On last nights show, there was a NH bill being discussed which would "allow" for businesses owners to refuse to serve people who marriages they disagreed with.  Gard said that the bill didn't specify which type of marriages.  I haven't read the bill.  All of the callers, and surprisingly to some extent Gard, seemed to oppose it.  The way I look at it is that any business should be able to choose who they deal with for whatever reason.  That being said, if the bill does what Gard said it would do, the result will be a carving out of a small chunk of liberty that is currently being overridden by the 1964 Civil Rights (read:  government granted "rights") Act.  There was some intimation that because the author of the bill was opposed to gay couples, that we as libertarians should oppose it.  Motivations don't matter.  The question should be as follows:  Does the proposed bill expand or contract liberty?  It doesn't matter if said liberty is most likely to be used to something you might oppose.  For the record, I don't think that people who are against gay "marriage" are necessarily bigots or evil.  Some people have a moral objection to homosexuality.  I always find it interested that atheistic libertarians, who in my opinion have a very weak foundation for their support of individual rights, get so up in arms about other people having a different morality than them.  If everything's relative, what's makes their opinion any more valid than anyone else's.

The main danger I see in the bill is that is sounds like the author wants the government to give permission to the business owner as to who and who they aren't allowed to discriminate in favor of or against.  In that regard, he would be no different than the gay Left that wants to impose it's values on others.