Goldwater was right.
There is no more fundamental human right than the right to freely choose with whom we will associate. The freedom to choose with whom we will deal and trade. If we are not free to freely choose with whom we associate, then there is no freedom. Yes, we have the right to discriminate based on race, color, creed, ethnicity, national origin, sex, sexual proclivity, political persuasion, looks, astrological sign or whatever.
What kind of person would want others to be forced under penalty of law to deal with them? If anybody chooses not to associate for me socially or commercially I respect their decision. It is their right. No hard feeling, no animosity, hatred or ill will.
The only way that a large and increasingly diverse nation can survive is for people to be free to associate as they choose. Coercing people to associate against their will only lead to resentment, animosity and increased friction between groups. Force is an ugly and destructive thing. Peace and social harmony can only come from respecting the rights of others.
If we have to always resort to “religious freedom”, then we won’t even have that much longer. So small and cowardly. What makes anybody think that this one, lone right will be respected when every other fundamental right has been eroded away? Religious rights will become the obvious target. We need to stand up for our rights and for freedom. If people are not free to choose with whom they will associate and trade, why should they be free to worship as they choose
Like it or not, the freedom of association should trump the "civil right" to make others serve you even if they don't want to. Indeed, you cannot rightly say that we have a genuinely free society if we don't do this. Remember, liberties are "negative" – they involve things that other people cannot do to you. Liberty, as a concept, does not involve the positive capacity to make other people do things you want them to do.
And when people don't like liberty, they make laws, and this is the problem.
“Why shouldn’t individuals and businesses be allowed to discriminate against anyone they want?”
Absolutely the right question. People ‘discriminate” every day, all day, in all their decisions. It’s part of human nature. It’s not about gays or race or religion ... it’s about individual choice and freedom. If I don’t want to do business with someone, for any reason whatsoever, I should be able to make that choice legally.
Now, people can complain. It’s their 1st Amendment right to disagree with me. And they can call a boycott, also a free speech right. But the government should have nothing to do with it.
This is what is missing in this issue.
Agree 100%. Rights are God given, the government should only exist to protect them and create the stability necessary for a sovereign nation to exist. Most younger people don’t realize that before 1964, everyone did have the right to free association in person, in who they served, and in who they hired. Then we got a series of “public accommodation” and “equal employment” laws that started to carve out groups we HAD to associate with: race, religion, gender, people with disabilities, unmarried couples, now sexual orientation, in some states felons, and the list just keeps growing. Once you determine that the state has the power to abrogate any God given right, it is only a matter of time before that power will grow and choke out the ability to exercise that right at all. The problem with this, it leads to moral collapse. People often don’t associate with people, not for the reasons codified, but because of the behaviors of that group. The ability to not associate forces them to conform their behavior to that which is socially acceptable; take that away and you are where we are now.
Must a Gay Baker bake Farrakhan’s “Allah Hates Gays!” cake?
Must Mohammed’s Halal Butchery slaughter Billy Bob’s pig?
Must a Black donut shot operator host KKK Koffee Klatches?
Must a Kosher Deli serve patrons dressed as Hitler?
Conservatives make a major mistake when they concede basic philosophical points to the Left, rather than risk the flood of name-calling & insult that are the Left's only real "arguments."
Tim has it exactly right. And forget about the word discrimination. This is about a natural right, freedom of association. The natural right trumps everything else.
The right to discriminate is the right to make choices based on one's lights & preferences; rather than be forced to abide by the Government or some one else's lights and preferences.
Let me point out something that is obvious, yet virtually overlooked in this latest example of Leftist bully tactics.
Most Conservative spokesmen today--most Conservative organizations in America today--take an approach to the battle which basically concedes what the Left has already accomplished in its assault on personal responsibility & individual liberty. Most only seek to hold a line that yields no more.
Thus only a few of us still insist that the whole fabric of legislation that forbids discrimination against various protected classifications by private individuals & private businesses is wrong; fundamentally wrong in denying people the freedom to use their own property for what were always legal purposes in the past. We after all, as free people, have always claimed the right to make our own decisions--that is to discriminate in our personal choices. It is not something aimed against any group; rather a right that all free men & women have in common.
When Conservative spokesmen concede the past campaigns' ever broadening the list of protected categories--broadening the limitations on other peoples' choices; they create a situation where the Left can only continue--successfully continue--to ever more aggressively push the envelope. Their strategy--those who supposedly speak for us--gurantees defeat. It surrenders a major part of the primary argument on our side, i.e. personal freedom in one's own choices, while allowing the foe to pick targets one at a time, while citing the previous now conceded triumphs in restricting the rest of us, as a precedent.
Can anyone imagine fighting a war, where every bit of territory previously gained by the foe, is forever conceded to the foe? How long would it be, with such a method of engagement, before the result was total conquest of the idiots employing that methodology?
Instead, please consider adopting the approach offered in the link provided in #21.
Another obvious advantage of a realistic counter-attack that concedes nothing, is that it avoids the necessity of appearing as anti-anyone--something that much of the youth has been conditioned to reject, Palovianly, without analysis.
William Flax
My parents taught me that there are certain people and certain activities that are unacceptable and I should not associate myself with them. “You are known by the company you keep” along with “Birds of a feather flock together”, were repeated many times during my journey to adulthood. I should have the right to free association and not be forced to participate in activities that are just plain wrong. Also what is the point of a religious freedom law if it doesn’t include my choice not to participate in things I have been taught were wrong?
Great article.
“It is this sort of fascist approach that is inherent in public accommodation laws (as well as other laws concerning businesses that I won’t address at present). The government tells businesses who they are to do business with. If the radical Left gets its way, businesses will have no choice in the matter. The appeal to their being “public” is used to justify their being coerced BY the certain vocal segments of the public, through the agency of the government.
“This is an unjust misuse of the police powers of the state.”
Exactly. This type of tyranny of government over private property rights is unconscionable. No one has a right to be served by a private business. If the business wants to do without my money because they don’t like me, they have the right to refuse to serve me. How do I have the right to make them serve me? A pizza parlor, bakery, or photographer is not a government protected common carrier.
Of course, the big government types don’t want anyone to “get their feelings hurt”, except possibly for white persons and Christians.
Prior to the creation of the artificial classification of “Public Accommodation”,
all property was classified as either “Private” or “Public”.
-
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964
TITLE II: INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
SECTION 201.
(a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services,
facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation,
as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color,
religion, or national origin.
(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation
within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation
by it is supported by State action:
-(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests,
other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms
for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
-(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility
principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to,
any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
-(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place
of exhibition or entertainment; and
-(4) any establishment
—(A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment
otherwise covered by this subsection, or
—— (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any
such covered establishment, and
—(B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.
SECTION 202.
All persons shall be entitled to be free, at any establishment or place, from discrimination or segregation
of any kind on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin, if such discrimination or
segregation is or purports to be required by any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule, or order
of a State or any agency or political subdivision thereof.
SECTION 203.
No person shall
(a) withhold, deny, or attempt to withhold or deny, or deprive or attempt to deprive, any person
of any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or
(b) intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person
with the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or
(c) punish or attempt to punish any person for exercising or attempting to exercise any right
or privilege secured by section 201 or 202.
Are all y’all watching the gofundme site for memoriespizza? By this time tomorrow, those people will be millionaires. Up to $780,000.
Mostly we need to remember that the actual intent of public accommodation laws was legitimate, but those laws have now been perverted by the left to the point where they bear little resemblance to their original rationale. There’s nothing wrong in requiring a restaurant, gas station, or hotel that holds itself out as a service provider to the public to provide that service to ALL the public. The alternative would be to permit a group of business people to get together and starve out anybody they don’t like.
But when the rule gets stretched to apply to any business providing any service whether the prospective customer has alternatives or not, it goes too far.
Ping for later
Liberaltarians do like to attach their unhealthy practices to racial issues. There’s a difference between serving someone who is black and being forced by law to make a creepy weirdo product with your business name on it.
Nice analysis.
That would be the ultimate triumph for individual liberty. I think it’s an idea worth pursuing.