The government forcing a Christian who opposes homosexual marriages to bake a cake for a homosexual couple’s wedding IS like the government forcing a black man to bake a cake for KKK wedding. Or government forcing a Jew to sell to a Nazi.
Now please don’t send me nasty comments saying that I am comparing gays to Nazi’s or Klansmen, because I unequivocally am NOT!!!
I just believe that a person who owns a business should be able to refuse to do business with anyone they choose for any reason. That they have a right to, no matter how repugnant or noble their reason. Its called freedom.
I personally would refuse to serve or sell a product to a Klansman, a Nazi or a black supremacist.
Besides why would you want the government to force someone, who hates or opposes you, to sell you a product and make them rich? Again, why would you want one who hates or opposes you to profit off you?
A Facebook Friend of mine, Randal Loftland, eloquently put it like this:
“If we're going to err on the side of personal liberty, a business person should be able to refuse to do business with anyone for any reason however untoward others might find it. The first amendment protects speech, however popular or unpopular the speech might be.Now many of you may say, well does this mean you want to go back to segregation or the Jim Crow Period? Well, if you are genuinely asking me this, and its not a strawman question designed to derail the argument, then I will answer you this:
Likewise, freedom of association protects us from the government managing our relationships however popular, unpopular or distasteful others might find it and a free market capitalist economic system punishes (see Paula Deen) businesses that partake in practices that run counter to the sensibilities of our culture. Businesses that are openly bigoted will pay the price in the free market.”
No, of course not! That’s absurd. I am personally against discrimination without a valid reason. And by valid reason I mean you are morally opposed to something another human does. But I add that person even has the the right as outlined in the Constitution to freely associate or not associate with whom they chose, this includes to discriminate, even through their business, for any reason, not just a reason I, the government or others see as valid.
Remember Jim Crow and the lunch counter’s were because of government laws discriminating against blacks, not necessarily from all the private business owners wishing to discriminate, though many did choose to discriminate like Woolworth's, who continued this policy through the 1980s, but the free market caused them to finally close because of their racist policies.
So I must clarify, that even though private people and entities may discriminate against any one for any reason, the government should NOT ever be allowed to discriminate against anyone for any reason, because they serve ALL the people not just some. The people are the government’s creator and give it all its authority to govern. But a business is created only to serve it’s creator aka the business owner. So a private person is different, no matter how wrong he may be or you think he may be for discriminating, he has that right, including through his business.
Recently, a law in Arizona was passed in both houses and sent to the governor to sign. Advocates said it was a ‘religious freedom’ bill. Those who oppose it say it is a bill that makes discrimination legal and would send us back to Jim Crow. The Republican Governor vetoed it, stating:
Brewer said, “Senate bill 1062 does not address a specific or present concern related to religious liberty in Arizona. I’ve not heard of one example in Arizona where business owner's religious liberty has been violated.”
She said the bill was too broadly worded and could result in “unintended and negative consequences.”Myself and most Libertarians that I have talked to or read disagree with the part of the law that prohibits lawsuits agaisnt businesses who discriminate based on religious reasons because anyone should be able to sue anyone for any reason. But as far as allowing anyone to discriminate for any reason concur with the quote I posted above by Randall Loftland. That basically says that an individual, even through their business, should be able to discriminate against anyone for any reason, though they don’t agree with discrimination itself. Like the the Token Libertarian Girl Julie Borowski does in her new video:
Should Businesses Be Allowed to Discriminate Against Gay People?
The vetoed bill was similar to existing Arizona law, except that it made explicit that small business owners could make such claims. It is thought small business owners are already covered under existing federal and even Arizona law, but similarly covered small business owners in other states have been prosecuted for refusing to provide services to same-sex weddings. The owners of the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado faced jail time for declining such a request, as did a photographer in New Mexico.
Brewer was under tremendous pressure from moderate GOP leaders, including her own home-state Senator John McCain and former presidential candidate Mitt Romney. A coalition of 80 large corporations threatened that such a bill would harm business interests in Arizona. And statements from the NFL stoked speculation that the sports giant would pull out of Arizona for the scheduled 2015 Super Bowl, something that would have cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars.
The veto capped weeks of intense debate during which opponents to the bill made increasingly wild claims, including that under the bill gays could be denied medical service or even simple cups of coffee or slices of pizza. Proponents insisted that claimants under the bill would have had a high bar to prove their claim and that the courts could still assert a substantial interest in striking the claim down.
Ryan Anderson of the Heritage Foundation and one of the leaders in the national marriage fight told Breitbart News, “The Arizona religious liberty bill was a good piece of public policy. But because of constant misrepresentation in the media, a bill that never mentioned gays, lesbians, marriage, or same-sex anything was labeled anti-gay Jim Crow legislation. In truth, the bill merely protected religious liberty and took nothing away from anyone.
“Everyone should be free to live and love as they choose, but no one should demand that government coerce others into celebrating their relationship. All Americans should remain free to believe and act in the public square based on their beliefs about marriage without fear of government penalty.”Liberals and gay marriage advocates hailed it as a victory against hate and discrimination as shown in the picture by AP: I believe this is just the beginning of this battle where those who stand by their religious convictions and follow their Constitutional right to not associate with people and actions they see as morally and religiously objectionable continue to follow their convictions, and those who believe they don’t have a right to do this continue to use government to force these people to go against their convictions in the name of fighting hate and discrimination.