The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart professes to be opposed to discrimination against gay people, but he's deluding himself.
|Willis Hart: On the Fact that a California Judge Recently Ruled that the Internet Dating-Site, Christian Mingle, Must Allow LGBT Applicants. How ludicrous is that?|
a) The proprietors of that site apparently don't feel comfortable serving gays, lesbians, transgenders, etc. and it shouldn't be the role of the government in a free society to force them to do it at gunpoint. b) It's a huge slippery-slope (what's next, forcing a Jewish dating-site to allow the al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade to sign up with them?). And c) There are more than enough alternative dating-sites (some of them actually meant for gay Christians - HELLO!!) that would be more than willing to take the money and so why in the hell would someone want to give their hard-earned cash (20 something dollars a month) to someone who apparently doesn't want it and where you probably wouldn't get any dates? It makes zero sense and enough already with this virtue-signalling and coercion cocktail. (8/22/2016 AT 3:56pm).
First I'd like to point to a possible tiny point of agreement. This concerns an internet business, so, unlike with a brick-and-mortar establishment, it's A LOT easier for someone to take their business elsewhere. Unlike say, in a small town where there may be any one florist or baker, and the gay customer the "Christian" business doesn't want to serve CAN'T take their business elsewhere.
But Willis is in favor of allowing these "Christian" businesses to discriminate in ALL cases. But I ask, why should a gay customer think first, before entering a business intending to purchase goods and services, "is my business wanted"? And, how are they supposed to know the business owner in question doesn't want their business? A "gays not served" sign in the window?
And, if you saw such a sign, would you not think "this business discriminates". So, I've got to wonder, why are some varieties of discrimination acceptable to Libertarians like Willis Hart, whereas others are not. Would he be OK with a sign in the window that said "Blacks not served"? Or "disabled people not served"?
Which is why the tiny point of agreement I previously identified as "possible" isn't. Even if it's easy for the gay customer to take their business elsewhere - especially when we're talking about an online business - WHY should any kind of discrimination be OK? I think most of us know the answer. Which is that it is not OK.
So, while Willis CLAIMS that his concern is "coercion" of the anti-gay business owner (and why don't they just take their business elsewhere), the FACT is that - the way he thinks things should work - that "Christian" business owners should be able to discriminate (against only gay people?)... it enables bigotry.
And what's the difference between actual bigots and bigotry enablers? Not much from the point of view of the person being discriminated against. Which is why I say Willis Hart is an anti-gay bigot. I mean, he fully and vociferously supports this kind of bigotry (with MANY commentaries on his blog).
You're either ant-discrimination, or you're pro-discrimination. And Willis Hart has made it VERY clear which side of the issue he comes down on. He's pro-discrimination. VERY pro-discrimination. He frames it as an opposition to "coercion", but I say, "what's the difference". People get discriminated against whatever the argument is.
And yes, I absolutely view ALL Libertarians who use the ridiculous "anti-coercion" argument to enable discrimination as bigots and possibly racist. Depending on whether or not they think placing that "no Blacks served" or similar sign in a store window is "coercion".
BTW, "virtue signaling" is another of the Hartster's favorite terms. Along with "SJW" (Social Justice Warrior). But he knows the judge was doing this, how? Much more likely the judge was simply following California law? According to what I read the "Unruh Civil Rights Act [is] an anti-discrimination law in California that requires businesses to provide full and equal accommodations regardless of sexual orientation".
Perhaps the judge was even a Conservative that was personally opposed to "coercing" Christian Mingle into accepting gay customers, but had no choice? Because of THE LAW? What a dope. Also, I read two article, and neither identified the judge by name. Might it be hard to virtual signal when people don't know who you are?
I mean, given that virtue signaling is done "primarily to enhance the social standing of the speaker". So HOW can the social standing of a speaker be enhanced if the identity of said person is unknown? OK, so obviously some people know who the judge is. So maybe whoever the judge is, they were "virtue signaling". But I doubt it very much. More likely is that the judge was simply IMPARTIALLY following CA law.
Image: Should signs such as this one be allowed? Or should the law "coerce" business owners into removing such signs? Note that the article the image (below) is attached to is "1 in 10 still support discrimination against African-Americans on religious grounds" (6/4/2014 MSNBC article by Morgan Whitaker). Religious grounds, or the EXACT SAME reason WTNPH strongly argues that business owners should be allowed to cite in defense of them discriminating against gay people.