I really don’t want to spend my time writing about this same-sex marriage issue again. It’s amazing just how selfish some people are in their having to force their ways onto others and get the powers of the State to aid and abet their aggressions. Some “liberals” actually think that “civil rights” means having the power to force others to associate with you. Nuh-uh. Sorry, folks.
These issues are really a matter of freedom vs. statism.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed a bill “allowing” business owners to not have to serve same-sex couples, but specifically out of “religious”-based objections. I’m glad she vetoed the bill, but her reasons are certainly not out of principle, either in favor of “civil rights” or in favor of business, or freedom of association. Given that she supports the police to require presumably innocent non-suspects to show IDs without probable cause, then she can’t be very principled. She is a politician, after all.
Same-sex marriage involves the principles of self-ownership, and private property and voluntary contract rights. The same goes for opposite-sex marriage. You own your life, and you have a right to marry whomever you want, as long as it’s mutually consensual, and whatever you decide, it’s no one else’s business. The government doesn’t own you, and your neighbors don’t own you. Therefore, neither government bureaucrats nor your neighbors have any legitimate say in the matter or any moral authority to interfere.
Now, as far as “civil rights” goes, such as in the cases mentioned in Arizona, the business owner has a “civil right” to associate with and do business with whomever one wants, and a “civil right” to NOT associate with or do business with whomever one doesn’t want to associate or do business with.
However, the activists and the selfish brats out there believe that they have a “civil right” to use the armed power of the State to force the business owner to associate with them. They believe that using force and aggression against others is a “civil right.” Sorry to be harsh with my terms such as “selfish brats,” but that is just what they are. It’s the era of self-centeredness and selfishness, in which a gay couple finds that a florist or photographer won’t provide services to them, so instead of just finding someone else who will — and surely in just about every community someone will be a willing provider for them in return for some needed financial compensation — instead of finding someone else, the self-centered brats would rather go to the armed powers of the State to compel the business owner to do business with them involuntarily.
In those cases, we can see who believes in using aggression as a means toward an end, and which party just wants the freedom to control her own business which is her right to have. The selfish brats are either too lazy or just plain covetous to go find a different provider of whatever service they are looking for. And it is they who are acting with aggression, suing and inconveniencing and even causing possible bankruptcy of the one who won’t obey their orders. In the case of a florist who doesn’t want to provide flowers for your gay wedding, you mean she’s the only florist around, and you can’t find another one? So, you want to force the florist or photographer to do some sort of labor to serve you against her will? Yes, it seems that some people are that self-centered. (And I’ll bet that there are also plenty of statist conservatives out there who would do the exact same thing to a gay photographer who wouldn’t want to provide for their wedding as well.)
So here, the aggressors are clearly the selfish brats who run to the government to sue a private business owner who wants to exercise her right (and this is the true “civil rights” here) to serve whichever customers she wants. If she feels uncomfortable doing business with or associating with a gay couple, that is her right. But if it’s a homosexual photographer or florist who doesn’t want to serve a heterosexual couple, that is her right, too. It’s a matter of freedom of association, freedom of contract and private property rights. And the same thing goes for a black business owner who doesn’t want to serve white people or a Jewish owner who doesn’t want to serve Christians or atheists.
But eventually, most of those businesses run by such narrow-minded cranks would go bankrupt, as word would get around about them, and no one would want to do business them. It’s called social shaming or ostracism. It used to work quite well in pre-nanny state eras.
And it doesn’t matter what reasons are that people have, religious or otherwise. Those bills such as what Gov. Brewer vetoed mentioned “religious exemptions,” but it shouldn’t be just religious. What if an atheist is against gay marriage for personal or moral reasons, but isn’t religious? Who is the government to decide what is or is not a valid basis for an individual deciding to associate or not associate with others?
So there are First Amendment-related issues here, as well as freedom of association, private property, and the sanctity of voluntary contracts.
And I’m sure that some people are thinking of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, given some of the things I have stated. That Act should only have applied to “public property” and government-run functions such as parks, drinking fountains, the metro buses, City Hall, government schools, etc. But it should not have applied to any private property whatsoever, regardless how big in size or finances a business might be. I have addressed that here, as have Jacob Hornberger, Walter Block, Ron Paul, and Laurence Vance.