Here’s the deal – I’m conservative (well, small “L” libertarian), not fan of the gay lifestyle by any means, but at the same time, I don’t think it’s my place to be interfering with whatever the hell two guys or chicks want to do.
I look at this whole situation from a point of freedom of association. Just like a state recognizes a businesses existence on behalf of its owners or allows a husband and wife to act on the behalf of the other on certain things, if two guys or two girls want to be recognized as having the same ability, I say let them.
However, there are certain things that need to be changed as well, which I’ll point out.
As I mentioned, I’m fine with “partners” having the legal ability to act on one another’s behalf, as in a traditional marriage, however, I certainly don’t want to condone the lifestyle or support it. What’s a libertarian to do?
Simple: Allow business owners to discriminate based on marital status – regardless of whether it’s two guys or a guy a girl. That way, those of us who don’t like the lifestyle can be like “hey, sorry, you don’t get the benefits that Jim and Joan do”. Of course, if someone wants to do the reverse, and only allow benefits for “John and Joe”, whatever, it’s not my business.
See what this does? It pushes the argument into the realm where it’s *really easy* to dominate on a logical scale – property rights.
“How can you say Jim and Joan can get benefits but not Joe and John?!?!?” Easy – it’s my business. I’ll hire/fire and give benefits to whoever I want.
Powered by FireStats
I agree that if you own the business, you should be able to call the shots. If you want to allow smoking, you allow smoking. If you don’t want to offer same-sex benefits, don’t offer them. In the end, the market will decide if you’re right or wrong. It’s your risk.
Your policy may cost you a teriffic employee who goes to work for a competitor instead, and/or non-smokers may not frequent your business. Either way, it’s your business, your risk.
People who want to use force to make you offer same-sex benefits or to not allow smoking, ignore the obvious – that you’re taking a risk with each and every policy you make. It’s your business, you should be able to do what you want.
On gay marriage … I think it’s a twisting of definitions to call it marriage, but … I don’t see any reason for the state to be in the marriage business in the first place. IMHO, marriage is a spiritual union between a man and a woman, not a legal arrangement. Therefore, like so many other things, it’s time to get the state out of the marriage business too.