I find that political discussion with Christians and non-Christians alike often turns into a confusion between moralizing and good principles of governance. Many seem unable to disentangle their hearts desire for others from the desire to use the force of government to achieve that desire. Hence, being against anti-discrimination laws is NOT the same thing as being in favor of discrimination and prejudice… one is about personal ethics and morals and the other is about principles of government.
The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment of our constitution is a federal mandate against the unequal application of law by the government, demanding equal protection under the law regardless of race or nationality.
Wikipedia sums it up well.
“The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. …The Equal Protection Clause was created largely in response to the lack of equal protection provided by law in states with Black Codes. …the Equal Protection Clause was designed to assure to the colored race the enjoyment of all the civil rights that under the law are enjoyed by white persons, and to give to that race the protection of the general government, in that enjoyment, whenever it should be denied by the States. The Clause mandates that individuals in similar situations be treated equally by the law. …the Supreme Court has clarified that the Equal Protection Clause would not be limited to discrimination against African Americans, but would extend to other races, colors, and nationalities such as …legal aliens in the United States…”
By this both Jim Crow laws AND affirmative action laws should be unconstitutional. Any law that is designed to single out a particular racial, ethnic, or nationalistic group for special privileges, considerations or curtailed freedoms should be deemed unconstitutional and struck down.
So what’s the problem?
The problem is that “activist” judges and law makers have taken this amendment and sought to stretch its application to, among other things,[1] curtail the private citizen. These have decided that “discrimination” is bad and must be abolished by law (i.e. at the point of a gun) in every dark corner of the nation… including barbershops, churches, grocery stores (as in anti-discrimination laws) and the secret chambers of the human heart (as in hate crime legislation and hate speech legislation).
Worse yet, any statistical difference in final outcome economically or socially[2] is assumed to be proof of discrimination.[3]
The amendment was designed to curtail government, to limit Government power, to dictate Government policy, but became in the hands of “do-gooders” a tool to enlarge Government, to increase Government power, to steal away private freedoms.
If one questions the legitimacy of the extended application of this amendment to the lives and businesses of citizens, he or she is painted a villain.
Question: Who would defend the right of anyone to prejudice & discrimination?
Answer: Only the worst sort of people, obviously.
As the bailiwick[4] of this amendment extends even further in the hands of these “do-gooders” to include gender & sexual orientation the error of our ways grows clearer. One cannot deny the private citizen the right to discriminate in their lives and business without eventually violating his or her right to act according to conscience, and/or religious conviction.
It doesn’t matter whether one agrees or disagrees with the choices that another makes in doing business. The purpose of law is not to uniformly enforce ever shifting public opinion about this or that, but rather to protect a person and his property from the wanton designs of his or her neighbor.
Frankly, if someone wishes to have a business that both hires and caters only to women that should be their right. If catering only to women causes them economic hardship, that’s the cost of making such a choice. Some won’t balk at this at all, until I flip it. If someone wishes to have a club or business that both hires and caters only to men… that should also be his or her right.
If an African American, Latino, or Cambodian wants to run a business dealing only with his or her own race, ethnic group, national heritage or even height or weight category, that should be his right. If doing so causes economic hardship, that’s the cost of making such choices. Now, apply that to whites as well.
If a Muslim, Jewish person, or Rastafarian wishes to conduct business only with certain of their group, the model continues. This goes for every private sector business whether a private hospital, university, or bank, or Charlie’s Road Side BLT Sandwich Wagon. Now apply that to Christians as well… however unscriptural I might think them.
While we are all equal sharers in the property of the state as citizens and legal aliens, power over one’s own property (body, time, goods, services, children, pets, etc.) is a natural right that forms part of the foundation of a free and prosperous society.
This sounds harsh to some. Visions of piles of dead minorities outside hospitals, homeless masses denied the opportunity to buy or rent property, homosexuals starving in the street for lack of bread, hooded figures roaming the streets killing at random, all dance in our heads. Oh, the horror of a world where people are free to associate with whom they wish without the government’s all-wise guiding hand to slap down the nasty (or uncooperative) among us, to force each of us at the point of a gun into the social mold of the “do-gooders.” Surely, this is a call for a return to Jim Crow laws, segregated buses, separate water fountains, etc.
This is, of course, a manipulative image cast up without historical warrant or a proper sense of economics… it exchanges moralizing fairytales for the establishment of well-argued principles for sound governance.
The 14th amendment speaks to each of these complaints. That which is under the auspices of the government is run without regard to things such as race, ethnic heritage, nationality, religion, gender, or, if you please, sexual orientation. (This, of course, should mean that all laws that are created against private citizens to give these groups special protections not offered to others must also go… like “hate crime & hate speech laws, and all anti-discrimination laws offering special protections for women, minorities, those with disabilities, and the socially marginalized… no matter how you feel about these groups.)
The crossing of that single line—the barrier between public & private, between curtailing the state and curtailing the lives of citizens in conducting their own business and businesses—was and is a dangerous move whose end is oppression. Not everything that “should be” should be a law. Not everything that “ought to be” ought to be a law.
Law is NOT the only force at work in society. “Do-gooders” always talk as if the Government is the only solution to every problem they imagine, but social, religious and economic pressures implemented without law have their own irresistible power and tend to be far more effective in bringing needed change without the adverse effects of Government interference and force.
Those who seek to make every “good idea” the law of the land foment oppression and governmental villainy. These lay the foundation for the trampling of natural rights (Freedom of association, religion, speech, Press… Rights of parenthood, property and self-protection) in the establishment of a fluid legal system turned to force the social agenda of the few against the many and of the many against the few.
The “do-gooders” will eventually be hoisted by their own petard, but it will be too late for the rest of us if we don’t see through the pseudo-righteousness of “ought to be” and defend our most basic freedoms… even for those with whom we vehemently disagree.
[1] These other things regard the expansion of the “concept” of discrimination to include any and every distinction between every “marginalized” group and the main stream of American society.
[2] Eg. Women make on average 70 some percent of what men make in a lifetime. Women, however, tend to work fewer hours, to choose different types of careers, to take more time off for family concerns, and to quit their education sooner.
[3] Thus, those who do business are expected to compensate for the personal choices that women or minorities or handicapped people might make so that everyone ends up equal in the end no matter what. This is an impossible standard of assumed guilt and creates an insecure legal environment in which to do business. Part of establishing an environment for prosperity is clearly established rules of engagement in society, thus these laws harm the economy in many indirect ways.
[4] I’ve always wanted to use this word in a blog. It felt good. It means, “the area of one’s authority or control.”
