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
Of course not. Settled science.
In the top right corner of the website is a search field. I suggest you start there.
I understand your reluctance to confront the issue directly.
Because you aren’t engaging in good faith?
Larry? Is that you?
Gentlemen, if this particular conversation between you two is going nowhere, best leave it.
Careful Tom. If you haven’t asked for the preferred gender pronouns you may be flagged for hate speech.
It’s not just about the wedding. It’s about all the legal consequences of being married, from taxes to adoption to inheritance to benefits to owning real property by the entireties and a lot more. These things either apply to same-sex marriages or they don’t, regardless of what is required for weddings to be official.
Boring, repetitive and tense?
See, I don’t think removing government from marriage right now will fix the problem. It will only aggravate the situation because again, we’re not in a Libertarian Moment, we’re in a Progressive Moment that is pushing for more and more government. Same sex marriage was forward under a guise of freedom, but in fact we’re finding the intent was forced endorsement.
Most Progressives believe that the family must be supplanted by the government. See Melissa Harris Perry’s comment on how parents should stop seeing their children as their own. Conservatives were up in arms about this, but many of my liberal friends were nodding sagely. Why, it made total sense.
Once the Progressive government ceases to recognize marriages at all, it will then attempt to take the place of the family. It will claim precedence over parents in the raising of children. Parenting choices won’t be a matter of personal values and morals, it will be a state regulated process. In the decades ahead this will prove as disastrous as it usually does when the State seeks to replace the family, but in the short term it will mean more government, less freedom.
This is why I go on about the cart and horse. Removing government may be a good goal in the long run, but in the short view while Progressives have all the momentum we’re just playing more and more into their game. Let’s get the government to stop micromanaging, then we’ll worry about things like this.
I’m not sure what this even means.
Or why we should accept it as the status quo.
Or why we should accept it as the status quo.
Too late. It has already happened.
True enough. So why cement this situation by removing the precious few protection we have right now.
Exactly. My position has always been that all we need is a filing requirement for a marriage certificate, just as we do with deeds.
We don’t ask the government for license to buy a house – we tell them that we bought it.
It should be the same with marriage.
I offer xem my apologies.
Just curious, Tom. Was your gentle intervention in this thread a result of a flag?
It was the result of clicking on an alert; I followed this thread when I promoted it, hadn’t checked in in a while.
Thanks, Tom. The reach and sensitivity of the Ricochet editors is impressive.
All those other things could have been dealt with by laws concerning those specific topics. But neither extreme, the gays nor the religious people, wanted that. And why? Because it threatened, for the religious people, to encroach on the sacred–and for gays, it attempted to solve the problem of disparate treatment without allowing them access to the sacred, to “holy” matrimony.
The govt could have passed one law, that any person can choose one other person as Domestic Partner, with whom to establish a household. That other person can inherit tax free, adopt a kid with you, file income tax jointly, etc. You could pick anyone: it could be two sisters, a mother and son, a brother and sister. Whether that DP status is formed for sexual, reproductive, romantic or any other reason is none of the state’s concern. (Consanguous marriage is the next big thing, btw.)
I’ll say it again–and for the final time: “weddings” should be left to the folk. “Marriage” as you’ve used it to describe the ongoing status, denotes in part a relationship to, and treatment by, the state. That relationship could be regulated under a neutral designation.
And, I maintain, if it were, we wouldn’t be talking about “Wedding Cake Fascism”, as this post was titled.
That’s a very good point.