Well put. My guess it is a whoops on the part of Penn.

While your solution is correct in every way, I believe that neither side would be happy with it, even assuming they understood it.

I posit that both sides only believe in the irrational and false concept of "group rights". The issue to them is not individual rights, but "religious rights" vs. "gay rights". This is the converse of the old Certs commercials: "Stop, you're both right!". In this case, both sides are wrong.

As Rand wrote eloquently long ago: "There is no such thing as 'group rights', only individual rights". As implied in this post main quote, each individual should be allowed to decide, for whatever reason whatsoever, whom they wish to trade with. The baker should refuse to bake the cake on those grounds. that "principle" and leave religion out of it, and the gay person/couple are then free to choose another baker, which I am certain they could easily find.

But then the gays would not be able to pursue their broader agenda of claiming their other "rights", for example, to government goodies only reserved for married couples. (To make myself clear and consistent: I don't have a problem with gays getting married, I DO have a problem with the government engaging in "social engineering" by granting tax breaks, health insurance breaks etc. to married couples over single couples, and gays getting married to claim these rights.)

As far as the religious and their "religious rights", they cannot recognize individual rights and still insist on trying to impose their religious, non-scientific views on abortion, contraception, certain private "sexual acts" forbidden by the Bible, via laws implemented by the government.

Perfect response. But will they listen? Perhaps Jillette will, but the rest of them at CNN would, I'm sure, be bewildered by what you wrote, they are so far away from understanding the nature of freedom.

This dude is an entertainer, not a serious philosopher. He is not consistent nor intellectual. At least he is somewhat libertarian, however. Even the founding fathers didnt put things down in the Constitution as you have in the above paragraph. They left glaring loopholes and in fact they asked for freedom to practice THEIR religion as opposed to the king's religion, but not others like the Mormon religion. And what about the slaves and the indians- their rights were violated in the name of the constitution. Its a wonder this country lasted as long as it did. I give it no more than 20 years more and we will see Venezuelan economics here.

I worked for a while in a Farm and machinery store. One item we sold was work boots. A lady comes in with her child and she leaves him alone. He starts taking down dozens of pairs of boots and leaving them on the floor. I told him to leave the boots alone and go find his parents. Apparently he did because his mom comes tearing around the corner getting in my face and telling that she'll tell her boy what to do and not do. I told her to tell him to leave the boots alone. She tells me that he's not hurting anything. I told her that he's hurting me because I have to put all the boots back up so either tell him to leave the boots alone or leave. Never saw her again. Parents letting their kids run around like wild animals in the Walmart stores is one of the main reasons I won't shop there.

You should make a video of that story and sell it to every store owner.

wow. compelling story. get started on that book

Great story.

I understand completely where you are coming from. By and large, parents today take their children kicking and screaming wherever they go, no matter how dangerous it is for them. They bring them to the buffets in Las Vegas, where they are allowed to run free like its a park, and they go and play with the food on the line with their dirty fingers. One day I complained to a parent about it. I was disgusted. I was met with universal condemnation about hating children, etc. I have decided that in this political climate to just NOT patronize restaurants that have kid's menus and cater to these irresponsible parents. Restaurants need "no children" seating sections, as do airlines. The is no reason to allow 3 year olds into places like Home Depot either- just too dangerous. The only reason I dont get into trouble at Home Depot is that experiences have taught me what to do and what NOT to do. 3 year olds dont have that experience and go climbing on things they shouldnt, and generally get into trouble for it.

I'll buy it if you write it! -- j

Oh, and why is there not the same outrage over Muslim businesses? I want the Muslim meat market to carry pork or baker to make a gay cake. This is getting OUT OF CONTROL!!!!!!

There are a LOT of bakers out there. Just go to one who wants to trade services for your money. We make choices all the time in terms of who has friendly personnel, fast service, best price, best quality, etc. I would rather know right off if someone didnt like me, than have to try and trick the shopkeeper by lying about who I was. If Obama came into my shop to buy something, I would probably refuse service to him and I should be allowed to openly do that.

All we need do is look at history, and also at current laws and regulations in today's "government": the Government certainly does tell us who to buy from in many cases, e.g. cable/Internet monopolies among other things...and you'll certainly see a lot of Leftists protesting that (and a lot of intelligent people, too).

Hah! Kind of like the health insurance "marketplace".

If you'll pardon a quick story.

A barber shop had a sign outside saying "Hair Cuts $1.00". Someone opened competition across the street with a sign that said "Hair Cuts 50 Cents". The first shop changed their sign to read "We Fix 50 Cent Hair Cuts. $1.00".

They didn't go running to the guv'ment crying unfair. They just took care of bid'ness.

I agree. I'm not a legal expert so if I'm wrong about this, I'm sure someone will let me know: I believe the Civil Rights Act of 1964 went too far in that it started us down the road of "group rights" by applying its attempts to halt discrimination to the private sector. Had it restricted itself to making it illegal for States to make laws that forced private businesses to discriminate against blacks, that would have a been a properly limited Federal response, similar to Roe v. Wade making choice legal in all States where it was illegal.

It may have taken some time for competition to overcome entrenched cultural bias and eventually desegregate all private establishments, but that would have been both morally proper and infinitely better than the subsequent myriad of similar Federal laws (and their attendant, expensive and inherently "discriminatory" bureaucracies) favoring other groups like women, gays, the "disabled" etc. ad infinitum.

alright. that was directed at me. it is a contradiction in a long line of great and consistent thinking and putting his money where his mouth is. I cannot tell you how much I appreciate and cite his Bullshit series. Also, if you did not read my review of Tim's Vermeer, consider watching it. brilliant and Penn funded. Out of almost any performer with a pulpit I can think of-he deserves an oops...and so does Teller (who was in our movie)

I tell straight people that I will tolerate their straight sex behavior if they will tolerate my gay behavior. Straight sex is just as viscerally disgusting to gays as gay sex is to straights. I dont like collard greens and find them disgusting, but do like broccoli and find it pleasurable. I bet there are people out there who feel the opposite way. So what. Believe me, gays dont want to force straights NOT to have straight sex, so straights shouldnt try to force gays NOT to have gay sex. So many problems in the world, and we worry about such nonsense.

"if you wanna be gay...". Really? Just like saying "if you wanna be black". It's not a choice.

I agree. That is the kind of government action that most angers me. The small business owner may have worked his entire life to build his business to support his family and government looters have assumed the power to destroy his business and ignore his right to operate it according to his morality. He chooses to risk losing business because of his beliefs. Any government that tries to intervene should be C-R-U-S-H-E-D.
You want a cake? I'll bake you a damned cake. Spend your honeymoon in the toilet you ignorant savage.

I agree, this has always been my viewpoint. The gays try to make it something like or equivalent to a civil rights march, and the zealots on the other side make it sound like the world will crumble if a gay person walks into the wedding cake store.

Businesses have always had the right to refuse service, when I was a kid it was "no shirt, no shoes, no service!". Now I see young girls in the summer with so little on they might as well be naked. Is it disruptive if they walk around a crowded shopping mall like that? Yeah, and it might draw a level of risk of violence or something that isn't welcome to a shopkeep or something (I'm just speculating). Does the coffee shop implode because the girl with a Brazilian string bikini with dental floss up the butt crack implode because she walked in to get a coffee on the way to the beach? Probably not.

There are varying levels I'm saying, I'm sure.

Here's an example - I used to work in downtown Sacramento, and was a member of a very upscale private health club. Private locking lockers (full locker room style ones) for every member, they did your laundry so you didn't have to carry a gym bag or anything, fresh disposable razors / toiletries provided after your shower, and its where I even learned to really appreciate Pinnaud after shave lotion. Each (mens/womens) locker room had its own steam bath, sauna, and a spa the size of a typical residential swimming pool.

Only one flaw, it was really frequented by the gays... not always, but certain / days or evenings, my gay-dar went off in the locker room. You'd walk through the door in the men's locker and there is 'Hans' or whatever, completely naked with his junk out, standing by the front door shooting the breeze with Larry while shaving. Straight guys put a towel around their waist to stand & shave or something - not the gays, they want to advertise their 'assets'.

Then you had the gay couple hanging nude in the spa like it's a private bathtub for two at home... etc.

I only went at lunch during the day, so I never had an issue, but on a couple of times I stopped in after work when 'that crowd' was there, and I was very uncomfortable. Both because I'm not into watching that, but also because I wouldn't want to be a spare-wheel at a straight-couple's date #3 either.

Here's my point, in some kinds of professional services - I would lump that one as one of them, the business might be detrimental by the loss of other paying customers. They didn't lose me as a customer, when I stopped working downtown it just wasn't worth the trip every day, so I moved to another club, but nothing is even close to their level of service. But, if I were only looking for an evening club to use, at the time, I would have dropped that one promptly.

My wife had the same experience, she was being hit on regularly in the women's locker for a muff-diving job in the women's spa. She doesn't miss the place either, other than the service level of the employees & the facility.

I'm sure 85% keep their hands to themselves, but there is that small minority - the ones that need to be naked in chaps or whatever on gay pride day - etc, the do act like that in public and can make others uncomfortable. I'm sure women experience the jerk-factor of some men, but at least they get used to it growing up.

Not an easy answer, but in my example, the gym would have probably had a better business & membership base if they were able to weed-out the ones that didn't play well with others (not all gays, just the obnoxious ones).

If I've talked about it to people that have also had memberships, the comment they make is always "lots of gays there". No, it wasn't in the gay district, etc., actually only a couple of blocks from the California Capitol in the government district.

Yes, but especially in the case of people who claim principles, it's important not to let a "whoops" go unmentioned, at least. Like Rand Paul signing a pro-life pledge...

Incorrect. Rights are individual. There is no action required to either be or remain black. One can be subject to sexual preferences, but until one _acts_ upon that enticement, one is neither gay, straight, or anything else. The difference is significant and can not be conflated.

I'd like to give him the oops but it does point out the libertarian flaw of refusing to admit the need for a philosophical basis for the freedom we so desire

Penn is no more perfect than the rest of us, and most people are still learning. As an entertainer he has to be very careful when he speaks. Entertainers have a lot of undeserved, unearned propaganda power and most of them never learn how to use it wisely. In his place I might come here anonymously and speak my mind, while keeping my own counsel in public.

In this current case, I think the market can deal with the issue. In the case of Jim Crow laws, the issue would have taken a lot longer for the market to correct since the law itself was imposing an impediment that in part prevented the equal participation of the people in the market. It was the laws that imposed the separation, not the market.

Keep in mind Jim Crow was the legal structure, it was government action. What we are debating here is private decision. So is this the same as refusing to serve blacks?

For the most part the issue isn't serving gays but being a participant in gay marriage. But the question remains whether businesses have the right to decide who to serve or not. If it's their right, we don't get to judge their motives. I don't accept that you have to have a religion to have rights.

I would suggest that, for the most part, individual preference should prevail. We do not have a culture where no gay man can get a cake or a photographer, these are isolated incidents -- in many cases deliberately sought out for political reasons. I think it's terrible that the KKK was able to force the black business in Georgia to serve them.

Instead of considering the civil rights legislation the paradigm of how we should deal with differences, why not consider the remnants of slavery as a special case that was so pervasive that it required special action.

I am not racist, but definitely culturist. By that I means I have preferences in people based on their culture. Its a generalization of course, but will millions of people around, its very inefficient on a mass scale to treat each person as their own person right off. After you get to know individuals, of course, its different. I can tell you that I do not like the current black entitled culture and in general do not want to sell things to them. Their expectations are way out there and they are arrogant. Just go to a fast food restaurant and watch how they act. I would rather patronize sit down places that do not cater to that group in general. Sorry- its politically incorrect, but thats the way it is. If their food is good and they have drive-through, I might go there in any event. Force me to deal with groups I dont like and I will shrug or move to a place where I am not controlled.

Huh? I do not follow. Breadcrumb trail, please.

Jan