Jacob Probably the truest thing I've read all day

Like Reply 22 hrs

Jeff Watkins When people start arguing about how horrible this law is, ask them why they support forced integration
rather than freedom of association.
To dig a little deeper, they comprehend, to some degree, that segregation is wrong. They are usually wrong
about *why* it is wrong. The same thing that makes segregation wrong makes forced integration wrong--it violates the
individual right of freedom of association.
There exists no such right as the "right not to be offended." There does however exist a right that we each have
known as the freedom of association, the right to associate, transact business, etc. with whomever we please.
Inherent in this fundamental human right is the right not to do business with someone. The reason one may choose
not to do business with someone else is completely irrelevant to the fact that one does indeed have this right. We
may not always like someone's reasons, but in a free society, adults *tolerate* this free choice and do not seek to
harm that business for holding different values. Rather, they seek to do business with someone that more closely
aligns with their own beliefs or objectives. Societal and cultural pressure will drive business to those who most closely
align with the customers' desires. In this way, freedom typically will resolve the goal that the assertive "tolerant" folks
of today try to achieve by disingenuously targeting businesses and suing them.
Like Reply 8 22 hrs Edited

Ethan So, is it ok now for a company to not serve anyone who is a Muslim?
Like Reply 21 hrs
Hide 18 Replies

Jeff Watkins Ethan, I do not think this law would protect a business owner from that. I've copied & pasted the
applicable section below, but here is a k to the full law: http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/.../1500-1599/HB1523SG.pdf
And the applicable section:
SECTION 2. The sincerely held religious beliefs or moral
convictions protected by this act are the belief or conviction
that:
(a) Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of
one man and one woman;
(b) Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a
marriage; and
(c) Male (man) or female (woman) refer to an
individual's immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth.
Like Reply 13 hrs Edited
Ethan That's not the point. The point is, why is it ok to do it to LGBT but not ok to do it to... Say Muslim, or Blacks?
Like Reply 13 hrs
Brittany Ethan, who a person "prefers" to be with intimately is a choice. It cannot be compared to people who are
born with a particular skin color.
Like Reply 11 hrs Edited

Ethan Ok, I don't agree, but what about Muslim?

Like Reply 11 hrs
Jeff Watkins Ethan, I'm sorry that I don't have time right now to give you a proper response--but I implore you to
really think through these issues as objectively as possible. An old quote says, "I may not agree with what you have
to say, but I'll defend to the death you're right to say it." The idea here is that there is a particular right in question that
must be defended. The other thing that people want to defend is not actually a right--they've confused the issue.
My question to you is, why should a Muslim (in your example) have the right to destroy the livelihood of a business
owner because of that business owner's religious beliefs? What gives the Muslim superior rights over the business
owner?
I'll refer you to a post I wrote last year:https://www.facebook.com/jefferwat/posts/10102494681729995
And I will try to give you specific answers as I have time. The future of *all* of our liberty depends on us thinking
clearly about these issues and my hope is that I am able to do so, and able to share those thoughts in a productive
way.

Jeff Watkins
4 April 2015
Here's the thing: classes don't have rights. You are not conferred extra rights just because you belong to a "group" or
"class" of people. If everyone is to be equal, then only individuals can have rights, and these rights are all equal in
scope.
Therefore you have the right to contract business with whomever you please. You do NOT have the right to force
someone to contract business with you. Whether you are gay, straight, male or female, tall or short, black or white, all
of these things are irrelevant. I do not have the right to force a store to sell me a lawn tractor because I am bald. It's a
non sequitur--it doesn't follow that the store ought to sell me something because of something about my person.
Forcing someone to engage in business with you when they do not wish to do so is a violation of their right to
*property.* This is a blow to the very foundation of liberty itself. You do not have a claim on other people's property (or
labor). It is, by definition, *theirs* until they freely decide to either give it away or engage in some contract with you to
sell or barter it. This is not complicated, folks.
It is *immoral* (and ought to be illegal) to use the power of government to force someone to provide services to you.
This is, essentially, extortion. And coerced labor is slavery. Webster's 1828 dictionary says: "slavery is the obligation
to labor for the benefit of the master, without the contract of consent of the servant." Hmm, sounds kind of like what
these gay-cake people are pushing, does it not?
The fact that this whole situation is emotionally charged has caused many people to be reactionary rather than
thinking through the issue. This is often the case in politics and religion, both of which are brought into this debate but
neither of which is central to it. The real aspects of this debate are economic. Freedom is essentially tied to
economics and the free market.
In a free society, people would be free to refuse to do business with whomever they please, for whatever reason they
please -- even if their reasons are repugnant to you. Nor are they obligated to explain or express their reasons.The
foundation of all freedoms is the right to property. The foundation of a free society is voluntary exchange of that
property. Violating these principles is a direct attack on the very foundation of our liberties.

So, no, I will not bake you a cake. You do NOT have the right not to be offended. You do not have the right to my
time, labor, or property. If this offends you, go freely transact business with the thousands of people who will gladly
serve you. Vote with your dollars and take them elsewhere. This type of monetary pressure may cause me to change
my ways, or it may not. Either way, this is how grown-ups handle things. Simply go somewhere else and be thankful
you live in a society that gives you that option rather than seeking to take away that option from all of us.
And until this point is made clear, and understood by those who presently don't understand it, perhaps we should visit
pro-gay stores and demand they make us cakes supporting traditional (or actual) marriage, and then sue the pants
off of them, and publicly shame them when they refuse. That would be equal... But since we hateful conservatives
actually and truly respect everyone's rights equally, I don't expect any of us to follow through on that.
Like Reply Remove Preview 1 11 hrs Edited
Brittany If someone is born a certain way, (race/ethnicity, etc.) then we should not discriminate. However, back to
the topic, if a business owner does not want to serve someone because it violates their religious beliefs, (or a muslim
doesn't want to shop at aChristian store) it is their right. Business owners should not be forced to serve their products
and services to a certain party if it violates their beliefs OR VALUES, just like you would not want to be FORCED to
buy someone else's products. Regardless if Muslim or Christian, no store owner should be forced to violate their
beliefs. If the business owner chooses to lose money on a potential customer, that's their choice. It's THEIR business.
Just like they can choose their operation days, times, products to sell, etc. P.s.- That's okay, we can agree to
disagree.
Like Reply 11 hrs
Ethan Jeff Watkins OK. I'm not understanding you.. So to paraphrase your question to me.. you're asking me why it
is OK for Muslim to kill the store owner who is not a Muslim? If this is the question, I wonder why you reach the
conclusion that I think it is OK?
Like Reply 5 hrs
Ethan Brittany I did not agree on the premise that LGBT is a choice, but that's a different topic. And if I am reading
right, you are saying that since being Muslim is a choice, business should be able to discrimination against all
Muslims?
Like Reply 5 hrs
Jeff Watkins Ethan No, that's not what I'm asking. I'll try to rephrase things this evening. (I was referring to the ability
of a person to shut down a business by suing the owner to the point he can no longer afford to run the business
because the person disagreed with the business owner's beliefs--not a Muslim kilg anyone.)
Like Reply 1 hr Edited
Jeff Watkins Ethan , Have you read my other posts, and the old one from April 4, 2015, posted above? They might
provide some context.
But let's just boil this down to the absolute simplest scenario. Let's strip away religion, LGBT issues, etc.
The core of this discussion is not about religion or LGBT issues. If we can think about these things without even
bringing those concepts in, we will be having a productive discussion. At the most fundamental level this is about the
*freedom of association.*
In a free society that views all individuals as each having equal rights, you have the right to associate with whomever
you choose. By its very nature, this freedom of association necessitates the freedom *not* to associate with
whomever you choose.

Now, here are some basic principles:

1. You own yourself (no other human owns you).
2. You own the product of your labor and knowledge--your property.
Therefore, no one else has a rightful claim what you have produced.
This is the foundation of liberty.
Since no one has a rightful claim to your property, no one has the right to compel you to give them your property,
even in exchange for something else. You may freely choose to sell or barter your own property, but no one has a
right to compel you to do so.
Therefore, the reasons you may have for choosing not to conduct business with someone is completely irrelevant to
whether or not you have that right.
This is why segregation (forced separation) is exactly as evil and wrong as forced integration. Both equally violate the
right of freedom of association.
You and I may not like the reasons someone has if he refuses to engage in business with someone else, but that
does not give us any authority to compel or force them to conduct business. To suggest that it does is to suggest that
we have ownership over that person and his property--and that, my friend, is called extortion, even involuntary
servitude.
Now, everyone discriminates in every single decision that we make. You discriminate over where to go for lunch, over
who you want to ask out on a date, on what items to buy at the grocery store, etc. Discrimination is the human act of
choice. Sometimes discrimination lead to acts which violate fundamental human rights and sometimes it does not.
Sometimes discrimination merely leads to someone being offended. Knowing the difference is vitally important to all
of our freedoms.
This law only came about because LGBT people across the country were targeting business owners for their religious
beliefs, and attempting to sue them to ruin their businesses, and attempting to cause a chilg affect on other business
owners who hold similar values. Now that is a form of discrimination, is it not? But it is of a *TOTALLY* different sort.
This is a very important distinction: this a proactive discrimination that seeks to violate actual property rights and harm
business owners' livelihood. In that respect you can think of it in the same vein as libel and slander--it is criminal
activity with the intent of depriving the business owner of his property and right to conduct business.
This type of discrimination coming from the LGBT community is actively seeking to destroy business--not by providing
a better product or service, but simply by taking capital from the business so it can no longer function. Mississippi HB
1523 law is extremely limited in scope and was written in such a way as to prevent nearly every scenario that all its
opponents are pretending it allows. It merely protects people to freely exercise their rights. It does *not* deprive
anyone of his or her rights.
Please read Representative Chris Brown's clarifications on what this bill does and does not do here:
https://www.facebook.com/permak.php?story_fbid=1080582885297859&id=265190046837151
Like Reply 39 mins Edited
Ethan OK.. So you're saying, no one has the rights to force any business to do business that they don't want to do.
So, again, why and how is this case different from say.. a business owner doesn't want to serve the blacks, or Muslim
or Asian?
Like Reply 29 mins

Ethan And let's define discrimination first -- is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or
against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing is perceived to belong
to rather than on individual merit. So, I did NOT discriminate to get lunch. I've made my decision to get lunch based
on how delicious the food is.
Like Reply 28 mins
Jeff Watkins Ethan--I'm saying those things are completely irrelevant to this discussion. Hear me out, I wouldn't want
to do business with a store that didn't want to serve black people, or Muslims, or Asians. But if they exist, I respect
their absolute right to choose to do that. The federal law doesn't, because it is unjust. But I respect their rights. And if I
seek to deny them that right, I have become the transgressor.
Like Reply 21 mins
Jeff Watkins And I disagree--you have different taste buds and proclivities than I do. Maybe I would not think what
you had is delicious. What makes your taste buds right and mine wrong? wink emoticonAnd no, discrimination, at its
most fundamental level, is a part of every single decision you make. When you attach an emotional judgment to it,
you seek to make it something more than it is. Perhaps you could call it "discrimination with what I perceive as
malicious leanings," or something.
Like Reply 16 mins Edited
Jeff Watkins But here is something important in terms of rights and equality--groups do not exist. Only individuals
exist, and only individuals have rights--and all of these rights are the same for each individual. A person does not
have extra rights simply because they belong to some privileged class or group.
Like Reply 17 mins Edited
Ethan I think we took the long route of getting here.. lol.. maybe I should have asked my question better.. OK. I think
we've understood each other. my original point was -- how is this case different from discriminating based on race or
religion? I gathered that you just told me that there is no difference for this case against LGBT, and you'd support
business doing whatever discrimination they choose.
Like Reply 17 mins
Ethan discrimination is decision without merit. I made my choice of food based on how delicious they are..
deliciousness is the merit.. so I did NOT discriminate to get lunch
Like Reply 12 mins
Jeff Watkins Webster's 1828 dictionary defines discrimination as ". The act of distinguishing; the act of making or
observing a difference; distinction." An updated definition from dictionary.com says virtually the same thing as its first
definition: "an act or instance of discriminating, or of making a distinction."
As I read it through text, you seem very displeased with being associated with the word discrimination. But from these
definitions, it seems that is exactly what occurred when you chose your lunch. You decided not to eat other things
that were probably equally as delicious. In fact, there may be foods out there that are far more delicious, and still you
chose the food you had. wink emoticon
At least I think we've come to understand what each other was trying to say. We did indeed take the long road. To be
clear, I would not say that I "support business doing whatever discrimination they choose." That is a
mischaracterization. I am not in favor of more discrimination based on skin color, religion, etc., quite the opposite. I
would like to see less of such things in society. However, I do believe a business owner has the fundamental human
right to do that. I may not like it when they exercise that right, but I believe they have that right. Just as I may not like
what someone has to say, but I believe they have a right to express their opinion.

Dictionary.com - The world's favorite one English dictionary!

DICTIONARY.COM

Like Reply Remove Preview 6 mins

Write a reply...

Nicholas Things would be much simpler if governments simply recognized the right of free association and contract.
Unlike Reply 2 13 hrs