25 votes

Liberty Crier POLL: Should Homosexual Business Owners Be Forced To Serve Members Of The KKK?

In light of recent events where a court claimed that a commercial photography business owned by opponents of same-sex marriage violated New Mexico’s anti-discrimination law by refusing to take pictures of a gay couple’s commitment ceremony, we must ask how we feel about this ruling if the shoe were placed on the other foot.

So, if persons who do not support homosexuality can be forced to serve homosexuals, should gay business owners be forced to serve KKK members?


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I'm amazed the number of people that don't understand

this thread nor your reply.

This site had more Liberty People educated about Liberty several years ago.

I'm glad to see all of the new members, but I think many are not going to wake up in time. And I think most of the 'honest' liberty people have moved on because of the trolls.

I don't understand how this

I don't understand how this is a "gay" issue. I'm not sure business owners should have the right to refuse service to anyone. If people are civil, appropriate and a paying customer with no cause for concern, they should reasonably expect service. Denying service to people who affront your personal bias is an ethical question that will surely cost the business owner his business in a free market.

Think for a second, do you

Think for a second, do you really want to eat in a restaurant where the owner does not like a particular group of people and you fit in that category? I'd rather see a sign in the window warning me of the owners stupidity.

The two reasons are you might end up eating things you normally wouldn't eat and do you want to support someone who hates you?

GoodSamaritan's picture

This isn't about hate...

it's about religious freedom, which the 1st Amendment supposedly protects.

I doubt the photographer would have objected had the women requested she take pictures at a birthday party or other event where she would not have been perceived as assisting or endorsing an act that she finds repugnant to her religious beliefs.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

Read it again

The First Amendment does NOT "protect" religious freedom. It PROHIBITS the CONGRESS from respecting an establishment of religion or restricting the free exercise thereof. I'm still perfectly free to put up a sign in my window saying "Christians Keep Out!" It either is or is not my shop. Of course I'd be stupid to do such a thing in a predominantly christian culture, but it is still my right to be stupid if I want.

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
West of 89
a novel of another america

Read it again

It does not Prohibit the Congress from respecting an establishment of Religion....they are free to respect any religion, they just cannot pass any "law" for, against or otherwise.

So,if one has religious beliefs, Congress may make no law respecting those, unless of course they were to cause injury or harm.

Think Truth...Trust Truth...Rely on Truth!

GoodSamaritan's picture

Why do I need to read it again

if you're just rephrasing part what I wrote? Or do you attach some meaning to "restricting the free exercise thereof" that means something other than the fact that Congress is not allowed to restrict us in the exercise of our religions?

To say it another way, we are protected by the 1st Amendment from Congressional interference in our religious expressions.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

You are close to understanding.

The government has no authority infringing on my property i.e. who I rent to, serve food to, or sell product to. The result may be as you said "Denying service to people who affront your personal bias is an ethical question that will surely cost the business owner his business in a free market." but it is my personal choice. When a government tries to cram their alleged moral authority down someone's throat, it breeds resentment.

Help me out here.... To run a

Help me out here.... To run a private business within public domain for its custom...there surely are standards of expected business practices required in order for a license to operate be granted.We must all be thinking of different scenarios to support our opinions on this.

The mistake is that as we go

The mistake is that as we go along in time and new technologies emerge, new rights emerge that could not even be conceived in the 1780s. Since the government now operates as a democracy, the zombie majority are so happy to have their new rights licensed in the name of safety.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

The fact that you cite licensure....

As a component of commercial validity shows how entrained your thought process is...no worries...we all started from the same assumptions.

First, a private business operating in public is not for the benefit of the customer. It for the profit designs of the business owner. This is plain and simple and a starting point for your further rumination.

The easiest way to begin to understand the affront that governmental intrusion is is to expand to ridiculousness, your righteous "should be forced to serve" customers list to include not just blacks, jews, or drag queens, but someone that would in fact create an aversion to you personally...say a 6'5" 275 lb. man who smells as if he had just rolled in fresh dog poop and who is wearing a T-shirt that says, in big block lettering, "I wanna bang your mom in the a$$"...as he sits down at the lunch counter next to your 11 year old daughter and leeringly begins to stare at her while making sounds like Jack Nicholson drinking whiskey around a late night campfire.

I know this is a crude example but I'm sure this scenario might have you wanting the luncheonette proprietor to have the right to refuse service if he so desired. So maybe its OK to discriminate against serving those without access to a shower...or who have no intention of employing any degree of hygiene nor acting within any code of social decency before entering private establishments? Sure this might disturb most in the eatery...but some others may laugh and enjoy his presence. But shouldn't this guy have the right to be who and what he is...as long as he doesn't touch your child? The government should protect his "Right" to be served....right?

So, where is YOUR line drawn? ...because I can assure you there will be bands of stinky nastys lobbying for a gerrymandering of your personal prejudicial lines...under the yoke of government protected fairness and inclusion.

Let the owner discriminate and the market decide if it agrees....

Wha? .....hey....who stole my country?

If the business you are not

If the business you are not operating in public is not for the benefit of the customer ...then you have nothing to offer. I am NOT a socialist but I've come to realize that I am not a true capitalist as I see it....a term that represents the advancement of political economy in the name of profiteering by any means hook or by crook.
Since your example is set in an eatery of some kind, I find your argument faulty. If your lunch counter has a preferred dress code then it needs to be posted (unfortunately) ie "no rude, lewd or crude apparel or behaviour is acceptable in this establishment" I fully support your argument here. but if a turban wearing gentleman with his family appropriately dressed, quiet spoken and polite irritates you because he lies within your personal bias zone...then your public establishment is not open to the public. You should therefore have a password at the door uttered through a letter slot for only those people who are approved by you to enter. I hope my line is drawn with a universal humaneness and common sense.

Patently ridiculous thought...without real segue

"If the business you are not operating in public is not for the benefit of the customer ...then you have nothing to offer"...

This is a completely false statement without an addendum that supplies segue to your conclusion...for you may operate the cleanest bestest tasting delight manufacturing eatery in town and still be an asshole...As an entrepreneur, you do what you do for your own supposed satisfaction or benefit and no other reasons...for if your efforts and actions existed for the benefit of others...well, that would make you a Philanthropist.

That you realize that the success of your endeavor depends on your supplying a safe, clean, comfortable, well run establishment offering fresh ingredients and a relaxing environment may be understandable and quite astute of you...that you also attach the need to exclude Niggers, Chinks, WOPs, MIC's, Pollacks and ...Tibetans...all to attract those you wish to cater to may backfire on you in your endeavor to make a profit...the market will certainly let you know.

Who knows, your market may consist of enough like-minded people, who don't want to spend their money in the proverbial melting pot...enough to frequent your establishment and allow you to make a go of it...only time will tell. Meanwhile...you severely limit your market size. Who cares? It's your investment and their are plenty of other choices for the more ethnically or sexually challenged to go....Besides who wants to make friends in your joint anyway.

Your definition of "Capitalist" is also myopic...spend some time, watching Chef Ramsay's "Nightmare Kitchens" on Netflix to get an understanding of true Capitalism and the requirements for success of an endeavor into such...rather than the presently ubiquitous Protectionist Cronyism under whose banner you seek to lump all capitalistic endeavors.

In a true Capitalistic "Free" market place, crooks are quickly ferreted out and aborted from the system. And criminal or civil damage quickly recognized and dealt with under an agreed upon system set up for such perturbations (See Tom Woods writings on the Old West for good example)...this is the role of "government" or authority operating at the behest of "the people"..too oversee equity in such disputes. Not bestow license...of any nature.

The seemingly reasonable (at least to me) exclusions for customers to respect...those that you included in your example, and under the present "fairness paradigm", could also (under the argument you put forward) face legal challenges asking for sub-grouping protections and favorable enforcement against you under the umbrella of Constitutionally protected rights enumerated within the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

These challenges, in others minds might have just as much basis as your present argument has in seeking to allow those disagreeing with your stated exclusions, access to any establishments whilst wearing affront-able clothing or whilst sporting sans-hygenic appearances on some seemingly fair definition of Constitutional Authority of say... freedom of expression...like the Civil Rights Act sought to do for negroes or others wearing darker shades.

In pubic spaces, or on commonwealth property, such arguments would have merit as the underlying law of the land can not and should not abridge these codified rights in such places. In a private establishment, things are different, it is the right of the owner to post such druthers and as this is his personal property, his designs and desires should be respected and legally upheld.

Again you must step back from your personal druthers or sensibilities to see the ridiculousness of your stance as it is you that is deciding what is reasonable for the proprietor to be able to do. There exist so many facets to this jewel that you'll never be able to cover any of them with full equity for all...and given it is the proprietors property and investment...you have no place in trying to do so.

AS to the obtuse Turban'd man example...the passwords won't work...his stepping in and being turned away attests to this...and if you turn him away...you are operating a business for only some of the public...so what's yer point?

That you are a decent individual is commendable. And I hope that if you should ever endeavor to become an entrepreneur, your attitudes and acceptances will bring you all of the successes that your market has to offer...in full recognition of your personal decency.

I hope you put Slim McBigot down at the Swatztika Emporium in his financial place. Good luck to you.

Wha? .....hey....who stole my country?

This is just going around in

This is just going around in circles with very little sense...textbook Garble does not convey thought.


and intransigent emotionally driven doltishness towards what should be obvious to anyone employing "thought" belays all hope of an exit from a state of ignorance.

Look up...it was you who requested help in understanding...

Wha? .....hey....who stole my country?

property rights DING DING DING

Gay business owners or business owners of any kind should be able ban who ever they want from their property.

But you know how this is going to play out.


the owner of a private business should have the right to refuse service to any person. no shirt no shoes no service.


To me "no shirt, no shoes,"

To me "no shirt, no shoes," is a health issue in a restaurant particularly and dress code is posted clearly for ALL to see. I'm not sure this is an umbrella for a business owner to refuse service to anyone just because.....

To the photographer

To the photographer it was a moral issue. They didn't want to take part in the celebration of what they and their religion considered to be perverse and immoral behavior. People have already tried to force Catholic hospitals to give abortions and they have also tried to force religious adoption agencies to entrust kids to people they consider sexually perverse. I suppose they may eventually want to force mosques and synagogues to provide pork at their events, and maybe they will force you to aid NAMBLA or the KKK with whatever it is you do. What happens when Cannibals anonymous gains government permission to eat voluntary human donors, and you are forced to prepare the food for them?

Of course I don't agree with

Of course I don't agree with any of your examples. Is that what we are talking about?

You seem to want to be obtuse here.

This was a well constructed retort and has great merit...so it is up to you to clarify what you mean and why and maybe then your concerns can be dealt with further...or your understanding enhanced.

This looks like you are starting to pout and contemplating taking the ball, placing it in your knapsack and heading home with your tongue out...not cool since it is you who seek to be educated...or to argue for argument sake. Which is it? There are plenty of other balls so... we don't need yours but we accept it none-the-less.

You should know by now that this is a place where thin footings will be challenged strenuously so don't be so defensive when ill-winds blow against you and your sails begin to shred. Sew them up if you can...or understanding your untenable predicament, and the futility of your situation, then learn from the experience and turn and run with the wind.

Wha? .....hey....who stole my country?

As much as I agree with

As much as I agree with Austrian economics and agree that Keynesian economics is a grand failure...I do not see assistance in trying to understand your argument regarding the "moral right" of personal bias to deny service to anyone who displeases you with or without just cause apparently. Therefore in my "obtuseness" I disagree with your premise and the wisdom of your business practises. I don't equate Austrian economics with the prevailing attitude dominating this posting.

Perhaps this is because Austrian Economics....

isn't and really hasn't been addressed in these posts. What is being addressed is freedom and property rights...the very things that our Constitution is supposed to represent, codify and seek to preserve.

"Freedom" can be difficult...certainly when speaking of the ugly side of human nature, especially when humans are placed in close proximity. It isn't always accompanied by a Sousa Marching Band surrounded by flying balloons or cherubs. It is a far reaching concept that comes with built in ramifications. These varied ramifications, while they can be testy or emotionally "hurtful" to others, are far better than the alternative that you are now living under.

One such Freedom, the Freedom of Association can be a double bladed sword when considering that personal discrimination is the backbone of this particular facet and that such Freedom also means the freedom to "not associate"... this is simply how it is...others can be insulted, excluded, or affronted without any input into the situation at hand or having no fault in the interaction. Hey were humans!

Like if we were introduced at a party and I took an instant and seemingly unqualified disliking towards you, sneered in your face, told you to get the hell away from me, and turned my back on you. You'd be insulted, if not flabbergasted...but you'd remain unharmed and probably fumingly walk away referring to me as "that asshole over there against the wall".

Certainly it would be rude of me to act in such a way...but so what...as they say "It's a Free Country". For as long as I didn't harm you in any way, there'd be no crime, no foul and you'd have no recourse against my actions other than ignoring me, or vacating the room or party all together. Perhaps you could tell the owner of the house what I did and he might ask me to leave for being an asshole to one of his other guests. Guess what...I'd then be obliged to walk as it was the owner of the party who made his druthers known. Property rights.

Look, to attempt to try and define or file off the rough edges of freedom by binding it with personal sensibilities and niceties legally codified into enforceable rulesets will never work if fairness and nicety is what you seek, as then you open the maw of the beast of protectionism for collectivist groupings wherein "equity" can never be reached...only sought after by even more groups. Groups forcing others to do something against their will is patently wrong. Anything that requires the initiation of force to accomplish is suspect and probably wrong in the end.

And given we were using the example of a restaurant business and knowing first hand how this works...the forced, and coercively affronted party...cooking and or otherwise handling your food...well...I'm sure you get the picture. Personally I'd rather know up front that my servers or cooks didn't want me around LOL.

If you must legislate the taking from one to give to another...or the binding of one for the ease of anther's experience the only thing that can and will result is inequity, dissatisfaction and further harm...seen and unseen...to one of the parties in the interaction. This imbalance will typically have further ramification in indirect manners. Chaos Theory.

The reality is we all, as humans walking on Gods earth, operate under an experiential database that is categorized and organized by discrimination. It's how we stay alive...by using discrimination of association to decide whether we want to associate with: Cottonmouth Water Moccasins ... unchained Pitbulls ... Horses ... Leather Clad and Tattoo'd Motorcyclists ... Irish people ...Tibetans ... Police.

That we can't place singular favorable or inconsequential experiential attributes on any or all of these, and use one experience as a panacea for all other future encounters would be obvious...just as hating all blacks because of one bad experience with one would be intellectually stupid. But that's not how we operate. We have to be able to generalize and some do it better than others...or at least for more valid reasons than others.

Humans operate businesses...again...for their own benefit...and most if able, would love to define their market and the types of people they would want to encounter very day. Most of the time that is exactly how a buyer works as well. Via discriminatory practices.

We don't need government to tell us how to do this. We are well practiced and without government intervention, we'd probably get along better and learn to navigate this life just fine...associating with like-minded individuals far more often than we now do.

Of course everything I have so verbosly addressed here goes out the window when considering public property or places. It is here that government can and should provide the "druthers" that would bind us as we all have equal rights in these places. That ones doors are open to "the public" doesn't equate with a public place...it simply means that one open his doors still has the right to decide who may enter them, what they wear, how they act, the color of their hair, the length of their skirt and whether or not he'll allow their urinating on his floor...just as you would in or on your property.

Wha? .....hey....who stole my country?

"Hey we're human"...How about

"Hey we're human"...How about Hey we're 'Americans'. We can treat you any way we want because it's our moral right. We can drone you, call you an asshole at a social function, refuse to serve you at a lunch counter because it's mine. You have lumped business practices and social mores into one umbrella to protect your right to do this and call it "freedom". My expectation of you as a business owner of a public establishment with regard to my patronage and custom is a world apart from any social interaction expected from you at a private party. Yet you feel you have the "moral right" to behave and treat others with the same objectionable behaviour in either case because that's your definition of personal "freedom". You don't seem to take any responsibility for YOUR behaviour in either scenario...or more importantly you don't feel you have to take any social responsibility for your behaviour at all because ... why?... You're human?, your American? or you're the problem? You can have your world of personal freedoms if this is how you define it. I prefer a more civil approach to human interaction that does not depend on profit margins or personal hates. This does not require a constitution to codify personal behaviour while trying to protect political and religious freedoms and responsible property rights with responsible government.


Methinks you assume much...


"You can have your world of personal freedoms if this is how you define it. I prefer a more civil approach to human interaction that does not depend on profit margins or personal hates."


Instead my way is mucho better...my way has me call in people with guns who will threaten you with death or imprisonment, paid for by other people who my people with guns will hold at gunpoint or threat of imprisonment to see that my desires are paid for and enforced. Because in my world (which is better than yours) no one would ever say the words Kike or Nigger or Spic or Mick (cuz I really, really, really don't like that)...and everybody can shop till they drop and never be turned away unless they don't own shoes or a nice shirt, in which case we will refer to them as unhealthy and slam the door in their sickly faces.

In my world unicorns run wild and graze on candy corns that grow straight out of the ground and uniformed people are always wonderful and heroic. It is good and wonderful here and I am perfectly fine with establishing these social controls and abdicating all rights and powers to decide...to deciding drone droppers, and brown people killers.... cuz it's just better ya know? Besides those foreign brown people ain't like our good ones, who deserve civility and respect simply cuz I say so,...no, those brown people...they suck. But truthfully, we really didn't ask for that part..it came in the same truck as people with guns who enforce our niceness and I guess its just part of making sure no one can screw up our civility...oh well...that's OK...it's worth it.

Here, we have enough freedom and it really doesn't matter that the behemoth we bought is out of control itself. At least its keeping us from putting up No Fat people allowed signs. And look, I get to type to my hearts content and make massive assumptions about philosophical social systems that I know nothing about, and by all current evidence, don't have the ability to consider. I get to bemoan any idea that would prefer to let people decide for themselves who they'd like to do business with, and I get to call it mean or crazy without ever having to point to anything to support my assumptions other than my own big thumpin heart.

Ya know in my world, we don't have nasty people like you...people who speak their real thoughts about being controlled at the point of a gun..out loud, no people who want to make their own decisions in and about life, no people who question the wisdom and efficacy of forced inclusion. In my world, we keep that stuff hidden. We know that when we jam our finger's in our ears and scream LaLa out loud, none of that stuff exists. Everybody gets along and its the bestest system in the whole world.

Rather than ruminate on what true freedom might be, we are all smart and we understand that without force, people of different colors would murder each other in the streets and black people would forever stand out naked in the cold without a white man to call friend or to take care of them...or sell them pants. We're fair here.

In my world, Black people wouldn't make it without forcing civility in the rest of our population cuz we really are all racists at heart and only put on an air of civility to keep the people with guns at bay. Yes, we know its not perfect but it's a hell of a lot better than risking that some idiot with a color preference might somehow keep us from giving him our money. In our world, we don't know who hates us and that's a good thing. Yes the very people we seek to help seem to fill our prisons..but hey...no shop owner can turn them away when they get out of prison!

Ooop gotta go they're serving Margarita's down at Black Willy's tonight and it's old school love songs nite too. I'm pickin' Cheryl up at the Tanning center. I can't wait. I loves me some Luther...and Teddy? Maaaaannnn....

1989 Summa Cum Laude BS in Accounting
Baltimore, Maryland

Wha? .....hey....who stole my country?

The assumption is yours.

The assumption is yours.

You have no inherent right to

You have no inherent right to be respected by others and live some unicorn and clouds life where your feelings are never hurt. It's just common decency. If you're an asshole, then you will be treated like an asshole. If that's not responsibility, I don't know what is. You seem to want immediate, forced results, instead of letting life come back later on and teach them a lesson.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

??? "inherent right to be

??? "inherent right to be respected" ...no, that would depend on the nature of the society we've established to live in. There surely has to be a"civil" code established by which we agree to live under. Your lack of civilization as cited in the many examples above all in the name of personal "freedoms" is a misunderstanding or mis-interpretaion of what is expected with personal behaviors in a public setting. The constitution is a document with laws laid out by which to govern. I fear we are looking at this through two different prisms. I'm looking for constitutionality in our laws of governance to reflect our humanity as its citizens. I sense that you are looking for personal rights to protect your inhumanity towards others, foreign and domestic.

All people need is "treat

All people need is "treat others how you want to be treated." Assholes will always have life come back to bite them for how they acted. I have the right to be an asshole, and society has the right to shun me. They don't have the right to use any force against me, nor do they have the right to use government to prevent me from being an asshole. If I run a business and don't want to hire or serve certain people, that's my right. Society will boycott my business. I don't even know what prism you're looking through. You seem to think that the original constitutional government was to regulate society.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

I suspect you will succeed in

I suspect you will succeed in maintaining your personal freedoms.