Is the gay rights battle over for libertarians?

With the Supreme Court having legalized same-sex marriage across the country last month, libertarians are left to ask themselves if the fight for gay rights is over. This question is particularly pressing given the great media attention that has been paid to bakers and photographers who have been sued for refusing to service a gay marriage.

In a personal sense, the struggle for LGBT acceptance will never be over since there will always be hateful people in the world. However, from a policy standpoint, I believe there is nothing more that liberty lovers can do that would not infringe upon others’ property rights.

Some LGBT free market groups like the Log Cabin Republicans support additional anti-discrimination protections for LGBT people like the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). At first glance, it’s easy to see the logic behind such a push. Federal protections already exist in the Civil Rights Act for discrimination based on sex, race, religion, age, and a number of other classes — but not sexual orientation. So why not simply add it for consistency’s sake?

However, the question becomes more complicated when you consider the history and property rights. Regarding the former, as David E. Bernstein points out in Cato Unbound, anti-discrimination laws like the Civil Rights Act were passed to break up a racist monopoly in the Jim Crow South. State and local governments back then conspired with local businesses to keep blacks out of most public and private spaces. This level of animus simply does not exist for homosexuals today. People like myself can walk in public spaces and patronize private businesses largely free from fear of discrimination. That’s because, unlike race, sexual orientation is not a visible trait that one can be instantaneously profiled for. Yes, there are very feminine gay men and butch lesbians who passerby’s can strongly suspect are homosexual. However, suspicion is not confirmation, and oftentimes these individuals can pass as straight if they tried.

Read the rest on Rare here.

Young Voices Podcast – Independent Redistricting Commissions

The seventh Young Voices podcast features Randal Meyer and Daniel Pryor. Today they will be exploring the recent Supreme Court case on Arizona’s independent redistricting commissions: Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.

Don’t miss out on our future podcasts – subscribe on iTunes here!

How the UK’s new immigration law will hurt Britain’s economy

In 2012, the UK Home Secretary Theresa May announced that from April 2016 the United Kingdom will force non European Union immigrants who earn less than £35,000 back to their home countries. The radical anti-immigration reforms championed by Prime Minister David Cameron’s administration will bring about negative consequences for the UK economy.

The traditional anti-immigration logic of protecting jobs for natives is highly flawed; the usual narrative that immigrants steal jobs is a faulty argument and the hostility towards immigrants is unfounded, with empirical data continually disproving such views. The UK Department for Business Innovation and Skills states in its report on the impacts of migration on native employment that only 13% of new jobs in 2014 went to foreign nationals. Meanwhile, the Centre for Entrepreneurship’s report on migrant entrepreneurs notes that migrant entrepreneurs are responsible for creating 14% new companies in the UK. This implies that an immigrant entrepreneur starts one out of seven SME businesses in the UK.

Read the rest over at CapX here.