Audio: Is private discrimination on matters of conscience defensible?

National Review's Charles C. W. Cooke has a thought-provoking new book out in which he argues for a renewed fusionism between conservatives and libertarians that makes for both sound politics and sound policy.

During an in-depth interview on his "The Conservatarian Manifesto: Libertarians, Conservatives, and the Fight for the Right's Future," Cooke elucidated the merits of the conservatarian philosophy, and how it would apply to the most contentious and/or critical issues of the day, from education and entitlements to defense and marriage.

One particularly striking element of our interview concerned the conservatarian position on private discrimination, and how it relates to gay marriage and free speech. Here is what Cooke said on the matter:

I think that we need to start reexamining whether we are going to permit...those who have conscience objections from discriminating privately.

Let me make two points just to be extraordinarily clear here:

The first point I make is that there is absolutely no role whatsoever for discrimination within the government, and that the federal government has a role to play here.

There is no room in America for a government for example charging British writers a higher tax rate, or refusing to give African-Americans driver's licenses, or anything of that sort.

When one is forced to come into contact with the state -- where there is force involved or where the state has a monopoly or is in charge of a permitting process -- the Civil Rights Act is absolutely necessary, and must not only be upheld, it must be cherished.

The question of private discrimination is of course different because one does not have to visit a particular diner.

[instory-book ISBN="9780804139724"]

When we're thinking about Mississippi in 1964 and Mississippi in 2015, it's only reasonable to point out that the situation on the ground has changed.

For example, I would be fine with a restaurant having a "No Irish" sign in the window, but I would nonetheless boycott it and tweet about it and make a fuss.

The reason I bring it up though is not because I have a particular desire to repeal that part of the Civil Rights Act (although I do think that it's intellectually problematic to tell a business owner he has to serve company he dislikes -- a private business owner that is), but is because we seem to be headed for a clash on the question of gay marriage.

And the New Mexico Supreme Court ordered a photographer -- Elaine her name was -- to photograph a gay marriage to which she objected, strenuously, on religious grounds.

Now, the court case in question -- the majority opinion suggested that it was the price of living in a free country to be forced to serve customers you believe are in the words of Thomas Jefferson "sinful and tyrannical" [link ours].

Now I don't agree with Elaine. I'm fine with gay marriage. I would happily photograph a gay wedding. But if we are to side with her as 80 percent of the American public [85 percent according to a July 2013 Rasmussen poll] seemed to do after the case, then we should also accept that that has implications for our view of other private discrimination.

And I understand that it's a thorny area, but I am presenting the case that it might be time to throw up our hands, and say that just as we are not greatly offended if someone -- legally that is -- if somebody chooses to say hideous things about the Holocaust, we have strong First Amendment protections for terrible human beings, we may need to accommodate those who disagree with gay marriage so that they aren't forced to provide private services.

It's one of the ways in which it will be possible to keep the Union together and everybody happy.

On the matter of defending free speech -- including abhorrent speech in particular -- Cooke continued:

[sharequote align="center"]It's amazing to me as a foreigner the extent to which those with...often ugly views are protected[/sharequote]

It's amazing to me as a foreigner the extent to which those with dissenting and often ugly views are protected in the United States because they're not where I'm from. There are these lines that are drawn, and it is presumed that if you stand up and say that some terrible Holocaust denier should be able to speak without being arrested but you agree with him -- well of course I don't agree with him -- I don't agree with any of the people I have defended on these legal grounds in the last few years. I think they're generally awful.

But I don't agree with Elaine either. And that isn't to say I should be able to force her at the point of a bayonet to serve people she dislikes.

During the interview, which you can listen to in full below, we also had a chance to address a variety of other topics concerning Cooke's provocative new book, including:

• What is a conservatarian?
• A post-mortem of the 2012 election and its lessons for conservatarians
• Welfare vs. defense spending
• Jefferson vs. Bismarck and America's education system
• Abortion and Ariel Castro
• Why getting government out of marriage would likely be impractical and impracticable
• Why a conservative stance on foreign policy is superior to the libertarian position
• And much much more

Note: The links to the book in this post will give you an option to elect to donate a percentage of the proceeds from the sale to a charity of your choice. Mercury One, the charity founded by TheBlaze’s Glenn Beck, is one of the options. Donations to Mercury One go towards efforts such as disaster relief, support for education, support for Israel and support for veterans and our military. You can read more about Amazon Smile and Mercury One here.

–

Follow Ben Weingarten (@bhweingarten) and TheBlazeBooks on Twitter and Facebook.

You can find all of our Blaze Books interviews on Soundcloud and Stitcher, and subscribe to our podcast automatically via iTunes.