The Global Liberty Community
Penn Jillette Can’t Have His Gay Wedding Cake and Eat It Too
Popular entertainer and self-described libertarian Penn Jillette disappointed many liberty advocates in this recent CNN Tonight segment. The discussion was nominally about homosexuality and Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, but the real issue at stake was and will continue to be freedom of association.
The controversy stems from cases where business owners have refused for religious reasons to sell engaged gay couples wedding cakes and flowers. For example the owner of a bakery in Colorado was sued by a gay couple for refusing to bake a wedding cake for them. The court ordered him to bake wedding cakes for same-sex couples, give his staff anti-discrimination law training, and submit quarterly reports to the state’s Civil Rights Commission confirming that he is complying with the government’s orders.
Jillette unfortunately fell into the trap of making this issue about religion and homosexuality: “You’re not talking about forcing people to engage in gay sex, or even endorse gay sex. We’re asking them that maybe they can treat people the same as other people, and that does not seem unreasonable. It’s okay, I suppose — although goofy – to be against gays, but it’s not okay to be against people who simply want to use your services.”Roblox Robux Hack 2017
Jillette wasn’t suggesting that people who support gay marriage ostracize businesses who won’t service gay weddings. That is the peaceful free market solution. By “we’re asking” Jillette meant undermining individual choice via government edict, despite alluding to how uncomfortable he is with that notion.
Most troubling was Jillette’s claim that “it’s not okay to be against people who simply want to use your services.” Incorrect, Mr. Jillette. It’s perfectly okay to be against associating with anyone for any reason as long as you don’t attack their person or property. That is every individual’s choice to make, no matter how upsetting the choice may be to others. Not choosing to do business with someone does not constitute an attack on person or property.
Let’s put Jillette’s “not okay to be against people who want to use your services” criteria to the test. Should a gay baker be forced to bake cakes for someone like J.B. Stoner? Of course not, and the freedom to choose who you do business with is not limited to sexual orientation.
Should an African-American baker be forced to bake cakes for a Stormfront White Pride Worldwide convention?
Should a Jewish florist be forced to sell arrangements to David Duke for his next KKK gathering?
Should a pacifist business owner be forced to provide goods and services to soldiers?
Should an atheist customer who disapproves of a business owner’s religiosity be forced to patronize that business?
The answer to these and all other scenarios is the same: Individuals must be free to choose the terms upon which they exchange with each other, or they are not free. There is no free market without freedom of choice. (Not that the U.S. is a free market.)
Freedom of association transcends race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and religion. Framing freedom of association as being about particular demographic groups is forever wrongheaded. Freedom is realized at the individual level. There is always another way to herd people into a different category and claim unfair treatment in need of government fixing.
Ironically, people who use government to force associations they approve of (and prohibit those they disapprove of) mistakenly believe they are defending freedom. This is the problem with thinking in terms of group-based rights. There are no gay rights, no black rights, no Jewish rights, no American rights, no feminist rights, no redhead rights. There is only voluntary (and therefore peaceful) association versus involuntary (and therefore forced) association. Every time someone talks about rights in terms of arbitrarily defined groups, it’s a pretext for advocating coercion to impose one’s views by force rather than persuasion.
I suspect Jillette realized his error after the CNN segment. In an encouraging turnaround, he followed up on Twitter with, “I am against using government force to stop people from being stupid. That doesn’t mean I don’t say those people are stupid. Clearer?”
His clarification is laudable, and he pretty much echoes the message here, though it’s more mealy-mouthed. He says he’s “not really deciding” because he’s “contradicting himself” by suggesting that it’s stupid for people to refuse service to those they don’t agree with even though people should be free to do so. Mr. Jillette, there’s nothing contradictory about that position. The fact that you’ll perform for anyone and don’t want the government to interfere with your freedom to make that choice isn’t contradictory. It’s commendable, so own it!
Politicizing the sale of wedding cakes distracts people from realizing that freedom of association is a life or death issue. Consider the government’s forcing of Americans to sell wedding cakes to gay couples while simultaneously starving millions of people through economic sanctions. Before the military invasion of Iraq, the people were ravaged by the U.S. regime forbidding American businesses from selling goods and services to Iraqi customers. Barring freedom of association resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of children.
So next time you hear about wedding cakes and freedom, consider the hypocrisy that as I write this Americans are forbidden from selling cakes, flowers…anything…to millions of Iranian people.
Free association always and everywhere.
Check out my free book on politics, decentralization, and living a freer life. This article is published under the CC0 public domain license. Use it for any purpose you wish. Thanks for reading.
Join The Discussion
34 CommentsThoughts? Comments?
Please login or register to post a comment.
Joe K. April 3, 2015 , 9:48 pm Vote3
You hit the nail on the head. I think a lot of libertarians are afraid of this issue. They are afraid to even speak about it. Go ahead, keep your silence to the detriment of all of us. Anyone who claims special groups of “state protection” have a right to force individuals into transactions on private property is a fake libertarian. Go join the leftist front. My question is this: If the state was not involved what would happen? People would be offended but they would probably exchange some rotten words and go somewhere else, or they may violate private property and be arrested. I don’t know the outcome, but it seems like the state does more to turn people against each other than any other entity on the planet. It was and is an issue of private property and individuality no matter what collectivists disguised as libertarians might think. This is NOT liberty nor freedom to use the force of the state against individuals on private property. It was and is aggression!
David Montgomery April 4, 2015 , 5:02 am Vote2
Thank you, Joe. I suspect right wing people suffer the same lack of understanding on this issue albeit with differently defined groups.
The couple that sued the baker I mentioned started off on the correct path by pursuing ostracism. They posted on Facebook about their experience and spread the word elsewhere, including an online petition and boycott.
But in a case of unintended consequences, the couple’s use of the government to forcefully overturn the baker’s choice not to make gay wedding cakes backfired. Apparently his business doubled as a result of the law suit and media attention: http://kdvr.com/2012/07/30/denver-cake-shop-refuses-service-to-gay-couple/
Luke Liberty April 4, 2015 , 4:05 pm
Everyone is talking about this now eh? I totally agree with what you are saying although I do think the major media focus on this particular issue is meant to distract from more pressing issues i.e. the growing war in Yemen and the US and Russia’s involvement.
Egyptian navy has fired shots at Iranian warships
http://defence-blog.com/?p=4448
Henry Bosse April 6, 2015 , 8:15 am Vote0
Yes. The media always focuses on issues that divide us while ignoring the feds contradictions and blunders.
Andy Cleary April 4, 2015 , 4:53 pm Vote0
I agree with your criticism of Penn here and for the reasons you give. If you don’t mind a slightly tangential point, however, you say
“It’s perfectly okay to be against associating with anyone for any reason as long as you don’t attack their person or property. ”
But this strikes me as being off the mark as well. Where in libertarianism do we make objective value statements for other people? Why does a libertarian think that discrimination is “perfectly okay”? I think this slightly damages the libertarian message, because we are explicitly saying “we’re ok with this deplorable action.”
I think a more effective libertarian position and talking point is not to say that this is “okay”, only that no matter how much you deplore this behavior, it doesn’t justify a *violent response*, and in particular, the violence of kidnapping and caging that the State uses as its major enforcement mechanism for its “laws”. From a libertarian perspective, we’re not trying to tell people that they can’t or shouldn’t be against discrimination; the point is that if you’re not ok with it, your choices for expressing your dislike or for attempting to affect change have to be *peaceful*, and in particular, violence – either your own or through agents such as the State – is off the table. Stressing non-violent means for achieving your ends, basically.
IMO, we need to concentrate our message and rhetoric away from complex social issues and instead to the conceptually simple concept that no matter what your dispute with someone is, as long as it is a non-violent dispute, we advocate resolving that dispute non-violently. This gets us away from saying things like “discrimination against someone is perfectly ok as long as you don’t do violence to them or their property,” things I don’t think are really what we are intending to say but they still sort of come out that way.
For me, conceptually, these problems start when we talk about “rights” or “freedoms” instead of “actions” (since I think those terms are good casual abstractions but are fundamentally flawed for logical reasoning), but that starts to head down an epistemological rat-hole.
Long Lost Friend April 4, 2015 , 5:04 pm Vote0
“Where in libertarianism do we make objective value statements for other people?”
You just did when you called the actions of certain business owners “deplorable” and “discriminatory.” That may be a personal position, but it isn’t a “libertarian” one, as you characterize it in your post.
The way David phrased it is consistent with the principles of liberty.
David Montgomery April 5, 2015 , 12:51 am Vote0
Andy, thanks for reading. The word “okay” was used to counter the “not okay” phrase employed by Jillette to imply that government intervention to prevent free association was justified. It wasn’t a value judgement about every possible reason why one person might not want to associate with another.
Elizabeth Van Horn April 4, 2015 , 4:59 pm Vote0
Yes, Penn totally blew it! He failed to comprehend what Indiana SB 101 was doing, and he took umbrage for the wrong issue. The problem with IN SB 101 is that it doesn’t go far enough! Everyone in the state need to have the same right to refuse to associate if they wish, and no one group should be given state protection, while the rest of the citizens are court case fodder. I live in Indiana, and have written my legislator about this issue. I also wrote the ACLU. As the Indiana BS 101 creates a special class, by affording *only* certain groups (religious) a protection from civil lawsuits. That’s what the original wording of the Indiana was meant to do.
Which mean those of us who aren’t religious, can be forced by the state, or suffer consequences, over actions of discrimination. But, it shouldn’t matter what the reason, people have the right to associate freely, or not, as they choose.
I abhor the idea that the state would force a religious person, or group, to violate their beliefs. But, what compelling reason is there, for not allowing everyone, the same freedom to not be forced?
I’d like to see a new bill that says, “Everyone is free to associate as they please”.
Stephan Kinsella April 4, 2015 , 6:23 pm Vote5
He is also very bad on intellectual property. He takes a totally unlibertarian position on it. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xcdv0m_penn-says-intellectual-property_fun
David Montgomery April 5, 2015 , 1:06 am Vote2
Thanks for the link, Stephan.
Nancy Rhyme Snelson April 4, 2015 , 9:11 pm Vote3
Thank you for a timely article. The practice of political correctness has overshadowed the concept and importance of personal freedom. The reality is that we all practice discrimination every day. Do we invite just anyone into our homes? Do we not discriminate when deciding what businesses to frequent, therein ignoring the ones we don’t like? Do we not discriminate when choosing the people we wish to spend time with?
We all discriminate when we exercise freedom of choice. Some choices are better than others, and it is through education of causation, not coercion, that satisfactory results for all will be achieved. One more reason to support Liberty.me!
David Montgomery April 5, 2015 , 1:33 am
Thank you @longlostfriend, @nancyrhyme, @hypatia, and @lukeliberty for reading and for your comments.
And whoever the kind soul is who sent me a BTC tip — thank you!
Zeroth Position April 5, 2015 , 4:31 am Vote2
It is important to remember that the people who represent libertarianism on establishment media programming are not going to be purists because those who control the establishment media do not want a pure libertarian message to be heard.
David Montgomery April 5, 2015 , 6:29 am Vote1
@reece, thanks for reading and commenting.
David Montgomery April 5, 2015 , 6:42 am Vote2
My appreciation to @pennjillette for replying, “I agree” when @libertydotme tweeted this article!
Calin Brabandt April 5, 2015 , 9:54 pm Vote0
Gov’t needs to implement a lottery system to force people to associate with people different from themselves. Even marriage options should be forced upon people by a lottery system to “encourage” cross-racial and cross-gender couplings. There is no place for personal preference and freedom of association in a fair and free society!
FREEDOM MUST BE FORCED!
David Montgomery April 6, 2015 , 3:04 pm Vote0
Forced freedom! You might be onto something, @calinb. 🙂 Thanks for reading and commenting.
Joseph Herrle April 6, 2015 , 8:29 pm Vote1
Exquisitely well conceived and well written. Thank you sincerely for your contribution, and please do keep writing.
David Montgomery April 7, 2015 , 3:44 am Vote0
Thanks so much for the kind words, @josephherrle. Much appreciated.
Anthony Katgert April 12, 2015 , 5:02 pm Vote0
Could Penn be suffering from “liberal” dementia ?
Calin Brabandt April 12, 2015 , 5:54 pm Vote0
I always enjoyed listening to Penn’s radio show and watching his Showtime series with Teller. He’s actually one of the few libertarians in the media that I’d like to meet.
However, I often found Penn to be a bit flippant in his advocacy. On his radio show, he’d sometimes denigrate or belittle a libertarian belief or principle by saying something like “but that’s the great thing about being a nut-job libertarian–you’ll never have to actually take responsibility for the consequences of your advocacy, because it will never happen!”
David Montgomery April 13, 2015 , 4:04 am
@calinb and @dionysius, thanks for reading and commenting.
Benjamin Neusse April 15, 2015 , 1:20 am Vote2
Penn Jillette has always been inconsistent, no surprise here.
David Montgomery April 15, 2015 , 5:13 am Vote1
Thanks for reading, @heal. It was nice to see Jillette come around and say he agrees.
Katharina April 15, 2015 , 3:33 pm Vote0
I just like your articles more and more. Thank you so much for taking the time and writing them.
It’s a puzzle to me why so many people confuse tolerance with acceptance. The bakery may tolerate gay marriages and still not be willing to bake wedding cakes for these events.
Andy Cleary April 15, 2015 , 4:31 pm Vote0
“It’s a puzzle to me why so many people confuse tolerance with acceptance. ”
I’ll offer my explanation of why this confusion often occurs: because terms like “tolerance” and “acceptance” are epistemiologically problematic. In particular, they aren’t *actions*. If you want to be clear, you have to speak in terms of the actions that people take. So, rather than saying “they are tolerant”, refer instead to specific actions. In this case, reading between the lines, I’m taking it that by tolerance you mean “people do not take certain specific actions against other people who are involved in gay marriage” (Which actions, though?), and by “acceptance” you mean similarly that they don’t take certain other actions.
I think it becomes much more clear if the whole issue was discussed as “I don’t see why people don’t see a difference between taking a violent action against someone because they were involved in a gay wedding vs taking non-violent actions such as deciding not to bake a cake (or presumably “verbally expressing their lack of support”).”
I submit that if the discussion had been worded that way there would be far less confusion. Does that make any sense?
Katharina April 15, 2015 , 5:21 pm Vote0
I think talking about actions doesn’t help to make the distinction a lot clearer. In my opinion, the difference is simply whether I approve of/agree with something or not. Acceptance and tolerance both indicate that somebody refrains from violent actions. While acceptance contains approval, tolerance does not. I think this is a lot simpler. I don’t have to approve with anything I tolerate.
David Montgomery April 15, 2015 , 4:49 pm Vote0
@katharina, thank you so much! 🙂
Jeff Gochenour April 23, 2015 , 12:39 pm Vote0
I think you are correct about association. Do you think this problem stems from thinking that being communal and in society are similar if not the same? If not for the state combining all humans in a specific land area wouldn’t people naturally gravitate towards those they are similar to in behavior, belief, etc.? Wouldn’t this resolve most of these type issues? Wouldn’t humans see this free market idea work? Would this type of disassociation possibly eliminate the hostility since the coercion would be absent.
I see many people who either want to be free, or believe themselves already free, “squabbling over the scraps from Longshanks table” and thereby making their hypocrisy evident.
David Montgomery April 23, 2015 , 6:58 pm Vote0
@gochenour69 Thanks for reading, Jeff. Good questions. I think this problem stems from many sources.
David Montgomery June 9, 2015 , 1:12 am Vote2
Patrick Stewart of Star Trek and X-Men fame has weighed in on gay wedding cakes:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/patrick-stewart-backs-bakery-after-gay-cake-court-battle-10296738.html
David Montgomery July 6, 2015 , 1:23 am Vote1
This is astounding: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/07/03/happy-independence-day-state-of-oregon-orders-christian-bakers-to-stop-talking-about-their-faith/
David Montgomery December 30, 2015 , 3:03 am Vote2
Bakery who refused to bake wedding cake for gay couple just paid $135,000 in damages:
http://5newsonline.com/2015/12/29/bakery-pays-135000-after-denying-service-to-same-sex-couple/
Martin Brock December 30, 2015 , 4:36 am Vote0
The good news is that the bakery is proceeding with its appeal and it’s still more than $350,000 ahead. Thanks, insanely litigious state!
http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2015/12/sweet_cakes_owners_pay_damages.html