Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Gary Johnson Defends Wedding Cake Fascism?
In a Facebook post, Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson appears to explain why the State should be allowed to force bakers and florists to participate in gay weddings even if such participation goes against their religious beliefs:
[A]nti-discrimination laws do not, and cannot, abridge fundamental First Amendment rights. I know of no one who reasonably disagrees. In the highly unlikely event that a Nazi would demand that a Jewish baker decorate a cake with a Nazi symbol, the courts, common sense, and common decency — not to mention the First Amendment — all combine to protect that baker from having to do so. It’s not an issue, except when distorted for purposes of gotcha politics.
Does a public bakery have to sell a cake to a Nazi? Probably so. Does that bakery have to draw a swastika on it? Absolutely not. And that’s the way it should be.
Of course, we all know that this conversation is really “code” for the current, and far more real, conversation about society’s treatment of LGBT individuals. I have even heard some talk of a “right to discriminate.” And of course, we have states and municipalities today trying to create a real right to discriminate against the LGBT community on religious grounds — the same kinds of “religious” grounds that were used to defend racial segregation, forbid interracial marriages and, yes, defend discrimination against Jews by businesses. That is not a slope Libertarians want to go down.
Once again, my belief that discrimination on the basis of religion should not be allowed has been distorted by some to suggest that a legitimate church or its clergy should be “forced” to perform a same-sex marriage. That is absurd. The various ballot initiatives I supported across the country to repeal bans on same-sex marriage all had one provision in common: A specific provision making clear that no religious organization, priest or pastor could be required to perform any rite contrary to that organization’s or individual’s faith. That protection was supported almost universally by the LGBT community — even though most legal scholars agreed that such a protection already exists in the Constitution. We just wanted to leave no doubt.
If I recall correctly, public accommodation laws arose from the necessity to protect travelers from harm way back when being denied a room in an inn could be a matter of life or death. I would agree that the state can and should intervene when there is systemic discrimination that results in physical or economic harm to a class of persons. I would argue that getting one’s feelings hurt because someone doesn’t cheer one’s lifestyle does not rise to the level of harm that warrants state involvement.
If a bakery (or a florist, or a photographer) doesn’t want to participate in your wedding, there is a simple solution that doesn’t involve the heavy hand of the State: Go to another baker. Someone else will be gladly accept the business.
His assertion that the law trumps individual conscience is an odd one for someone who claims to be a libertarian; the same defense could have been made of Jim Crow laws forced merchants to discriminate even if it went against their conscience, because “It’s the law.”
Forcing those who religiously object to gay marriage to participate in gay marriage ceremonies is an act of forced political speech in a way that just selling a generic cake to a gay customer is not. It’s disheartening that Johnson cannot distinguish the difference. However, since his opinion on the matter is no different than Hillary’s or Trump’s, it isn’t a deal-breaker.
Published in General
It was Justice Scalia who was the judicial voice that did this. While I usually loathe left and right as descriptors, if we are using them, are all on this thread now labeling Scalia as a leftist, or are we blaming the right too?
Good Ole Fred. Zero to Hyperbole in under 12 seconds. If we didn’t already have a Fred, we’d have to invent one.
Lighten up, dude! Have a doobie and chill.
It is WAY past time to sharpen (scale back) our definition of ‘public accommodation’ so that people can have Freedom of Association. You may not approve of the way people use their freedom, however, it’s worth protecting so that you may enjoy your freedom as well.
Scalia’s decision may very well have contributed to our current issue, but you are surely not placing the full blame on his shoulders!? Are you arguing, but that for Scalia, the left would be on board with religious liberty in the face of the LGBT agenda?
Added: are you arguing, but for Scalia, the left’s hands would be utterly tied, and they would have to sit by helpless as religious people were free to exercise their religious consciences as they ran their small businesses?
Gary Johnson is a leftist who is only a Libertarian when it comes to legalizing pot and prostitutes. Actually, come to think of it, a lot of Libertarians I know are like that. The only time they espouse anything about liberty and freedom is when it is about vice.
Yeah. As a libertarian, he’s definitely a moderate. Ron Paul he ain’t. (Side note: that fact should be comforting To many who fear electing a libertarian.
Did you miss his record as governor of cutting taxes, regulations, and government employees? Did you miss the part where he vetoed more bills as governor than his 49 contemporaries combined?
Johnson is so very wrong on this issue and I wish he weren’t the Libertarian nominee this year. I understand why many SoCons prepared to lodge a protest vote would balk at voting for Johnson.
This is not the mainstream libertarian position on this issue. It frustrates me greatly after having gone to great lengths to assure SoCons that libertarians would be on their side on this issue, that the nominee of their party says something like this.
The LP needs to grow up and get serious about its issues. If it is truly the party of Liberty it should defend the unpopular liberties too. Stop chasing the unicorn that is the young voter, loose the incessant focus on pot (keep the issue but lose the hippiness) and protect everyone’s liberties. Otherwise they are in danger of becoming a free market version of the ACLU.
Remember, it’s free MINDS and free markets.
Where was all this hen-pecking when everyone was talking about how great Romney was?
The religious would have a much stronger position against the government in court if it were not for Scalia. That’s what this issue is about.
I’ve found that few people on BOTH sides of this know that even with a Religious Freedom Restoration Act in place, the Christian baker can still get sued for discrimination, can still lose the case and can still be subject to a $150,000.00 fine.
All that is different is the standard which is to be applied to government action against a claim of religious liberty is made higher.
Without Scalia, the government had to show a compelling state interest to overcome a claim of religious liberty (they could overcome that liberty, so long as the interest in doing so was compelling) when the law at issue is one of general applicability. That’s the highest burden for the government.
Scalia changed it to the lowest standard – the government would only have to show its action has a rational relation to any legitimate state interest.
Clinton, on the Federal level, passed the RFRA and raised it back. Props to him.
All the states do with RFRAs is the same – ensure government action has to meet the highest level of scrutiny, or a compelling state interest.
NOTE WELL: As I said, even with the RFRA, the Christian baker can still lose if the government meets the higher standard (including a test on whether there is a less restrictive course to take to save the religious liberty).
I usually find both sides (I don’t mean you Lily) are shocked to learn that RFRAs have helped Muslims, Jews and Indians and don’t, on their face, say a word about any of them, or gays, or Christian bakers. Throw out the RFRAs and the left will disadvantage some of their well-loved minorities.
But media malpractice persists, and no one talks about the actual laws at issue. Just a phony wedge issue to keep us divided.
Dude, seriously? The other choices are a fascist lunatic and Hillary freakin’ Clinton. And because he’s wrong on this one thing, it’s a toss up!?
Actually, as I recall, a lot on the SoCon side expressed worries about Romney and we were told to not worry, to support him because he’d be a great candidate. Also that we had to support him because otherwise we were jerks. I’ll readily grant that no one on the Johnson is making the last claim.
He needs to get out more.
V the K doesn’t know Scalia then…
Let me put it this way. When the courts enshrined same-sex marriage, one of my Liberal friends wondered out loud what the next great civil rights battle of our time will be. I posited that religious liberty was up next, though I admit now I was half right as freedom of association is there as well.
We have at present a president who is through executive fiat dismantling these liberties without a thought for the consequences. The transgender movement is being used to as a way to put even more government into our daily lives. The federal government is micromanaging our daily affairs on a regular basis and the only bulwarks at present would be our religious freedoms. Association was destroyed long ago and needs to be rebuilt.
Johnson’s financial credentials as an executive official may be secure, but with this statement tells me he’s fundamentally wrong on these. It’s not very convincing to hear an argument that’s basically, “Don’t settle for the lesser of two evils, settle for the lesser of three!”
A) I’ve heard (on NPR no less) that Trump is a supporter of SSM
B) Trump is clearly a big government authoritarian who has absolutely no problem using the full force of the federal government to make people do what he thinks they should do (on matters as small as saying “Merry Christmas” and as large as where private companies locate manufacturing facilities).
I take his silence on this issue as an indication that he knows he can’t say what he really thinks on this issue prior to the convention and I believe is just as committed to forcing religious people to bake cakes for gay weddings as Hillary Clinton and Gary Johnson.
I think the key word in that sentence is “reasonably.” I had the same reaction. “Really, Gary? ‘No one’ disagrees that anti-discrimination laws can’t trump the First Amendment.” But I guess the word “reasonably” exempts the left-wing speech police.
I would also note that Johnson is explicitly arguing *himself* in this very same post that anti-discrimination laws abridge fundamental First Amendment laws.
Is Gary Johnson the nominee? I thought the Libertarian Party has not yet chosen it’s nominee. I’d prefer to see Austin Peterson get the nod. On issues where each breaks with Libertarian orthodoxy, Peterson tends to break to the right and Johnson to the left.
You’re right, but I think Johnson almost had it in the bag.
“The various gun control ballots I supported included provisions allowing hunters to purchase sporting rifles.”
“The various anti-hate speech ballots I supported included provisions exempting legitimate media organizations.”
There is more than one slippery slope Johnson needs to worry about.
That’s unfortunate.
I don’t think Trump has been asked this question, yet. I’m sure he will soon enough.
As for Johnson, a lot of Libertarian were taken a back by this stance, and may have turned some Libertarians onto Austin Petersen. It is in the social arena where Libertarians become liberals.
No true, unless you mean in the classical sense.
I think it’s a valid observation. Libertarians accept the social narrative as is. They want to be left alone in a very fundamental sense, and if this means accepting some social narrative they don’t care about very much, they’ll do it. Unfortunately, being left alone isn’t a valid long term strategy in the culture war.
It is unfortunate, however, that Johnson would capitulate on free association, which amounts to a libertarian first principle.
If we did away with recognition of religious wedding ceremonies by secular authorities, we’d cool down all the heat about these issues.
At common law, getting married required only the “solemnization”: uttering the verba praesenti, words in the present tense, in front of witnesses, declaring that you hereby take this woman or man.
Statutory marriage requires a license from the state. But. it also still requires the “solemnization”, a ceremony, religious or some parody thereof. In Pa, the word “holy” is used in an unqualified sense only once, in the phrase “holy matrimony”.
This hallowing of the wedding ritual by the secular authorities is the reason religious people are determined it shouldn’t be expanded to same sex couples, and is also the reason those non-traditional couples are determined to appropriate it.
It is the ceremony, not the ongoing state of living together as a couple or a family, that causes all the controversy. Nobody cares, in America,who you want to set up a household with. And we never read about a baker getting sued cuz he doesn’t want to sell a sack of sweet buns to a gay couple planning Sunday brunch.
Requiring a ceremony to get married is as if we still used infant baptism as a marker of citizenship: Oh, it doesn’t have to be done by a priest or preacher, you can do it yourself in the fountain outside city hall, but the Department of Vital Statistics requires you to certify that some kinda liquid was dribbled on the baby’s head.
Or as if we wouldn’t allow an estate to be probated until someone had pronounced some solemn words over the deceased. Doesn’t have to be a prayer, but the Register of Wills will require the heirs to affirm that something of the sort transpired.
If only SCOTUS had done away with the solemnization requirement in Obergefell. The state’s involvement should be only with the domestic license.Nobody has to have a wedding ceremony. If you want a religious rite, lobby your denomination. If you want a party where the principals recite poetry at each other, feel free. But those purely ceremonial occasions are neither required, nor recognized, by the state in connection with assumption of changed civil status.
Then the ceremony, or lack thereof, becomes insignificant; no secular and no religious charge generated, and we can stop this ridiculous agonizing over the consciences of bakers.
I’m in the minority in thinking that Scalia had it right.
If a law requires huge carve-outs in order to work, then it’s likely a bad law.
This. So much this.
Where did Scalia say that?
I doubt it. Some of these issues don’t even involve marriage.