The STATE has no authority in matters of private lives. This includes private businesses, and it certainly includes the private institution of marriage (which is supposed to be a matter of CHURCH... remember separation of CHURCH & STATE?).
If owners of a private business want to "discriminate" — meaning deny their private services to anyone they wish — it is their natural right to do so. Those who do not like such "discrimination" can simply choose to take their business elsewhere, and even boycott the business. By engaging in such “discrimination” owners of private businesses risk damaging their business in an otherwise free market.
But of course, “Neo-Amerika” does not have a free market capitalist economic system, and arguably hasn’t since at least 1913. To accurately call it a “free market capitalist system” there would have to be no interference in the market by the STATE. One would be hard pressed to come up with one market that hasn’t suffered STATE interference. One must even ask permission from the STATE to operate a business. That is not freedom. Rather, it’s a direct violation of our unalienable individual Natural Right to Commerce & Private Contract.
People seem to have a most difficult time understanding the concept that Civil Law cannot justly prohibit individuals from being rude or acting with prejudice. For example, one cannot justly make a law against being an “asshole” for two reasons: 1. no one’s natural rights are violated; 2. “asshole” is entirely subjective and arbitrary.
Likewise, no just law can be made against so called “racism”. While we’re all members of the “human race”, some people will always claim superiority based on attributes of genetics. Further, the term “racism” continues to be frivolously attributed to matters not even related. For example, it seems that the promotion of legal immigration complete with background checks that any nation would require is now considered as being “racist”.
The root of such absurdity is none other than collectivist indoctrination which has caused people to believe they have such authority to control and/or dictate the otherwise free will of individuals through the power of the STATE in order to force conformity of everyone to their own personal will and viewpoints. Such is why there are corrupted judicial decisions awarding hundreds of thousands of dollars to individuals who got their feelings hurt by private business owners declining to bake for them a “pro-homosexual cake”.
It’s staggering to witness this growing trend of confusion over matters of natural rights like free speech. Notice how collectivists clamor incessantly about “free speech” so long as they agree with your viewpoints. However, once they find disagreement they strive to shut down the free speech they disapprove of, and even occasionally resort to violence. This growing trend will only worsen as “Neo-Amerika” continues forward on this path of ignorance.
The masses have largely forgotten that the primary if not sole function of government in a society of free people is to protect the unalienable Natural Rights of the individual.
Natural rights are not arbitrary. They can be defined by three simple qualifications:
1. A natural right must exist in a state of nature preceding any government or point of civil law;
2. A natural right must impose no obligation upon another individual or collective of individuals;
3. A natural right must not violate or greatly risk violating a natural right of another individual.
Having one’s feelings hurt by an “asshole” running a private business is not a violation of anyone’s natural rights. To illustrate the absurdity and hypocrisy of commonly held collectivist assertons, one merely has to turn around the bakery scenario accordingly:
Consider if someone requested a cake decorated with the phrase, “HOMOS SUCK”, from a bakery owned by a homosexual, or “NAZI POWER” from a bakery owned by a Jewish person. Should such private business be forced to comply against their will due to some collectivist notion of “public accommodation”? Of course not! Yet, collectivists routinely argue in accordance with their arbitrarily held personal opinions rather than considering the just limits of Civil Law regarding matters of individual personal liberty.
The bottom line is that the STATE has no authority to interfere in the private lives of individuals — including such matters of commerce and private contract. Thus, the STATE cannot justly dictate bathroom policies of private businesses any more than sexual preferences among adults within their own homes.
However, the corrupted STATE which has utterly failed in the 20th century to perform its sole just function of protecting the unalienable individual natural rights of Americans is largely a reflection of its society.
Therefore, perhaps much of this growing trend of “discrimination” and “racism” hysteria can be reversed if more Americans would heed that wise age old adage to “mind one’s OWN business”.
bernard baruch carman
* * *
∞ ∞ ∞