I ventured onto a fake liberty Facebook page today which celebrated the closure of a pizza shop that notoriously didn't want to cater "gay weddings". The basic context was we, the free market, drove a discriminatory owner out of business! Hallelujah!
If you recall one of my key points of disagreement with Gary Johnson dealt with the issue of Nazi cakes, an indirect reference to the economic liberty of individuals (bakers, photographers, etc.) to choose which special events they wish to work, e.g., traditional weddings. From a libertarian point of principle, this is first principle: voluntary transactions. It isn't up to the government or some ideological mob to decide whether the individual's choice is morally acceptable, unless it violates someone else's fundamental rights. That doesn't mean if someone decides they must have my widgets, I have an obligation to sell them. They are not his widgets; they are my widgets. I don't care if the intolerant decide, "Oh, it must be for some politically incorrect/suspect reason. Come, let us war on him for force him to comply to our morally superior rules!" The very use of force is a form of slavery, for the transaction is no longer voluntary. It's one thing to prohibit people from engaging in transactions with others, to restrict competition; it's another thing to argue I am required to sell to you. If and when the State or a mob take my labor or widget without my consent, it is theft, pure and simple.
One of the disingenuous trolls argued, who said anything about government? After all, we have a right to engage in a voluntary association of discriminating against this "homophobic" vendor.
One hardly knows where to begin with such a disingenuous, morally bankrupt concept. Let's start with the fact that such a concept is the use of force to suppress an idea you don't tolerate; I don't have an issue, if you, like me, need to avoid the carbs in pizza, or you don't care for the vendor's recipes, if the pizza is delivered late and cold, etc. Maybe he doesn't like the vendor's people skills, etc. I don't have an issue with your individual preferences, for your right not to transact for any or no reason.
But as Bobby Soave points out, boycotts are hypocritical, discriminatory, and bad for social change. It may be other vendors engage in more egregious conduct, happily supply the local KKK or have outlets in, say, Muslim countries that persecute gays.
I couldn't make the troll see that this intolerance is anti-libertarian at its core; boycotts are aggressive and arbitrary in nature and divisive by their nature, can provoke counter-boycotts, and are ill-focused, counterproductive, presumptuous, and condescending. We aren't talking about improving competition in the pizza business; we aren't allowing for competition to market to segments. I know I wouldn't turn down business with gay people.
I asked the troll what made him think that his favored boycott caused the business to fail; after all, "married gays" are basically a rounding error of the population, I personally have never been to or even heard of a wedding reception serving pizza, never mind the more sophisticated preferences of the gay community. His response was "Like, duh!"
A little bit of Googling led me to guess the fake liberty group's target is probably Memories Pizza in red state Indiana where then Gov. Pence in 2015 signed an act promoting the rights of religious freedom of businessmen. One of the owners of the pizzeria mentioned in the lead-up to passage they wouldn't cater a gay wedding. The Left went batshit crazy, with non-customers writing negative reviews, there were threats of violence to the point the pizzeria took a 10-day hiatus. In fact, a buycott landed the pizzeria with a nearly $850,000 fund and a full restaurant with lines out the door once they reopened.
So the owners decided to shut down the business a few weeks back, not because of the fading memory of a failed boycott but because they wanted to retire. But it turns out that one gay couple did manage to have Memories Pizza at their "wedding"; they just ordered carryout, which the co-owner said all along they would do for any customer. I guess this gay couple didn't go along with the boycott.
