Tag: public accommodations

Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. Gary Johnson Defends Wedding Cake Fascism?

 
shutterstock_79412587
Christopher Halloran / Shutterstock.com

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.

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. All Discrimination Is Not Created Equal

 

One of the marvels of liberal civilization is that — if one sees goods or services for sale — one can approach the proprietor with a reasonable expectation of doing business, no questions asked. Even expensive and important transactions can be handled without the relevant parties being required to connect at any deep level if they don’t wish to. We don’t need to offer specific justifications for our worth as human beings to every cashier; we just need to treat them decently and present cash. On the other hand, there’s nothing inherently wrong with having a business be more discriminating; in many cases, it’s not only natural, but highly beneficial and desired by all parties. Laws that prevent this may protect against some ugliness and harm by sellers, but also enable some despicable behavior on the part of customers, as we saw repeatedly during the baker/photographer/florist cases of the past few years.

This is among the prime reasons I’m opposed to our current regime of public accommodations laws, which privilege customers’ potential complaints of discrimination over any objection — real, imagined, honorable, or dishonorable — a business might have to participating. Likening a decades-long, state-enforced regime of racial discrimination in a region with a history of chattel slavery to someone not wishing to photograph lesbian nuptials isn’t just a stretch, it’s dishonest, and little-improved by evocations to slippery slopes. But, as the likely legal troubles faced by a ladies-only Uber competitor show, there is another reason to oppose such laws: they don’t let specialized services … specialize. Via the Boston Globe: