Forget Religious Liberty Bills

Same-sex marriage was first legalized in the United States in Massachusetts in 2004. That came as no surprise. But then followed the states of Connecticut (2008), Iowa (2009), Vermont (2009), and New Hampshire (2010), plus Washington, D.C. By the time of the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges (June 26, 2005), which ruled that marriage between same-sex couples was a fundamental right guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, same-sex marriage was already legal in thirty-two other states, many because of federal court decisions, not by state court decisions, legislative statutes, or popular votes.

But, as usually happens when it comes to government interference in the market or society, there were unintended consequences of these actions.

Over the course of the last ten or so years, there have been numerous high-profile cases of business owners—usually bakers, photographers, and florists—refusing, on religious grounds, to provide wedding-related services to same-sex couples. Most have lost their court battles to “freely exercise” their religion.

It is also true that more liberty is better than less liberty. The state sometimes allowing certain businesses to discriminate in certain areas against certain people for certain reasons is better than the state seldom allowing certain businesses to discriminate in certain areas against certain people for certain reasons.

Just like tax deductions for some are better than tax deductions for none, and tax credits for many are better than tax credits for few.

So, what’s wrong with religious liberty bills? Don’t look to People for the American Way to tell you. Better look to libertarians who support in individual liberty, private property, freedom of contract, and freedom of association and oppose political correctness, the nanny state, government regulation, and the police state.

Religious liberty bills miss the real issue.

The real issue is freedom. In a free society, business owners have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason on any basis. Religion has nothing to do with it. It’s not just a pizza delivery driver refusing to deliver pizza to certain neighborhoods. It’s not just a taxi driver refusing to pick up or drop off patrons on certain streets. And it goes much deeper than “no shirt, no shoes, no service,” as I can remember signs posted in some store windows.

In a free society, discrimination against a potential customer in any form and for any cause must be permissible. It doesn’t matter if the denial of service is because of religion, race, creed, color, complexion, national origin, ancestry, gender, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, health condition, disability, mental state, IQ, height, weight, hair color, eye color, hair style, facial hair, tattoos, scars, pregnancy, marital status, criminal record, political ideology, or socio-economic status.

In a free society, business owners likewise have the absolute right to hire only certain people and give discounts to only certain people. Just like private clubs and organizations have the absolute right of inclusion and exclusion.

The fact that denying someone service, not hiring someone, and not admitting someone to your club might be based on stereotypes, prejudice, hate, sexism, xenophobism, homophobism, bigotry, or racism is immaterial.

The fact that denying someone service, not hiring someone, and not admitting someone to your club might be viewed as unfair, illogical, irrational, nonsensical, or unreasonable is also immaterial.

I don’t hear any legislator in any state who supports a religious liberty bill making the case for freedom.

If an individual can discriminate against a business in any way, for any reason, and on any basis, then why can’t a business discriminate against an individual? What is so unreasonable about that?

Discrimination is not aggression. It is freedom.

The post Forget Religious Liberty Bills appeared first on LewRockwell.