Indiana's governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

[Darth Xena]

We can say poop now

Poop.

I have developed a bit of a poopy mouth. And am quite immature about it. I have this nearly irresistible urge to lay down some cuss here and put everyone in an awkward position. But I got over it. Childish I know, but you know us Libertarians…. DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO!

[Darth Xena]

Or we can try this

timmoen.jpg

[Ana Dragule]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]6113[/ATTACH]

Nice photo. Bowties are cool.

[Teallaura]

Politics and drugs have never been a good mix. Just ask Marion Barry.

We soooo need a multi-amen feature!

[Spartacus]

Spart

I said a PM in a week or so, not a thread bump in a month Just so happens that you caught me at another really hectic time. The institute I'm working for has a conference tomorrow, I'm traveling over the weekend, and I have new incentives to dive back into my essay-writing next week... though an examination of the differences between the laws put in place at the founding and the Catholic take on religious freedom might not be that far out of the way of what I want to write about in the near future.

[Teallaura]

I said a PM in a week or so, not a thread bump in a month Just so happens that you caught me at another really hectic time. The institute I'm working for has a conference tomorrow, I'm traveling over the weekend, and I have new incentives to dive back into my essay-writing next week... though an examination of the differences between the laws put in place at the founding and the Catholic take on religious freedom might not be that far out of the way of what I want to write about in the near future.

You expected Bill the Cat to follow directions? Maybe that explains why you didn't say anything about the Beetlejuice reference....

[Spartacus]

You expected Bill the Cat to follow directions? Maybe that explains why you didn't say anything about the Beetlejuice reference....

Beetlejuice is from several years before I was born

[Teallaura]

Beetlejuice is from several years before I was born

Infant.

[Paprika]

Did you know I have pink hair now?

[Tassman]

1) Your post doesn't respond to any of the points Teal is actually making
2) You're citing Wiki(!) on a controversial topic
3) No one is claiming that the CRA had a negligible impact

Teal argued that “the CRA was supposed to be temporary”. It wasn't. It had difficulty passing though Congress due to the racist politics of some to “resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality…” but, despite this resistance, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 went on to have considerable impact on civil rights legislation and it rightly continues to do so. Hence the CRA is NOT “past its expiration date”, as Teallaura claims, and it has NOT “become the very thing it was supposed to counteract”. On the contrary, it continues to play a major role ensuring justice for all.

[Bill the Cat]

I said a PM in a week or so, not a thread bump in a month Just so happens that you caught me at another really hectic time. The institute I'm working for has a conference tomorrow, I'm traveling over the weekend, and I have new incentives to dive back into my essay-writing next week... though an examination of the differences between the laws put in place at the founding and the Catholic take on religious freedom might not be that far out of the way of what I want to write about in the near future.

As Mr. Incredible said... Hey, I'm just here to help.

[Sparko]

I was thinking of becoming a libertarian, but then I couldn't decide which type I wanted to be. A conservative libertarian, a centrist libertarian, a liberal libertarian, etc.

That's the problem with libertarianism. It tries to embrace too much and gets all confuserating, which is not good for my old dog ways.

[Joel]

In one case, the government is saying "If you decide to open a business to the public, you'll have to serve the public equally."

In the other case, society is saying "If you happen to be gay or black or Jewish and you want to shop at this store, sleep at this hotel, or get a job at that factory, you're out of luck."

The first case is rational condition for being a public accommodation and it places a small degree of the owner's lost freedom to discrimination below the freedom of many others to fully participate in societal function. The second case places maximal freedom of the owner above everyone else and is not the result of any particular choice the victims of the owner's discrimination made.

"Government enforced slavery" is just sound and fury, signifying nothing in this case. It's useful to spout because it sounds strong but is devoid of meaningful content.

In "the other case", it is not "society"; it's particular persons choosing to make (or not make) particular exchanges with other, willing, particular persons. (Like how if flag burning is legal, the occurrence of particular person burning a particular flag is not the same as society burning a flag, let alone even approving of it.)

I'd say that libertarians who do still object to the use of government force here have to explain why it's inappropriate force and not rely on the emotive effect.

For me, as a libertarian, the most fundamental reason that it's inappropriate force is that it is a violation of the business owner's property rights. (There are various other supporting reasons too.)

I reject the notion of "public accommodation". It's a way of supposing that people lose some of their property rights merely by engaging in exchanges with others. A hotel, for example, is not a "public accomodation"; it is not a "societal function"; it is private property. And if they want to rent out rooms to just their friends or to people at random, or to tear the building down, that's their business. And of course it "is not the result of any particular choice the victims of the owner's discrimination made." It's the owner's property. The victim of discrimination is wanting to make use of (or become the owner of) someone else's property (or in some cases, want the owner to do work for them). Without the owner's consent it is unjust. If the victim of discrimination commits that injustice, then the owner is the victim of that injustice (which is morally worse than the owner's moral wrong of peacefully saying no.)

It is the same as when we talk about someone else's body. For example, a person X might want to have sexual intercourse with person Y, who discriminates against X (possibly for prejudicial reasons such as race, or gender). Person X is thus a victim of discrimination, but needs to let it go, and recognize that no means no, and that consent is required. For X to force it, is to commit an injustice against Y worse than Y's wrong (if any) in saying "no". Y's body is Y's, not X's.

It would be morally reprehensible to suggest that Y sleeps around a lot, so much that the government should consider Y's body a "public accommodation", and therefore legally require Y to submit to all solicitations.

Libertarians aren't the only ones who don't idolise the state. But what Libertarians do worship is Freedom as one of the greatest and most fundamental Good.

That's a common misunderstanding (though understandable from the label "libertarian"). Libertarians to not support the freedom to do absolutely everything. As John Locke responded to the detractors in his day, by liberty we don't mean "a liberty for every one to do what he lists, to live as he pleases, and not to be tied by any laws", but rather to be free from physical force of other men where the rule of Justice prescribes not. As opposed to being "subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will" of other men. (Locke's Second Treatise on Government, chapter 4 http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/222)

Thus I would say that what I (as a libertarian) hold most important/fundamental, when considering the use of physical force, is Justice. Then "liberty" becomes a derived term, defined as that which Justice prescribes not. I find libertarianism summed up well in the phrase "liberty and justice for all".

Note1: That doesn't imply that liberty and justice are necessarily the most important good in all other contexts (contexts besides the question of whether a use of physical force is acceptable).
Note2: Some/many libertarians do not argue fundamentally from justice, but from utilitarian reasoning. So my comments don't necessarily apply to them.

[Darth Xena]

Sparko if that is a serious question I would love to address it, but not on this thread. Is there still a one on one or small group area?

If it wasn't serious that's cool too. I am not the Libertarian answer box but I would enjoy speaking with you because we already share common ground. Though I am aware the differences are profound. Contrary to some conceptions libertarians are not merely Republicans who want to legalize pot and get the government out of marriage.

Paprika ouch.... That hurt. Coupled with your reluctance to grant me extra crazy status. Does the fact that today I was engaged in a discussion over whether the NAP allows you to throw someone off our balcony count as crazy (btw, no, it doesn't).

[Darth Xena]

Joel

It would be morally reprehensible to suggest that Y sleeps around a lot, so much that the government should consider Y's body a "public accommodation", and therefore legally require Y to submit to all solicitations.

This actually came up in a discussion about if prostitution were widely legal, would a prostitute be allowed to discriminate. Anyways, carry on. Great post. We are indeed everywhere. I didn't know you were a libertarian.

btw, I have zero interest with not owning the fact that I hold liberty to one of the most fundamental of all Goods. And if someone doesn't like it, they can kiss my libertarian behind. Freedom. For its own sake.