So a Libertarian group on FaceBook had this:
Now, it has a certain level of truth to it but the Libertarians of the “Big L” variety are so caught up in their “both the main parties are bad” idea (and, yeah, I can see that) that they engage in false equivalence.
The baker has every right to bake or not bake the cake. And to the extent that the law says otherwise, the law is wrong and oppressive. However I have (or anyone else has) every right to take my business elsewhere if I don’t like it. What he doesn’t have is the right to my business, your business, or anyone else’s business.
Kaepernick has every right to kneel for the anthem. And people have every right to take their business elsewhere if they don’t like it. After all, what the NFL sells is entertainment, for which there are plenty of alternatives. There are other sports. There are even other venues for Football. The NFL does not have the right to their business. And if his actions are costing his employers millions of dollars they have the right to fire him because he does not have the “right” to a particular multi-million dollar job. This is the same as if I were to engage in political protesting on company time at my job in such a way as to drive customers away. My boss would fire me and be right to do so.
And in both cases, I have the right to speak my position on the matter because I also have a right of free speech.
See how it works?
But this is where the false equivalence kicks in. Nobody sued Kaepernick to force him to stand. Nobody tried to use the force of government to impose their will. Simple operation of the market–he, and those like him, drove away customers (which is still hurting the NFL). But he then found another market more accepting of what he was “selling” and continued.
The folks opposed to the baker’s choices weren’t content to let the market, and the free choices of individuals resolve the issue. The baker choosing not to serve that part of the market had it costs (see my post on the cost of discrimination for how that works). Other people did not see that unserved market as a business opportunity. Or maybe they did but that wasn’t enough. No, the baker had to be punished. Thus lawsuits that went up the chain of appeals. And when those pursuing the suit seeking damaged designed to put the baker completely out of business, finally lost, they turned around and tried again with a different but closely related tactic.
Thus on one hand we had free people making free decisions in the marketplace of ideas as well as that of goods and services. In the other we had the attempt to exercise force by means of government. The two things are not the same. They are not flip sides of the same coin. They do not show the two “sides” as morally equivalent. Other things might. Those other things would have to be examined on their own merits. This one does not.
So, yes, let’s try freedom. But in one of the two cases cited that’s. what. we. did.