From Zack Strong at the Independent American Party website:
There has been much confusion on the principle of discrimination and association. This article intends to explain the matter plainly in terms that everyone can understand. Freedom is the most precious of gifts, but if we do not understand what Freedom is, then we place ourselves in a situation to be manipulated and controlled by conspiring men. I hope my words will help you appreciate your God-given Freedom to a greater degree and that you will be more motivated to boldly defend your rights.
What Is Liberty?
Let me first define Liberty and then define what I mean by the right to discriminate.
Thomas Jefferson gave us, in my opinion, the greatest definition of Liberty when he said: “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual” (Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, April 4, 1819).
In other words, you and I are absolutely free to do whatever we please, associate with whomever we choose, and to exercise our free will without restriction so long as we do not infringe upon the equally valid rights of others. Simple. Neat. Easy to understand. It is, in a sense, a live and let live philosophy. There are several thornier issues – for instance, whether an individual has a right to use drugs or other such substances which may violate the health rights of another individual in their household – but those will not be discussed here. The general principle is simple and undeniable: individuals have a non-negotiable, inalienable, and God-given right to unrestricted free will so long as their actions do not violate natural rights possessed by other individuals.
Right to Discriminate
Just as we have the right to associate with whomever we choose, we also have the fundamental right to disassociate with anyone for any reason. This right is most easily understandable in the context of one’s private property, within one’s home, and in the operations of a private business.
Let’s use basic logic for a moment and appeal to common sense. If you are sitting at home and Jehovah’s Witnesses missionaries knock on your door wanting to share a religious message with you, you have the unquestionable right to turn them away. The same would be true if a vacuum cleaner salesman showed up on your doorstep trying to sell you his products. If a woman shows up at your door with a petition, you have the right to refuse to speak with her and to not sign her petition. If a man wanders into your yard, you have a right to demand him to immediately depart and to have him forcibly removed if he does not comply. Even a policeman, who is nothing more than a citizen with a uniform, has no right to step foot onto your private property without an appropriate warrant. In all of these cases, it is easy to see that your right as an individual to turn these people away from your home or ignore them entirely is justified, logical, and well established. This is the right of discrimination in action. No one is foolish enough to deny you that right.
Right of Parents to Discriminate on Behalf of Their Children
Let’s discuss another example of the right to discriminate. As a parent, do you have the right to determine who your children associate with? Why of course you do! To deny this responsibility and right of parenthood is to deny all logic. Briefly, I want to drive this home with the use of several examples. Would you feel comfortable letting your child be around a pedophile? Do you have a right to keep your children away from pedophiles? Would you be ok letting your child be around drug addicts or felons? Do you have a right to keep your children away from such people? Would you trust your children with complete strangers? Do you have a right to safeguard your children from strangers? Naturally, the answers are clear cut. It doesn’t matter the reason why you choose not to allow your children to associate with certain individuals, that right is sacrosanct and cannot be denied. Only a truly deranged, hardened soul would tell parents they have no right to determine their children’s friends, or to discriminate in choices of children’s entertainment, or to protect them from strangers or to disallow them from being around pedophiles, alcoholics, or other unscrupulous individuals.
Rights of Private Establishments
The same people who would exercise these very rights on their private property or as parents often deny that this right applies to private business establishments. Why is that? Is not a private business just as much one’s property as one’s home? Does not a shop owner have a right to determine how his business will operate? Does not an employer have the right to pass over an applicant because of his inferior skills? Cannot a private university dictate its own entrance standards and codes of conduct on its campus? Cannot a restaurant turn away patrons at its discretion just as readily and justifiably as you can turn away a salesman, missionary, or stranger from your doorstep? Naturally, a private business or establishment possesses the same right to discriminate and associate or disassociate as any private individual. The logic is sound and irrefutable.
Homosexual Militancy
This message is particularly timely in light of the current assault on traditional values and institutions being orchestrated by the militant homosexual movement. The homosexual lobby is not the only group participating in this vitriolic barrage against Liberty and virtue, but it is currently the most conspicuous.
In several instances, homosexuals have gone to their local cake shop to request a cake be made for their homosexual wedding. In several cases, the cake stores – which are under zero obligation to make a cake for anyone whether gay, straight, or other – declined to make the cake because they did not want to support gay marriage. It was their unequivocal, constitutional, logical, God-given right to refuse. In the aftermath of the refusal, however, the unjustly offended homosexuals filed charges against the cake makers, claiming discrimination and bigotry. Indeed, it is discrimination as per any person’s right. The gall, audacity, and self-centered arrogance of anyone who would sue a baker in court because he exercised his right to decline such a service is staggering! Yet this exact scenario, as I have just described, has played out numerous times across this country. I will not rehearse the specific instances, but wish to highlight the principles involved. And the main principle involved, of course, is whether or not the baker or business owner had a right to refuse service. Ultimately, the issue is whether individuals have a right to discriminate and exercise free will.
No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service
In many shop windows you can still find signs that read, “no shirt, no shoes, no service” or “we have the right to refuse service.” If you read the license agreement when you download software, invariably it will contain a clause stating the company’s right to withdraw the agreement or terminate your service with them at any time and for any reason solely at their discretion. We checkmark the “I agree” button and see the signs in the windows without questioning it. And so it should be. Private businesses and individuals have a right to discriminate. Period. There are no two ways about it. Let Freedom ring!
If I owned a store and decided not to serve blacks, Jews, atheists, gays, or Republicans, that would be my right which no one could deny me. Now, I would be stupid to discriminate in this fashion and my business would likely close before too long because people tend to vote with their dollars, but it would nonetheless be my right. I do not personally advocate that businesses discriminate in the same manner I’ve described, but I will defend their right to do so to my death. And remember, if one person’s right to discriminate gets taken away, who is to say that your right to do so won’t be next? A right’s violation against one of us is a threat to us all. We need to rush to the defense of anyone whose rights are under fire – particularly when the offending group is one that seeks to turn morality upside down and normalize vice.
If we as a society begin restricting the right to discriminate, we are opening a massive can of worms and setting a dangerous precedent. The various so-called “civil rights acts” were such precedents which have led to our current situation. If we go down this rabbit hole of tyranny and arbitrary abuse, we will reach a very dark place. If the government is allowed to reach into your life and dictate who you can and cannot discriminate against or associate with, then it has become not only tyrannical but totalitarian. Totalitarianism is the notion that every detail of your existence is dictated and controlled by government. That is the direction we are heading in many regards. The right to discriminate is an important bulwark against this type of tyranny. If it goes, no other right is secure.
Sacred Right of Private Property
Founding Founder John Adams had some straight forward words about the right of property and how crucial it is to Liberty. Said he: “Property is surely a right of mankind as really as liberty. . . . The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet,’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal,’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free” (John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States, 1787).
Adams is very clear that without the right to property, and to the exercise of free will concerning that property, there is no Liberty. He also expresses doubts whether a society could ever be civilized or free without this right.
Why do I bring up property rights? I bring this subject forward because the right to discriminate is part and parcel of property rights. How can I truly own property if I am to be told by an outside power what I can and cannot do on it? The exception, as I have mentioned, is if our actions harm or violate the rights of another individual. But those violations aside, without the total, unrestricted right to be king of our own castles, our so-called property rights are a sham. And Liberty would also be a fraud if that were the case. To own property, including a business, but then be denied the right to free will regarding it would be like telling a starving man he can hold a plate of steaming, succulent food, but forbidding him from tasting that food. It would be an illusion and false hope – a facade without substance. To reiterate, if an individual owns a business or home, he is king of his castle – no just principle can refute this notion.
False Labeling
Lastly, I want to discuss the absurd concept that when someone exercises their right to discriminate, they have committed some act of hatred or bigotry. Whenever a Christian or principled person speaks out against immorality or vice, or refuses to make a cake or take pictures for a gay wedding, he or she is labelled a bigot, a racist, a homophobe, a prude, closed-minded, intolerant, and a hundred other equally ridiculous things. The reprobates come out of the woodwork to verbally violate, castigate, threaten, intimidate, berate, and spit upon anyone who makes a moral stand. These same people who call everyone who does or says anything contrary to their personal views racist or homophobic invariably call themselves enlightened, sophisticated, advanced, egalitarian, tolerant, fair, or benevolent. In reality, these people are not only exceedingly prideful and hate-filled, but they have no grasp on the concept of free speech, free expression, the right to discriminate, or even the right of private property. They don’t understand that the same First Amendment which protects their right to spew malice also justifies the actions of their victims. They attack people’s rights and heap hatred on them, all the while claiming to be in defense of Liberty and fairness.
Hate Crimes
Speaking of hate crimes legislation, which is a very similar brand of lunacy as labeling people bigots and homophobes for every disagreement, Ron Paul shared the following insightful thoughts: “If all individuals should be treated the same under the law, providing greater penalties to those who commit crimes against certain racial or sexual orientation groups nullifies this effort. It means that the law provides lesser penalties to those individuals committing crimes against people without that favored orientation. . . .”
He continued: “The fallacy of this type of legislation has led to the routine understanding of groups having rights rather than all individuals having equal rights. Too often, we hear reference to gay rights, minority rights, and women’s rights, etc., which undermines the concept of individual liberty.”
Paul further remarked: “The idea that a crime can be judged as to whether it was motivated by hate for certain groups introduces the notion of a thought police. If someone is robbed, beaten, or killed, the penalty should be unrelated to what the perpetrator was thinking at the time. It hardly matters. The actions are the actions. Imposing preferential penalties endorses the concept of relative rights, which is of course a very dangerous, slippery slope. It implies that some victims have greater worth than others. The extra and arbitrary enforcement power mocks the principle of equal justice before the law.”
And yet again Paul said: “If we continue to arbitrarily punish someone more severely for committing a ‘hate’ crime, we must make an assessment of the thoughts and speech of the perpetrator. It won’t take a giant leap for Congress to punish bigoted speech even without an act of violence. Political correctness has already gone too far, with great social penalties for people who inadvertently and without malice or in jest offend certain ethnic, racial, or sexual groups. The mischief makers believe certain groups deserve protection from the slightest insult from rude people. This ironically bestows less respect for the groups that ‘need’ special protection due to a perceived weakness” (Ron Paul, “Liberty Defined,” 147-149).
Rights vs Privileges
Let’s be clear: there is no such thing as gay rights or black rights or women’s rights, etc. There are only human rights which are equal and universal. If something cannot be universally enjoyed by everyone at the same time, it is not a right. By this standard, we can plainly see that education is not a right, healthcare is not a right, and many of the so-called “rights” society lauds are none at all. A right is something inherent in all individuals which is not granted by any earthly power and therefore cannot justly be taken away by any earthly power. A privilege, on the other hand, is something granted to you conditionally which can be revoked or restricted by the giver. Our rights do not come from government or society and government cannot restrict them lest they violate the natural law – God’s perfect law of Liberty. Only individuals have rights. And every individual has the right to discriminate, especially on his own property or in the operation of his own business. To deny this right is to deny the essence of free will.
For a more in depth look the principles of Liberty and the proper role of government, see Joel Skousen’s excellent online text “Foundations of the Ideal State” at this link: http://www.joelskousen.com/Philosophy/philosophy.html
Freedom Requires Sacrifice
I have covered a lot of ground in this article. I’ve defined Liberty, spoken about the fundamental right to discriminate, and have attempted to give you a basic knowledge of a few of our most essential rights and the principles behind them. My hope is that you can apply these principles to stories you see in the news or circumstances you personally encounter. To truly understand the highest principles of life requires discernment. Discernment can come into your life through sincere prayer and a willingness to follow promptings and to do the right thing in all situations.
Maintaining Freedom requires great personal sacrifice. Our Founding Fathers publicly pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to the defense of Liberty. Along with their countrymen, they fought, bled, suffered, and some even died. We will never regain our lost Liberties without sacrifice. While we pray that it never reaches the point of bloodshed, we must be prepared to make every sacrifice. Freedom is worth the cost.
So then let us be bold in the face of hate-filled propaganda, social pressure, and government coercion. Let’s stand for our rights no matter the cost. Be vocal. Be bold. Be unrelenting. Let people know that you side with Freedom, goodness, truth, and our inspired Constitution. Don’t ever fear to let your allegiance to correct principles, time-honored institutions, the Constitution, morality, and Freedom be known. Be loving toward everyone, even those who call you homophobic or bigoted for expressing your views and exercising your rights. Fear not to exercise your right to discriminate and to utilize your property as you see fit. Freedom will eventually prevail over self-righteous and self-appointed thought police and over craven despots who would steal away our most precious of rights.
I end with a statement from the Sage of Monticello – one which I second wholeheartedly: “That man may at length find favor with Heaven, and his present struggles issue in the recovery and establishment of his moral and political rights, will be the prayer of my latest breath” (Thomas Jefferson to Harry Innes, June 20, 1799).