Can someone please sum up the key Libertarian considerations on the many non-discrimination ordinances (NDO) making their way through various city and county governments? My city council is currently bogged down on the issue.
I am working through my own thoughts on the issue, and I am troubled by the idea that a “baker can be compelled to bake a wedding cake for a LGBT couple, in direct conflict with the baker’s religious beliefs.”
I don’t really care if a person is LGBT, and I don’t think governments should discriminate on that basis. However, private persons and businesses choose daily how to interact with many types of people. For example, a dress code at a nice restaurant discriminates against those who wear shorts and flip flops. Or, should a Big & Tall store be required to carry clothes for short, thin people?
Maybe the whole thing boils down to whether LGBT is an innate characteristic or a choice…
The common refrain you refer to is taking public in two different meanings. on the one hand, public is addressing all individuals. Then, on the other it is synonymous with government.
This is a problem. An NDO is in fact a discrimination ordinance. It is discrimination against individuals. It is of little difference if your preferences are by choice or innate, This is about group rights over individual rights. I bet you can think of plenty of examples where this kind of thinking has been deleterious not only to those outside of a particular group but to those individuals inside the group.