Recent Supreme Court decisions have raised both hopes and fears in
many factions of American society.
It is clear that deciding vital but highly divisive matters is one
of many factors continuing to weaken American society and ramp up tensions and
anger in the Fifty States. Some of those include the very recent decisions on
ending affirmative action programs in educational institutions, and the freedom
of speech decision rejecting Colorado’s effort to mandate speech on a website
designer.
While both of these decisions have energized the activists and
partisans on both sides of the issues, the Nine Nazgul have put themselves into
the middle of issues which are hotly contested and argued, even fought over.
This has been made worse by a growing willingness of media (of all types) and
all political points of view to just flat-out lie about the decisions, and use
those lies to speculate in ways that are often beyond belief.
(We note that such a position seems to have been the intent of the
Founding Fathers in creating and implementing the Supreme Court in the first
place. Or so many argue.)
As a result, as with the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the demands
to “reform” SCOTUS have grown louder.
Let us look at the Colorado decision. The Nazgul have upheld the
right of the web page designer to not be forced to produce web page designs which
support and promote causes and viewpoints which she believed wrong and immoral.
So, the State of Colorado was denied the power to force her to speak out, even
in commercial art and design and speech to advocate for – or even tolerate –
ideas which she believed was wrong. Specifically, because of her religion.
The State of Colorado (and apparently Uncle Joe’s regime) argued
that she was denying fundamental human rights of the homosexual people who
wanted her to do this. That in essence, she was the one denying the would-be
customers’ human rights. Specifically, the right of free speech. Therefore, the
State government claimed that she was discriminating against the would-be
patrons. Denying them the right of free expression. Because they were
homosexual.
To lovers of liberty, this seems an example of governments saying
that some people’s rights are more important than letting other people have
rights. To the “progressives” (regressives), this is the way that things have
been done and must continue to be done. Especially those who advocate for special
privileges for certain groups.
This is, of course, anything but new. There is always some
conflict involved in exercising our rights. This is normally (past and present)
settled by determining if there is actual physical or economic harm to one or
another party of the conflict. This is in keeping with biblical and libertarian
ideas: do unto others as you would have them do unto you: do not act
aggressively against others. Common sense, but not to modern regressives.
We have fought versions of this battle for more than a century in
this nation. And the baggage is still with us. (A topic for another time,
perhaps.)
Is it not reasonable, even logical, to understand that the
broadly-recognized “right of association” means that the “right to refuse to
associate” is a necessary inference? Does it not make sense that the universal “right
of free speech” must include a “right to not say something” to be
effective?
Despite the first piece of logic, the FedGov and States have long
denied people – especially businesspeople – the right to deny service to a
person based on certain physical (and even mental) characteristics and
practices. The claim has been that such refusal to provide service causes harm –
physical and economic – to the person denied service. (And increasingly, “emotional”
harm.) So association can be coerced in the interests of government (which
claims to run “society”),
Are we at TPOL wrong to believe that this is seen as wrong by
libertarians?
The opponents of the SCOTUS decision claim that the ruling allows businesses
(and others) to discriminate against people because of what the rejected people
are. They proclaim it is a step to returning the LQBTQ+ community to second or
third-class status. To allowing some people to again discriminate by refusing
any and all service to whomever they want to reject “for religious reasons.”
This does not match what we understand of the Nazgul decision,
good or bad. It is not that the Supremes are “allowing” businesses to refuse to
do business with certain people based on race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. (“Discriminate.”)
Rather, the decision denies State governments any power to force businesses to
provide any service or product (goods) that they believe is wrong (immoral).
Provide to anyone! It is not the sex or other characteristic of the would-be
buyer that is at issue, but rather the goods or services that they want, that
is the deciding factor.
Yet that is not what media and advocates (seemingly on both
sides of this issue) are spouting. They are wrong and poisoning the discourse.
Consider this example. A vegan Quaker woodcarver refuses to make a
wooden stock for a woman for her .30-06 hunting rifle. Why? Because he is both
a pacifist and believes that eating meat (or animal products) is wrong. He is
willing to make her wooden carvings of animals, or wooden plates, or even doorbells.
But she wants a rifle stock. She files a civil rights complaint. So the State
of Mind takes him to court claiming that he is denying her his services because
she is a woman?
Maybe that is too complex a comparison, but it seems to us that
the SCOTUS decision is a proper one and will not lead to all the horrid things
we are reading.
What it might lead to is reduced power of government to coerce
us – to force us to do things that are against our beliefs. Now, wouldn’t that
be a shame?
About TPOL Nathan
Follower of Christ Jesus (a christian), Pahasapan (resident of the Black Hills), Westerner, Lover of Liberty, Free-Market Anarchist, Engineer, Army Officer, Husband, Father, Historian, Writer, Evangelist. Successor to Lady Susan (Mama Liberty) at TPOL.
The Price of Liberty 