Liberals and libertarians both support gay marriage, but tend to divide on the question of whether a baker in Indiana should be required to make a cake for a gay wedding. “A homophobic baker shouldn’t stop a same-sex couple from getting married,” argues John Stossel. “Likewise, a gay couple shouldn’t force a baker to make them a wedding cake.”
Stossel reasons that, “Lots of other bakers would love the business,” while “the free market will punish” businesses that are racist or anti-gay. Of course, “there are a few exceptions,” he admits. “In the South, people banned from a lunch counter had few other choices. The Civil Rights Act’s intrusion into private behavior was probably necessary to counter the damage done by Jim Crow laws.”
This raises the question, however, of where we draw the line between when it is appropriate for the government to step in and when not. In today’s America, when gay rights are widely celebrated and even major corporations defend them, gay couples do have lots of alternatives. But when gays or other minorities were more widely discriminated against, few were willing to defend their rights. That makes it all the more imperative that we don’t forget the principle of equal opportunity applies whether a minority is accepted or not.
For the Antiplanner, it comes down to a question of the prisoner’s dilemma. Most Antiplanner readers should be familiar with the basic concept: two people are given the choice of cooperating with or betraying the other. If they both cooperate, they do okay; if they both betray, they are severely punished. But if one cooperates and the other betrays, the cooperator is even more severely punished while the betrayer does best of all. The key to the dilemma is that no matter what you think the other person is going to do, you will do best by betraying, yet both do worse by betraying than if both cooperate.
We face prisoner’s dilemmas of sorts all the time. When we go to a store, we could write a bad check and the grocer could sell us spoiled food. So why doesn’t betrayal happen more often?
Healing approaches of alternative and holistic medicine can be used alone or in conjunction with conventional medicine to alleviate pain and discomfort. viagra 100 mg In various cases the treatments of other diseases also cause cialis 5mg cheap loss of erection. The cGMP causes the smooth muscles of the corpora order cialis canada cavernosa that allow blood flow into your penis. Men face quite embarrassment while disclosing about http://cute-n-tiny.com/cute-animals/top-10-cutest-bunnies-for-easter/ brand cialis price it to anyone around. Robert Axelrod explores this question in his classic book, The Evolution of Cooperation. He shows that when people expect to do repeat business with one another, the best strategy is to cooperate, at least so long as the other party also cooperates. If the other party betrays the first, then the first should do the same back–a strategy known as tit for tat.
However, in his book, Prisoner’s Dilemma, William Poundstone mentions an interesting twist on this rule: if a minority population can be easily distinguished from the majority, it will be in the interest of the majority to frequently betray the minority. The minority, however, will do best (though still poorly) by still practicing tit for tat or even by cooperating despite previous betrayals.
Unfortunately, Poundstone doesn’t present a proof of this finding. But if it is true, then there is a good reason for government to defend the rights of a minority, even if it means forcing businesses to accept their business. Otherwise, we create the conditions for turning a minority into a permanent underclass–which, needless to say, is what happened to blacks in the 20th century.
During the Civil Rights era of the 1960s, it was common for a certain class of small businesses–bars, diners, barber shops–to display a sign reading, “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” I always wondered who they expected to refuse service to: Blacks? Asians? Hippies? Perhaps this “right” should be reserved: Anyone who opens a business to the public gives up the right to refuse service to anyone who is willing to peaceably pay for that service.
The problem, libertarians will point out, is that a government that can force people to do business with everyone can also force people not to do business with some, which was the case with the Jim Crow laws in the South. However, this just makes it all the more imperative that we remember the principle that if you open your doors to the general public, then you open them to everyone.
Curiously, as near as I can tell, all of the bakers who have refused to make wedding cakes for gay marriages (and the pizza maker who said she would do the same) also said that they wouldn’t hesitate to sell their other products to gays. It was the wedding part they objected to. The simple solution would be for the cake maker to subcontract the cake decoration, catering, or whatever part they find objectionable to others who aren’t so repulsed by the idea.
Stossel says, “individuals should be allowed to discriminate,” pointing out that we all discriminate when we choose “friends, jobs, hobbies, clubs, religion, etc.” But perhaps this is one right individuals have that businesses should not. Certainly, states should not sanction such discrimination anymore than Jim Crow laws sanctioned discrimination against blacks.
If the example used is whether a Muslim baker can refuse to make a cake in the likeness of Mohammed, then suddenly a lot of people suddenly support religious freedom that they would deny to Christians. Just try to get a newspaper to carry an ad with the likeness of Mohammed in it.
Remember that a wedding ceremony has been a religious ceremony for thousands of years in practically every culture — so it is not surprising that people find participating in a religious or even mock civil wedding ceremony to be bothersome.
Changing the definition of marriage is foolishness of titanic proportions. I’m shocked that a libertarian would so flippantly acquiesce to such a blatant grab for benefits (that are not earned nor deserved for any reason) from corporations, insurance companies and the government.
Libertarians have a general principle of giving people enough rope (in the form of freedom) to hang themselves, so I’m not surprised libertarians won’t try to help people avoid such a harmful life-style.
Six years ago, 99% of Democrats voted for the candidates for President that opposed the government even recognizing gay marriage as legal in both the primary and general election.
Today people want to impose government enforced punishment against anybody who refuses to participate in those same ceremonies?
This article highlights not only that the Antiplanner does not really understand the philosophy of libertarianism and that he does not truly believe in private property rights. Certainly in a free society, people are free to choose with whom they associate and with whom they do business. Only collectivists would violate freedom of voluntary association and force an individual to open their private property to those with whom they prefer not to associate.
Goldwater showed how state intrusion into private property and violations of voluntary association would lead to a totalitarian state:
“To give genuine effect to the prohibitions of this bill will require the creation of a Federal police force of mammoth proportions. It also bids fair to result in the development of an ‘informer’ psychology in great areas of our national life – neighbors spying on neighbors, workers spying on workers, businessmen spying on businessmen, where those who would harass their fellow citizens for selfish and narrow purposes will have ample inducement to do so. …These, the Federal police force and an ‘informer’ psychology, are the hallmarks of the police state and landmarks in the destruction of a free society.”
The Antiplanner intimates that the government has a “compelling state interest” to force business to associate with everyone because “if you open your doors to the general public, then you open them to everyone.” However, the compelling state interest doctrine originated with the SCOTUS case Korematsu v. US where the government ruled it’s a-ok to imprison people who had broken no law.
The march toward totalitarianism is a slippery slope, and apparently it’s a march the Antiplanner embraces.
SMH
“He shows that when people expect to do repeat business with one another, the best strategy is to cooperate…”
Or maybe some people don’t want to go through life being a prick to everybody. I struggle like Mr. O’Toole on where the line should be drawn. I certainly don’t feel that government coercion of business not to be overtly racist and discriminatory is a sure fire path to totalitarianism like Frank, but I get where he’s coming from. This is America after all and assholes have the right to be assholes.
What I think Libertarians sometimes miss regarding the prisoners dilemma is that sometimes people choose to cooperate because it’s just the right thing to do. Some people occasionally operate in a compassionate and selfless manner, knowing they’re probably going to get burned, because they’re more comfortable NOT being a selfish and terrible person.
Should the rights of private business not to cooperate with people based on race or sexual orientation be protected? Maybe. But I would argue that those business owners are not professional, nor are they acting like adults. This is America after all and assholes have the right to be assholes.
“Should the rights of private business not to cooperate with people based on race or sexual orientation be protected? Maybe. But I would argue that those business owners are not professional, nor are they acting like adults. This is America after all and assholes have the right to be assholes.”
Nor are they capitalists, as capitalism is about providing a good or service and making a profit from it. Why these “entrepreneurs” won’t accept some people’s money is beyond me. (If the money is somehow “tainted,” why don’t they donate it to a charity they feel will counteract the taint?) And it’s risky. In this electronic age with Yelp, Google, and other sites to review businesses, the power of boycott, public shaming, and an open and free Internet (press) is the best way to combat prejudice. Using force will only create more anger and resentment; it will intensify the problem and make people feel even more entitled to be assholes.
And to reiterate, it violates the fundamental individual liberty of private property and voluntary association and leads to a massive bureaucracy and a state with total control.
I still see those signs often. I always assumed they were intended to support the staff in ejecting obnoxious or argumentative customers, but without having to define in advance what the acceptable limits of customer behavior are.
An alternative would be a “rule of law” approach with a long list of rules (“customers must wear pants,” “customers can send their plate back to the kitchen twice, but three times is too many,” etc.) but that would be cumbersome and unattractive to look at on the wall, and you can’t think of everything.
The Antiplanner is testing his disciples.
It is not appropriate for the government to ‘step in’ in this situation.
The store owner is exercising his or her freedom of association by choosing to serve or not to serve a homosexual individual or couple. In the case of the Indiana pizza shop, it is hard to argue that customers don’t have a variety of other options at their disposal from stores who are more than happy to accept their business. The wedding cake example is even more strange. If you were a homosexual couple, why would you go out of your way to seek out a business that doesn’t want to serve you? Unless you were just trying to attract some attention from the press, there is not a logical reason to do so. Again, there are probably many willing businesses who would be happy to cater such an event.
To an extent, these problems have already been solved. Many gay people choose to move to states (and cities) that are more accommodating of their lifestyle, and where truly discriminatory legislation (I don’t count Indiana’s law as an example) is less likely to be passed. It cannot be overstated how this element of federalism helps to mitigate potential conflicts.
I always bristle at comparisons of these kinds of situations to the civil rights struggles of the 1960s. Many African Americans are disturbed by attempts to equate these two situations, and understandably so. Even so, the experience of African Americans in the US is instructive. The Civil War was fought over just the kinds of issues that are now flaring up. Opinion on the subject was not uniform, and prior the War people lived in states that tended to accord with their views on slavery. During the postwar era there was widespread migration of former slaves, many of them to industrializing cities in northern states. In part this reflected a desire for greater economic opportunities, but more importantly it represented a migration away from southern states which were more openly hostile to African Americans.
It’s yet another example of exit and voice in dealing with adverse policies, and why these types of voluntary solutions are likely to produce superior results.
If this whole issue was about a Muslim who is “forced” to make a cake or print an ad with a picture of Mohammed, then most people would totally switch their positions. The Washington Post will print and defend pictures of peeing on a cross, but would absolutely not print any ad or news story that depicted Mohammed, even if it is huge international news.
Sandy,
I disagree. Let me say that I agree with the sentiment that perhaps the gay couple looking to get the cake from the know opposer of gay marriage is probably just trying to incite rage and rock the boat.
That said, they’re not asking for a cake in the shape of a penis and a butt hole, they’re asking for a normal wedding cake. If they were asking for a cake in the image of something offensive (like asking a Muslim to make a cake in the image of the profit) I think people of all ideological persuasions would defend the bakers right not to bake the cake. But they’re not. They’re asking for a normal cake. Again, I think that the baker is being a little baby by refusing to make it, but I suppose it’s his right not to.
Also, to my knowledge the Washington Post never published an image of anybody peeing on the crucifix. They did publish an image of Pissed Christ, an “artistic” photo of the crucifix submerged in urine, that had the title of the piece been different and the artist not overtly told the world what he had done, nobody would have ever known. The image is only offensive to some Christians because they learned how the sausage was made. Take your knowledge of the medium away and the image is actually rather beautiful (IMHO).
1. The baker who refused to make a gay wedding cake, and even the pizza restaurant that has never catered a wedding but answered a reporter’s question that they wouldn’t cater a gay wedding, are the ones receiving violent death threats and economic reprisals. The gay couple is not even mentioned in news reports and nobody cares. So who needs protection under the law?
2. Once you acknowledge that religious beliefs deserve protection, as this country was founded on that principle, then you can’t say you will protect Muslim beliefs but not Christian beliefs. Ironically, 99% of Democrats voted for presidential candidates that opposed gay marriage just 2 and 6 years ago, but now they want witch hunts against anybody holding that position.
3. The Washington Post and NYT and every liberal paper printed the “Piss Christ”, which is totally boring and not worth a penny except that it has a Christian Cross in the artist’s urine so as to convey the most primitive and under 1st grade message of hate. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ
The Washington Post and all “brave” liberal publications refused to print cartoons of Mohammed even though huge international news stories revolved around that image. Even today you can’t pay the Washington Post enough money to print those news worthy images, even though they gladly printed anti-Christian images for zero payment.
So why do liberals want to protect only some religion beliefs, but not Christian religious beliefs? And why in the world are they violently attacking people who hold the same beliefs as the Democratic President, but then give the President a total pass and even give him money and vote for him?
“The baker who refused to make a gay wedding cake”
To my knowledge, wedding cakes are neither gay nor straight nor sexual at all. Although if wedding cakes were sexual that would be great because then they could reproduce and this whole issue would be moot.
Frank – I don’t know the details of the baker, and I don’t care. Maybe the baker had to go the ceremony to deliver it. Maybe he had to write things or put artistic effort into making a gay wedding cake. If it was only cake, then a million stores could do it.
The point is that if you want religious freedom, you can’t say that whatever someone else claims is OK with you. Courts have said that Amish don’t have to go to high school, and that Muslim prisoners get special food, and that Jewish kids can get excused absences from school on Jewish holidays. Bill Clinton signed the RFRA so that potheads could claim that peyote was their religious practice. I have no problem with making pictures of Mohammed and can’t understand the rationale why that could ever be wrong, but I will support people’s belief that they think that is wrong and make accommodations.
Sandy, try to understand: wedding cakes cannot be gay.
Frank – Try to understand that eating dairy products cannot be bad if eaten with meat, but OK when eaten with fish. But people believe that.
Why are you so intolerant of what people profess to be their religious requirements?
Sandy, try to understand. Wedding cakes cannot be gay.
OK. Private local event center owned by practicing Jews can’t refuse service to the local neo-Nazi group wanting to hold a rally at said event center and offering to peaceably pay for the event center rent. Is that really what you’re saying?
I’m astonished when people hold that freedom of association or speech or religion is somehow curtailed when citizens engage in consensual commercial relationships.
There is nothing “curious” about Christians refusing to participate in a ceremony celebrating homosexual sex, but willingly providing goods and services to homosexuals. The first involves partaking in or furthering sin, which would be unkind, while the second involves an act of civility… kindness.
That said, this whole controversy is really about totalitarianism on the part of the state, sadly furthered by too many Libertarians who would be up in arms about most other government (or legal system) actions. There is no evidence of gay couples actually being denied the services they seek – just being denied it from the particular business which they sought to target.
“First they came for the…..”
Yes… it is that sort of time again. Totalitarianism supplanted by mob action is on the rise, these days by the forces of political correctness.
Funny how nobody wants to make Muslim print or copy any image of Mohammed, as that is a politically correct liberal far left approved opinion. Religious freedom must be restricted to PC approved opinions.
Steven Horwitz’ view over at the Foundation for Economic Education. A slice:
Sandy,
I’m not saying that a Muslim should be forced to print an image of the profit nor am I saying that the baker should be forced to bake a cake for a gay couple, but to not see the difference in these two instances is idiotic. What I’m arguing is that in business we have to associate with people we don’t agree with and don’t particularly like all the time. Is there a line that we’re not at all comfortable with crossing? Sure. But as an adult, refusing service to someone because they are gay is silly. As a life-long Christian and grandson of a minister, I would also argue that intolerance based on sexual orientation is not supported by scripture (that’s another argument for another day). But if somebody feels different and wants to discriminate, that’s their right, I just think they’re wrong.
As for:
“Piss Christ, which is totally boring and not worth a penny except that it has a Christian Cross in the artist’s urine so as to convey the most primitive and under 1st grade message of hate. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ”
I again disagree. From your link:
“Serrano has not ascribed overtly political content to Piss Christ and related artworks, on the contrary stressing their ambiguity. He has also said that while this work is not intended to denounce religion, it alludes to a perceived commercializing or cheapening of Christian icons in contemporary culture.
The art critic Lucy R. Lippard has presented a constructive case for the formal value of Serrano’s Piss Christ, which she characterizes as mysterious and beautiful. She writes that the work is ‘a darkly beautiful photographic image… the small wood and plastic crucifix becomes virtually monumental as it floats, photographically enlarged, in a deep rosy glow that is both ominous and glorious.’ Lippard suggests that the formal values of the image can be regarded separately from other meanings.”