It is simple. None of these cases involved a business refusing to serve a person because they were gay. In fact, in some of these cases the business served these customers frequently prior. The businesses just refused to provide a certain product for a certian reason. I.E. they refused to bake a cake for a specific event i.e. a gay wedding. Would we want to live in a society where a Jewish baker is forced to bake a cake that celebrated the holochaust? Moreover, if the baker truly was a bigot toward homosexual people, why would a homosexual person want to give that baker their money?
I support all rights. In the gay wedding case, the owner has the right to NOT make the cake and people can choose to or not to shop at this store. It’s really that simple. Don’t force them to make the cake and don’t force me to shop there. Right?
@@小肥猫-s4oif you were to support business owners’ right to deny service, then yes, they should be able to. This doesn’t mean that the majority of businesses would just start banning black people, or Asians or whatever, because most people aren’t racist, and it’s in the business owner’s best interest to serve as many people as possible.
@@camadams9149 "we" is not the correct term. Who makes legislation in the USA nowadays is politicians. Politicians are not "we", because their "service" is not freely accepted, but coerced upon the population. Remember, libertarians are private property extremists. No state is a valid organization nor it can represent the population. Some states are less bad than others, but none of them qualify.
Libertarians offering services don’t offer them to the public. They may advertise them publicly, but reserve their right to serve individuals only in a mutually agreed upon way. The objection to mandated services is that it is slavery. It is a taking by government. It is prohibited. The server and the served each have an equal alienable right to make a contract with a willing party. Only the government is mandated, if authorized, to serve individuals equally. That was a condition of giving them the authority in the first place. These private individuals got their rights from their Creator.
Refusal of service was NOT because the people are gay. It's because the CAKE is GAY. They asked to be served something that isn't on the menu. And yes this is different than black kids walking into a restaurant in Birmingham AL in the 1960s. Because they were simply asking to be served what was on the menu.
Why is this even a question on a libertarian channel? Or, are libertarians now questioning if someone can force you to do something with your time, talent and resources?
@@infinitemonkey917The libertarian argument is that that is also wrong and unnecessary. Businesses can do as they wish with their business, and the market will reflect that. Any business that would try that today would go under. Granted, that is a hardcore libertarian view.
LGBTQ+ people need to gain maturity and either accept that others have different views and, when confronted by someone with those views, to be able to move on without confrontation. When faced with refusal simply find an accommodating business or start your own business and offer to make any type of cake.
As a gay libertarian, I will tell you that when you show the maturity that you speak of, and support everyone's liberty, you are likely to be ignored. It seems like the left simply wants to use diversity issues to push redistribution of income and grabs for control. Many on the socially conservative right are happy to assume that all LGBTQ+ individuals want to take away their freedom, as if fuels their dogfight with the left and can be used to rationalize their attempts to control culture.
So if a Christian stonecutter refuses to make someone an idol to Satan? Can still be forced into an expensive court battles as punishment for exercising his religious freedom?
I love how the "enlightened" left-libertarians talk about race and sexual orientation as if they are the same realm in terms of their immutability. No, sexual orientation is *not* the same thing as race in this manner. Second, I like that they speak of "homophobia", and use the term to speak of people who will say what you're doing is wrong. I mean, if you want to try to stamp out Christianity (and Islam for that matter), good luck with that!
I'm a professional illustrator, should I be forced to paint a picture featuring imagery I'm uncomfortable with, just because someone offered me money for that service, or do i have the right to turn away the work? Or should that right be dependent on the protected characteristics of the potential client?
Reason: "We're Libertarians!" Also Reason: "The government should have the power to force private citizens into labor against their will if we disagree with said individual's opinions and it's for what WE deem to be the common good. But we're still totally Libertarians, guys. Seriously. We promise."
Does the government have the power to force you to write words that you disagree with on a cake ? If your answer is "yes", then stop calling yourself a libertarian.
"If your answer is "yes", then stop calling yourself a libertarian." That would be a wise choice in general given no adult should be calling themselves a libertarian. It's a world view for teenagers and young adults, like communism
@@camadams9149 No, they are not the same. There are many Minarchists and even some Monarchists in Libertarian circles. AnCaps would be considered "libertarian" but not all libertarians are Ancaps. We are subjugated by an oligarchy NOW. Have you not noticed?
@@hullbreach33 Yes, we are in an oligarchy now and that comes after spending the last 60 years limiting government aka moving towards a more libertarian position. The strains of libertarianism are all the same because they produce the same results. It's like communists who insist we "haven't tried real communism" when communist inevitably turns into top down centrally controlled authorianism At the end of the day, no matter what system you use, one group will win. Libertarianism just means you get oligarchy...which also explains the significant funding the movement receives from billionaires. It is all nonsense. Back to the original point. WE have already had this talk regarding public accommodations, so this current conversation is boring. You may not like that but it turns out in our system you are going to occasionally get compelled to do stuff you don't want to do. Compared to other systems different ideologues produce, that happens significantly less frequently
Libertarians talk about what the government should enforce…. That has nothing to do with libertarianism. All the best but lately i find that ‘reason’ is a sinking schip.
I'm a big proponent of the right to discriminate. Not only do I believe that the market will usually sort those businesses out, but I would much rather have someone feel able to openly tell me they don't want my money rather than some alternative way they might take it out on me if they aren't "allowed" to be openly discriminatory. If you're lucky they'll stop at spitting in your coffee, but it can easily get much grosser, even dangerous. Give people the room to be forthright!
I would go further, and suggest that if we know that a certain request isn't something that a particular person would be comfortable with, we shouldn't make that request of that particular person. It doesn't matter one whit whether you agree with that stance or not, so long as we're talking about things where no one is getting hurt!
At 4:10, Nic asks the keystone question: "can you be forced to write custom messages on your product?" And the rest of the interview avoids that problem of compelled speech. No one was turned away from buying a cake or any other baked good. No was was denied entrance to the store ... until 2021 when people were denied public access based upon being mandated to disclose their private medical history.
Live and let live. Christians denounce certain actions as sin even though they accept the person and believe their sins can be forgiven. You may not like it and even call it bigotry, but don't confuse acceptance of the person as acceptance of the sin. Christians have just as much right to be protected. If it was my bakery I would serve anyone. If they expect me to participate in their twisted thinking, I'll serve them a pretzel.
IMO there are two categories of service: Basic service, where there is a narrow scope of services available. A waiter should not be allowed to refuse anyone friggin french fries based on their immutable attributes. Creative service, where the employee has to create something unique. The server should not be forced to create something they are uncomfortable creating, but also shouldn't be held feet to the fire to create something they aren't equipped to create. I think the gay wedding cake folks are bigoted, but I don't think anyone should be forced to create something that makes them uncomfortable.
I would go so far as to suggest that forcing someone to create a message that the person disagrees with is a type of bigotry in and of itself. We *really* need to accept that, in a free society, there are going to be a *lot* of people who are mutually bigoted towards each other -- because we're going to have different viewpoints as to what is acceptable and what's not!
Why is it so hard for a "libertarian" channel to plainly state that the government CANNOT and SHOULD NOT force anyone to use their speech, time, wealth and/labor in a way that they don't want to?
Double edged sword. What happens when the gay cake/website maker has to make a product for a group they don't like. Cancel culture for thee, not for me? You have a right to association. Which includes a right of disassociation. Yes we have had some social progress from squashing that right, but we are now starting to see the uglier results from unintended consequences and outright abuse from doing so. The blow back that is coming is going to undo a lot of that progress.
Its a fine line to balance forcing someone to work against thier will and encouraging bigotry and hate. As we have seen, people do love a public hanging and mobing. Its unfortunate people are mostly emotional not logical.
No one is encouraging bigotry or hate. The gay couple are asking for a cake that isn't on the menu. It's really simple actually. The refusal of service wasn't because THEY were gay. The bakery refused serving them because they asked for a GAY CAKE.
@billschlafly4107 yes, but obviously you realize some use preferences as an excuse to be a bigot or promote hate right? I like the "if you have a monopoly or extremely limited choice, the obligated" rule. That seems a fair balance. It's a hard line to treat though. That's all I'm saying. As a fellow libertarian, these are balances we should all keep in mind.
I would like to see the line drawn between publically traded companies and privately owned companies. If a company is publically traded, they should not be able to discriminate, donate to charity, or lobby. Their share holders may do those things individually. The mom and pop shops ought have the liberty to serve who they like no matter how offensive their reasons.
If you aren't willing to make a cake for customer walking in than keep the doors lock,stop showing your hates...there's no place at work for that,come on now,be professional...
Indeed! If we can't force people to do things for us, even if makes them uncomfortable, and in some cases, even goes against their very conscience (which is *supposed* to be protected by the 1st Amendment, according to certain "extremists"), then how can we possibly claim to live in a free society?
But if we let the free market handle this, then there might be ( *gasp* ) bigots who *still* get enough business to make a living, because there *might* be enough business from people who either don't care about their positions, or even outright support them!
🙏🧎🏻♂️The whole world is set up to show consequences for doing wrong. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. We all must be willing to turn from sin and believe and follow Jesus for forgiveness. 1st John 2:17 He who does the will of God abides for eternity. That’s letting Jesus live His life in and through us His children, by knowing and obeying the Word of God !!! ❤️📖nkjv🙏🧎🏻♂️🕊🇺🇸🕊 1st Corinthians 6:9
This conversation is BORING because we have already had it. We determined segregation is wrong & public interest in desegregation outweighs personal animus towards a group. We even have a carve out for private clubs. They are allowed to discriminate against any group What's the point of this discussion? Just say "We should bring back Jim Crow" and be done with it. Of course, libertarians don't like to frame it that way... because it is INSANELY out of step with the public; but hey if you want to relitigate 60 year old issues you are going to be out of step
First of all, "We have already had the conversation" is flat out wrong -- we just had a Supreme Court decision on this very issue, and that's *exactly* what we are talking about. Secondly, one can be just as much in favor of repealing the Civil Rights Act as they are in opposing Jim Crow -- indeed, one can go so far as to say both are wrong for the *very* *same* *reason* : both violate the very freedom of association that is *supposed* to be protected by the 1st Amendment.
@@alpheusmadsen8485 "we just had a Supreme Court decision on this very issue, and that's exactly what we are talking about" Yes and it has all been brought up before. Point by point. It's a retread of what has been done before "one can be just as much in favor of repealing the Civil Rights Act as they are in opposing Jim Crow" Not a thing. You got libertarian brain spiders. The nonsense you just said can be summarized as "let's privatize Jim Crow" So are you 14 or are you brain damaged?
History: in San Francisco in the early 1970's I and all of my gay friends were physically assaulted. Every week for the 2 years that I lived in SF someone yelled 'fa____t' at me in public. Just prior to that while I was a student at Stanford, professors used terms like faggot in class. Through the grape-vine I learned that while getting my PhD in psychology I was turned downed down from internships and jobs because of the perception that I was gay.
I did not grow up in such dark times but came out and was pretty obviously gay in hs in the 80s. Threatened and harrassed by d list bullies. That said- violence/threats of violence and harrassment are actual crimes, refusing to do business with me is not. I'm amazed at how many people behave as if those are equivalent when they clearly are not. I am happy to withhold my $ and resources where they are not appreciated.
I’m sorry for that. Hate and evil sucks. But should they make your cake or not? I say they don’t have to, and you should go support someone that wants your business.
@@bjnowak The court did not say that the bakery was entitled NOT to bake a cake.mYou got that wrong. The case was about compelled speech. neither did it have anything to do with religion or religious belief. "But should they make your cake or not? " But, why do you think I ever asked anyone to bake a cake?
It is simple. None of these cases involved a business refusing to serve a person because they were gay. In fact, in some of these cases the business served these customers frequently prior. The businesses just refused to provide a certain product for a certian reason. I.E. they refused to bake a cake for a specific event i.e. a gay wedding.
Would we want to live in a society where a Jewish baker is forced to bake a cake that celebrated the holochaust?
Moreover, if the baker truly was a bigot toward homosexual people, why would a homosexual person want to give that baker their money?
The ole Nazi holocaust analogy. Can you do no better than that ?
@infinitemonkey917 doesn't need to. It applies quite nicely.
Are you comparing gay people to nazis and the genocide of millions💀
@infinitemonkey917 a black baker to bake a cake for a klan initiation then
@@Booger414 No it doesn't. Having to bake a cake for a person of a different race or religion would be a proper analogy.
I support all rights. In the gay wedding case, the owner has the right to NOT make the cake and people can choose to or not to shop at this store. It’s really that simple. Don’t force them to make the cake and don’t force me to shop there. Right?
Could owners deny service based on race？
@@小肥猫-s4oif you were to support business owners’ right to deny service, then yes, they should be able to. This doesn’t mean that the majority of businesses would just start banning black people, or Asians or whatever, because most people aren’t racist, and it’s in the business owner’s best interest to serve as many people as possible.
@@小肥猫-s4o Yes. Absolutely. And you are free to boycott that business, just as they refused to do business with you.
Not according to 60 years of public accommodation law because we realized segregation is wrong
@@camadams9149 "we" is not the correct term. Who makes legislation in the USA nowadays is politicians. Politicians are not "we", because their "service" is not freely accepted, but coerced upon the population.
Remember, libertarians are private property extremists. No state is a valid organization nor it can represent the population.
Some states are less bad than others, but none of them qualify.
Boy, I can't wait to go to the local Egyptian restaurant and demand they cook pork for me.
Libertarians offering services don’t offer them to the public. They may advertise them publicly, but reserve their right to serve individuals only in a mutually agreed upon way.
The objection to mandated services is that it is slavery. It is a taking by government. It is prohibited.
The server and the served each have an equal alienable right to make a contract with a willing party. Only the government is mandated, if authorized, to serve individuals equally. That was a condition of giving them the authority in the first place. These private individuals got their rights from their Creator.
Refusal of service was NOT because the people are gay. It's because the CAKE is GAY. They asked to be served something that isn't on the menu. And yes this is different than black kids walking into a restaurant in Birmingham AL in the 1960s. Because they were simply asking to be served what was on the menu.
Why is this even a question on a libertarian channel?
Or, are libertarians now questioning if someone can force you to do something with your time, talent and resources?
Not watching the video but devil's advocate I guess.
Further, why would gay people want to support businesses that hate them?
For the same reason people businesses aren't allowed to discriminate based on race.
@@infinitemonkey917The libertarian argument is that that is also wrong and unnecessary. Businesses can do as they wish with their business, and the market will reflect that. Any business that would try that today would go under.
Granted, that is a hardcore libertarian view.
@@OhPhuckYou Yea, I'm aware of the Libertarian free market utopia fiction.
LGBTQ+ people need to gain maturity and either accept that others have different views and, when confronted by someone with those views, to be able to move on without confrontation. When faced with refusal simply find an accommodating business or start your own business and offer to make any type of cake.
As a gay libertarian, I will tell you that when you show the maturity that you speak of, and support everyone's liberty, you are likely to be ignored. It seems like the left simply wants to use diversity issues to push redistribution of income and grabs for control. Many on the socially conservative right are happy to assume that all LGBTQ+ individuals want to take away their freedom, as if fuels their dogfight with the left and can be used to rationalize their attempts to control culture.
So if a Christian stonecutter refuses to make someone an idol to Satan? Can still be forced into an expensive court battles as punishment for exercising his religious freedom?
I love how the "enlightened" left-libertarians talk about race and sexual orientation as if they are the same realm in terms of their immutability. No, sexual orientation is *not* the same thing as race in this manner.
Second, I like that they speak of "homophobia", and use the term to speak of people who will say what you're doing is wrong. I mean, if you want to try to stamp out Christianity (and Islam for that matter), good luck with that!
I'm a professional illustrator, should I be forced to paint a picture featuring imagery I'm uncomfortable with, just because someone offered me money for that service, or do i have the right to turn away the work?
Or should that right be dependent on the protected characteristics of the potential client?
Especially when you freelance to an online market. Yikes, you totally need to have the right to refuse some requests!
Reason: "We're Libertarians!"
Also Reason: "The government should have the power to force private citizens into labor against their will if we disagree with said individual's opinions and it's for what WE deem to be the common good. But we're still totally Libertarians, guys. Seriously. We promise."
Does the government have the power to force you to write words that you disagree with on a cake ?
If your answer is "yes", then stop calling yourself a libertarian.
"If your answer is "yes", then stop calling yourself a libertarian." That would be a wise choice in general given no adult should be calling themselves a libertarian. It's a world view for teenagers and young adults, like communism
@@camadams9149 I think you are conflating AnCaps with Libertarians.
@@hullbreach33 They are the same thing. Only difference is: do you get subjugated by a warlord or by an oligarchy
@@camadams9149 No, they are not the same. There are many Minarchists and even some Monarchists in Libertarian circles. AnCaps would be considered "libertarian" but not all libertarians are Ancaps.
We are subjugated by an oligarchy NOW. Have you not noticed?
@@hullbreach33 Yes, we are in an oligarchy now and that comes after spending the last 60 years limiting government aka moving towards a more libertarian position.
The strains of libertarianism are all the same because they produce the same results. It's like communists who insist we "haven't tried real communism" when communist inevitably turns into top down centrally controlled authorianism
At the end of the day, no matter what system you use, one group will win. Libertarianism just means you get oligarchy...which also explains the significant funding the movement receives from billionaires.
It is all nonsense. Back to the original point. WE have already had this talk regarding public accommodations, so this current conversation is boring. You may not like that but it turns out in our system you are going to occasionally get compelled to do stuff you don't want to do. Compared to other systems different ideologues produce, that happens significantly less frequently
Read the constitution.
Libertarians talk about what the government should enforce…. That has nothing to do with libertarianism.
All the best but lately i find that ‘reason’ is a sinking schip.
Yup. Positive rights are a bit of an overreach. This part is left to mores and the market--at least it should be in a free society.
FYI, Walter isn't a lawyer.
I didn’t believe you at first, but I looked at his Wikipedia and it says that he’s a blogger 😂 lol Reason have really gone downhill
I'm a big proponent of the right to discriminate. Not only do I believe that the market will usually sort those businesses out, but I would much rather have someone feel able to openly tell me they don't want my money rather than some alternative way they might take it out on me if they aren't "allowed" to be openly discriminatory. If you're lucky they'll stop at spitting in your coffee, but it can easily get much grosser, even dangerous. Give people the room to be forthright!
This. It's work not done, not harm done.
Beautifully described 👏👏👏
I would go further, and suggest that if we know that a certain request isn't something that a particular person would be comfortable with, we shouldn't make that request of that particular person. It doesn't matter one whit whether you agree with that stance or not, so long as we're talking about things where no one is getting hurt!
@@alpheusmadsen8485 No, that's too much. Let them request and be denied.
Haven't even watched this but when you own a business it is your decision what service you provide to whom or not. Case closed.
At 4:10, Nic asks the keystone question: "can you be forced to write custom messages on your product?"
And the rest of the interview avoids that problem of compelled speech.
No one was turned away from buying a cake or any other baked good. No was was denied entrance to the store
... until 2021 when people were denied public access based upon being mandated to disclose their private medical history.
Who is "the public"?
There arnt any lawyers in this video...
Live and let live. Christians denounce certain actions as sin even though they accept the person and believe their sins can be forgiven. You may not like it and even call it bigotry, but don't confuse acceptance of the person as acceptance of the sin. Christians have just as much right to be protected.
If it was my bakery I would serve anyone. If they expect me to participate in their twisted thinking, I'll serve them a pretzel.
IMO there are two categories of service:
Basic service, where there is a narrow scope of services available. A waiter should not be allowed to refuse anyone friggin french fries based on their immutable attributes.
Creative service, where the employee has to create something unique. The server should not be forced to create something they are uncomfortable creating, but also shouldn't be held feet to the fire to create something they aren't equipped to create.
I think the gay wedding cake folks are bigoted, but I don't think anyone should be forced to create something that makes them uncomfortable.
I would go so far as to suggest that forcing someone to create a message that the person disagrees with is a type of bigotry in and of itself. We *really* need to accept that, in a free society, there are going to be a *lot* of people who are mutually bigoted towards each other -- because we're going to have different viewpoints as to what is acceptable and what's not!
Hypothetically, can the bakery deny baking a wedding cake for an interracial couple bc it’s against their marital beliefs ?
In a properly libertarian society, the answer *should* very well be "yes". Otherwise the baker becomes a slave to the interracial couple.
@@alpheusmadsen8485maybe just maybe america should NOT be a libertarian utopia then.
Why is it so hard for a "libertarian" channel to plainly state that the government CANNOT and SHOULD NOT force anyone to use their speech, time, wealth and/labor in a way that they don't want to?
Double edged sword. What happens when the gay cake/website maker has to make a product for a group they don't like.
Cancel culture for thee, not for me?
You have a right to association. Which includes a right of disassociation. Yes we have had some social progress from squashing that right, but we are now starting to see the uglier results from unintended consequences and outright abuse from doing so. The blow back that is coming is going to undo a lot of that progress.
Can they force you to make a white pride cake?
Well he managed to say nothing.
Walter is almost unintelligible
At what point is the business big enough to enforce non-discrimination ?
The content on reason grows more and more disappointing every day.
Smc bot
Its a fine line to balance forcing someone to work against thier will and encouraging bigotry and hate.
As we have seen, people do love a public hanging and mobing. Its unfortunate people are mostly emotional not logical.
No one is encouraging bigotry or hate. The gay couple are asking for a cake that isn't on the menu. It's really simple actually. The refusal of service wasn't because THEY were gay. The bakery refused serving them because they asked for a GAY CAKE.
@billschlafly4107 yes, but obviously you realize some use preferences as an excuse to be a bigot or promote hate right? I like the "if you have a monopoly or extremely limited choice, the obligated" rule. That seems a fair balance. It's a hard line to treat though. That's all I'm saying. As a fellow libertarian, these are balances we should all keep in mind.
@@meyou4923 true. It's easily exploitable though, don't you think?
I'm just testing comments
Yesterday for perhaps an hour or so, comments on seemingly all videos everywhere were unable to take comments.
If I was required to make a cake for someone, they'd be wise not to eat it.
If a gay company would not make a website explaining Sodom and Gommorah I would go somewhere else.
I am more Libertarian than Reason TV.
Smc l
Marriage laws should be abolished.
Thats the libertarian solution.
Its not hard to understand.
We’re natural heuristicians
We’re selective heuristicians
@@wes10gaard yeah, point you. Im mostly interested in how “heuristics” conjugates.
@@wes10gaard should I have gone with “heuristicrats”?
PETA supporting printer refuses to create Zoo publicity handbills.
I would like to see the line drawn between publically traded companies and privately owned companies. If a company is publically traded, they should not be able to discriminate, donate to charity, or lobby. Their share holders may do those things individually. The mom and pop shops ought have the liberty to serve who they like no matter how offensive their reasons.
This is a great compromise, no one wins or loses.
Wow these guys are really missing the mark.
If you aren't willing to make a cake for customer walking in than keep the doors lock,stop showing your hates...there's no place at work for that,come on now,be professional...
Indeed! If we can't force people to do things for us, even if makes them uncomfortable, and in some cases, even goes against their very conscience (which is *supposed* to be protected by the 1st Amendment, according to certain "extremists"), then how can we possibly claim to live in a free society?
The free market can/will handle this. State sanctioned and protected monopolies are not part of the free market.
But if we let the free market handle this, then there might be ( *gasp* ) bigots who *still* get enough business to make a living, because there *might* be enough business from people who either don't care about their positions, or even outright support them!
🙏🧎🏻♂️The whole world is set up to show consequences for doing wrong. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. We all must be willing to turn from sin and believe and follow Jesus for forgiveness. 1st John 2:17 He who does the will of God abides for eternity. That’s letting Jesus live His life in and through us His children, by knowing and obeying the Word of God !!! ❤️📖nkjv🙏🧎🏻♂️🕊🇺🇸🕊
1st Corinthians 6:9
Uh uh uh uh um uh um
This conversation is BORING because we have already had it. We determined segregation is wrong & public interest in desegregation outweighs personal animus towards a group. We even have a carve out for private clubs. They are allowed to discriminate against any group
What's the point of this discussion? Just say "We should bring back Jim Crow" and be done with it. Of course, libertarians don't like to frame it that way... because it is INSANELY out of step with the public; but hey if you want to relitigate 60 year old issues you are going to be out of step
First of all, "We have already had the conversation" is flat out wrong -- we just had a Supreme Court decision on this very issue, and that's *exactly* what we are talking about.
Secondly, one can be just as much in favor of repealing the Civil Rights Act as they are in opposing Jim Crow -- indeed, one can go so far as to say both are wrong for the *very* *same* *reason* : both violate the very freedom of association that is *supposed* to be protected by the 1st Amendment.
@@alpheusmadsen8485 "we just had a Supreme Court decision on this very issue, and that's exactly what we are talking about" Yes and it has all been brought up before. Point by point. It's a retread of what has been done before
"one can be just as much in favor of repealing the Civil Rights Act as they are in opposing Jim Crow" Not a thing. You got libertarian brain spiders. The nonsense you just said can be summarized as "let's privatize Jim Crow"
So are you 14 or are you brain damaged?
History: in San Francisco in the early 1970's I and all of my gay friends were physically assaulted. Every week for the 2 years that I lived in SF someone yelled 'fa____t' at me in public. Just prior to that while I was a student at Stanford, professors used terms like faggot in class. Through the grape-vine I learned that while getting my PhD in psychology I was turned downed down from internships and jobs because of the perception that I was gay.
Thats called an anecdote; not history.
@@samuelboucher1454 I'm not of what your point is
I did not grow up in such dark times but came out and was pretty obviously gay in hs in the 80s. Threatened and harrassed by d list bullies. That said- violence/threats of violence and harrassment are actual crimes, refusing to do business with me is not. I'm amazed at how many people behave as if those are equivalent when they clearly are not. I am happy to withhold my $ and resources where they are not appreciated.
I’m sorry for that. Hate and evil sucks. But should they make your cake or not? I say they don’t have to, and you should go support someone that wants your business.
@@bjnowak The court did not say that the bakery was entitled NOT to bake a cake.mYou got that wrong. The case was about compelled speech. neither did it have anything to do with religion or religious belief. "But should they make your cake or not? " But, why do you think I ever asked anyone to bake a cake?