Michael Zigarelli is generally correct in his column “What's at stake in the Hobby Lobby case” , but slipped one by the Trib. Jim Crow and bigotry are two different things.
As a libertarian, I have always supported the individual's right to be a jerk by refusing to serve entire classes of people he didn't like, be they black, gay or whatever. As a libertarian, I have always opposed laws that force individuals to be jerks, such as the Jim Crow laws or, for that matter, the laws that forced individuals to do the opposite.
The fact is that Jim Crow laws were put in place because more and more individuals found it to their benefit to serve blacks and the bigots didn't like it. At the time, there were enough bigots to get the laws passed. As we moved into the '60s, the outright bigots became a minority, leading to laws forcing them to do what they didn't want to do.
Hobby Lobby is fighting a law that is trying to force the owner to do something he doesn't want to do. Some consider him to be a jerk. It doesn't matter. He has that right.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.