It's About Liberty, Not Fake Rights
By Gina Miller
RenewAmerica.com
Listen to an audio version of this column
The word "religion" doesn't sit too well with me,
because I associate it with man-made traditions,
legalism and salvation based on works, rather than
true salvation which is the free gift of God by
Jesus' willing sacrifice. The real definition of
religion is given in
James 1:27:
Pure religion and undefiled before God and the
Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows
in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted
from the world.
That sounds simple enough, but keeping oneself
unspotted from the world – there's the kicker, much
easier said than done, to be sure.
Putting that aside, however, we are watching a
frenzied campaign of leftist media hysteria and
disinformation surrounding the religious freedom
protection bills in
Arizona,
Mississippi and a few other states. Those who
are opposed to these bills are falsely claiming they
would promote the ill treatment of homosexuals. This
is nonsense, of course. This is not about
homosexuals themselves, but specific demands made by
homosexuals that would force those with moral
objections to violate their conscience.
In response to the onslaught in recent years of
homosexual activists steamrolling across our nation
targeting Christian businesses for lawsuits, many
people have had quite enough, thank you. So, they
have sought to bolster our God-given,
constitutionally protected rights and freedoms by
reiterating them at the state level.
Selwyn Duke made some important points in his column
"Razing
Arizona: Conservatives Succeed at Failing Again."
In response to some cowardly statements by a few
Arizona State Senators lamenting the media's false
labeling of the bill as "a sword for religious
intolerance," Mr. Duke wrote:
How should conservatives handle such name
calling?
Hurl names right back.
Call the leftists what they are: tyrants, socialists
and haters of liberty. Explain that they want to
destroy freedom of association. Seek to control the
language of the debate and to frame the narrative –
and use their own Alinsky tactics against them. And
we do have one great advantage: we're right and
righteous.
As for strategy, realize that framing this as a
matter of freedom of religion makes it seem a
special-interest cause, as not everyone considers
himself "religious." What we really need is a
Freedom of Association Restoration Act.
I fully concur. Freedom of association is more
generally applicable. I would also include freedom
of conscience. Freedom of conscience and association
would encompass religion as well. There are
situations that are not religious in nature that may
still violate someone's conscience. As Matt Barber
asked in his column, "An
Absolute Right to Refuse Service,"
Should a black printer be forced to develop and
print thousands of "White Power!" flyers for a
skinhead rally just because the potential customer
is white?
... Should a "progressive," environmentalist
sign-maker be required to design and manufacture
"Global Warming Is a Farce" signs for a tea party
rally?
... Should a "gay married" lesbian hotel owner – a
card-carrying member of GLAAD – be required, under
threat of incarceration, to host and cater a
fundraiser for the "National Organization for
Marriage," a group that opposes so-called "marriage
equality"?
In each of these cases, we're dealing with a
violation of conscience, not necessarily religious
in nature. In none of these cases, or any others
like them, should the people in question be forced
to go against their deeply held beliefs to serve
what they regard as intolerable demands that are put
upon them.
When speaking about the "lawfare" attacks on
Christians by activist homosexuals, we have seen no
cases of Christians simply refusing in general to do
business with homosexuals, because it's not
happening. One letter to the editor writer in our
local paper incorrectly imagined that these kinds of
bills would open the door to people refusing to
perform CPR on homosexuals or firemen declining to
put out their house fires. This is complete
nonsense! As Matt Barber noted in
his column:
To clarify – liberals, I know you have a
difficult time understanding the "Constitution" with
its outdated "Bill of Rights" and all – I'm not
talking about refusing business to someone just
because he appears effeminate or she appears butch,
or even when that someone is an "out and proud"
homosexual.
I've never even heard of a case where a Christian
baker randomly refused to provide baked goods – such
as a birthday cake – to any homosexual, absent a
scenario in which those goods endorsed a message the
baker finds repugnant (rainbow "pride" cupcakes,
"gay wedding" cakes and the like). I've never heard
of a single instance in which a Christian business
owner arbitrarily said to a homosexual: "We don't
serve your kind here."
And neither can the left provide such an instance.
Because it doesn't happen. If it did happen, it
would be front-page news for a month.
No, I'm specifically referring to scenarios that
have occurred – and continue to occur – with
alarming frequency. Situations in which Christian
business owners are being sued, fined or even
threatened with jail time for politely declining to
apply their God-given time and talent to create
goods or services that require they violate deeply
held – and constitutionally protected – religious
beliefs.
It really is that black and white. This was never
about the person. It was always about the message.
It was never about "discrimination." It was always
about liberty.
Freedom, man.
Because 'Merica.
That's the bottom line. It's about liberty. And,
further, it's about real rights versus fake rights.
Writing at Renew America, Dan Popp, in his excellent
column, "About
Your "Right" To My Service...," states:
Today the conservative talkers are jawing about
the supposed "balance" between a person's right not
to be discriminated against, and a business owner's
rights of conscience. But the problem, you see, is
that the first thing is not a right. I don't have a
right to force people to like me. Or to hire me. Or
to sell something to me.
Someone will say that I do indeed have those rights,
as created by the Courts or the Congress or Eric
Holder (Fleas Be Upon Him). But the government
cannot create rights. Only God can grant rights. And
a government that does not protect God-given rights
(including and especially the right to property) is
not a legitimate government.
... There is no "balance" between a "right to be
served" and a right to do as I please with what is
mine.
... Would you say that obnoxious patrons have a
"right" to be served? Or does the owner have the
right to kick them out? What about drunks – must
they be served more alcohol? After all, they have a
"disease;" and we surely may not discriminate
against sick people?!?
Even today I see signs reading, "No Shirt, No Shoes,
No Service." Doesn't this discriminate against the
poor? And the overheated? Must my "right" to a
reasonably sanitary dining environment be "balanced"
against someone else's "right" to be served naked if
he so demands? What if the would-be customer cannot
pay? May the owner discriminate against him because
he is "underprivileged?"
This is all nonsense.
Of course I have the right – even if I don't have
permission from the lawless lawmakers – to
discriminate against anyone for any reason, or no
reason. Now that's usually a bad idea. I'm against
it. But if a business owner does not have the right
to hire and to serve whom he wishes, his enterprise
is not really his. He has lost his freedom of
association as well as his right of conscience and
his property rights. Why? How did he lose those
rights? Did he commit a crime?
Yes, he opened a business.
The issue is not your rights against his. The issue
is one of imaginary, man-made, feel-good rights
versus real rights. People who insist that one
person has a right to compel another to serve him
are properly called slavers. And slavers have
always felt morally superior. The Civil War and the
13th Amendment didn't stop them; they're going to
force you to work for them. [Emphasis mine]
Cutting through the lies and distortions of the
Left, we can see that this all boils down to liberty
versus tyranny. You don't have a right to force me
to violate my conscience by affirming your sinful
behavior with the work of my hands, period!
Homosexual activists and others who oppose measures
to protect freedom of conscience, religion and
association are, wittingly or not, on the side of
tyranny.
© Gina Miller