There are many, many things I don’t really understand. I don’t understand how people get really excited over baseball. Sorry, Gov. Polis, but it’s kind of a boring game (Ed: I’ll be forwarding all the angry emails to you). I don’t understand fashion. Having worn an Air Force uniform for most of my adult life, I don’t get the idea that certain colors and patterns “go together” while others do not (Wife: I know, that’s why I pick your clothes, sigh…). And I really don’t get why some people care so deeply about things that are really none of their business.

I’ve mentioned before that we all have a libertarian streak of sorts. Its width varies from person to person, but we all tend to feel that, at least at some level, the government, our bosses, heck, even our friends, should not stick their noses into our private affairs. For some people that means there should, for example, be no drug laws at all. For others, it means the government shouldn’t be able to, say, regulate pollution coming from cars or a private factory.

Libertarianism isn’t really left or right, though those with the widest streaks tend to be found in the GOP, at least until the hypocrisy kicks in. 

I’m not talking about traditional Republicans. No, I’m referring to the more modern hard-right, anti-government folks like the famous Grover Norquist, who argued that government should be shrunk down to a size so small that “we can drown it in a bathtub.” Those folks, many of whom make up the Republicans in the U.S. House and Senate, see government as the enemy, and argue that an unchecked free-market fixes everything. Well, that’s wrong, but that’s what they claim. I rather like having a publicly funded fire department (socialism!) and I like having city cops, so I don’t have to hire a private security firm out of my own pocket.

But one area where the hypocrisy of these folks is most dramatic is when it comes to allowing or preventing the government, through both laws and enforcement, to decide whom an American can love, can marry, can, well, have sex with. It is hard to think of a more intrusive type of government than one that is permitted to peek into bedroom windows to make sure that the consenting adults aren’t doing anything that they think they shouldn’t (I could launch into a discussion of religious cherry picking to justify such bigotry, but I shall resist).

A recent Colorado Politics story reminded me of this issue, when a U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that Colorado’s anti-discrimination law was OK. The Court rejected a free speech claim from a Colorado website designer who argued that her own religious beliefs should allow her to refuse a gay couple’s request for a wedding website. Now, I know there are going to be quite a few people who are yelling their support of this business owner at their screens but hear me out. 

Can we at least agree that a company should not be able to refuse to provide a service to a person on the basis of race? Ok, so far, so good. Can we agree that that same business could not refuse to provide a service to a woman, because women belong in the home, or some such nonsense? Still with me? How about refusing to serve, say, members of one particular religion? 

Now, how about that aforementioned same-sex couple? Some folks argue that LGBTQ folks should not have legal protections against bigotry. Happily, the Court ruled otherwise. But this story reminded me of a favorite lesson of mine to explore with my cadets when I was teaching the Constitution and discrimination issues at the AF Academy. As the cadet wing, as it is called, tends to be quite Republican, I would always have at least one kid who would announce, with attempted deep profundity, that since being gay was a choice, it should not be protected (that’s not a good legal argument either, but I digress…). I would always respond by saying I would accept his (it was always a guy) argument if, and only if, he would at that very moment “choose” to be gay for the next 30 seconds – and I mean actually gay, not pretending, since it is a choice? I never had a student figure out how to make that choice. Hmmm…

Back when marriage equality was being argued, I often heard those on the right claim that “traditional marriage” (like, I guess, a certain former president’s three marriages) would fall apart if straight people knew that somewhere, somehow, gay people were getting married. I never quite understood that. I did a google search for people with traditional man-and-wife marriages that had gotten a divorce because same-sex marriage became legal, but guess what? Zippo. Anybody out there leave their wife or husband because a gay couple got hitched? Not so much?

I’ve often written about the inherent conflict that exists within our system of rights. Such rights are never absolute and often bang into each other. But I am pleased the court ruled that personal bigotry is not an excuse to refuse an LGBTQ couple a website, a cake, or heck, even a set of tires. Whom you love is simply none of my business, nor the governments.

I’ve never understood how people can care so deeply about something that just doesn’t impact their lives in any meaningful way. Double heck, I hear there are actually people out there who are Ohio State fans, instead of being Michigan fans, as the sports gods intended. That said, should an OSU fan want to buy one of my woodworking projects from my Etsy store, I’m pretty sure I don’t get to refuse him just because he went to that school in Ohio. 

The law is there to protect everyone’s fundamental rights. Personal bigotry, regardless of its foundation, is no basis for justice. Even for Ohio State fans. 

I just don’t understand how you can think otherwise.