In a related follow-up to the piece I wrote earlier in the week about Michigan’s same-sex benefits debate, Congress has now approved a measure which would ban discrimination based on sexual orientation. Note the nonsensical distinction, that it would now be verboten to fire someone for being gay, yet it would not be required to offer same-sex benefits — indeed they’re still trying to deny these things at State and Federal levels. (As an aside, I’d like to note that the Republicans really do have a hard-on for the whole gay marriage issue, don’t they? As in, everything is the slippery slope to Sodom and Gomorrah or something like that…)
Nineteen states have already enacted laws to bar such discrimination in the workplace, but it is currently legal in 30 states to fire a worker based on sexual orientation….
Nonetheless, Republican critics attacked the language as an invitation to activist judges to challenge state laws barring gay marriage, and Rep. Mark Souder (R., Ind.) charged that “religious rights” were being “trumped by sexual rights in our workplace.”
To suggest that Souder is an abject moron would be a redundant exercise in redundancy. He’s a politician after all, so we shouldn’t expect him to understand meta-concepts like rights or freedom. So let me paint a clearer picture: Describing individual rights as anything but property rights is an exercise in social warfare, towards tyranny by one group over all others. Coming from a politician, this shouldn’t surprise anyone. Their livelihoods depend upon pitting otherwise tolerant, amicable people against one another based only on completely arbitrary and fabricated class divisions. But I digress.
It is important to remember that there are no such things as “religious rights” or “sexual rights.” There are only individual property rights. You have a right to practice your religion freely because of (not in addition to) your right to be secure in your person and property. You have a right to seek employment, but this does not obligate me to provide for you. You have a right to associate with whomever you want — so long as the other party(s) consent. When “rights” are in conflict, we need only examine the property in question, and be sure that the consent of all involved has been secured.
That said, and motive notwithstanding, the White house unfortunately gets it right:
The Whjite (sic) House last month raised the threat of a veto, saying the bill is constitutionally inconsistent with the free exercise of religion and uses language that is “imprecise” and makes enforcement “extremely difficult.”
And indeed it is not only inconsistent with the free exercise of religion, but also the freedom of association and its counterpart, the freedom to not be forced to associate with any particular person or group of people. Although I agree in principle with the idea that a person ought not be denied opportunity because of his or her sexual orientation, I steadfastly believe in the right of an individual to do what he wishes and as he wishes within the confines of, and with regards to his own properties. If this means “No blacks allowed” or “No gays allowed,” so be it. I’d rather bigots were forced to openly and notoriously declare their intentions, in order that I may know who to avoid, who to scorn, and who deserves my reproach.
If we permit a vote of Congress to grant us our rights — even celebrate our successes — we must also accept that a vote of Congress can deny or invalidate our rights. This position is entirely intolerable.