1. PolarBeast says

    Don’t let the preppy facade fool you. He’s a nasty man (his kids are just as nasty) and this is just another comment that illustrates the point.

  2. says

    Yes, George. Expecting businesses to not discriminate against customers is tyranny! Why didn’t those uppity negroes just go to some OTHER place to eat?

    It’s funny that the whole point of this bill (according to the right wing) was to prevent businesses from discriminating against religious people, but now that it got shot down, it’s suddenly being called out as “hammering by the government”. Umm…didn’t you guys make that bill to use the government to get your way? Just more right-wing hypocrisy as usual…

  3. Tom says

    Um, excuse me George. It’s NOT about ‘winning,’ it’s about eradicating government-sanctioned bigotry in our society. NO ONE wants to blindly go to a business to hire them only to be rudely dismissed later because there’s something about the customer the business owner doesn’t like/agree with. You want to discriminate? Fine, start a private membership club like a country club, but don’t you dare think you can treat some people one way and other people another way.

  4. Bill says

    What he actually said is that people shouldn’t use laws or the government to force a photographer to photograph a wedding when there are plenty of other photographers around who would do it, but he also said that if a gay couple orders a cake from a bakery, the bakery should bake the cake.

    He seems to be distinguishing between having a photographer who is uncomfortable about it for some reason having to be physically present at a same-sex wedding, and a baker who makes a cake in his bakery and has it delivered (or picked up by a customer) but who is not actually present at the wedding.

    Whether one agrees with him or not, one should give an accurate account of what he actually said.

  5. Onnyjay says

    Will is (in)famous for ignoring the obvious to make an obtuse and usually irrelevant point. Faux Nooze brings him on to utter nonsense to the brain-dead audience.

  6. says

    This law wasn’t just about wedding services. It allowed anybody and everything to discriminate against gay people. Banks, gas stations, pharmacies, government clerks, etc., etc. were provided legal protection if they wanted to refuse to serve gay people for “sincere” religious beliefs (how they were to determine whether they were sincere is a big mystery to me).

  7. says

    Wasn’t the whole purpose of the bill to prevent religious people from being discriminated by businesses? So by George Will’s reasoning, a bill to keep a store from refusing service to Christians is super duper, but a bill to extend the same courtesy to homosexuals is “hammering the government” and those gay customers should just go somewhere else.

    That’s some good spin you got going there George. Dreidels everywhere must envy you.

  8. Mags says

    WTF WHAT!??!

    Dear George,

    All past centuries were nothing but religious-facilitated bigotry, that is why civil rights movement happened. So people cannot be prejudiced bigots anymore in the name of man-made deity or another sh!teous form of twisted theocracy.

    Calling anything “Religious Right” is actually going BACKWARDS to when prejudiced pricks were allowed to freely be prejudiced pricks.

    Sincerely, do get your head out of your buttocks.

  9. Tigernan says

    So now we’re “not nice”? Is this The Right’s new stance, that we’re winning and now we want too much? Wow.

  10. TonyJazz says

    What a horrible, hateful man…. He’s so pathetic.

    Discrimination should be morally acceptable????

  11. Michael Beattie says

    Sounds more like the right behaving like sore losers. Yes, the queers won marriage, but we don’t have to treat them equally EVERYWHERE. It seems to me that discrimination on any basis is un-American and ugly.

  12. Dback says

    Georgie, go back to rhapsodizing about baseball. No one cares about anything else you have to say about current events in America. (His column after Clinton left the White House convinced me that he has a very serious Mr. Hyde dwelling under that preppy Jekyll facade–the whole thing was one long, frothing rant of pure hatred. If Hillary got elected, it’d probably kill George Will.)

  13. Sean says

    We’re winning?

    He does realize he’s talking about Arizona? A state where it’s perfectly legal to fire someone just for being gay. A state where it’s perfectly legal to refuse to rent an apartment to someone just for being gay. A state where gay couples do not have marriage equality or even the possibility of civil unions.

    And yet we’re sore losers and the poor Christians are the real victims. Yeah, right.

  14. woodroad34d says

    He used to, at least, sound reasonable; now he sounds like a gay bitter old man. Change doesn’t come without some harshness. People who claim we’re unreasonable are themselves unreasonable and the losers are playing the “poor pitiful me” card. None of this would have happened if they hadn’t been willful in the first place–and until they’ve really learned their lessons, things will be hard on the naughty little children. Look at Cracker Barrel and Denny’s with racial discrimination after all this time. Time for George Will to grow up and stop being an old man.

  15. jonvincent says

    This whole religious excuse is just a screen for allowing ant-gay bigotry. If they were so religious, why not refuse service to adulterers or gluttons? This whole religious excuse is bullsh*t

  16. Hansel Currywurst says

    “Sore winner” is part of the right-wing teabagger faux-news rhetoric now that they’re consistently the losers. It’s all over except for the name calling. This is an unconditional surrender, though I still wouldn’t trust them not to spit in my wedding cake batter.

  17. anon says

    Mr. Will, Unless bakers and photographers advertise that they don’t want to serve the LGBT community, how are members of the LGBT community supposed to know who to avoid? Do you expect us to go into a business only to be asked to leave and be embarrassed in the process? I guarantee you that if a business posted a sign on their door and on their web site that proclaimed “straights only”, no members of the LGBT community would bother to ask them for service. Of course, in the process, these businesses would also lose many straight customers as well. The problem is that those who don’t want to provide services to the LGBT community, don’t want the straight community to know about it.

  18. Lexis says

    The moron probably feels he can use that “funny kind of sore winner” line when it comes to wedding photographers and cake bakers, as even gay people have asked, why would anyone want a bigot to take their photos or bake their wedding cake; but it’s not funny when it comes to accommodations or obtaining service like at hotels/motels, restaurants, daycare, taxi service, etc. The Arizona bill opened the door for it anywhere and everywhere.

  19. theo says

    “…This too must be said: It’s a funny kind of sore winner in the civil rights movement that would say, ‘A doctor doesn’t want to tend to my African-American son — I’ve got lots of other doctors I could go to, but I’m going to use the hammer of government to force them to do this.’… It’s not neighborly and it’s not nice. The civil rights movement is winning. They should be, as I say, not sore winners.”

    – George Will, 40 years ago

  20. Mags says

    @Anon, +1. Conveniently hiding one’s bigotry and surprisingly letting it out of the bag when it causes most harm is what all these “Rights to Religious Freedom” are all about.

    Admitting truthfully and upfront your bigotry apparently is bad for straight business as well.

  21. woody says

    that’s some serious projection there.
    we’re not sore winners, he’s a sore loser.
    this from a man who wrote a sports books to prop up his heterosexual bona fides. i guess when you look that gay…

  22. Manroar says

    Businesses make contracts with the State – tax incentives etc. and in return the State says don’t discriminate – we have standards…



  23. Gigi says

    “It’s not neigbhborly and it’s not nice” to sue someone for breaking the law? Um. Okay. You can bet your sweet ass if a gay baker refused to make a cake for a Christian that they’d SUE, SUE, SUE and cry discrimination to anyone and everyone who’d listen.

  24. Steven H says

    I don’t understand libertarian opposition to anti-discrimination laws. These businesses are walling off parts of the market to one particular market segment for entirely irrational reasons. In a small market (say the “wedding industry” or pretty much any market in small-town America), reducing the supply of a service would artificially inflate the price consumers pay for that service, *even if consumers find another seller.*

    If there are only two bakers in town, for instance, and one of those bakers openly refuses to serve gay people, then the non-bigoted baker no longer has competition for the market segment composed of gay baked goods consumers or whatever. Libertarians have spent the last 30 years *insisting* that a rational baker facing those circumstances would *necessarily* charge a higher price for that service. A good libertarian CANNOT say that a consumer who is turned away from one seller can merely turn to another without incurring a real cost.

    Free markets don’t turn away paying customers; religious bigots distort the market. If this was being done by a trade union, libertarians would be begging the government to bust the union and pry open the market.

  25. Bucky says

    Sorry Mags and Anon, you are wrong. Being upfront about your bigotry can be very, very good for businesses. See: Chick-Fil-A.

    Many businesses — if not most or even all — in my small rural Texas town would fall over themselves to proudly announce that they refused to serve queers. And the community would reward them for it in terms of business. Business that were gay friendly would suffer.

  26. Bill says

    @Anon – at the end of the interview, when asked what should happen if a gay couple went into a bakery and placed an order for a cake, he said, “bake the cake,” with no “ifs”, “ands”, or “buts”.
    What you do when you bake a cake is the same no matter who the customer is. The most the bakery can legitimately do is to tell the customer that the only figures they have to put on top of the
    cake are ones with a bride and a groom, and they
    don’t have a supplier for anything else.

    He also said that public accommodation laws were a major achievement and the issue was settled 50 years ago.

    What he was saying is that it is not “very neighborly” to use government mandates to force someone to do something that makes them uncomfortable when there are many others you could ask instead. One thing he missed is that the photographer might not have realized it was a same sex wedding when he agreed to photograph it, and his customer/client might not have mentioned it, figuring that a wedding is a wedding. Even if you accept Will’s premise that it would be “nice” to ask someone else, it is not “nice” for the photographer to pull the rug out from under a couple planning a wedding by changing his mind after accepting the job.

    It is not acceptable for same-sex couples to have to tell people they hire (e.g. photographers) that it is a same-sex wedding when opposite-sex couples can just call it a wedding.

  27. Paul B. says

    I’m old enough to remember when people like this piece of kaka used the term
    “uppity blacks” for African Americans who had the nerve to demand equal treatment under the law and didn’t settle for the crumbs the whites were reluctantly willing to leave for them. This moron can play dumb but it doesn’t take much to connect the dots….if you’re interested enough to make the effort.

  28. Jason Macbride says

    Another apologist for the Lost Cause who thinks the law should make him superior to others because he is a white straight male. That gig is up George. Move on.

  29. Mags says

    @BUCKY, With a lot of pride, I can tell you that your neck of the woods is quite the exception in today’s America.

    Even if states like Arizona try for a “Right to discriminate” bill, not only most of the people were against it, but big business supported LGBT rights as well.

    But then again, quite sadly, places in Texas keep on insisting on going backwards not just on LGBT issues, but women’s and minorities’ rights, as well as Science. It seems Rick Perry’s prayers for rain might have something to do with it.

    @STEVEN H. No one understands Libertarian views; They are a constant contradiction for what the initial philosophy stood for.

  30. Ivan says

    OK. The majority of US states allow for discrimination in employment and housing against gays.

    Yep, getting to lose one’s job for being gay = winning! :-(

    George Will is just a racist, homophobic jerk. He’s been pushing his bigoted crap for decades.

    Will is also an adulterer. He cheated on his first wife

  31. simon says

    It is never neighborly or nice to discriminate. When a certain religion was in control, they never practiced their own teaching of “love thy neighbor”.

  32. David says

    While I agree that a business should serve all who come to it, I would also like to know that a business I support isn’t going to use the money I spend there against me… Is there a better solution?

    Maybe a standard notice on all businesses and web sites with a list of issues they support or are against… I’d prefer to be an informed consumer! I’m not sure I would trust a cake from a baker that was anti-gay or having an anti-gay photographer taking pictures at my wedding…

    Please don’t trash my thought (I’m as repulsed by all the hate in this world as anyone else)… I’m looking for positive solutions…

  33. Coolio says

    David, businesses are not exclusive from the state. There are standards involved here. No business is allowed to discriminate against any person. It’s crystal clear. Case closed.

  34. JackFknTwist says

    “Not neighbourly; not nice.”

    Where have you been for the last 100 phucking years ?
    Go back to Uganda, where you’ll find neighbourly / nice people just like you.

  35. Bucky says

    @Mags, I think you underestimate the depth and strength of the religiously-fueled hatred there is for gay people (“people who choose homosexuality”). When you look at numbers nationwide or broken down by state, you do see a big change in the acceptance of gay people and marriage equality. But that is largely due to changes in liberal states and large cities. But get out of the big cities and it is a different world. Particularly in the South. And that isn’t going to change anytime soon. (My small town still has segregated high school proms(!!), which you can find throughout the South.)

  36. Jason says

    Gays have become monsters. Will is correct. But is there a price to be paid?, to quote Obama. Is there? The bigot well is running dry.

  37. JJ says

    @Bucky: “small rural Texas town would fall over themselves to proudly announce that they refused to serve queers.”

    So what’s stopping them?

  38. JJ says

    No need to invent new terms like “sore loser.” The word Will’s looking for is “uppity.”

  39. AG says

    George Will is absolutely correct. The gay Left is so profoundly totalitarian that it cannot leave people alone. Yes, photographers and bakers refusing to provide services to gay weddings are not nice people. But the gay totalitarians trying to deprive them of their livelihood are not any better.

  40. Mags says


    Sorry, my Totalitarian sense of humor took over.

  41. jmartindale says

    He knows perfectly well that gay people have not won their fight, and that we are trying to desperately poke our finger in the innumerable holes in the dyke to keep the ill will of his kind from legislating us back in a closet. He is a smarmy little man with money. He is a classless, self-imortant turd. Had he lived in Berlin in the ’30s, he would have sat at some cafe and said the gays and Jews and Communists all had coming what they got.

  42. Mags says

    @BUCKY, I’m not excluding your small town, but one cannot deny that change sure and steady has been upon us now. And whether they like it or not, whether they accept the concept or not, and either by will or Totalitarian force, Separation of Church and State will be applied to the full extent of the Constitution. Especially in business and economics that make this country thrive.

    If your religious beliefs do not “allow” you to serve any other kind than your own, than it is time you pick a country that is ruled by the same theocracy that rules your “moral values”, or lack thereof. Stop making America into what it is not. Period.

  43. Coolio says

    Jason, calm yourself. Look at the facts in this world. When have gay people ever used religion or the state to demonize “religious” people. Gay people are not monsters. They are tired, and with good reason, of being incessantly demonized and marginalized.
    The 21st century will not be kind to bigotry of any form, and thank you for reminding us that it, bigotry, will dry up soon.

    PS BRO

    Stop the self hate and kiss your mate.

  44. Bucky says

    @JJ, many here already do, to a degree. Anti-gay bigotry is already posted on business signs all over town (those ubiquitous back-lit signs with the changeable letters).

    Every time there is some big positive news for the gay community, the hate words pop up on signs all over town.

    And with the recent court case in San Antonio declaring the ban on gay marriage unconstitutional, we are already seeing some here and I expect that Texas will have a “religious freedom” to hate bill passed very soon. Then the floodgates open.

  45. Bucky says

    @Mags, I agree with you. I just get annoyed with the folks who constantly say that we should just “go somewhere else.” Because in large parts of the country, there isn’t “somewhere else” to go.

  46. John says

    So wrong so often even NewsWEAK showed him the door. He has been a serious influence on Bush/Obama foreign policy; whatever he predicted they knew would never happen.

  47. Jim says

    Finally somebody else says what I’ve been saying all along: these proposed “sincere religious belief” state laws violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and are flatly illegal. As for the sore winner stuff, being good neighbors is a two-way street. Gay people don’t owe anti-gay bigots kindliness. I won’t do business with an anti-gay bigot but I’ll be damned if I give his bigotry a pass when it violates the law.

  48. Mags says

    Oh BUCKY, it saddens me when I see it even in the tone of your comment how defeated you sound.

    Bucky, these… “people” simply refuse to accept that even some of their family members, their friends, parents, cousins might be gay, and these loved ones being gay will in no way harm their health, livelihood, their marriages or even their faith in one god or another.

    “The instinct of prejudice cannot easily be wiped, no matter how logically you justify equality.”

    But we as humans have fought animal instincts and have evolved. And those who haven’t were marginalized by society, and discredited as fools. The time for your town WILL come where the wave of change will hit it too, make no mistake about it. Whether they like it or not, they will have to live in the 21st Century, or out of the country… And I just thought of the Amish.

    Your little town could maybe hold all the bigots: They can refuse change, sell each other cake, and photograph cousins getting married. Wanna move to a more tolerant city?

    Hold strong Bucky, we’re thinking of you and all LGBT living in anxious wait for all this bull to finally be over. Courage my friend!

  49. Bucky says

    Thanks for the words of support, MAGS.

    I moved to East Texas (home of pines, poverty, prejudice and Pentecostals)just last year to take care of my ailing parents. For worse and for better, I don’t anticipate living here by year’s end.

    It is a soul-killing place for gay people. I’ll escape again soon enough, but I worry about the young gay and lesbian kids growing up here.

  50. Bill says

    @ Bucky : do you have photos of that (the anti-gay signs you referred to) where you could post a link or send them to Towleroad?

    Nobody would do that around here so it sounds
    like you live on another planet … or we do.

  51. Hansel Currywurst says

    @JMARTINDALE – I hope you mean “dike”. You shouldn’t poke your fingers (or anything else) in a dyke without asking nicely first, and even then she might decline your offer.

  52. will says

    The best thing about this is how so many Fortune 500 businesses (and even the NFL) came to the defense of gay people — and the positive press gays received compared to the bigoted “religious”. This is a train set in motion. We have majority public support now — attitudes are slowly evolving in red states — and you kind of feel the wind’s at our backs. Even George Will equated gay rights with African-American civil rights.

  53. Craig says

    Mr. Will, this too must be said: At 54, I remember when Hispanics were forced to watch movies in a very different part of theaters than Whites. I remember a time when African Americans had to take to the streets to end segregation in businesses that refused to serve them. I distinctly remember that Sammy Davis Junior could play in Las Vegas, but could not sit in the same business as a customer. Sir, you are considerably older than I am. I’ve already had a taste of “free market solutions” to equality, and I d not worship at the same altar you do that the business owner is sacred and all of the rest of us must bow down before him. Sir, do us the favor of removing the word “gay” from your statement, and insert in it’s place “African American,” “Hispanic,” or any other HUMAN BEING and see if this statement stinks any less of discrimination. I thought not. If you, Mr. Will, still think that African Americans, women, Asians, Hispanics, or anyone else not lily white, male, and Republican, deserve to be thrown out of a place of business because of the owner’s beliefs, Sir, history has thank God almighty passed you by and you now reside in the dust bin of history.

  54. Robert M. says

    I wonder if his adult diaper is on too tight? Give it up George. Your arguments are as ridiculous as sense of self indignation and outrage…

  55. ascanius1 says

    nah. the anti-gay bigots like george will are being sore losers. they won’t admit they’ve lost. they want to take one more ounce of flesh out of gay folks’ dignity. the anti-gay folks are disgusting.

  56. heresyourchange says

    Yes, just as you stated, 50 years ago legislation mandated that “if you open your doors for business, you open it to everybody.”

    So every time this is challenged by some redneck dinosaur that uses religion as a red herring for their bigotry, you are going to witness a battle. And you’re going to see a lot of enthusiasm when these anachronisms are defeated.

    Call it “sore winners” or whatever you want to name it. But this is the kind of enthusiasm you can expect each and every time progress is made. Better get used to it, because it’s going to happen rapidly.

  57. Small Town Boy says

    How many small towns across America have even one bakery? Where are we to go if that one bakery refuses service?

  58. dards says

    Is it in your contract when you go to work at Fox Opinion that you have to say ugly things about gay people? Shut George you old fool.

  59. jjose712 says

    Bucky: Not so sure about that. Chick-Fil-A case is a very particular one, because they have all their business in the South, and the media did a bad job covering the controversy, it was not about Dan Cathy’s befief but his donations to antigay groups.
    So it was an uproar between conservatives, and the appreciation day was a success.

    But frankly, i doubt it will work that well in the long run. The fact that the company’s PR want Dan Cathy to stay silent is a clear indication that his bigotry is not that good for the business

  60. dommyluc says

    In my wild, younger days (I believe it was called “The 70s”), I used to have a recurring nightmare of waking up after a wild party the night before and finding a horrific troll in my bed lying next to me. For years I have blocked the image of his face from my mind. But now I finally realize who it was: GEORGE WILL!

  61. Michael says

    Yes, George. And, there were other lunch counters to go to – or a back screen door to ask to be served out back. George, do you ever listen to what you say? And, how about putting the brain in gear before spouting off such horse crap?

  62. ThomT says

    And there a plenty of people who don’t want to serve Jews, Blacks, interracial couples, handicapped people, Muslims, unmarried couples living in “sin”, etc., etc., etc. So all those businesses need to do is to hide behind some “religious” reason not to provide service and all of those who they have disenfranchised in the name of God should, without question, go somewhere else? I’m trying very hard to figure out just exactly what is so “neighborly” about refusing to provide service to anyone based on some arbitrary personally held religious belief. So I guess us “sore winners” will simply have to keep up our battle against the “sore losers”.

  63. anon says

    The problem is just how tangled this all is. Go to a Neo-Nazi bakery and force them to bake a cake, and they donate the money to white supremacist causes. Can the law then demand that they not donate the money? Newspapers can discriminate on first amendment grounds but photographers cannot? A bakery that makes custom cakes can’t discriminate but one that only sells pre-made cakes can (as in what the cake looks like)? The first amendment is designed to prevent the law getting tied up in knots. A church can refuse to host a wedding, but a catering hall cannot?

    The problem is that even rightwingers want to say some forms of discrimination are so horrible they should be outlawed. So they can’t make arguments based on the first amendment. But then they argue the list of protected classes is final and we can’t add to it. So it’s always a weak argument. In the meantime, no one can make sense of the law. Essentially, some people are protected by the first amendment–an anointed class–and others are not. The movement to enshrine “professional journalists” as the only people with first amendment grounds vis-a-vis Internet regulation has fortunately not taken hold of the courts, otherwise, bloggers such as Andy would be regulated out of business.

  64. Caliban says

    George Will is, as usual, an @ss.

    Someone hit the nail on the head earlier when they said that these businesses don’t want to serve gays but they also want to keep it on the downlow. Fine. Put a sign up that says “We don’t serve gays.” Not only will WE avoid it but so will our family members and allies. But NOOOO, that would be too upfront, they want to keep making money off our community and our allies while reserving the right to pull out the “religious freedom” canard when it’s convenient.

    And what’s the deal with wedding photographers claiming that what they do is artistic expression, driven and informed by their religious faith? Uh, NO. It’s a skill you are offering on the public marketplace and unless YOU, the photographer, are paying the models (instead of vice versa) to pose for your “art photos” then it’s just a business transaction subject to local, state, and federal laws governing such transactions.

    Is there some implied blessing and approval on the part of the photographer of each union they document? Do they interview their prospective heterosexual clients to determine if that union will be in keeping with their deeply held religious beliefs? Of course not. It’s a JOB, not a stamp of approval. If it were a blessing of the union instead of just a commercial transaction then the photographer would be in part responsible for any abuse, adultery, or divorce that later occurred in that marriage.

  65. Daniel in MO says

    He might have a point if we were just talking about big urban centers, but we aren’t. The places where this would have been used/abused would be those places where choices in commercial services are limited already. Besides the fact, like most have already pointed out, it is just wrong!

  66. says

    As usual all the myopic gays can think about is themselves. The REAL THREAT to America is not gays but BOOBS, especially BIG BOOBS. Why, young boys have been seen foaming at the mouth over the sight of even Boobs in Blouses & breastfeeding in parks. Famed NY cableTV star Ugly George “knows” this from Testimony from court-appointed “experts” backing the NYPD’s many prosecutions of bare boobs in the Big Apple. If these tax-supported “experts” command it-then it is so. That’s why we need the ever-increasing Laws vs. boobs-in NY/Milwaukee & everywhere,right?

  67. jamal49 says

    There is no one as miserable a man on this planet than George Will, save for Charles Krauthammer.

  68. Bernie says

    Is Mr. Will reporting from Russia? no wait, he is on FOX, no wonder he is a MORON…….this is a FREE country and if people go into a retail/customer service business, it is just that, a business, plain and simple, turning down a cake for a customer has nothing to do with anyone’s values… is a product that you are selling to a customer……

  69. kipp says

    Let’s say I were a musical director out of work and a malevolent group of “churches” wanted to put on an musical ridiculing gay families, gay children and transgender people.
    Or, let’s say I were a party clown approached by a white-supremacist group to entertain the children at a rally against minorities.

    Must I do the musical or the rally? What if I’m the only musical director or party clown in the small town full of homophobes and white supremecists that I’m unlucky enough to call home? Do we really want to “yes” here, too?

    Will, like a stopped clock, can sometimes be right – even if his reasons aren’t particularly appealing.