Gary Johnson Supports Private Anti-Discrimination Laws Protecting Gays

Below, watch 2012 Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson
interviewed briefly by
Jeff4Justice, a gentleman who lives in his SUV, interviews
celebrities and politicians alike, and advocates both about gay
issues and for third-party candidate inclusion in elections:

If for whatever reason you are unable to watch, Jeff mentions
Johnson’s support for gay marriage equality (seemingly unaware this
support is
not new to libertarians), then pivots to discussion of
anti-discrimination laws. Jeff’s concern is that gays and lesbians
may be resistant to voting for Libertarian Party candidates if they
don’t support antidiscrimination laws.

Johnson responds that he doesn’t believe there should be
workplace discrimination against gays, referencing racial
segregation and civil rights laws from the 1960s. Jeff specifically
asks if there should be laws preventing employers and businesses
from discriminating against gay workers or customers. Johnson says
the discrimination should be legally prohibited: “There has to be
an awareness, and there has to be consequences to discrimination.
And there should not be discrimination. This is America.”

Unpacking this as a gay libertarian: The first and most obvious
observation is that Johnson, like many people who make this
comparison, ignores the fact that segregation wasn’t entirely
voluntary. Much of it was mandated by government. Segregation was
law. This is not to downplay that there were certainly many
businesses and powerful forces in the private sector that
supported, wanted, encouraged, fought to maintain segregation, and
instituted it well beyond what the laws demanded. The laws wouldn’t
have existed if rich and powerful white people didn’t want it in
the first place. But it’s important to note that segregation laws
restricted freedom of association by prohibiting it.

The refusal of states to recognize same-sex marriage is again a
government-ordered mandate. It has nothing to do with whether
individuals or churches or businesses acknowledge the legitimacy of
gay marriage. No business serving wedding needs has been forbidden
from providing goods and services for gay couples, regardless of
whether the state recognizes the marriage. But making
private businesses provide these services by government order
restricts the right of freedom of association by demanding it.

Many, many private businesses have chosen to serve gay couples.
A small number have not. Before calling for more government
intervention, the first step for any libertarian should be to
examine what other options are available. I hate the concept of
ranking victimization, but the level of private discrimination
against engaged gay couples absolutely pales to the culture created
by racial segregation. Being denied a wedding cake by one shop out
of several choices is not the same as being shut out of entire
neighborhoods and centers of commerce. There are many private
solutions to the issue of gay couples being denied services, and
businesses who engage in discrimination get significant negative
attention and publicity. In fact, the relatively small number of
cases of consumer discrimination shows how much has society changed
primarily from cultural evolution. Undoubtedly a gay couple looking
for a bakery to make them a wedding cake in the 1990s would have
faced many more rejections.

Restrictions on liberty to achieve certain public policy goals
frequently result in unintended consequences and need to be
carefully thought out, no matter how well-meaning. Most people
consider it uncontroversial that we’ve placed restrictions of
freedom of speech so that libelous and slanderous comments are not
protected. These are manifestations of speech that have the
potential to cause harm to others or deprive them of their rights.
Nevertheless, people and businesses regularly attempt to use the
law to silence opinions and criticisms that they don’t like or make
them look bad, falsely claiming libel or slander. People have to
pay lawyers to defend themselves and their right to speak out.
Every restriction of liberty comes with a trade-off that can prove
problematic. We have to have more than the indignity of being
rejected by a baker of photographer in order to justify legally
forcing these businesses to give up their freedom of
association.

For more, read my primer on libertarians, gay marriage, and
freedom of association
here.