Thus, by applying that principle, the wedding-cake controversy disintegrates. Bakers have the right to bake a cake for whomever they want and for whatever reason they want. It might well be that they hate blacks, Jews, immigrants, and poor people. Motive doesn’t matter. What matters is that under principles of liberty and private property, private business owners have as much right to discriminate as private homeowners.
By the same token, consumers have the right to boycott the business that is discriminating against others and to advocate that other people boycott it as well. That’s how the free market deals with businesses that people perceive are wrongfully discriminating against others. It nudges them to change their position through loss of sales revenues rather than force them to do so with the power of a government gun.
The problem, however, is that long ago the U.S. Supreme Court held that when people open their businesses to the public, everything changes. The Court held that when business owners do that, they subject themselves to governmental control, including state anti-discrimination laws.
But that’s ridiculous. Why should the fact that a person is selling privately owned things to others cause the principles of liberty and private property to be compromised or abandoned? Why shouldn’t the business owner still be free to discriminate in determining who enters his privately owned business and to whom he sells his private property?
By abandoning those principles of liberty and private property, it has naturally left lawyers vexed on how to resolve the wedding-cake dispute. It has left them relying on the First Amendment to come up with entirely subjective and arbitrary conclusions that have no consistent underlying legal principle undergirding them.
Republican State Rep. John Raney admitted to the Associated Press that Geo Group officials wrote the legislation. “I’ve known the lady who’s their lobbyist for a long time. … That’s where the legislation came from,” said Raney. “We don’t make things up. People bring things to us and ask us to help.” There’s companion legislation in the state House and Senate.
Imagine having a job that’s so unimportant to you that you don’t even do it?
Stories like this happen all the time, but the particularly galling part of this one is that the bill was even written by the company that would benefit from it and the State Representative who it was handed off to didn’t deny it or didn’t find it something worthy of concealing.
Private prisons must be stopped. Imprisoning for profit must be stopped. Period.
Kentucky Judge W. Mitchell Nance will no longer hear adoption cases involving gay or lesbian parents. That’s because he thinks it is not in the child’s best interest to be raised by a “practicing homosexual.” In making this recusal, he cited Kentucky law that calls on judges to recuse themselves if they have personal bias or prejudice about party in the case. Nance made the announcement Thursday via a court order obtained by LawNewz.com.
Nice. His discrimination should make impeachment a piece of cake. Then again, it IS Kentucky.
Today the Washington Supreme Court unanimously upheld the fines against florist Baronelle Stutzman for refusing to sell flowers to a long-time customer for his same-sex wedding. Even though the court acknowledged that Stutzman “has served gay and lesbian customers in the past for other, non-wedding-related flower orders,” it found that she had violated the state’s public-accommodations law. In doing so, it rejected her claims regarding the freedom of speech, association, and religious exercise in the face of a legal requirement that businesses not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.