Bake me a cake, or else!

Congratulations to John Stossel.  During the recent 'conversation' regarding Indiana's law, so many pundits were focused on 'religious' freedom.  This isn't just about religious freedom, but freedom in general.  Freedom to have opinions which which others disagree.  Freedom to use your property/skills/talents as you wish (or to not use them at all).  Don't use government to force people to do things you want - how can you do that and at the same time claim to be fighting 'intolerance'?  

I think it is silly to deny service to customers because a business owner doesn't like the customer, their behaviors, or their lifestyle.  But I do believe the business owner has the right to run his/her business as she sees fit (after all, she is the owner), even if they run it poorly.  

Discrimination and the New ‘Inclusive’ America

John Stossel | April 8, 2015

Bake me a cake, or go to jail!

Sadly, that is the new message from "inclusive" America. If you don't want to cater, photograph, preside over, sell pizza at, sell flowers to or otherwise participate in a gay wedding, you will be punished. If you don't want your business to pay for a kind of birth control that you consider murder, you will pay fines until your business is bankrupt.

Personally, I think both birth control and homosexuality are just fine, and gay marriage is as valid as straight marriage. But forcing everyone to act as if they think that way is just wrong. We have moved from "inclusion" to totalitarianism.

The list of people you must treat carefully keeps getting longer. Protected classes now include sex, race, age, disability, nationality, citizenship status, pregnancy, family status and more. I'm in two of those groups. You better treat me well!

Why force someone who disapproves of your actions to bake you a cake? Lots of other bakers would love the business. This debate has moved from inclusion to demanding that everyone adopt your values.

In a free country, bigots should have the right to be bigots. Americans should also have freedom of association.

American lawyers talk about special protection for religious freedom, and in the Hobby Lobby case the Supreme Court said you could escape onerous parts of Obamacare by paying lawyers a fortune and convincing judges that you are a closely-held corporation with religious objections. But why must you be religious to practice what you believe? This should be about individual freedom.

Of course, government must not discriminate. The worst of American racism and homophobia—slavery, segregation enforced by Jim Crow laws, bans on interracial marriage, anti-sodomy laws, etc.—was government-enforced discrimination. That was wrong, and it was right for the federal government to intervene.

But private actions are different. If I start a business with my own money, I ought to be allowed to serve only libertarians, people who wear blue shirts, whatever. It's my business!

My customers have choices. If I am racist or anti-gay, the free market will punish me. Enough people would boycott my business that I would probably lose money quickly.

It would actually be useful to see which businesses refuse to serve one group or another. Tolerance is revealed by how people behave when they are free. American law fosters the illusion that everyone is unbiased, while their real feelings remain hidden, making them harder to boycott, shame or debate.

Punishment from the market is enough. The heavy hand of law is not needed here.

However, given America's history, I accept that there are a few exceptions. In the South, people banned from a lunch counter had few other choices. The Civil Rights Act's intrusion into private behavior was probably necessary to counter the damage done by Jim Crow laws.

But today such coercion is no longer needed. Even in the difficult days of Reconstruction, after the Civil War, business began to bring together whites and blacks who might not always have liked each other but who wanted the best deals. It took several years for racists to get Jim Crow passed so they could put a stop to that erosion of the old racist ways. Government helped keep racism going for several more decades.

Individuals should be allowed to discriminate. I discriminate all the time. I favor people over others when I choose my friends, jobs, hobbies, clubs, religion, etc. So do you.

Elizabeth Taylor married nine times. Had she married again, should the EEOC have ordered her to marry someone from an ethnic minority?

A homophobic baker shouldn't stop a same-sex couple from getting married. Likewise, a gay couple shouldn't force a baker to make them a wedding cake. No one should ever force anyone to bake them a cake.

If Apple can boycott Indiana, why can’t evangelicals boycott same-sex weddings?

Jordan Ballor with an excellent article about the double standard in the "discrimination" debate.  Companies and states want to be able to run their business in accordance with what's 'right', but don't want others to have the same freedom.

The Logic Of Economic Discrimination

If Apple can boycott Indiana, why can’t evangelicals boycott same-sex weddings?

APRIL 9, 2015 By Jordan J. Ballor

The passage and consideration of religious liberty laws in states like Indiana and Arkansas has sparked a firestorm of controversy. Powerful corporate interests and vociferous gay activists have opposed these proposals. Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, penned an op-ed in the Washington Post that decried them as “designed to enshrine discrimination in state law.” But the economic response has moved beyond the opinion pages, as a number of businesses, including some based in Indiana, promised to boycott the state or suspend further investment. Angie’s List CEO Bill Oesterle issued a statement from the company’s Indianapolis headquarters announcing a suspension of a planned expansion in the city: “Angie’s List is open to all and discriminates against none and we are hugely disappointed in what this bill represents,” said Oesterle. Cook, likewise, asserts that “discrimination, in all its forms, is bad for business.”

There are a number of delicious ironies in the complex reactions and developments arising out of this controversy, but one that deserves more attention has to do with the inherently and unavoidably discriminatory logic of the promised business and government boycotts and economic sanctions. The message is clear: if states like Indiana pass these RFRA laws, there will be economic consequences. Companies will move or suspend further investment. Conferences and events will not be held in these places. Goods and services will stop flowing so freely to such states.

Such boycotts, however, are fundamentally based on discrimination. Executives like Cook and Oesterle don’t like what Indiana has done, and they have decided to limit business transactions with those that they find problematic, whether morally or otherwise. Ryan Anderson of the Heritage Foundation powerfully summarizes this dynamic: “Businesses are saying they’ll boycott Indiana over this religious liberty law. So they want the freedom to run their businesses in accordance with their beliefs—so they’ll boycott a state that tries to protect that freedom for all citizens? Do they not see that the baker, photographer and florist are simply asking for the same liberty?”
Discrimination for Me, But Not for Thee

Why should big businesses like Apple, Angie’s List, or Salesforce be able to discriminate against an entire state like Indiana, while Christian small-business owners cannot likewise decide who they want to do business with? If Apple can boycott Indiana, why can’t evangelicals boycott same-sex weddings? The reality is that such economic discrimination depends on a complex of freedoms, including but not limited to religious liberty.

Also at issue in these debates is the fundamental freedom of association. When government power is used to coerce economic exchange, there ought to be a significantly convincing reason to do so. Otherwise, the presumption should be in favor of liberty and the burden of proof should lie on those who want to compel exchange.

Boycotts have a long history in the United States, a history that ought to be celebrated and respected. Such exercises of economic liberty are an important aspect the moral suasion that is constitutive of a free society. People ought to be free to patronize establishments that accord with their values and to decide to what extent such concord is even necessary.
The Real Problem Is the Double Standard

The problem in this instance, then, is not that companies like Angie’s List threaten economic sanction, although the prudence of such action in this particular case is debatable. These businesses will have to answer to their stakeholders for their choices, and rightly so. The problem, rather, is that the freedom to discriminate is claimed by such companies for themselves but not extended and recognized for others. Boycotts against discrimination as such thus depend on the very thing they oppose. In this sense, the discriminatory actions of businesses ought to be judged alike, whether they are based on religious convictions or secular morality.

Now it is also true that not all discrimination is created equal. But the key to a reasoned and morally-responsible discussion about good, bad, or permissible forms of discrimination depends on recognizing and acknowledging the inherently discriminatory nature of moral, economic, and political choices.

The starting point must be the presumption of such liberties, and there must be a higher standard of proof for those who would infringe those freedoms. The logic of economic discrimination runs both ways, and such give-and-take is absolutely indispensable for a truly free and prosperous society.

Dr. Jordan J. Ballor is a research fellow at the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion & Liberty, and author most recently of "Get Your Hands Dirty: Essays on Christian Social Thought (and Action)." You can follow him on Twitter @JordanBallor.

Gov. Lending for Housing Risks Another Crash

Government’s reckless lending putting US on track for another housing bubble


By John Stossel Published April 01, 2015
FoxNews.com



They're doing it again!

When the last housing bubble burst, politicians blamed "greedy banks." They said mortgage companies lent money recklessly, making loans to people with dubious credit, for down payments as low as 3 percent.

"It will work out," said the optimistic bankers. Regulators didn't disagree. Everyone said, "Home prices will keep going up." And home prices did -- until they didn't.

The bubble popped in 2007. Lots of people were hurt, and politicians took more of your tax money to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac along with reckless banks. They also gave the Federal Housing Administration a $2 billion bailout.

Then the politicians said, "We'll fix this so it doesn't happen again." Congress passed Dodd-Frank and a thousand new regulations. The complex rules slowed lending, all right. It's one reason this post-recession recovery has been abnormally slow.


But -- April Fools! -- the new rules didn't solve the problem of reckless lending, and it's happening again.

Because our government subsidizes home purchases, recklessness is invited. Somehow, Americans buy cars, clothing, computers, etc., without government guarantees, but politicians think housing is different.

Both parties support the subsidies.
The new rules didn't solve the problem of reckless lending, and it's happening again.

The left wants government to help struggling families, and the right thinks home ownership sends a wholesome cultural message. Both parties have cozy connections to home-builders and lenders.

At the time of the housing crash, most high-risk loans were guaranteed by the government. Those banks wouldn't have been as reckless if they had their own money on the line.

But they knew they could grant a mortgage to most anyone and the FHA would back it or government-sponsored companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would buy it. That fueled the frenzy of lending.

After the bubble popped, I assumed the political class would learn a lesson, but they haven't. Today, even more American mortgages are guaranteed by government. More than 90 percent of new loans are backed by taxpayers. After the crash, Fannie and Freddie did raise their minimum down payment -- to a measly 5 percent -- but a few months ago, they lowered it again to 3 percent!

Are they crazy? A sensible congressman, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), tried to get an answer from the administration's new mortgage regulator, asking in a hearing, "All things being equal, is a 3 percent down riskier to the taxpayer than a 10 percent down loan?"

A pretty basic question -- but one that director Mel Watt still dodged, responding, "Mr. Chairman, that is generally true. But when you pair the down payment with compensating factors ... look at other considerations ... you can ensure that a 3 percent loan is just as safe."

What? That's nonsense. This is what happens when pandering politicians get to dispense your money. Watt is among the worst. When he was a congressman, he pushed for mortgage subsidies for welfare recipients who made down payments as low as $1,000.

Edward Pinto, who studies housing risk for the American Enterprise Institute, says policies like this put us on the way to another bubble: "The government is once again ... saying, let's loosen credit, give loans to people that potentially can't afford them, and everything will be fine because house prices will go up."

On my show, former FHA commissioner David Stevens, who did improve lending standards a bit after the crash (before Watt and his cronies weakened them), responded that this time the government has new regulations that will prevent things falling apart: "I think in the effort, post-recession, to make sure we never go down this path again, we have created more rules than ever existed in the history of this country."

But more rules aren't a solution. Government's regulators didn't foresee the problems last time. Fannie and Freddie got a clean bill of health right up until the collapse.

The solution is less government involvement. Canada doesn't have a Fannie, Freddie or FHA. Canada didn't have the trauma of a housing bubble. In Canada, lenders and homeowners risk their own money.

Does that mean Canadians cannot afford homes? No! Without all that government help, Canada's homeownership rate is higher than ours.

Quote of the Month

“A free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular.”

                                                                              - Adlai Stevenson