Libertarian darling John Stossel took to Bill O’Reilly’s program on Wednesday to whine about “gay totalitarianism.” This guy is fast shaping up to be the pundit version of Rand Paul; if there’s a (right-wing) libertarian out there who’s not a bigot using your magic babble about the free market to mask your hate, please raise your hand.
No worries, I’ll wait.
Stossel took to the airwaves, where he sat across from O’Reilly on Wednesday’s Factor, to discuss Indiana’s “license to discriminate” act. Stossel claimed that “this movement has moved from tolerance to totalitarianism — the totalitarianism of the left.”
Nothing like a bit of hyperbole in the morning.
O’Reilly agreed with his guest that Christian bakers shouldn’t be able to “stop two people from getting married to anybody they want,” but neither of them called for marriage equality.
Stossel noted that it wasn’t “religious freedom” at stake, but “individual freed,” and that individual freedom allowed Christian bakers to discriminate against same-sex couples. “This is not about religious rights — it’s about individual freedom. You shouldn’t have to prove that you’ve got this religion.”
O’Reilly disagreed, saying, “Look, if a black couple comes in and the baker says, ‘I’m not going to bake the cake because you’re black,’ that’s a crime.”
“Given America’s history, blacks are a special case, but your point was good about exclusivity,” Stossel said, arguing that Hobby Lobby’s “corporate religious rights” — this phrase should sicken any decent, moral Christian — were infringed upon by the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate, saying that “they had to spend a gazillion dollars to prove they were religious.”
Yes, yes, those poor darlings. I’m sure the cheap garbage they get from China — abortion capital of the world — and sell at marked up rates will quickly fill the void left behind.
The topic gravitated back to liberal “fascism,” with Stossel suggesting that anti-discrimination laws defending LGBT people could violate Christians’ constitutional right to freedom of association.
Stossel argued that, “A bigot ought to be allowed to be a bigot, and the way to fight it is to not patronize that store. I wouldn’t go to (that) baker.”
O’Reilly agreed, saying, “the marketplace will dictate.”
I’ve heard this argument before; the idea that it somehow infringes on Christian rights to provide a service that they said they would provide when they opened their doors. The market is the sum of the people in it. If even a slight majority of them are bigoted, then the marketplace is going to be bigoted.
Why do idiots like O’Reilly and Stossel consider the marketplace to be an entity independent of the people who make it up?
O’Reilly did admit, however, “there has to be legal protections for homosexuals in this country – there has to be.”
Stossel agreed, but because he lives in an alternative reality, he said there already was.
Watch the discussion below: