BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

gay issues Archive

Tuesday

30

June 2015

0

COMMENTS

Don’t Cry Wolf on Religious Liberty Infringements

Written by , Posted in Culture & Society, Liberty & Limited Government

Respect for religious freedom has deep roots in American society. Many of those who came to America did so to escape religious persecution, and they brought with them a profound understanding of the importance of protecting such personal rights from oppressive rule, be it by the hand of monarchy or democratic majority. Thus why Constitutional protections for religious freedom were included in the First Amendment.

Yet many areas where religious freedom is said to be under attack are actually examples of a different sort of problem. No one should be forced to make a gay wedding cake, for instance, simply because they make their living as a baker (assuming they are their own employer). The idea that one must sell to all in order to sell to any contradicts basic Constitutional tenets, yet is an idea that has wormed its way into Constitutional doctrine thanks to the misguided idea of “public accommodations” in non-discrimination law, and long eviscerated protections for economic liberty. Focusing on the subset of cases where objections are made on the grounds of religious sensibilities misses the larger issue, which is that the freedom of association and basic liberty should allow all the right to choose with whom they do or do not engage in commercial exchange – for any reason, be it religiously motivated or not, that the individual sees fit.

But there are also ways in which religious freedoms are actually in danger of being undermined today. Under the direction of Houston’s first openly gay mayor, Annise Parker, the city last year subpoenaed sermons and other pastoral communication from local churches. They were ordered to turn over any communication relating to a contentious local non-discrimination law, as well as “all speeches and sermons related to Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality and gender identity.” She backed down after national uproar over the flagrant abuse of power, but the episode is both illuminating and disturbing.

Religious concerns from the fallout of Obergefell are also not without merit, as admitted by U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrili when he acknowledged during oral arguments that tax-exempt status “is going to be an issue” with the Court’s potential (and now real) ruling that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage (rightly) violates Constitutional protections. The ACLU has also decided that it’s no longer on board with the whole religious freedom thing now that Christians might be the ones in need of legal protections. And given the proven vindictiveness of today’s cultural winners, more attacks ought to be expected.

Which is all the more reason why it’s a shame that some Republicans, along with the Texas Attorney General, are insisting that county clerks in Texas or elsewhere ought to be able to be able to “opt out” of issuing same-sex marriage licenses if they have religious objections. This is a misapplication of religious liberty.

Look, we’re not talking about clergy or non-state wedding officiators here, who like bakers ought to be able to decide whether they wish to take part in a same-sex wedding or not. These are people whose job it is to process paperwork and issue wedding licenses. County Clerks are municipal employees, be they elected or appointed, and therefore agents of the state. And agents of the state don’t get to dictate actions of the state based on personal whims. If they won’t or can’t do the job required of them and fulfill their duties as public servants then they ought to resign.

Individuals have every right to not work at a place that requires issuing same-sex marriage licenses, but what they don’t have is the right to insist that they not be replaced by someone who will do the entire job and not just part of it. Anyone with true convictions should understand that sometimes upholding those beliefs means making sacrifices, including not working at places that as a fundamental part of the job necessitate violating those beliefs.

There are real threats to religious freedoms, and those who might wish to meet those threats with robust Constitutional protections shouldn’t try to expand the concept to its breaking point. I’m sure it’s not easy to have to choose between honoring ones principles or performing a duty that one currently under obligation to perform, but there’s no Constitutional right to not have to make tough choices.

Tuesday

5

August 2014

0

COMMENTS

Government Accuses Gay Bar of Anti-Gay Discrimination for Enforcing Government ID Requirements

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Culture & Society, Identity Politics, Liberty & Limited Government

Government lovers and practitioners of identity politics are eating their own according to Scott Shackford at Reason:

What happened last summer is that a gay man named Vito Marzano, dressed in drag from a fundraiser elsewhere, wanted to enter the Wrangler. He was denied entry. The bar claims it wasn’t because he was cross-dressing but because his image didn’t match his driver’s license. The bar had been previously cited for serving somebody underage and were now being extra cautious. For those not in the know, gay bars have a history of being targets of scrutiny by authorities looking for excuses to raid them and shut them down.

This is an important point. Arbitrary and overzealous enforcement has been a common tactic for government agents to harass certain minority populations, like gay communities. Allowing in customers who do not match their ID is a sure fire way to invite such government harassment.

Equally disturbing is the logic used by the government to determine that there was “discrimination.” The bar, it seems, dares to cater to the interests of a particular subset of the gay community known as “bears,” or burly masculine men who prefer other burly masculine men.

The state’s report notes that the bar has a dress code forbidding high-heeled shoes, wigs or appearance-altering make-up or strong perfumes. While the report states there’s nothing wrong with the dress code itself, it has determined that the bar uses this code as an excuse to exclude overly feminine women or transgender people. The Wrangler is a “bear” bar, whose target demographic is the burlier of the gay men. What’s alarming about the ruling is that it seems to act as though catering to a particular demographic is in fact evidence of a likelihood of discriminating against others:

“[T]he Respondent caters to a gay subculture known as “Bears,” which are bisexual or gay males which tend to place importance on presenting a hypermasculine image andoften shun interaction with men who exhibit effeminacy. This is evident from the pictures and statements made by employees regarding the “Bear” culture of the club and several links on the Respondent’s webpage referencing “Bear” clubs … .”

Emphasis added by me because WT-bloody-F? You know what gay people love? Having the government tell them how their various subcultures work and think on the basis of talking to a bunch of people at a bar and looking at pictures. The preference for dating or friendship with certain types of people is not the same as “shunning” other types of people. And to the extent that there are social rifts between various parts of the gay demographic, nobody should want the state government policing how they should be interacting with each other.

In a truly free and diverse society, outlets meeting niche needs would be welcomed along side those serving a more general population. But in a world of degenerative Progressivism, words such as  “diversity” and “discrimination” have been twisted to the point of almost meaning their literal opposites. Diversity now requires universal sameness – all locations must serve the same clients in the same way. Discrimination now refers to any perceived negative action against a special identity group – such as the enforcement of ID requirements – even as the same action is routinely used against non-protected classes without fuss, making anti-discrimination efforts inherently discriminatory.

Shackford ends with the most important point:

This case is a good demonstration as to why it’s so important to hold a hard line on the right to freedom of association. The Wrangler should have the right to pursue whatever customer demographic it wants for its bar. And if the community finds it significantly discriminatory, they can use social pressures to push for change (as Marzano has apparently done with a call for a boycott).

Freedom, not central government control and more power for bureaucrats, is the answer.

Tuesday

25

February 2014

1

COMMENTS

Let Them Eat (Someone Else’s) Cake

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Culture & Society, Free Markets, Liberty & Limited Government

At RedState Erick Erickson weighs in on the debate over whether or not bakers should be required to supply wedding cakes for gay couples if they don’t want to. He looks at the issue through the prism of Christianity (which is not unreasonable given that most of those refusing to do so are Christian). But I’m not particularly interested in the theological aspects or what a good Christian ought to do. I’m interested in policy.

Erickson states:

If a Christian owns a bakery or a florist shop or a photography shop or a diner, a Christian should no more be allowed to deny service to a gay person than to a black person. It is against the tenets of 2000 years of orthodox Christian faith, no matter how poorly some Christians have practiced their faith over two millennia.

And honestly, I don’t know that I know anyone who disagrees with any of this.

I don’t know Erickson, so his statement remains true, but I emphatically disagree that “a Christian should no more be allowed to deny service to a gay person than to a black person.” In fact, I’d take that in the exact opposite direction than he intended and say that both should be allowed.  In a free society, anyone should be free to choose not to engage in commerce with anyone else, for any reason.

Erickson chooses to approach the issue from the angle of religious freedom:

The disagreement comes on one issue only — should a Christian provide goods and services to a gay wedding. That’s it. We’re not talking about serving a meal at a restaurant. We’re not talking about baking a cake for a birthday party. We’re talking about a wedding, which millions of Christians view as a sacrament of the faith and other, mostly Protestant Christians, view as a relationship ordained by God to reflect a holy relationship.

I think he’s attempting to cut too fine a line. Moreover, I think the religious freedom argument is weaker than the property rights and freedom of association arguments. These rights are simple to digest: I own my labor and that which it produces, and I therefore own the right to choose with whom I shall trade my goods. The government has suppressed this right by asserting that stores are “public” if they allow people to enter freely, and by being “public” they must serve everyone. This is and always has been hogwash, and the requirement that a business serve everyone has no basis in any authority granted to government.

Similarly, the freedom to associate necessitates an implied freedom of disassociation. Without the right to refuse association, the right to associate with those whom we choose is meaningless. And if the right to disassociate with a person or entity does not encompass the ability to refuse an economic transaction with that person or entity, then it is a hollow right.

Matt K. Lewis similarly addressed the issue at the Daily Caller, in the context of a proposed Arizona law to allow Christian businesses to refuse work for same-sex weddings. I don’t care for the specific law, which is parochial and targeted in a way that suggests animus and bigotry as its intent rather than true preservation of rights. But that aside, Lewis doesn’t tackle the right question:

The truth is, this is a tough issue that pits things we value as a society against things we value as a society.

We have reached a point in the gay rights debate where all the low-hanging fruit has been picked. We are now entering into the zero-sum game phase of the debate, where gay rights and religious liberty must collide. (In other words, the cake is only so big. If you take a piece, you are guaranteeing the other guy has less cake.)

So who’s right? My guess is one could guarantee public opinion is on either side of the issue, depending on how you frame the question. If, for example, you were to ask someone whether or not “businesses should be allowed to deny services to same-sex couples,” the answer would, of course, be “no.”

On the other hand, ask Americans if “government should have the right to forcefully coerce Christians to violate their convictions,” and the answer would also be “no.”

He is probably right that people would answer the question of whether a business has the right to deny services to same-sex couple in the negative, but that’s in part because it’s the wrong question. We might find it utterly distasteful when someone refuses to serve another for bigoted reasons, but we also find it distasteful when others express bigoted opinions. The right to free speech is nevertheless widely acknowledged as protecting their rights to do so. Why are economic rights taken less seriously? So contra Lewis, what we should be asking is whether “business should be allowed to deny services to anyone,” or even whether “exchange should ever be compulsory, instead of voluntary.” These are the questions at the heart of the matter, and these are the questions which too long have been answered incorrectly by government, the courts and even voters.

Friday

20

December 2013

0

COMMENTS

A&E/Duck Dynasty Fight Demonstrates How the Marketplace of Ideas Has Devolved

Written by , Posted in Culture & Society

In perhaps one of the most boneheaded business decisions ever made, A&E decided to sabotage its rating juggernaut, Duck Dynasty, in a fit of PC rage over comments from Phil Robertson about homosexuality in an article by GQ. Robertson, in a manner one might expect from a plainspoken outdoorsman from Louisiana, rather crudely expressed his personal inability to relate to same sex attraction through comparison of the various sexual organs involved. While both logically unconvincing of anything and potentially distasteful to the prudish, the statement hardly represented an attack on anyone.

He also he expressed the rather orthodox Christian view that homosexuality is a sin. More specifically, he listed homosexuality among a host of other sins he sees as plaguing the nation, but since adulterers have no grievance group, homosexuality is the only one we’ve heard a big stink about. He also prefaced the discussion with this:

“You put in your article that the Robertson family really believes strongly that if the human race loved each other and they loved God, we would just be better off. We ought to just be repentant, turn to God, and let’s get on with it, and everything will turn around.”

And then he followed up with:

“We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job.”

And in a separate statement he added:

“However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.”

How bigoted and closed-minded of him. Oh wait, no, I’m confusing him with those who think silencing others is the best response to hearing anything disagreeable.

I don’t bring up Phil Robertson’s views because I necessarily share them. Some I do and some I don’t, but I’m not starting with the same set of principles as Phil Robertson, so I frequently reach different conclusions. What I did want to talk about, however, was the entirely inappropriate response to his expression from both sides.

First, the attacks on Phil Robertson seem to align with a troubling trend regarding the manner in which the modern left is engaging in political discourse. Which is to say, they aren’t. Rather than debate opponents, they ostracize them. They turn any expression of opposing views into de facto evidence of some moral deficiency (or, if they’re in academia, into evidence of a mental disorder) on part of the speaker that absolves anyone else of the need to hear, process or think critically about what they have to say. Even the mere act of organizing to express views and advance common interests is evidence of some nefarious conspiracy or shady behavior.

These are sad developments for American political discourse that undermine the functioning of our republican system. But the response from the right doesn’t always hit the mark, either.

In defending Phil Robertson from A&E’s boneheaded decision, some – including politicians like Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal – have cited the First Amendment. This is a red herring that serves only to confuse the issue. The First Amendment protects the right of the people to speak without infringement by government. It says nothing of how other private citizens can respond to speech. If anything, the First Amendment is firmly on A&E’s side, as it protects the right of association, which includes the right to not associate, at their pleasure.

Unfortunately, the right of association is not universally supported by either the courts or the left, which while cheering A&E’s self-destructive overreaction, also oppose the right of other businesses to choose their own clientèle, so long as those clientèle belong to a PC-approved victim group (hint: that excludes Christians). Nevertheless, it is the freedom to associate that matters here. A&E ought to be able to fire whomever they please to advance the chosen vision of their brand.

Part of the problem is linguistic. “Free speech” has evolved to refer to more than just the First Amendment right to speak without government interference, but also the general public desire to encourage a marketplace of ideas through respect for different points of view. Some of then erroneously used the First Amendment as a stand-in for the latter definition of “free speech,” when it really only applies to the former. Thus confusion is unfortunate, as it undermines their case.

Dragging the First Amendment into the discussion of A&E decision to punish Phil Robertson for expressing a widely held religious view that singled out no person or group of people for proposed harm allows those who freely cheer the silencing of opponents to correctly point out that the government did not silence Robertson (indeed, no one did), and therefore A&E is in the right. But that’s not the issue. The issue should be our troubling and growing acceptance of a culture of intimidation that not only seeks to shout down those who utter views not considered politically correct, but which actively seeks to bring them personal harm in retaliation.

The First Amendment itself may not be implicated by A&E’s suspension of Robertson, or with the groups which frequently call for similar responses in other cases, but the principles and desire to promote a healthy and robust civic and political culture which led to the amendment’s inclusion in the Bill of Rights are at the very center of the matter.

Friday

8

June 2012

0

COMMENTS

"Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others"

Written by , Posted in Culture & Society, Identity Politics, The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

Americans like to believe that we are all equal before the law. It wasn’t always that way. White landowners once had special privileges. But slavery has been eliminated and suffrage extended to all citizens. Sure, some folks find exceptions and room for impreovement, but by and large we think the law gives us all the same status – that protections granted to one are granted to all.

That is not the case.

From those old days of slavery and limited voting rights, the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. You see, there are such things as “protected classes” which receive special rights and considerations vis-à-vis the rest of society. If you belong to such a class, the law gives you additional protections. Sound unAmerican? You betcha.

Consider this story about a professional photographer forced to provide their services for a gay couple’s commitment ceremony, even though they didn’t want to (making a lie of the voluntary part of the voluntary exchange we typically think resides at the heart of a free society). I could easily go on about how this is a fundamental violation of private property rights and a form of enslavement to compel such use of another’s labor against their will. I could. But what really struck me was this passage:

The Alliance Defense Fund, a Washington, D.C.-based legal alliance of Christian attorneys and others that represented the studio, plans to appeal. Elane Photography argued that it provided discretionary, unique and expressive services that aren’t a public accommodation under the Human Rights Act.

The studio asked hypothetically whether an African-American photographer would be required to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally.

The court responded: “The Ku Klux Klan is not a protected class. Sexual orientation, however, is protected.”

There you have it. It’s bad enough that you can be forced into service for anyone, but that you can for some and not others seems to make it much worse.

I bet you didn’t know that the Declaration really said that ” all men are created equal, except for gays, women and minorities, who belong to protected classes.” According to this court, some Americans get more rights than others. Four legs are good, you see, but two legs are better.

Monday

1

March 2010

0

COMMENTS

A Response To Cliff Kincaid's Gay Infiltration Thesis

Written by , Posted in Liberty & Limited Government

Cliff Kincaid writes at AIM that the conservative movement has been “infiltrated” by gays and libertarians.  Oh my!

It is with sad irony that such a piece was published by an organization, which I am normally a fan of, called Accuracy in Media, as it is riddled with errors and distortions.

Let’s start with his description of the events at CPAC:

California Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) chairman Ryan Sorba generated a media controversy when he was shown at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) denouncing the organizers for inviting a homosexual Republican group, GOProud, into the event as an official sponsor. In “controversial” remarks, Sorba said homosexuality was unnatural and that he welcomed more debate and discussion about the subject from his political adversaries.

But what many people don’t realize is that Sorba’s “outburst” was provoked by a speaker who preceded him, Alexander McCobin of Students For Liberty (SFL). McCobin went out of his way to use valuable time from the podium to thank the American Conservative Union, the main CPAC organizer, for making the controversial decision to approve GOProud’s participation.

There are two things we are apparently supposed to get from this. 1) Sorba was somehow provoked into being rude and obnoxious, and 2) there’s something wrong with thanking CPAC for standing up to their own stated principles of liberty.  In fact, the “valuable time” McCobin used was part of his own two-minutes, so that point just seems gratuitous.  As for being provoked, I hardly see what from McCobin’s speech justified Sorba booing into another microphone and making negative gestures while McCobin was speaking.

The idea that someone who behaves like that is in any way welcoming “more debate and discussion” is difficult to swallow. No one provoked him into being so rude. Maybe he’s born that way.

Kincaid then sympathetically recounts Sorba’s complaints that apparently no one at CPAC but him is actually conservative.  Finally he comes to SFL:

Proving the point, McCobin’s SFL is based at the libertarian Cato Institute, which has a conservative view on federal spending issues but promotes a U.S. military withdrawal from much of the world and very liberal social views, such as legalization of marijuana and other drugs.

sorba

Ryan Sorba being an obnoxious jerk

Yes, McCobin’s group is libertarian, but Kincaid betrays his own problems with conservatism here.  How is it “very liberal” to see that drug prohibition is a big government position?  Does CPAC not claim to stand for limited government? Or is that only limited government except when it comes to outlawing activities that Cliff Kincaid does not like?

It is entirely within keeping with conservative principles to have a problem with the drug war.   This is a policy position, not a social position.  You can be against the drug war and against drug use at the same time. What would be “very liberal” would be to say that frequent drug use is a socially acceptable, or even commendable, behavior.  I don’t recall that being on SFL’s mission statement.  Kincaid seems incapable of wrapping his mind around the obvious difference between social pressure and government force, a fault too many of his “traditional conservatives” share.

For instance, another one of those unconservative cosponsors, by Kincaid’s standards, was the Poker Players Alliance.  Back at CPAC for the second year in a row, and again extremely popular among the younger crowd, PPA is having to fight the real infiltrators in the conservative midst who insist on using big government to tell people how to use their own money for entertainment.  Do the “traditional conservatives” that Kincaid and Sorba lionize see no contradiction in complaining about government control of the economy, while at the same time telling people they can’t play poker?  Before casting stones of conservative purity, perhaps Kincaid should examine the application of his own principles.

Finally, Kincaid turns his attention to GOProud, who he insists is not really conservative.

In fact, GOProud’s commitment to constitutionally protected homosexual sodomy (i.e., anal intercourse) is not a position that appears on the agenda of any conservative groups. Hence, using the term “gay conservative” to describe these people is either a deliberate deception or an oxymoron that doesn’t stand up under scrutiny.

This is just stupid.  Sorry, I can think of few other words to describe it, and none of them appropriate for this blog.  Let me get this straight: because conservative groups do not say that the constitution protects “homosexual sodomy,” GOProud is not conservative?

First of all, this is a non-sequitur.  GOProud is conservative because it stands for conservative principles.

More importantly, it’s just factually incorrect. All conservative organizations say they are committed to “constitutionally protected homosexual sodomy” (although they apparently don’t all actually believe it) when they proclaim to hold principles like “personal liberty” and “individual responsibility.”  As in, the individual has the liberty and responsibility to decide on their own what private acts they engage in, regardless of whether or not Cliff Kincaid and “traditional conservatives” think they are harming themselves.

But it gets better:

GOProud, the organization at the center of the storm, claims to be “conservative” but supports the Obama policy of putting active and open homosexuals in the military, supports homosexual marriage, and even advocates a foreign policy of promoting acceptance of sodomy abroad. The latter is referred to as “Standing strong against radical regimes who seek to criminalize gays and lesbians.”

These “radical regimes,” such as the Christian-dominated government in Uganda, are trying to prevent the spread of AIDS and protect traditional moral values by toughening laws against homosexuality.

Is this the same “Christian-dominated” government of Uganda that wants to put gay people to death for engaging in homosexual acts? I believe it is.  How unconservative of GOProud to stand up to such brutal repression!  Kincaid then hyperventilates that morally opposing such tyrannical practices while supporting a move to allow openly gay soldiers  to serve in the military will lead to “gay soldiers being deployed to overthrow “homophobic” regimes.”  And they say gays are dramatic!

There was more nonsense in his piece, such as his confused understanding of the Cato Institute (which he weirdly tried to depict as a Soros organ), but I think I’ve refuted enough for the time being.

I try to avoid gratuitous insults here (regular readers probably know I am sometimes unsuccessful), but there is really no other conclusion: Cliff Kincaid is an idiot. If we should be disturbed by any infiltration of conservatism, it’s that of the small-minded ideology of fools like this.

Thursday

4

February 2010

1

COMMENTS

Repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

Written by , Posted in Foreign Affairs & Policy

The reason Barack Obama made a call to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell” in his State of the Union speech is obviously political.  He is in a tough way and needs a win to bring home to his base.  That said, he has been consistent on this position from the beginning, and it’s not just his base that should be pleased.  Folks on the right who talk a good freedom game should support repealing the policy as well, for the simple reason that it’s the right thing to do.

The enforcement of DADT has resulted in the loss of key personnel, such as translators, at a time when we cannot afford such. Why should we fight our enemies with one gay hand behind our back?

For years, concerns over unit cohesion have been sufficient to prevent revisiting the 90’s era rule. But are these concerns justified? Let’s look at the evidence. Twenty-five countries allow gays to serve openly in the military, including the highly effective Israeli Defense Force. The Israeli decision in 1993 to allow gays to serve openly if they choose had no negative impact on their effectiveness.

It’s time for the U.S. to stop limiting our resources by denying qualified soldiers the chance to serve on the basis of their preferences in the bedroom.

Monday

12

October 2009

0

COMMENTS

So Do It

Written by , Posted in Identity Politics

President Obama promised this weekend that he will end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell:

We cannot afford to cut from our ranks people with the critical skills we need to fight any more than we can afford — for our military’s integrity — to force those willing to do so into careers encumbered and compromised by having to live a lie. So I’m working with the Pentagon, its leadership, and the members of the House and Senate on ending this policy. Legislation has been introduced in the House to make this happen. I will end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. That’s my commitment to you.

I agree with the President.  The policy costs us valuable service members at a time when we need them most.  It’s a self-imposed burden that we can not afford.  But why is he talking instead of acting?  His majority is not going to get any bigger, and ought to be enough to pass what is in the end fairly simple legislation if he simply picked up the phone and told Congressional leaders to get it done.  As usual, he’s all talk and no substance.

About Me

profileI serve as Vice President of the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, a non-profit think tank dedicated to preserving tax competition and free markets. This site features my personal views, which are not reflective of CF&P.

Search Site

Categories

Archives