If instead of a gem, or even a flower,
we should cast the gift of a loving thought
into the heart of a friend,
that would be giving as the angels give.
George MacDonald
College: Cost/Benefit Analysis...
Julie Borowski, "Gay Marriage", Economic vs. Religious Liberty
I think Julie misspoke on the "gay marriage" [gayriage?] kerfuffle? This has NEVER been [despite all the politically correct nonsense otherwise] about the State barring gays from committing to each other; you don't need a judge or even a clergyman to pledge love towards each other. In fact, California approved marriage-like domestic partnerships years before the California Supreme Court ideologically struck down the voter-approved traditional marriage law. I've argued several times it makes no sense for gays to want the Fascist State to regulate their relationships--that's more of a case of be really careful what you wish for (and it's difficult to see how any principled libertarian would argue that). The idea that it's the State that confers legitimacy on a marriage is laughable. When I lived in Texas in my salad days, it's true that Texas had a sodomy law, but it got enforced about as much as a 55 mph speed limit; there was a well-known gay community in Houston decades before DOMA, and I never heard about the law infiltrating gay bars to catch anybody in the act of plotting a gayriage.
If gays want to form their own religion, bowing before the Statue of the Great Phallus, and being "married" to the exhortation "Be fruitful, and don't multiply...", they can go their own way; I don't really care: it's not my moral decision or lifestyle. They don't need my approval, and I don't need theirs. Personally, I think it's rather pathetic and needy on the part of gays to try to co-opt a heterosexual construct instead of finding meaning in the context of their own heritage; it's like a boy who grows up in desperate need of his father's approval or validation, which will never happen. He thinks maybe if he gets a rainbow-colored certificate signed by 5 unelected justices, it'll impress his Dad. I understand the desire to get his Dad's blessing, but you need to accept yourself first, and move on with your life. Your Dad doesn't hold a veto over your life, even if he disapproves.
Churches being forced to hold weddings? No; apparently most of the politically correct "progressives" not only didn't learn about the First Amendment, but they forgot that whole separation of religion and state thing which they've been arguing in favor for decades. The idea that SCOTUS has veto power over religious moral doctrine or operations is sheer hubris.
There is an interesting argument about public accommodations (I have little patience for lawyers and their kind; I just read one of their rants picking on Rand Paul expressing a bit of skepticism about public accommodation law, and I guarantee if you take that kind of tone with me, I'll make Justice Scalia look like a choir boy.) In short, in English common law there was a set of laws in support of travelers who might have limited choices along routes for safe lodging or a place to eat. The thought was that these types of businesses existed at the whim of the State, and to be in business they needed a State-conferred license--the price of the license is that they ceded some of their liberty to the State--including the right to turn away paying customers. From there, it's a hop, skip and jump away from an equal protection argument--it's not fair to single out some accommodations vs. all; it's not right to arbitrarily accept some customers and not others.
There are libertarian responses to this nonsense, but I'm not going to write a detailed note at this time. Basically, I don't think double standards in treating businesses are morally acceptable; you don't lose your economic rights, including the voluntary nature of transactions. If all my rooms are filled up, I can't take in additional guests; if I haven't cooked enough food, I can't sell an empty plate to a customer. In the long run, that's good news--it might attract competition.
Ah, by what about these nefarious discriminators, who spit on your money and refuse you service at any price? Without the State thugs to punish these owners, why, the ranks of the bigots would mushroom and openly discriminate. [I'm not kidding: there are actually people who believe in this bullshit perspective.]
Let's be clear: a business owner who abuses his discretion loses profitable business, and I guarantee a business who treats all customers fairly has a competitive advantage. Word of mouth spreads; the businessman loses customers and even his business over time.
Gay couples can get "married" almost anywhere--except maybe more conservative churches, like the Catholic Church. (And that will NEVER change, no matter what unrealistic expectations gays have about Francis' sympathetic, ambiguous rhetoric.) There is no comparable public accommodation argument; even if you disregard religious liberty, priests don't bill for their services. Many priests will refuse to marry couples who they don't think are prepared or suitable for a solid Catholic marriage
Julie makes an argument I've made that it doesn't make sense for a gay couple to financially support with their business people who don't identify with the gay agenda. However, I disagree with her argument that they may well end up with a nasty cake. I disagree; I think if the couple got a rancid wedding cake, it would be very bad for their reputation and business. If it were my business, I would never allow product go out the door with my name on it that didn't reflect due care.
Time to Stomp a Troll
(on yesterday's comment on Nowrasteh's (Cato Institute) piece on e-Verify)
Ah, how many pejoratives can you cram into one screed to discredit people who insist on the rule of law and property rights?
You know what kills an economy? Having 1/4 of the budget of the entire state of CA being siphoned off to provide services to illegals.
Yah, you heard that right. 1/4 of the budget is spent on providing services to 2.5M trespassers. Now tell us all again how this is a "special interest" , that we want to stop this massive theft.
Oh, the fascist xenophobe decides to share his propaganda statistics to demonstrate to everyone his total lack of integrity and his ignorance of fundamental facts. (He, unsurprisingly, doesn't back up his facts, but it's a fair guess he gets his misinformation from the anti-immigrant think tanks CIS and FAIR. (For those interested FactCheck did a 2009 analysis of a bogus statistics email citing them from a widely spread email to so-called "conservatives".) Nowrasteh has debunked similar numbers in many publications, including http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/working-paper-21-fix.pdf
By the way, the troll has annoyed me enough to respond to his disingenuous, bogus pseudo-libertarian, laughable citation of the "rule of law" and "property rights" Let's point out first of all, USFS and DOI (i.e., the US government), not private owners, hold much of the sparsely populated areas along the US/Mexican border. The right to migrate/travel is one of the oldest, most widely respected human rights. As for the morally corrupt, anti-immigrant restrictions lobbied by special interests like labor unions and know-nothing xenophobes, policy that has dragged down US growth over the past century, I agree with the Libertarian Party, which calls for ending all restrictions on immigration (except for those posing an authentic, not hyped threat to the unalienable rights of Americans).
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Nate Beeler via Townhall |
Dionne Warwick (with Johnny Mathis), "Friends in Love"
