When you open a shop to serve the public, you have to serve the public.
To an extent you do. Because the law says you do. (A law that's rather questionable in terms of being a just law and also in terms of being a constitutional law, but for the moment that's beside the point).
But there isn't anything contradictory in being generally open to the public but not willing to sever every segment of the public. And in the particular case discussed here, this isn't even an issue as he was willing to serve the public. Serving all customers does not imply that you will do whatever that particular customer wants.
Libertarians thinks bigots are abhorrent or reprehensible, take your choice.
1 - You have not shown that he is a bigot.
2 - Many libertarians think that bigotry is abhorrent or reprehensible but there is nothing about being a libertarian that requires that. Being a libertarian is about being a supporter of liberty. A libertarian, as a libertarian, would be against restricting someone's liberty for bigoted reasons, but bigotry vs inclusiveness or tolerance or acceptance is a different axis than freedom and liberty vs statism or supporting government control or totalitarianism.
3 - Libertarianism supports individual liberty. That includes the liberty to be a bigot or even to discriminate. Individual libertarians have other moral and political ideas and philosophies beyond those about liberty and they may decide in specific cases like this one to support restrictions against the baker for those reasons, but if they do so they are in this special case putting their other ideas ahead of liberty. That wouldn't mean they can't be libertarian, although IMO any solid libertarian should be somewhat uncomfortable at the idea, maybe accepting the intrusion as some sort of necessary evil, but certainly not an unmitigated good.
If you want to invite people to your house and exclude those you don't like, have at it.
His business is just as much his, and rightfully just as much his to control and set policy on, as his house.
As for the other issues other then the wedding cake issue.
- There was no indication at all that the parent in question that the mom was "selling" her daughter. No good reason to think that it wasn't the child's idea was present here. Even if it was the mom's idea, no evidence has been presented here to indicate or even suggest the child was unhappy with the idea. More generally "selling" is in this case both vague and loaded. Suggesting something like prostitution or a permanent sale in to slavery, both of which clearly where not the case here.
- Deciding that his protest against police brutality was about "disrespecting the flag" is certainly racist
Not even slightly. That particular point is not racist at all. You could argue that the real reason they where against him was racist and that the other points are pretexts, but then it would be up to you to make some argument for that. |
