Me too.

Me Three, because I fully support a moronic businessmen dumping $50,000 in business down the drain over two consenting adults getting married. So he goes out of business and then a "better" Business man will take his place. I bet 50 years ago he would have done the same thing with interracial couples too.

I support them too. Good riddance! It won't hurt me or any other gay person one bit.

It's hard to say which is dumber: thinking that Jesus requires his followers to be bigots; thinking the General Assembly might enshrine his bigotry in (an unconstitutional) law; or not knowing the difference between a trolley and a bus.

Forcing anyone to enter into business with someone against his will is tyranny. Period.

What would you say if the forced tour operator spoke his mind about the marriage he was serving WITH HIS VEHICLE? You'd have the police all over him for harassment. So lose the nonsense about it 'not condoning or supporting' gay marriage. You're demanding he serve them and keep his trap shut about it while he does, in HIS own vehicle.

Who on Earth do you think you are to proclaim that "it's fine to be faithful to your beliefs, but this is basic human civility we're talking about. This isn't a religious fight. The country got rid of all the Jim Crow laws ages ago"? This is YOUR definition of civility, imposed by force.

And the Jim Crow laws MANDATED segregation, making it illegal to serve whites and non-whites together on one's own private property. Your approach is the tyranny of the majority. It's not that the state should make the right choice about who it forces people to conduct private business with. It's that the state shouldn't force anyone's choice at all.

And please know that this is coming from someone who ABSOLUTELY supports gay marriage (as much as any other, since the state's role in marriage should be very limited anyway, if present at all, having to do with defaults about inheritance, hospital visitation, etc. Saying who gets to marry whom is not something the state should be involved in, apart from ensuring it is among consenting adults).

@Mike They're not forced to do anything. If they want to go out of business, that's great. If they want a business license from the state government for a public service, then it's public. Period. Let them go out of business. It's completely their own decision and has nothing to do with gay couples. Again, good riddance.

Teammm, all due respect, but if the situation is do business with people against your will, per the state's instruction, or suffer massive lawsuits that seize your property under threat of government guns, then it IS forcing them. It's called "extortion."

The licensing argument doesn't apply when we're talking about what the law SHOULD be as opposed to what it is. I don't disagree that the law is against Grubbs choosing to do business with straight couples but not gays.

And please understand, I TOTALLY disagree with Grubbs's choice. I think it's morally wrong. But as with speech that's morally wrong in my view, I defend the person's right to speak, or use his property as he sees fit. I WON'T patronize his business, but I will stand up to say it is his private property, and the state should leave him alone, even if he is a bigot in your eyes and mine.

Actually Mike, with all due respect, you don't seem to know the law and its purpose with respect to public policy. I happen to believe that the law is what it SHOULD be because all people should be entitled to full and equal enjoyment of any place of public accommodation.

But go ahead, allow them to discriminate against gay people. Have them post a sign that says the business doesn't serve LGBT people due to its fundamental religious beliefs. Their business will surely suffer financially ...and let them be happy to suffer for their faith. In their mind, that would make them feel closer to God. Without question the business will be losing many many heterosexual couples' business as well. They will not be able to stay in business either way.

Suppose that would happen, if you think logically, and all businesses were allowed to discriminate against any group they have a personal religious conviction against, virtually nobody will have equal access to public accommodations and it will be a hassle to do everything. It will be a mess. One group will retaliate against the other with their deeply held religious convictions. The best solution to that problem would be to favor religious freedom in a place of worship or primarily religious organization, and favor civil rights in the public square. And that's exactly what the law is. They can feel free to close their business...no one has forced them to do anything.

@ Teammm:

Regarding: "Actually Mike, with all due respect, you don't seem to know the law and its purpose with respect to public policy. I happen to believe that the law is what it SHOULD be because all people should be entitled to full and equal enjoyment of any place of public accommodation."

Here's the problem: Your reasoning (and the law's if one accepts that the law has the best of intentions rather than just selling control, but let's go with the assumption of good intentions) is circular reasoning because you are DEFINING someone's private property as a "public accomodation." And you say the law should mandate access to all because It is a "public accomodation."

This is circular reasoning. The law says the man's chartered bus is a public accomodation. Public accomodations should have legally-mandated equal access. Therefore, the man's bus should have legally-mandated equal access.

The problem with the logic is that it is circular. It relies on its conclusion as a premise to get to that conclusion. The law SHOULD be X because IT IS X. That is utter nonsense that a first-semester logic student could skewer for the joke it is.

The man's bus is only a public accomodation if it is open to the public. He is not opening it to the public. He is opening it only to private charters. As his property, that is is natural right, regardless of the law. (Just as a slave's natural right is to be free, regardless of the law.)

continued...

The man OWNS the buses and the bus company. He only willingly CHOOSES to do business with straight couples, not gays. (Which I find contemptible, btw, and I won't do business with him.) He is not opening up his buses to all of the public, just certain people.

You and the law and its guns step in and say he cannot. He will be fined, and sued, and have his property taken away if he continues. But if Grubbs OWNS the buses and the company, and if Grubbs doesn't choose to do businesses with all of the public, then it ISN'T "public accomodation" at all.

Put another way, you are OUTLAWING PRIVATE PROPERTY and OUTLAWING ANY COMMERCE THAT ISN'T A "PUBLIC ACCOMODATION." According to your approach, he CANNOT engage in any private commerce. At the moment he wants to do any business with any select people, YOU get to jump in with government guns and seize control, saying everyone gets to use his property.

ALL "private" property is thus public property in your eyes. There IS NO SUCH THING as PRIVATE business.

continued...

That's the DEATH of property rights, an utter contempt for liberty, and LITERALLY, the definition of FASCISM (where property is SAID TO BE privately owned, but is ACTUALLY completely at the mercy and whim of government).

And Teamm, where you said "But go ahead, allow them to discriminate against gay people. Have them post a sign that says the business doesn't serve LGBT people due to its fundamental religious beliefs. Their business will surely suffer financially ...and let them be happy to suffer for their faith. In their mind, that would make them feel closer to God. Without question the business will be losing many many heterosexual couples' business as well. They will not be able to stay in business either way."

You say that in a free market, the bigot will go out of business, so the law might as well REQUIRE him to serve all. Let's call your bluff. If he's doomed in a free market by serving only straight couples, you don't need the law anyway. Let his business die. But you won't. Because the truth is, it MIGHT die and it MIGHT not. And you want to IMPOSE YOUR morality by government guns.

This breeds hatred. This gives even bigots a GOOD reason to hate tyrants like you. And all becomes a fight for 51% of the vote.

If some people think gays are evil because of religion, and some think religious people are evil, and everyone thinks government should RAM HIS PARTICULAR MORALITY down the throats of all, THAT's when you have a real "mess." Then people rightly HATE each other AND fear each other.

The universal common ground is "live and let live." I leave you alone, you leave me alone, and we only use our pooled force, government guns, if someone breaks THAT peace.

But sadly, we live in a world full of zealots who don't understand (or don't care) that you can't make everyone like each other and share the same specific morality. There will always be people who don't like each other, and don't share the same beliefs.

If those people can rise above the childishness, they can find the universal common ground of liberty: I will leave you and your property and your actions alone. And I will expect you to do the same with me, and everyone else. And we will live in peace, interacting only when we BOTH agree. (You have milk, I have grapes, let's trade.) Peace, liberty, property rights. And we only use the guns of government when people trample the rule of "live and let live."

Instead, tyrants like you, even with the best of intentions sometimes, insist on IMPOSING your will on everyone else. And the peaceful among us are stuck in the sewer of hate and violence you create.

I've been following the comments by Mike and Teamm. Here's the number one question. Is Discover Annapolis Tours incorporated? If so under federal and state laws it is a seperate identity from the own. The corporation would have it's own federal and state tax ID numbers and the corporation would pay federal and state taxes. As a corporation it would have no religious affliation,, unless it was incorporated as a tax exempt religious organization (which I doubt) The buses would belong the corporation and not the individual (owner) that started the business. The owner would merely be a Stockholder/Officer and perhaps a paid employee. If it is a sole ownership/partnership taxed under the owners personal social security number we might has a slight case .

Terry B,

I suspect you are correct about the law. With all the stuff spread through the spread, it would be easy to miss my statement earlier that I am not arguing the existing law--my belief is that the law is against Grubbs. I am arguing strictly for what the law SHOULD BE, not about what it is.

Regards,

Mike

Yes to boycott.

But leave the government guns out of it.

And the terrorism comparison is both appalling and inapplicable.

nothing but hate speak from you norrow minded

Maryland state law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in public accommodation, housing, and public and private employment. The legalization of same-sex marriage didn't change that. Grubbs does not, under Maryland law, have the right to refuse service to people based on their sexual orientation. If he wants to close his business because of this I say good riddance.

ostracario, you make the classic case for tyranny of the majority. (The law says so, therefore...) What is being argued here (or what should be argued here) is the merit of the law.

Were slavery the law of the land, as it once was, surely you wouldn't support that? Likewise, let's not hide behind the law because you like what it is today? Because the laws you cite FORCE government-chosen association rather than protecting FREEDOM of ASSOCIATION.

And Mr. Grubbs has a choice: revenue or discrimination. He's chosen the latter. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal in Maryland. The legality of marriage doesn't change that.

Equal protection, applied as was intended by the Framers (and as is right), means not picking and choosing special, protected classes in the eyes of law. But it in no way authorizes the commandeering of private property against the will of its owner.

So yes, I will join you in in boycotting. But leave the government guns out of the process of pressuring the OWNER of the business.

Further, your argument implicitly fears the economic consequence of bigoted businesses, when the opposite is true. How would McDonalds be doing if it started excluding blacks, or whites, or anyone else? It would lose a lot of direct business, and a lot of unbanned others would stop going there. That's just an opportunity for the un-bigoted market to jump in and take the business.

Why is it right to be able to refuse to allow people with leather or 'colors' from coming into your bar? Not because you have some magical prescience to decide who might make trouble, but BECAUSE IT IS YOUR PROPERTY. YOUR PROPERTY, YOUR DISCRETION. When more people owned the means of their livings this was far better understood.

Some more equal then others

SC Eastport wrote: "United we stand, divided we fall... But then again our economy is already well past the fallen stage, so why not keep dividing?"

Nothing could be more divisive than pointing government guns at people and forcing them to surrender their private property to your commands. The RIGHT way to fight the intolerance you and I dislike is for free people to fight it of their own will. Using government forces others who disagree to support your cause against their wills. Breeding more hate.

Keep government out of it. Boycott. Ostracize. Support the competition. BECOME the competition. But leave the guns out of it. Do it peacefully.

Mike said "But leave the government guns out of the process of pressuring the OWNER of the business."

You are simply taking the text of the state's fairly passed question 6 and falsely asserting “pressure” from the “government guns” if it doesn't guarantee vendors a right to discriminate.

It was never claimed by equality supporters that local businesses would be free to sidestep standing nondiscrimination laws that pertain to public accommodations.

If a same-sex couple decided to have a non-legal commitment ceremony before the marriage equality bill passed, it would have been just as illegal for Mr. Grubbs to deny them service then as it is now.

BTW – Kudos for the lazy double standard to lecture about the use of the word “terrorist” while using the phrase “government guns”.

Richard, first, what you are missing is that I am not arguing what the law IS, I am arguing what the law should be. So your whole point (and that of many others) about what the law IS does not apply in any way to counter my position. The only thing that would counter my position is an argument, as wrong as it would be, about whay WHY it is morally justifiable to violate private property rights.

Second, lose the "lazy double standard" nonsense. EVERYTHING government imposes it does with the ultimate threat of death to the citizen. If someone refuses to pay for the NEA to sponsor an "artist" to urinate on a crucifix, he will be FINED a larger amount than he withheld from his tax bill. If he refuses to pay the fine, he will be fined more and eventually, refusing payment, men wearing kevlar with guns drawn will come seize him and his prooperty. If he resists this attack on his person and his freedom, he will be killed.

Nowhere along the line will anyone say, "oh, sorry. If it's that important to you not to pay your money to have someone urinate on a crucifix, we get it. Don't sweat it. Keep your money." Government doesn't work that way.

My standard is very simple and it is not a double standard. Government only rightly uses force to COUNTER attacks against citizens, their liberty, their property, and to enforce contracts and stop fraud.

Refusing to do business with gays is despicable in my view, but it should not be illegal.

Mike said “What is the justification for government guns forcing anyone's private business to do work with anyone?”

Again with the “government guns” - what guns Mike?

Maryland law (http://mccr.maryland.gov/pubaccom.html) says that it’s illegal to for businesses to discriminate against customers on the basis of sexual orientation; the legality of marriage doesn’t change that.

If the discrimination is more important to Mr. Grubbs than the business, that is HIS choice – it does not make him a victim. It certainly does not make him a victim of “pressure” from the “government guns”.

This is the crux of the issue: anti-gay Christians cannot use their faith to justify blatant discrimination against same-sex couples.

Yes, richard, there I go again correctly pointing out that government does everything it does using the threat of its guns. Which is why we should be very cautious, limiting it's reach to essentially UNIVERSALLY agreeable purpose. Defending life, liberty, property, stopping fraud, enforcing contracts. and collecting demonstrated DAMAGES. If you think I'm wrong about government guns, try resisting something some time. You WILL submit somewhere along the line or you WILL be killed.

And AGAIN, do you know what circular reasoning IS? I am, for the 4th? time now, saying I am not arguing what the law IS, I am arging what the law SHOULD BE. When slaves objected to slavery, many people said "it's the law." Never mind that the law was morally wrong and indefensible.

The sad part is that you (don't feel bad, you're among many) understand that private property and freedom of association are as important as freedom of speech. And even if you disagree with what someone SAYS, or DOES with his private property and choices of association, it is HIS to choose.

It's more common for people to understand the principle with speech. However, the culture of political correctness has trampled this as well. Try a good look at a college campus the last 25 years (at least).

How nice, we are already on the slippery slope which was, in my view, the sole justification for opposing the recent referendum. I wholeheartedly support the freedom of gays to marry. And I wholeheartedly support their equal protection before the law in all ways.

But this has NOTHING to do with forcing private property owners to open up that property to patrons against their will.

The ugly problems we have in this country come from BOTH major parties and their supporters, who believe that achieving the magic 51% means they should be able to FORCE the other 49% to do as they command. When instead, we should ALL be able to agree that we support freedom for EVERYONE.

Don't kill, don't threaten, don't commit fraud, don't cause harm to others, and the state should leave you ENTIRELY alone to conduct your affairs on and with your own property. With whomever you please, and without whomever you please.

Mary, rights do not come from government. The law is full of rules, some good, most bad. But these have little to do with rights. Private property is just that, and property rights are natural rights, just like the right to one's life and to one's liberty. And the right to marry whomever one chooses. And the right not to be enslaved. And so on.

So while I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree that I despise the bus operator's decision, I would never use government guns to impose another choice. Good, free people will eschew his business but respect his right to contol his property. Forcing him to do business against his will is just another form of tyranny.

no it is not

Ian, yes, it is. What is the justification for government guns forcing anyone's private business to do work with anyone?

His refusal to do business with gays does not harm those gays. It does not steal from them. It does not deny them any liberty. So what is the justification to threaten the business owner with FORCE unless he does business with them? If he does, but speaks out against gay marriage while they are riding, you would probably prosecute him for some new crime, despite his right to free speech.

The answer is that you should not FORCE people to do things against their will. You should only force them to stop, if they are killing, harming, threatening, or defrauding some VICTIM. There is no victim who merits government guns intervening when he fails to take gays for a ride.

That said, I think it's despicable. I will not use this business. I will condemn it from the rooftops and encourage others to do the same. But I will defend with my life his right to use his PRIVATE PROPERTY as he chooses, just as I would defend the Klan's right to speak.

Your reasoning is sound Mary.

All manner of churches can practice their religion in their own private worship spaces; in those spaces freedom of religion trumps civil rights.

When a business interfaces with the the public - which Mr. Grubbs certainly is, despite Mike-government-guns' absurd claims to the contrary - civil rights trump religious freedom rights.

Mr. Grubbs' religious choices are applying the pressure, not the endless unsubstantiated fear mongering patter of 'government guns'.

richard, once more, anyone who claims government doesn't impose everything with guns is either a fool (who doesn't understand the reality of what happens when you resist) or a charlatan (who knows better but wants to deceive others).

As for your statement that "Mr. Grubbs' religious choices are applying the pressure, not the endless unsubstantiated fear mongering patter of 'government guns," that's a convenient piece of nonsense. The government guns are behind a law that is not protecting anyone's life, liberty or property, is not stopping fraud and is not enforcing a contract willingly entered.

If the government passed a law that said you had to invite everyone to your Christmas party in your house, would it just be your 'social choices' applying pressure to you, and not the force of government, should you contemplate violating that law? Your argument is absurd.

What you, and so many others, fail to recognize is the true definition of PRIVATE property. You think it is ethically right to use guns to force people to enter into the contracts that YOU write, rather than letting them enter into contracts, or not, as they see fit.

And AGAIN, I am FOR gay marriage. And I am FOR boycotting the business. I just respect free speech, freedom of association, and freedom to use one's private property in ANY way, so long as it does not trample the life, liberty, or property rights of another, or defraud them. Which Grubb's bigotry, however ugly, does not.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Skip the besitality and pedophila, but what exactly IS the objection to 3, or 4, or 10 consenting adults being married IN THE EYES OF THE STATE? Because marriage in the eyes of the state is a contract, granting various priveleges and defaults over things like hospital visitation, inheritance, transfer of property, etc.

What reason would you have for objecting to a three-adult marriage? What harm does that impose on anyone else. As I think Jefferson said, it neither breaks your arm nor picks your pocket.

If you argue that it "offends" you, or your God, your arguments are no better than those who have created the fascism of political correctness in their claim that they are being harmed by all they deem "offensive."

Trevor, one major flaw in your argument is the usual tyranny of the majority. You say:

"The people of Maryland have voted and the majority say they're ok with it. That's how our legal system works. Our legal system is based on the ideas of what the community agrees is acceptable and what is not acceptable."

By your logic, government enforcement of slavery was just fine until it didn't have the votes anymore. This is absurd as well as hopelessly immoral.

The state's RIGHTFUL role is to protect individuals' life, liberty, and property. People should interact and do business as they please, with whomever they please, with no interference from the state's guns unless they cause demonstrable harm, violate contracts or commit fraud.

Most people still understand that state-imposed limitations on speech are both wrong and dangerous, even if that speech is despicable. Sadly, most have lost sight of the same principle when applied to private property (which almost all businesses should be). When the state gets to impose MORALITY, it's a problem. Forced integration is as wrong as forced segregation, just as forced politeness is as wrong as forced rudeness. Let each business conduct its own affairs, and patronize the ones you like. Everyone should fear any imposed morality that reaches 51% of the vote.

The only universally-functional morality is that which protects life, liberty, and property from force and fraud. Everything else is hopelessly subjective.

Your entire post is moot because none of the classes you reference are protected under MD law. Sexual orientation, however, is a protected class.

Jorge, there are two arguments to be made. One is about what the law mandates, and the other is about whether the law is just.

I don't think BusinessMan was arguing the former so much as the latter.

Your post is well stated. Libs just cannot stand it when someone stands up for their own beliefs and convictions. The Owner of this Establishment, if PRIVATELY OWNED should, by LAW run it as he sees fit, and if it is something that he believes morally wrong, then the State needs to BUTT OUT!! So sick of the Political Correctness garbage! Didn't vote for the BO, and the rest of you who did...THANKS FOR FURTHER HELPING DESTROY THIS COUNTRY!

@Trevor: @Mike: I've argued the same point about people having the right to set up their own *private* organizations and allow whoever and exclude whoever. And I'm all for fewer laws and regulations, but I would argue that not being discriminated against by a public company or service is part of the "liberty" that the state should be protecting.

Trevor, this is circular reasoning. You are calling the buses that someone owns "public companies" (when they are actually HIS PRIVATE property) and then claiming he needs to offer his services to everyone. This is a failing to understand or respect private property, purely and simply. If you delivered pizza in your own car, you'd RIGHTLY want to pick and choose with whom you did business with, using your own discretion. But people who use your same logic, calling your car and your life a "public business", would commandeer your property and force you to serve people against your will.

The answer is not and never will be that 51% of the voters will magically figure out who to force to work with whom. The answer is freedom. Let each decide what to do with his own life and property.

Kudos to a Conservative Christian that thinks and makes decisions on his own, rather then follow the Lib SHEEP!

Yes, THIS is the right approach. Condemn the company's choices as free people, leaving the government guns out of it. Offer to serve the unserved and thus take advantage of the free market.

If there's demand for a service, the market will supply it even if Mr. Grubbs' religious beliefs force him to not want to be that supplier anymore.

richard wrote: "If there's demand for a service, the market will supply it even if Mr. Grubbs' religious beliefs force him to not want to be that supplier anymore."

Yes! (Though it appears to be a broken clock, right once of its two times per day.) The market will supply it. You don't need to fine or shutter the business that turns business away for bigotry, or any other reason. A free market will fill the need.

Let the actions of free people provide any punishment. I will happily boycott Mr. Grubb's business. I think his choices are ugly and misguided. But I will stand up for his private property rights when the government wrongly intrudes on them. Just as I would stand up for anyone's freedom to speak without government sanction, despite any ugliness or bigotry in his words.

You operate your car on private roadways, can I demand that you give me a ride? This argument about the public roadways is UTTER NONSENSE.

If there were PUBLIC MONEY involved, such as, this guy was bidding on the contract for city bus service, but wanted to exclude gays, THAT's a case where he should be forced to do it anyway or shouldn't get the contract. But a private charter of a privately owned bus should be up to the owner to perform or not. Period. It doesn't matter what the law says, a law that says otherwise is wrong just as any law protecting slavery is wrong, or restricting speech is wrong.

This is what I said earlier. People don't understand private property anymore. No wonder we have the problems we have.

And for the record, I SUPPORT gay marriage and I will happily NOT patronize this bus company. But the way to deal with this is through private action like mine, not through laws that impose the standards of the tyranny of the majority onto the private property of individuals who dissent from those standards,

DJ, your reasoning is circular. It's a matter of public accomodation only before the law, because that's what the law says. Slavery was the law of the land once, but that didn't make it right. Violating private property is not right, even when it is the law. We have plenty of bad law, and this is one.

And again, I STRONGLY support gay marriage and I think the bus owner is despicable. But the civilized remedy is the action of private citizens to boycott that business. Forcing the business owner to submit to your commandeering of his property actually makes HIM a victim of state persecution, and further breeds hatred and leads, ultimately, to violence.

Mike "government guns" said DJ, your reasoning is circular. It's a matter of public accomodation only before the law, because that's what the law says. Slavery was the law of the land once, but that didn't make it right. Violating private property is not right, even when it is the law. We have plenty of bad law, and this is one.

You stopped when you should have kept going: how is Maryland state law wrong in embracing public accommodation?

Your repeated claptrap of "violating private property" and "government guns" "pressuring" Maryland residents is empirically false.

Mr. Grubbs has his property.

Mr. Grubbs has his business.

Mr. Grubbs has not been forced to do anything.

Richard, okay, let's keep going where we stopped. The business owner's lawyers have advised him that he had better stop doing weddings altogether, because if he serves only heterosexual weddings (which I completely disagree with, by the way) then he will get sued and lose. And the law will come to collect, backed by guns if he resists their intrusion into his private business.

The 'government guns' part is very real. Government doesn't make friendly suggestions about how to run your business. Everything it does it does under the ultimate threat of death if you resist. When a smiling gangster first starts collecting his protection money, he's happy to do so with a smile, but you know what you'll get if you don't pay.

Have no illusions, government does ALL it does by threatening the citizen. Which is why the RIGHTFUL role of government should be FAR smaller than what government currently does. The threat of government guns should be limited to PROTECTING lives, liberty, and private property, ENFORCING contracts that are WILLINGLY entered, stopping FRAUD and collecting demonstrable DAMAGES.

If a business owner chooses to serve only select customers, which of those things has he violated such that government guns are merited ultimately to enforce some action against him?

So, Richard, where you say he has not been 'forced to do anything', you are right only if you exempt extortion from the notion of being forced. The business owner is (rightly, I may add) expecting he will have large amounts of his property confiscated at gunpoint by government if he selectively serves customers, gets sued and loses and/or gets fined many thousands of dollars, and then doesn't hand over his private property (money).

And AGAIN, I DISAGREE with his choices of whom to serve with his private property and am HAPPILY CHOOSING NOT TO PATRONIZE his business. I think his decisions are ugly and bigoted. But just as I would defend the Klan's right to speak freely, I would defend any property owner's rights, even if his decision on how to use his property was (in my perception) rooted in bigotry.

Marjo, YES! Should Christians and Muslims and Jews be prevented from saying bad things about each other, or worse, be forced to say nice things about each other? Just because someone is prejudiced or bigoted gives you no right to FORCE them, with government guns, to surrender their control over their ideas and speech. Likewise, it doesn't give you any right to seize or commandeer their property. They have commited no crime by not serving someone for whatever reason. A private bus company is not a public street and is not a public park and is not a public bus. So while you and I may find it despicable, through our government, we should defend his rights to do what he wants with his PRIVATE property. As outraged private citizens, we should patronize other businesses, organize a boycott, ostracize him, whatever. That's fine. That's PRIVATE remedy. But we have no business uising government guns to trample his private property and freedom of association.

richard, let me quote myself from yesterday:

"(And before the usual amateur thinkers come running with their arguments about my wanting a return to the Jim Crow laws, get straight what the Jim Crow laws really were. The Jim Crow LAWS were the STATE mandating segregation. Mine is the exact opposite approach, where the state has no say.) "

The Jim Crow laws mandated segregation. Aside from a few examples, the Jim Crow laws said you COULDN'T serve whites and non-whites together, The mandated segregation, which is horribly wrong, just as mandating integration is horribly wrong IN ISSUES OF PRIVATE PROPERTY.

During the Jim Crow era, brave and moral objectors said "who are you to tell me I cannot serve whites and non-whites together, on my own private property, if they and I agree that that's what we all want?"

Keith, look at the economics. You don't need to shut anyone down when they handicap their own businesses with bigoted screening of their customer base. Being an overtly bigoted businessman means THROWING BUSINESS AWAY, both directly and indirectly. It means turning away business AND losing business from all the good people who decide they don't want to patronize you.

Nobody needs to use the LAW's GUNS to force such a business to close, or to force it to serve everyone. Just let a free market serve the neglected market. The bigoted business may be put out of business by competition (fine) or it may continue to operate, serving a limited customer base (also fine--who is HARMED).

Leaving the law out of it works BETTER. Forcing businesses using governmnet guns only breeds hatred. There are myriad reasons a private business owner considers when deciding who it makes sense to get into business with. Ask a pizza delivery guy, for one.

The people who don't want private business owners to be able to make their own decisions about whom to do business with are almost always people who don't own a private business. If they ever did, they'd change their tunes very quickly.

And AGAIN, I am coming from the perspective of STRONG support for gay marriage.

richard, congratulations, you have (for a second) skipped over your circular reasoning, but only to return to it.

First, do you know what circular reasoning is? Your persistent approaches to this argument suggests you do not. All your arguments about what the law IS do not in any way counter my arguments about what the law SHOULD BE. I don't disagree about what the law SAYS. I disagree about what the law SHOULD SAY. It's the logical equivalent of my saying "slaves should be free" and you countering with "slavery is the law of the land, and citing the legal code chapter and verse." That's NONSENSE. Both a strawman (arguing against something I never claimed) and implicit circular reasoning (arguing that it should be the law because it is the law).

(continued below)

Second, speaking of hilarity, you have created two fairly hilariously flawed statements for me to explain, in:

"you need to explain two things:

1) why discrimination is a fundamental civil right, and
2) how owning property grants a person that right"

To answer in any meaningful way, one must first define what "discrimination" is. But let's give you a boost and assume it means strictly what is happening in this context: a man, who OWNS a business (that business is HIS PRIVATE PROPERTY), is deciding that he will enter into business with straight people but not with gay people. (Something I think is wrong, BTW, but should not be punishable by law.) We'll come back to this one in a sec.

Your statement #2 needs clarification as well. IF when you say "grants a person that right" you mean that MD law makes it so, you are back to circular reasoning. I agree with you that MD law likely IS against Mr. Grubbs, but (again) I am arguing what the law SHOULD BE, not what it IS.

But if, in #2, you have moved on from that strawman to discussing what the law SHOULD BE, let's consider your statement. It implies, with great hilarity, that somehow "discrimination" is something you get to do once you own something. So, owning nothing, I can't ethically "discriminate." But then I come to own a pen (don't ask how I did that without owning something to exchange for it, let's say it was given to me). Now, owning something, I can ethically "discriminate."

continued...

Yes, that (above) is hilarious on its face.

The problem is that you have divorced the notion of the property OWNERSHIP (and what ownership even MEANS), from the definition of discrimination. OWNERSHIP means the THING YOU OWN is YOURS to do with as you wish. If you own a house, you are RIGHTLY the person who should decide who can come in and who cannot. EVEN IF your underlying reasons are bigoted. If a black person doesn't like white people, or vice versa, proper OWNERSHIP of his house is still HIS ALONE. I take it you would agree with this much? Please answer.

Likewise, if you own a cow and milk it, and wish to sell it...and I want to buy that milk, that is and should be a PRIVATE TRANSACTION between two parties. You OWN the milk. I own the $2. We AGREE to swap them. The only (possible) RIGHTFUL intervention by the law and its guns is collection of a sales tax. So long as the money is real and the milk is as you stated (you didn't commit fraud, selling me water instead).

Again, PRIVATE transaction.

continued...

Now here's where the government and its guns wrongly start to interfere with your private milk selling. The government will come in and raid your farm and take your property, brandishing their guns, to seize property from you. Why? Because the milk was not pasteurized. Never mind that it was YOUR milk, and you chose not to pasteurize it. And I WANTED to buy pasteurized milk. The government will step in and seize property, USING ITS GUNS.

They had no ethical right to do so. And why? Because some tyrant outside our private transaction (much like you) has decided that we are not allowed to use our privately owned unpasteurized milk and our privately owned $2 as we wish. On what moral grounds, exactly? It simply ISN'T GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS. We have not killed anyone. We have not stolen from anyone. We have not restricted anyone's liberty. We have not defrauded anyone. We have not failed to fulfill our willingly-entered contract. And we paid the sales tax. No CRIME. No rightful basis for government to intervene with its guns.

Private property. Willing transaction. No basis for government to interfere. Would you agree with that? (Even though, BTW, the government conducted ARMED raids on some dairy farms in the last 2 years because people sold unpasteurized milk to people who wanted to buy it.)

continued...

It may be morally wrong, but it should not be punishable by law. And if you want to visit the usual "greater good of society" argument at this point, you lose there too. First, consider why it is better not to outlaw "being a bigot." Look at the mess that creates. Right back to "crimethink" from Orwell. If you want to perform erotic dance for money, should you be forced to dance for anyone? Or should you be allowed to choose with whom you do business? Imagine telling a prostitute (or, similarly, a lawyer) that he or she had to take ANY client, regardless of the sex or sexual persuasion of that client.

So, in the case of Mr. Grubbs, let's look at the specific property and the specific "discrimination." Mr. Grubbs OWNS a bus. When he meets someone who wants a ride mutually agree that he will carry them for an mutually-agreed price, they conduct business. They harm nobody, restrict nobody else's liberty, and don't defraud anyone and DO pay their taxes. Who has any right to point a government gun at him and force him to do anything else? He is HARMING no one, even if he is a jerk or a bigot.

Circling back, your two statements are flawed because they implicitly divorce the undefined "discrimination" from the property "ownership." Ownership, by definition, means you can do whatever you want. That's what REAL ownership IS. You have no morally-justifiable legal claim to a bigot's house. Or his milk. Or his bus, in this case.

continued...

(Don't confuse that with something like Rosa Parks and the CITY buses. THAT was different because it was PUBLIC transport, paid for with public dollars forcibly collected by government in the first place. (Whether such a thing should even exist is an argument for another day.) But given the EXISTENCE of public transport, it should be available to ALL. Forced to pay for it? Allowed to use it.

The Grubbs case, as I understand it, is about PRIVATE parties contracting to use a PRIVATELY-OWNED bus. At the point where you intervene, with the threat of government guns, you are negating the existence of PRIVATE property and OWNERSHIP. You are saying that you have a claim to the property over the wishes of the property OWNER.

It's a bit like the self-contradiction of the classic liberal statement "rent is theft." There is no such thing as 'theft' without the concept of ownership. You can't steal something that belongs to nobody, rather you have to take it FROM some person or persons in order to have 'stolen' it.

The alternatives to stealing are to BUY it (secure permanent ownership willingly from the prior owner by paying for it) or RENT it (secure temporary use willingly from the owner by paying for it).

"Rent is theft" is self-contradictory. As is your attempt to frame my position with statements #1 and #2. Inherently, PRIVATE PROPERTY means having the license to control whatever is OWNED. Anything else DEFIES the very concept of PRIVATE PROPERTY.

cont

In summary, your claim that Mr. Grubbs should be subject to legal sanctions (enforced, YES, by government GUNS) is simply a claim that he doesn't truly own his property. Extending the logic beyond his bus, it is a claim that there is no such thing as private property. Everything is subject to the tyranny of whomever gets 51% of the vote to control the government guns. Even the unpasteurized milk which you wish to sell and I wish to buy, is not owned by either of us. Instead, it is ALL owned by the few who garner the magical 51% of the vote. They can force us to pasteurize it. They can take it away. They can do, in short, WHATEVER they want. And any "rights" the "owners" have are just granted from the guys with those guns, at their pleasure.

What you support is the DEATH of PRIVATE PROPERTY. And as someone who STAUNCHLY SUPPORTS gay marriage and will join in to boycott the businesses that discriminate against gays, I AGREE with your assesment of bigotry.

And thus I am in a position to say that the death of private property you preach is the classic "road to Hell, paved with good intentions" of people like you.

richard, if it helps, re-consider the speech parallel. Assuming you believe in free speech, then you believe that you may find others' speech hateful, but you nonetheless support their right to say it, free from government sanction, backed (as always, by government guns). You're with that, right?

The model is that you OWN your beliefs and you OWN your speech. They are YOURS. Until they take the life, liberty, or property owned by others, there is no call to punish them, regardless of how hateful you, or I, or 51% of the voters may find them. That's what freedom looks like.

Owning property is an extension of your person, no different. If you don't threaten or take the life, liberty, or property of anyone, you aren't HARMING them or their property. There are no damages, and your property thus remains OFF-LIMITS to others. Nobody else gets a say. That's what private ownership IS.

BTW, the sort of legal meddling you support is, by way of law, no different than the meddling you would decry by those who would deny marriage to gays. They FIRMLY BELIEVE they are right. You FIRMLY BELIEVE you are right. And your approach (the law gets to decide by democracy) is UTTERLY BLIND to morality, subject only to the most recent vote. Political might makes right.

Whereas, if you take the stance (like with free speech) that government gets NO SAY, REGARDLESS OF WHO IS IN POWER, ALL BENEFIT from truly reasonable limits on tyranny.

Nice dodge. (Plenty rude also, when what I did was break down the pieces and spell things out for you. That took a while because you didn't digest the shorter versions, and kept reverting to strawmen and circular reasoning.)

Alas, you have the same mentality of all tyrants, well-intentioned or not. It's your way or face your guns. No concept of live and let live.

You are, simply, blind to the notion of the universal COMMON GROUND that is reachable by people of unlike minds: LEAVE ME ALONE and I WILL LEAVE YOU ALONE, and we will only pool our resources in COMMON, GOVERNMENT FORCE against those who break that most universal rule.

Instead, you insist on ramming your more specific but HOPELESSLY-NON-UNIVERSAL morality down others' throats, like any Torquemada, and many of your enemies do the same. Your only real hope, as with your enemies, is ANNIHILATION of the opposition.

And the TRULY tolerant who do wish to live and let live? We live in the sewer of hate and violence your shortsightedness creates. The only thing that is RATIONAL in your approach to where the government guns point is the well-earned fear you and your myopic political enemies share, of each other. Because you won't live and let live.

Grow up to the world of liberty. Live and let live. If people like you would leave people like Grubbs alone, maybe people (presumably) like Grubbs wouldn't oppose gay marriage.

ME TOO!!!!!!!

I'm the only user of that metaphor in this comment stream, and I'm strongly FOR gay marriage. The point is, I'm FOR freedom, both for gays AND for religious zealots. The way to do secure that peace and freedom is to embrace the philosophy of live and let live. That's the only place where the common ground is. Otherwise, you just drive the wedges of hate in deeper, and everyone suffers the world of hate and violence you foster.

Tremendous.

Mike Rocks!!!

I say what's the harm ? Give the company what it wishes - exemptions on religious grounds are granted under the law for religious affiliates.

Best case: They register with a religiously affiliated organization or become sponsored by one to should satisfy the intent of the law.

Worst case: They are operating a private CHARTER business and can not be forced to accept same sex specific business if they do not accept straight business too per = protection. They live with it and "lose" $50K in business. Maybe someone comes in and fills the "market" as it were. Annapolis is relatively conservative, so my assumption is that there will be near-term competition for that 2-3% of the market which will drop off significantly after the initial rush of long-time partners fulfill their dream.

I admire anyone on either side that stands for their convictions.

.

Funny, Joe, and uselessly vague. It is very clear you are not a libertarian. If you honestly think you are, you don't know what it means. If you are lying, then...

Not everyone can understand freedom. Thanks for trying.

Because their real purpose is to discriminate against gay and lesbian couples but they know they will lose business when people discover that fact. By saying they want to be faithful Christians they can delay the lose of business by open minded people who believe that everyone should be treated equally under the law. It's a convenient excuse for now. I'm sure they will come up with another once this one is busted for what it really is.

I don't claim to know his beliefs, but it SOUNDS like Grubbs's notion of Christianity is that homosexuality is a sin before God, and that Judaism is not.

Hi Mike. I am late to this conversation and I really appreciate your passion for liberty and the clear way you articulate this passion. I think your ideas make a lot of sense. I believe where this logic breaks down is, in the real world there are power monopolies. For example, in America for a long time white males held way more power than anyone else. And so when it was legal to discriminate against blacks, and many people were doing so, this created no small hardship for the minority being discriminated against. Perhaps this is also what it is like to be a christian in an islamic country today. So yes I agree with you that we need to be careful about what we get "govt guns" involved in. (I also agree with your logic there, guns do indeed back everything up.) But I think protecting minorities from discrimination is possibly worth using that power. Now perhaps there are better ways to do it, such as providing public services that can't be used with any discrimination, but then think of all the govt services that will have to be provided in order to level the playing field. What if all the private shuttle services in Annapolis were run by folks who opposed gay marriage, and none of them would provide services to gays. Does the govt then have to start providing its own shuttle services? So I get what you are saying, and perhaps maybe we've gone too far in our effort to protect minorities, but nonetheless I do think there is some validity behind the anti-discrimination laws.

Chipdex,

Thanks for the thoughtful note. I think one thing that gets lost in the notion of government "protecting" groups or industries or whatever is the endless, immoral battle to steal from one other through political favor. Much like the world of liquor licenses, people oppose the barrier to entry into business. Then most of those who do get into the club then try to step up the licensing to keep the competition out. If you think this doesn't apply to something like racial or sex or sexual-orientation, consider something like college admissions. These schools are chock full of public money, taken by force, and then access is granted based on race or sex or sexual-orientation? It's as wrong now as it was in Montgomery AL. There will NEVER be a "fair" system of handing out the favors and preferences. The only fair system is to end the favors and preferences, letting people return to private business. If they don't take from the public trough, then there should be no restriction so long as they don't demonstrably kill, injure, threaten, steal, or defraud others.

Further, people also overlook how bigots actually shoot themselves in the foot, economically. Turn away good business because people are gay? It's both a direct loss of business (the gays) and an indirect one (principled people like me).

People also forget that the Jim Crow laws FORCED segregation. Forced integration is wrong as well--it's not the gov'ts rightful place to decide.

Chipdex,

The last point I'd make is that our society has almost completely lost the notion of private property. This is a natural, though awful, consequence of the great prosperity the country reached, and of the false prosperity to which we cling (based on massive amounts of borrowed money and the artificial interest rates for borrowing printed money). This is destined to end soon, whether that's this year or in the next 20. But what will be seen then is a MASSIVE cut in living standards, and a return to more people doing WHATEVER they can to earn SOMETHING to live on. When that happens, and the myriad easy jobs working for someone else are gone, people will naturally start to re-acquire healthier, instinctive notions of private property and pulling-one's own weight. The danger, of course, is the segment who turn to ever greater government-based thievery. A very real fork in the road will appear, between the redistributive police-state and the producers. Very dangerous days...

Oops, left one thing out. When living standards drop and people become more desperate, we will see more rooms let out, more people cooking meals for pay in their own kitchens, more people doing ANYTHING of worth that they can sell. When they do, they will be using whatever tools they have at their disposal. Their own, private property.

Very quickly, they will demand that ANY business they do will be done AT THEIR SOLE DISCRETION, as should be the case. Further, the natural factors in the market will drive them to serve those who will do business honestly, regardless of sex, skin color, bedroom behavior, whatever.

Also lost oin the history (it doesn't fit the popular narrative) is that a lot of ethnic discrimination existed in the labor-union movement. Employers wanted to keep labor costs down, and WANTED to have Irish, Blacks, Chinese, etc in the workforce. The existing workforce used racism to keep the newcomers out. What conquered this was the MARKET. Integration in the workforce was unstoppable. overcoming unionism and the legal barriers the union vote was able to garner through political deals. The lesson being that so long as the winner of such battles is determined by VOTING, it will be crooked, with the law used to gain the upper hand over free people choosing for themselves. The ethical approach is to let free people choose for themselves. The law will ALWAYS be the stuff of crooks gaining political favors, even if they market it otherwise.

Last thought: the silver lining in cases like this one is that the laws against racial, sexual, or bedroom-based discrimination are in many ways an academic point in truly private business, because there isn't much a of a problem to be found. The markets and enlightened self-interest take care of it.

The big abuses are in the same places they always are: fights over public money (legalized theft). The people who get hold of the votes ALWAYS act to TAKE from those who don't have the votes, period. This is not healthy and is not ethical. So, in government contracts, protectionist laws, shakedowns by the Jacksons and Sharptons of the world, we see the LARGE, ugly, supposedly-unintended consequences of such laws made to "protect.". Small-time private business doesn't see much of it. But where laws create any form of political leverage over large amounts of others' private property, people simply use those laws to STEAL. Often in very creative and subtle ways, but it is still stealing.

So, while the Grubbs case alone doen't make me lose much sleep (I disagree with what I consider his bigotry) and thus the law's choice in this case HAPPENS TO coincide with the right ethical choice in my view, this is a bit like a broken clock being right twice a day. In the same way that using government guns to silence the Klan would be a horrible slippery slope and wrongful overreach, even though the Klan's speech is immoral.

One other consequence of such "anti-discrimination" laws is far more harmful than most realize: the creation of hatred that wouldn't otherwise exist. When the market is filled with lots of groups lobbying for political favors that allow seizure or control of others' property, thieves are everywhere. It creates a new type of political competition, where financial success is driven by gaining POWER and TAKING from others, rather than by pleasing customers.

When this group-based political theft becomes a major factor in the market, otherwise unbiased people suddenly have a RATIONAL, non-racist, non-sexist, non-whatever-ist reason to hate other groups. It's nothing personal, it's just business. Only outrage at theft is inherently personal, and people build up group-based hatred.

And who benefits? The people who make their "living" off of the conflict. The people who work in political favors. It's a lot like divorce lawyers. They prosper the most when the spouses can't even speak rationally anymore, and it becomes a war.

Our society needs to cast off the divorce lawyers, and celebrate and rebuild ourselves in the mutual love and respect that is LIVE AND LET LIVE. Yes, some bigots will be around. But they'll be around anyway. Laws that choose winners and losers in the market just create opportunity for bigots. When we all leave the law out of it, the bigots have no leverage, and thus little influence.

I understand what you are saying about the potential for abuses and in a large way I side with your ideology, especially where money (taxation) is concerned. But when it comes to the anti-discrimination laws, I just think it makes common sense.

I understand that to some extent, like all laws, it is a restriction on freedom backed ultimately by govt guns. But in this case it ensures a more liveable society. For example, it would be stressful to never know until I get there whether a hotel is going to allow "my kind" to stay there, or whether a bar or restaurant will or won't let "my kind" in, or whether or not this or that cab or shuttle service will or won't serve me. Imagine traveling and having that additional stress. Now I realize there could be workarounds, maybe we could require businesses to state up front who they do or don't serve, or create an Angie's list of sorts to disseminate that kind of information, but it just feels too unstable to allow any business owner the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason at any given moment. So I guess this is why I support laws which force business owners/operators to limit their discrimination to issues germane to the functional operation of that business only, and not to racial or other prejudices.

(continued from previous post...)

Now the sexual orientation one is tricky because some people view it as bad moral choice, and in general we allow a certain level of discrimination against folks for moral reasons - think credit reports, drug tests for employment, criminal background checks, etc. So those who feel that homosexuality is a bad moral choice, believe that it fits in the category of "fair discrimination". Those who feel homosexuality is either innate and/or not a bad moral choice, naturally think that to discriminate against those who practice homosexuality is akin to discriminating against color/race/etc.

Honestly maybe the best advice for that shuttle service, is to publish publicly their views about homosexuality, and so its likely that they won't get many gay couples as clients. But they've chosen to go out of business instead.

Chipdex,

FWIW, while I appreciate that you're thinking ahead, as a practical matterI don't think there'd be much problem at all with travel and other logistics. Nearly all rooms are booked in advance. Pleces already have terms and conditions posted online and they have to disclose them there or it'd be a nightmare with people showing up, just as, say, with pet vs. no-pet restrictions.

Further, I don't think any but the smallest and/or most short-lived companies would choose to discrimate against any of the usual groups. Nobody with stockholders would even dare as they'd be social outcasts overnight if they did.

One question of principle where I'm curious on your stance. There is no harm to anyone by NOT interacting with him. Not interacting in private business is the same as not interacting socially except that an exchange takes place. So, what justifiable legal basis is there to punish someone, ultimately under threat of death, for simply choosing NOT to interact with someone?

Not interacting doesn't cause harm or threaten the "victim", it doesn't take from or defraud the "victim." (As Jefferson said, it neither "breaks my arm nor picks my pocket.") So what moral justification can there be for using force of LAW to seize the property, liberty, or life of the bigot who has not done harm to anyone? Doing so undermines the very concept of private property. It commandeers private property for public use, literally for the crime of doing nothing.

I like your way of thinking Mike - and largely I agree with it. I hear what you are saying about things done TO people versus the harm of choosing not to associate. And I agree to a point. However, I think if a large enough majority was behaving in discriminatory ways towards one or more minorities, and if that majority had a lot of power (wealth, control of resources) that could result in real harm to that minority. So while I think maybe its over-reaching in the case of the shuttle service and other small business owners, I do believe that govt guns possibly should get involved if a monopoly of power was systematically oppressing a relatively powerless minority. Now I agree that perhaps even then govt guns aren't fully necessary, I'm not sure on that point. I mean it would be best to try to reason with, and boycott, and try other means, but I think at some point the U.S. has just said "this kind of behavior is ultimately very bad for the country" and thus codified it into law. I realize the net effect is that govt guns are ultimately behind forcing people to do business with each other and I understand why this concerns you, but I'm just not sure its that bad of a reason, given the racial history of our country - slavery, then segregation, etc. I can understand why such laws now may seem unnecessary in this decade because fortunately we're moving past racism in a lot of ways, which is a very good thing!