And four churches are preparing a lawsuit against Attorney General Maura Healey and the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination.
Additionally, there have been many same-sex couples who have sued bakers who didn’t want to bake a cake for the couple’s wedding, photographers who didn’t want to photograph it, and florists who didn’t want to provide flowers.
Some lawsuits claim to involve hurt feelings, but given the huge number of illicit lawsuits and threats against those who have a moral conscience and act defiantly against the activists, one can very well make the case that the activists have been intentionally using the laws and courts to push the homosexual agenda beyond just acceptance or preventing discrimination.
The Orwellian Massachusetts law will apply to places of religious worship, and, according to Conservative Review, the law states that “’all entities subject to the law’ are encouraged to ‘use names, pronouns, and gender-related terms’ that coincide with a person’s imagined gender, and ‘prohibit derogatory comments or jokes about transgender persons from employees, clients, vendors, and any others, and promptly investigate and discipline persons who engage in discriminatory conduct’.”
So this is what conservatives’ own acceptance of progressive “civil rights” laws has come to.
The bottom line is that conservatives need to return to a principled support for private property and private property rights, and freedom of association and freedom of non-association. And this requires a direct and explicit call for a change in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and all subsequent legislation to only address government-run functions and public property, and to exempt all private property from such laws.
Unfortunately many people are afraid to speak out against certain invasive and immoral laws for fear of being labeled “racist,” “sexist,” “homophobic,” and so on. And now decent people are afraid of being sued.
While a church has more to do with voluntary charity and usually isn’t a for-profit business, it is nevertheless private property. Churches are not publicly owned, they are not government-owned.
That means that all individuals involved, the ministers and workers, the church-goers, and so on, have freedom of speech as guided by their own prayers, thoughts, consciences and conversations, and under the authority of the proprietors or owners of that church, NOT the authority of any government agency, legislator or bureaucrat.
Regarding the business side of “public accommodations,” the progressives and statists for a century have been treating private business as not-truly privately owned, but as publicly-owned or even government-owned mainly out of the very negative emotions of envy and covetousness. The “civil rights” laws have merely been extensions of New Deal and Great Society usurpations and takings, in my view.
Morally, if you own a business that you built from your own labor and capital, or that you acquired from your own wealth or inherited, then that business is not any less private property just because the business is a commercial enterprise and involves profits.
Within such principles, the individual owns one’s own life, person and labor, and justly acquired property, and has a right to make use of one’s person and property as one sees fit, as long as one is peaceful. And that’s the moral way for a society to be.
So in the examples of LGBT activists suing bakers and other businesspeople, the choice is this: Either the baker owns his own business and has the ultimate right to decide on and control all aspects of the business, including what customers he will serve or not serve by his own choice; or a couple may use the force of government and the law to compel the baker to serve them.
Those are the two choices. And it doesn’t matter what reasons the baker has for refusal, by the way. As Laurence Vance pointed out, if the law is to punish someone’s reasons for refusing to associate or do business with others, then we are talking about thought crimes here. Not good.
And the principle involved is not so much “religious liberty,” but private property rights and freedom of association. An atheist baker has the same right to refuse service to a Christian couple, if the atheist baker opposes Christianity. That is because his business is privately owned and he is the ultimate owner.
People don’t have the right to force others to associate with or do extra labor to serve them, period.
A related issue involved Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. There was absolutely no good reason for her to be thrown in jail for her refusal.
However, if Davis were a private businessperson or service provider, such as a minister or priest working in a church, she would have every right in the world to pick and choose which couples to marry or not, and for any reason. That’s not exactly what the “civil rights” laws say, but many laws on the books are unjust laws — laws which force involuntary associations on people and which violate an individual’s sense of moral scruples as well as private property rights.
In other words, individual ministers, rabbis, priests or marriage officiants should have the freedom to discriminate which people to marry or not to marry, and for any reason.
“Civil rights” laws and other governmental intrusions have been used by the progressives to force acceptance of what many people view as unacceptable, by law. So conservative support of such laws, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, has been quite self-defeating.
While one purpose of civil rights laws is to force involuntary associations and acceptance of unacceptable lifestyles, another motivation of the progressives has been to punish successful entrepreneurs via monetary losses through the courts. This motivation of envy, covetousness and hatred of the profit motive runs deep within the soul of most progressives. (Most?) Perhaps I mean within the being of progressives because one wonders whether many of them are deficient of an actual soul.
The progressives seem to have been using just about every aspect of everyday life to act out and impose their emotional envy and resentment toward those who are productive, successful and living an honest life, and who have a particular point of view that’s contrary to the LGBT lobby’s propaganda.
Many people of a moral conscience who believe in freedom and private property rights are attempting to defend their rights in court, such as those religious groups in Massachusetts now. States can also make use of the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment and nullification to fight federal diktats.
But I think that people may very well have to use a good offense as a defense against activist aggressors against them. For example, if a same-sex couple sues you for refusal of service, you can immediately sue them for emotional distress, or press criminal charges of extortion and harassment against them. And that could also apply to a transgender person who sues someone in a church for “discrimination” because he was referred to as “he” rather than as his preferred “she.”