A judge ruled that a bar was well within its right to kick out Trump supporters. And this is great news.

Not because I have any particular animosity towards Trump supporters (any more than other enablers of government oppression). I’m not saying Trump supporters should be kicked out of bars. If I owned a bar I certainly wouldn’t kick out Trump supporters. After all, it’s not like the Bernie supporters have enough money to keep a business afloat.

But this is a win for freedom of association. All interactions should be consensual. Obviously, we understand this concept when it comes to relationships and sex. But for some reason, fewer people hold consent as so important when it comes to business transactions.

You don’t have to go to a bar, and a bar doesn’t have to serve you.

But this does seem like quite the contradiction compared to courts forcing bakers to bake cakes for gay couples.

The distinction, in this case, is that the bar did not deny someone based on religious beliefs. Political discrimination is allowed. So you cannot deny a customer based on your own religious beliefs, but you can deny a customer based on their–and your–political beliefs. Unless of course, that customer holds a protected political belief, in which case you still cannot deny them.

Some people think that when a business opens their doors, they are waiving their right to deny service to any peaceful customer willing to pay the price for a product on offer.

But imagine extreme examples where the store owner should absolutely be able to deny a customer.

A Jewish-owned bagel shop advertises that they will make your bagels into any shape you want. Can they deny a Neo-Nazi who wants a dozen swastika bagels?

A black-owned costume maker advertises that they will sew anything for $20 an hour. Can they deny a KKK member who needs his robes altered?

Can a gay baker deny an Evangelist Christian who wants his cake to say, “Pray to uphold marriage between a man and a woman.”

Not surprisingly, pro-traditional marriage activists have asked gay-friendly bakeries to bake just such cakes.

This doesn’t please me. I feel bad for the owners of the bakeries who get dragged into the debate to be made an example of. They are just trying to run a business and be inclusive. Yet because the political winds leave religious folks feeling oppressed, they feel the need to fight back and demonstrate the very real double standard.

The point is, a gay-friendly bakery should absolutely be able to say, “No, we will not bake you a cake with an anti-gay old testament verse on it.”

But it is a two-way street. Forcing people to interact with you only creates conflict.

Just for the record, I find the whole gay marriage debate an absurdly stupid issue. Any conflict stems from the government giving special privileges and incentives to married couples. The government should have nothing to do with marriage.

Any privileges like hospital visitation rights, property ownership, etc. should be dealt with in private contracts between consenting adults. Who cares if the adults are two men, two women, or just friends; the contract will stipulate the legal relationship, and the rest is no one else’s business.

But then, of course, a particular church should not be forced to perform gay weddings. Surely many still would. A religious ceremony is not something that should hold any legal weight anyway. And the rest just gets back to not forcing businesses to serve customers they don’t want to, for whatever reason.

The ability to deny service does not create broader conflict. The conflict is created by people being forced to associate. Going our separate ways when we don’t agree is a peaceful resolution. Agree to disagree.

I find it a ridiculous double standard when cafes brag that they discriminate against men, or when an all black retreat bans white people. But they absolutely have the right to do so.

Give your money to someone who wants your business and doesn’t discriminate against you.

There will be peace on Earth not by forcing everyone under one big oppressive umbrella of collectivism, but by simply allowing people to associate with–and ignore–whoever they wish.

Forced unity does not create peace, it creates conflict.

When Movements Start to Eat Themselves

Oppressive inclusiveness tends to escalate until a movement ends up devouring itself. Recently Ru Paul of Ru Paul’s Drag Race ran into an issue. In case you are unaware, the tv show features “drag shows,” popular in gay culture where gay men dress like women…usually quite comically and unconvincingly.

But the key aspect of drag is that gay men are dressing as women. I’ve written extensively about trans-contradictions, but the relevent thing here is that a trans male wants to be considered and treated like a female. That means they aren’t drag queens, they are transgender.

And yet now there are a whole bunch of trans activists saying Ru Paul is transphobic because he thinks it is unfair to allow people in transition into a drag competition.

“You can identify as a woman and say you’re transitioning, but it changes once you start changing your body… It takes on a different thing; it changes the whole concept of what we’re doing.”

Isn’t it great that you have the freedom to turn off television shows with which you disagree?

And again to clarify, as someone who loves individual freedom, trans people can do whatever they want. I fully support their right to dress, live, and receive all the cosmetic elective surgery they want. But there are too many contradictions in their anti-science demands to ignore. I’ll leave them alone, but they refuse to leave me alone unless I play along with their fantasies.

Interestingly, a gay political figure was recently denied service in a New York City bar. But in the case of Milo Yiannoppolis, he was actually shouted out by the customers, as opposed to being denied by the bar itself.

They shouted, “Nazi scum get out,” because Milo is a Trump supporting political alt-righter. He is also regularly uninvited to speak on college campuses because of snowflakes protesting free speech that they call hate speech.

So if you are gay but don’t tout the right politics, you can be discriminated against.

Motivation is Irrelevant

Does the business owner really hold sincere religious beliefs that weigh on their conscience if they bake a gay couple a cake?

Who cares?! That is irrelevant to freedom of association. They should be able to deny service for whatever reason they want.

Of course, consumers are free to debate the sincerity versus bigotry of the owners. Customers should decide whether a business is worthy of continuing to have their patronage.

But isn’t it better when this is all in the open? I don’t want businesses to pretend to like me, I would rather them be honest and take my business elsewhere.

But it seems voluntary association, interaction by consent, is under attack.

This is not an issue for gays, trans, religious people, alt-righters or whatever.

At one point or another, we will all want the right to say, “No thanks, I don’t want to serve you, I don’t want to patronize you, I don’t want to talk to you, have sex with you, or pay for your housing.”

And that right should be respected, whatever the scenario.