.
Besides, most libertarians will put forth the qualifier that government should be out of marriage to begin with. But as long as it is in the marriage business, it must not discriminate.
Obviously, it would be better if the government did not get involved in sanctioning marriage at all. But if they are going to do it, it is better that they sanction all marriages equally rather than just certain preferred kinds of marriage.
Especially since marriage confers tax benefits, it is more just, since it applies the equal protection of the law to everyone. It's unjust that only some people get certain tax benefits.
Then the proper cause to fight for is to repeal the taxes.
Which of course you know is not going to happen.
As long as the government is going to provide tax benefits to marriage, those tax benefits should be available to everyone equally.
I would love to get rid of them entirely, but the incremental improvement of making the tax code more uniform is still a plus.
Then the proper cause to fight for is to repeal the taxes.
They aren't mutually exclusive: one can fight to repeal the taxes in the long run, and at the same time fight for making unjust laws more equitable in the meantime.
That certainly explains why gays who want government-created marriage or government subsidies/benefits had no interest in challenging government's role in it. It does not at all explain how/why libertarians supported that approach. How exactly is it 'better' for government to sanction all marriages equally if the goal is to get government out of marriage altogether? The only possible means by which government can sanction marriages equally is to get more involved in it (via redefinition of it). Not less involved in it.
So by supporting that approach, 'libertarians' essentially compromised away the only legitimate principle or end-goal here (get government out of marriage) in order to play political footsie with a group (gays who WANT government-created marriage for the tax or other bennies) that had absolutely no interest in anything libertarian. That is nothing more than libertarians being played as fools. And it has pretty clearly accomplished NOTHING even in some crass unprincipled political/electoral calculation.
You know, this is the sort of story that really makes me hate people.
In a just world both the golf coach and State Sen. Arnold would be buried from head to toe in pizza sauce and cheese fresh out of the oven.
Note on the wall of my kid's school (paraphrased): Fair is not making everyone equal. Fair is giving everyone the tools to succeed.
I'm surprised that is actually allowed these days.
Fair is giving you enough rope.
Fair is giving everyone the tools to succeed.
This is actually a stupid sentiment as well. People will complain they didn't get enough tools, and therefore tools will be taken from one person and given to another.
Well, in a school setting, I think this is a good sentiment.
Children really are treated in a socialist manner, as they should be to an extent. Problem arises when they are not allowed or refuse to become adults.
Proggies are simply children who never grew up.
I like the first part. The second is dicey as Paul describes below.
But I'm glad they're pointing the distinction out.
"The bad news, for those of us on the suddenly victorious side of the gay marriage debate,..."
you didn't "win" as much as you beat the opposition so hard they have to flee the public square.
Is anyone else here reminded of the WKRP in Cincinnati episode where Mr. Carlson reads the lyrics of "Imagine" to a censor-happy, zealot who then proclaims the song unsuitable because to "IMAGINE there's no heaven" is essentially the same as decrying religion?
No, but I remember the scene! A conservative zealot come to think of it.
as a single person I'd like the ability to inherit an estate tax free too. equal treatment.
I'm all for that, but you have to share the estate with a nasty roommate for a while first. Equal treatment.
"The bad news, for those of us on the suddenly victorious side of the gay marriage debate, is that too many people are acting like sore winners, not merely content with the revolutionary step of removing state discrimination against same-sex couples in the legal recognition of marriage, but seeking to use state power to punish anyone who refuses to lend their business services to wedding ceremonies they find objectionable."
Yep, can't say I didn't see it coming. This is why I absolutely despise Proggies. I feel sick when I have to team up with these assholes on any issue. Everything the conservatives say about them is true and then some.
Even if I don't agree with many conservative beliefs, at least they are honest and straightforward and somewhat based on logic or at least a set of rules.
The homofascist campaign to destroy Memories Pizza for expressing a heterodox opinion is the quintessence of modern liberalism, and everyone who wishes to be free to express any views that the radical left opposes had better realize that it's long past time to act. A good start would be charging the high school coach with incitement and attempted arson, and going after the liberal hacker bullies harassing the pizzeria and threatening its employees. The totalitarian nature of modern liberalism is again being demonstrated. Not all liberals are monsters, but those (like the local state senator and the newsliar fishing for a target to destroy) are enablers and creators of the fanaticism. Are there any liberals out there who realize just how atrocious this behavior is?
You had me until "homofascist"
It was going so well.
pedant hat on
Well it's an ugly neologism but technically fascism is the economic system where property is nominally privately owned, but its use is dictated by government laws and regulations, which is what is being called for by the mob. And it's being theoretically done in the name of homosexuals so homofascist isn't an inaccurate description. I'm not sure if the poster actually meant this or was just throwing out 'fascist' the way most internet posters do as code for "evil stuff".
pedant hat off
Fascism isn't really an economic system at all, just a social/racial and political one, with economic implications. Fascists, unlike Marxist and also unlike capitalists, do not view economics as the determining or defining factor in society. In that sense, fascist economic policy is really just a reflection of the goals of the state, which is highly collectivist (tending it toward socialism), but collectivist generally on ethnic or nationalist rather than class criteria (so seizure of all means of production would be moot, if the means of production are already owned by people of the 'right' nationality).
I took a European history course once so I know everything. Note: I was wearing my pedant hat to begin and I'm keeping it on, it fits me well.
No, there are not.
They refuse to see the similarities between their actions and religious fantaticism, ludditism, and fascism.
In fact, their favorite past-time is projecting their bat-shit craziness on to others.
honestly, the only way to undermine the mob is to use their own hysteria against them.
such as = check out Gawker-writer's favorite lunch spots in NYC, and go ask them all if they cater gay-weddings.
I'm pretty sure you'd probably get a little awkwardness @ Mahmood's Falafel, etc.
The bad news, for those of us on the suddenly victorious side of the gay marriage debate...
The government claiming eminent domain over the use of a word and then redefining it was success? What?
Success would be government getting out of everyone's business.
But then what would we have to complain about?
"We would like to order two gay wedding pizzas, please. The lesbians would like theirs without sausage, and the men would like double sausage. Thank you."
"A virtual mob, acting at least partly on bogus information, gleefully trashed a business that hasn't (to my knowledge) discriminated against a flea. "
Actually, I like my pizzerias to discriminate against fleas and other insects.
I'd say that the O'Connors have the basis for a nice law suit!
The petty side of me is severely tempted to support some French level "super tax" on the wealthy. Because it's abundantly clear that the wealthy and elite (mostly progressive) don't care about economic or personal freedom, unless it benefits them.
Someone spins damaging lies about getting raped or being discriminated, and nothing happens. The liars are patted on the back for speaking out. But some drunk kids chant racist things at a frat, and it's game over.
If Apple wants to outsource American jobs to Gayhateistan, I'll support that on principle. But Tim Cook can't overlook the fact that some businesses ran by practitioners of Abrahamic religion may stay away from gay weddings. Where are some of your money coming from, Tim?
Some Asian store owners thought their business was exempt from min wage increase. Literally days before it was planned to go up. I know some of them. They're actually nice people, but they're undying democrat voters (even though they're old school so cons, heh) who love big government.
The SJWs have to suffer. They have to lose everything because of the dumb policies they supported and arrive at some epiphany. I hear dem voting Asian soccer moms worry their heads that their kids might not be accepted at elite schools because of Asian over representation. I seriously want to shake them and ask "what happened to the part of your brain that detects irony"
Shouldn't this also apply to customers as well? A deal is made between two adults. There's no real difference between someone selling a product and someone buying it. Following the goofballs' line of 'reasoning', no one should be allowed to choose NOT to buy from some business if the activities of the owner of that business offend him in some way, especially if they do so because of a religious belief. They should be forced to buy from that business or severely penalized.
I have no idea why all of you "I've pro-same-sex-marriage" people are SHOCKED SHOCKED at what is happening.
It's not like you haven't been warned of these exact consequences for years.
This was never about so-called "marriage equality" -- it is about the Left imposing its own standards on everyone and making sure you either CARE or be made to suffer - legally and socially.
They also don't care that most of the stuff they peddle are lies. To borrow from Harry Reid, "well, the Christians aren't winning are they"?
Too bad he closed the business. If he'd waited a little while, he'd probably have been flooded with backlash business.
"without a single act of aggression."
What would be the fun in that?
And remember...that idea goes both ways.The homosexual community makes up less than 1% of Americans.And the way the homosexual community is attacking Christian's convictions and their beliefs,which are protected under the United States Constitution[freedom of religion],and with most Americans being tired of this 1% bullying the rest of America,those businesses being targeted will lead to more business for the Christian businesses.This idea will backfire on the homosexual agenda. All you have to do is look at Hobby Lobby and Chick Fil A.These are businesses that did even better after controversy.Did you bother to read the content in it's entirety? The Christians didn't say they would NOT serve homosexuals,they cannot in their Christian beliefs,CATER a homosexual wedding.The Christians were the target of a threat even,in that their business should be burned down.You read like my second grader.
What we have had is a very large group of people who are tools of the media, who have a desire to be "cool" and "hip", who have willfully blinded themselves to a reality that has been obvious all along. It is a matter of simple logic that when advocates of gay marriage and homosexuality have repeatedly equated their issues with race and the Civil Rights movement, this has always been their goal.
Furthermore, this movement's goals are not being achieved through democracy. There have been public opinion polls that purport to show a shift in public opinion about the subject, but when it has been the matter of direct elections and votes, over 30 states voted to retain traditional marriage within the last 10 years, including very "blue" states like California.
This is being done entirely by the media, the courts and certain very wealthy and powerful individuals and organizations. Nobody has voted for this, and nobody would. The witch hunts being carried out by proponents, resulting in material harm to those they target, are intimidation tactics that have nothing to do with the legitimate processes of democracy. The reason they are able to do this is because they dominate the "intelligentsia", and are able to successfully apply their approach to the courts.
"The bad news, for those of us on the suddenly victorious side of the gay marriage debate, is that too many people are acting like sore winners, "
Many of us on the losing side of the gay marriage debate opposed it partly because it would be used in just exactly this way. That the winners are now waking up to the totalitarianism their side enabled is sad.
BTW... the other reason to oppose it: gay marriage is objectively different from heterosexual marriage. Hence it should be decided one law at a time rather than the dishonest and undemocratic approach of creating a false identity, and then rushing it into law.
And before you start yelling... I've been in favor of civil unions before most gay marriage advocates were born.
You are misapplying the constitution. The law has no role at all in marriage (today). The issue is when the law takes marriage into account, such as by altering tax rates for married couple. This is not at all unconstitutional.
A lecture on the difference between democracy and a constitutional republic is out of place, since most of us are well aware of the difference and presuming otherwise is insulting.
How is same sex marriage objectively different from heterosexual marriage? Duh... in the former, the "spouses" are of the same sex, while in the latter, they are of opposite sex. That is an objective difference. Whether that difference should affect laws is something that should be decided on a case by case basis, democratically, rather than having judges and mobs force the issue in all cases everywhere.
Why do you defy the Constitution and the Will of God? Duh
Are you channeling the Founding Fathers and have become a Prophet of the Lord now?
I marched against that type of abuse in the 1950s, and I ain't never gonna stop.
You'll stop when your maker calls you to judgment.
Support Memories Pizza
Raised by 14,933 people in 1 day
Christian pizzeria owners refuse to cater a gay wedding, then suffer death threats and their business is ruined? This is the best Seinfeld episode ever written!
$89 an hour! Seriously I don't know why more people haven't tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…And i get surly a chek of $1260......0 whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids.
Here is what i did✒✒✒ WWW.WORK4HOUR.COM
They are over half a million bucks on the GoFundMe site!
I feel a little bad for the O'Connors. They're the target of this huge political movement, not because they did something wrong, but because they made a statement about their business that didn't even seem to me to a political one - meaning they weren't trying to influence the politics of this issue, they were simply goaded by the reporter.
On the other hand, I say tough luck. They were chosen out of all the religious homophobes in Indiana to be the face for discrimination, and not dishonestly. Activists could have waited until some actual discrimination happened, but people were impatient to fight back against the law. If you think that's a made up scenario, I'll point out that Reason constantly bashes on laws that are created to solve non-problems. Either the law was created to allow discrimination of gays, or no one will do that and there was no reason to pass the law.
It's silly to call this totalitarianism; nobody used the power of government to get the shop closed. I see this issue being like any other boycott. Even the reversal of the law is meant to enforce specific actions, not thoughts, like all other laws.
The fact that in response to the outright hate attacks from the left, the pizza parlor has received almost $1 million in funds from supporters. The most insane part of the entire event is both sides, supporters and opponents of the law are fighting about hypothetical situations since no actual instances of discrimination have occurred. In the end, the only people who lose are those of us forced to endue the stupidity expressed by ideological zealots on both sides of the fence..
Who is the nazi here? Who is intolerant? Who made the REAL threat?! It's plain to see that the whiny-less-than-1% of the homosexual community is crying for no good reason.They are no longer being sympathized from Americans.They have become very socialistic,communistic even.It's clearly evident that this business is 'acting' upon it's inalienable rights as U.S.citizens.They did not say they would not serve homosexuals,they said they would not cater to a same sex wedding.So,now Christians are denied their freedoms of conscience and convictions? Here's a real scenario for the homosexual community to think about before they go any further with their agenda.....obama is allowing muslim refugees in this country by the hundreds of thousands.muslims don't simply reject homosexual weddings,they hang homosexuals in public,[this is common information found on the internet,feel free to research].Once obama has encouraged,even insisted on homosexuals having every Christian establishment closed down,or "burned down",in this case,folks jailed....Then the homosexual community won't have anyone to defend them from the tyrants coming into this country.obama wanted 'change'....here's your 'change' America.As for Indians.....I now know to steer clear of this state when traveling with my family.I really feel for the Christians living there.Perhaps they can run the Christians out and then the muslims can settle in and enact Sharia Law.