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
I am almost certainly voting Libertarian or Constitution as a protest vote. Even if the candidate announces that kittens should be broiled on a spit and offered to Satan.
hm. Maybe not then.
Let’s hope it does not come to that.
Except Fred’s right…
That’s a very good question, and one I’m trying to answer myself. I think 2008 was the first time I was cognizant of the fact that the guy conservatives all hated was now being hailed as the savior of the party, what with his hot, plain spoken running mate and his war hero status. I don’t remember paying attention to who was running then, mostly I was concerned about #NeverHillary (that was before hashtags were cool, as opposed to now, which is after hashtags were cool). But I did notice at the time. And I made mention of it. “Hey, haven’t we pretty much hated that guy for, like, ever?” Then in 2012 we had a guy who we all also hated, but not as much. By that time I was on Ricochet and listening to Rob say “We always nominate the oldest white guy in the room, or the guy whose turn it is.” And that seemed like good logic to me. I told all my SoCon friends: “Do you want a guy who probably isn’t a Christian in any biblical sense, but holds to convictions that probably are? Or do you want the opposite?” I clearly preferred the former. Does any of that explain why all the hen-pecking is going on? Not really. But I think that this time around, people have finally decided they don’t want to settle. Of course, deciding not to settle has meant that they will have to settle for something that is, in my opinion, far worse than anything they’ve settled for in the past. And now, once again, they do the pretzel dance, to convince themselves they are settling.
…but marriage, and wedding cakes was, in fact, the issue under discussion in this post.
Libertarians value freedom first. Liberaltarians value equality first.
Phony candidate trying to grab credence on the Left by twisting himself into a pretzel endorsing the Cake Police. At one time, a libertarian had principles regarding freedom of association. Apparently it is more important these days to gain your LP credentials by tweaking the religious right.
That doesn’t make one automatically a supporter of mandatory baking of homosexual cakes. Or even has that much to do with the real issue at stake (which basically is: when can the government force you to engage in expression against your will?)
True that Trump doesn’t have qualms about using the full force of the government to do what he wants. Not sure that I agree that he would bother with anything not directly tied to his immediate self-interest.
It’s possible, but I doubt that strongly. Trump simply does not exercise that much message discipline, even on things that seem important to him.
When Johnson took the tiller in New Mexico in 1995, the budget stood at $4.397 billion. When he left in 2003, it had grown to $7.721 billion, an increase of 7.29 percent a year.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435704/gary-johnson-libertarian-party-2016-conservatives
In my state, clergy are authorized to perform civil marriage, and any ceremony is superfluous to the civil marriage. In Colorado I don’t think you need a judge, clergy, or witnesses.
I doubt there’s any legal requirement for a solemn ceremony for a valid marriage in Oregon.
My brother as well as a handful of people I know just went to the Justice of the Peace and were married. No ceremony, no reception, none of the trappings. None of that is required in civil marriage. It hasn’t stopped the Social Progressives from attacking anyone who doesn’t endorse SSM with their business.
You could save a lot of trouble if government just stayed the hell out of marriage…
There I fixed it for you…
Cart before the horse. The Social Progressives aren’t interested in that at all. Even if we remove the civil marriage component entirely, they will be very intent on making sure everyone endorses it. The Freedom of Association and Religion are battles here, and Social Progressives aren’t interested in either of these freedoms. And as far as we can tell, neither is Johnson.
Yes but once you remove marriage from the realm of government with all the government benefits it conveys, then it would become easier to put together a coalition to defend religious liberty.
And neither are conservatives. The real way to protect freedom of association and freedom of religion is to leave people the hell alone.
If you got government out of the child support and custody business, it would save a lot of money and resources, but it would cost a lot, too.
Much easier said than done. It’s entwined in the systems. The process of extricating it will take time, while the Social Progressives wail that we’re destroying marriage and that they are the real defenders of marriage because they’re keeping all the benefits while those dastardly conservatives and Libertarians are removing them all because they’re jerks. Ripping out it will be like removing body hair with duct tape and cause louder wailing. And while we’re working on that, the Progressives further their social agenda.
I’m not saying this is impossible, but we need to be aware of the attacks to remain committed and be prepared for them. It’s going to be a hard battle.
Of course, listening to the last Jim Pethokoukis podcast, there’s plenty who don’t just want to be left alone. There’s the idea that government needs to support the community. For Progressives, they equate the community with the collective, and at present that resonates more than live-and-let-live individualism. The so-called Libertarian Moment never happened.
I don’t disagree. But that’s a different question.
I think it’s almost the same question.
Getting government to stay the hell out of marriage won’t stop them from getting completely involved in wedding cakes. That’s interstate commerce, we are told.
Exactly. The “get government out” assumes this has entirely been a legal paperwork issue, when in reality it’s far more an attempt to shape culture and society through legal and social strong-arm tactics.
Indeed. All the more reason for government to get out of it.
If libertarians really want to get government out of the business of marriage, why do they want to extend the government’s control over marriage to homosexusal relationships?
Are we really doing this again?
I looked up Oregon marriage laws–it says you need 2 witnesses at the ceremony.
i think it’s the same in Colo– says you get the license, then have 30 days to get someone to officiate. You’re not “married” until the solemnization.
Of course it’s true that in every state, you Do not not have to undergo a religious ceremony. But you have to declare your intent to be married in the presence of a celebrant, like justice of the peace or cleric, or at least in the presence of witnesses. That’s what I mean by “solemnization”.
As far as I know, there is no state where the parties do not have to appear in person and make a declaration to an officiant or in presence of witnesses. And that is a holdover from the church rites.
Furthermore, I don’t think there’s any state in US that does not give secular recognition to religious ceremonies.
My point was, if changing your civil status in the eyes of the gov’t were as easy and private as declaring the status on your tax return, or filing a form signed by the parties with your state’s Dept of Vital Statistics, and the public declaration (“wedding”) had no legal meaning, then we wouldn’t have this angst over wedding cakes. And why shouldn’t it be? If, as they say, marriage is just another civil contract, then why can’t it be formalized by a signature, like other such contracts?
The bakers in question don’t spend their careers avoiding selling bread, cookies and cakes for gay couples–they simply don’t want to have anything to do with the wedding ceremony, which they believe, correctly in my view, has always and forever meant the public declaration of a mate in the biological sense, and which they consider sacred.
Perverting the term”wedding” to include same sex-commitments is the equivalent of SCOTUS decreeing that, from now, on we have to refer to a man or woman waiting to adopt a child as “pregnant”. It’s just wrong. I don’t mean morally, but in terms of all of human history. It is dissonant. Not correct. Not accurate.
But SCOTUS didn’t have to pervert the definition of a universally understood term. They could have just gotten rid of the requirement of a “wedding” completely–leave it to the folk. And I wish they had.
I know. It’s settled science.
Well I mean if you didn’t hear the reasoning from the libertarians here at Ricochet the first 100,000 times what will 100,001 do for you?
As far as I can discern the reasoning of the Ricochet libertarians, it’s that the government should get its hands off marriage but also extend its control of marriage to homosexual relationships. Am I missing something?
A lot but I’m not rehashing this for the 100,001st time.