I know Randy Barnett is too busy to respond to this now, but I thought in light of recent provocations by Prof. Bainbridge I would invite libertarians to join...the dark side of the force. I mean, the Democratic party. It is...your destiny (spooky wiggling fingers). Look at me, reliable Democratic voter! I support 2nd amendment rights, think drugs should be legalized, support means testing of social security, and think running permanent trillion-dollar deficits is a bad idea. What's more, I favor the elimination of all agricultural and industrial subsidies! And free trade! And abortion rights! I think people should be allowed to form unions, and also not form unions. I don't think it's good that the teacher's unions should forever stymie potential reforms in the US educational system, but I also think NCLB is an invasive federal program wedded to testing for its own sake, which imposes costs on the states and doesn't supply federal money to pay for them. I think market-based solutions to environmental problems, such as pollution credits, can be great, in the context of stern enforcement of existing environmental protections. I don't think the feds should subsidize grazing, logging, or mining on government-owned lands. I favor innovative traffic-mitigation schemes involving variable road pricing! Ooh, ooh, and I think prostitution and gambling should be legal! And I love gay marriage! Come here, gay marriage, I'm going to give you a big wet kiss. And the firm separation of church and state! But I don't support hate crime laws. Nor do I think the government should force private businesses to hire homosexuals if they don't want to, because they are gay-hating nuts or something! Go on, be gay-hating nuts, I say! Just leave actual gay people alone, and let them have fancy weddings with Vera Wang gowns and little packets of pastel-colored Jordan almonds, if they want. No one's making you read the NYT weddings section, after all. It's like that because it fills a market niche! And so is CBS; it's a triumph of the marketplace! If people don't want to watch sneering liberal condescension towards their heartland, gay-hating values, they can watch Fox! See, everyone's happy now. So what do you say, Libertarians? Feel the love. Feeeel the love. I'm not the only Democrat who's like this. No, there's, like, 100 of us! OK, 5. Still, don't you want to feel the love? OK, this is my last concession: I kinda like Rush. I mean, in an ironic way, but still. "Invisible airways crackle with light/bright antennae bristle with the energy!" Let's come together, people. You have nothing to lose but your insulting, theocratic, soi-disant Republican allies.
UPDATE: Katherine's comment below has me wondering if it's really true I don't think it should be illegal to discriminate in hiring on the basis of sexual orientation.
It's true that I would regard a job listing including the words "only straight people need apply" very dimly. And I do think a similar listing calling only for white applicants is (and should be) illegal. I guess I was just thinking along the lines of "it's not illegal to be an asshole". By this I mean that a certain amount of community-wide censure and boycotting seems to me like a better solution to homophobic employers than the Feds breathing down their necks. But I don't know. What I really meant to highlight was that staunch support of gay rights does not entail sweeping assertions about "hate speech", such that fire-and-brimstone anti-homosexual preachers would be dragged into court (as one hears about in Canada, perhaps apocryphally). I think people should be free to say awful things about one another, up to the limiting case of direct incitement to violence. Small business owners who hate gay people, um. This is difficult. Employers have the right to, say, hate red-headed people, and never give jobs to red-headed applicants. This is crazy, but should it be illegal? It seems like a curious artefact of current law that it's legal to be an asshole tout court, but illegal to be a sexist, harassing bastard. There is a case to be made for this, no doubt, but it's also kind of odd, viewed sub specie aeternitatis. I remember reading about a case in which a boss mounted a sucessful defense against a (very well-founded) sexual harassment claim on the grounds that he had been equally odious to male employees, but in a different way. This seems...weird, but I don't think sexual harassment should be legal. Should the Boy Scouts have to allow out gay men to be Scoutmasters in order to interact with government institutions such as public schools? Well, they ought to in that it's the right thing to do, but should they be legally required to? I incline to say, no. But I wouldn't accept such a justification in the case of some hypothetical Aryan Nation youth organisation. So maybe I'm a hypocrite? Discuss.