Greetings.
It has been just over two weeks since I last contributed to this; a fact that I am deeply regretful over, but which leaves me all the more motivated to get back to writing and discussing the issues that are currently foremost on our culture's landscape.
One of the most hot-button topics in the news lately (at least concerning news that matters) over the last couple of weeks is a law that was recently vetoed by Governor Jan Brewer. This law would have given a layer of protection to small businesses that refuse service to homosexuals on the grounds of religious conviction and religious liberty. What is unique about this issue is that it has managed to divide not only the usual mix of ardent conservatives and hard-core liberals, but also even a few libertarians (amongst ourselves) as well.
On one side, there is the crowd that (rightly, I believe) thinks that business owners should have the right to refuse service to anyone on religious grounds. On the other side, there's the anti-discrimination crowd which argues that discrimination is not only unkind, but is also against the law...though few are very specific about which law is being violated when service is refused.
Personally, I fall on the side of the "religious liberty," crowd. However, my argument doesn't just end at religious liberty. Not only do I believe that businesses have every right to refuse service to anyone on religious grounds, they also have the right, I think, to do so on ANY grounds they choose. This is simply by virtue of the fact that it is THEIR business. They own the property and the inventory, not to mention the stewardship and responsibility for the success (or failure) of their enterprise. Thus, it is they, and not a government from Phoenix or Washington, D.C., that get to determine how their business will operate. Period.
Furthermore, history teaches that the free market is a much more effective enforcer of social justice, not to mention a much more effective picker of winners and losers, than a centralized, tax-funded bureaucracy housed in a capital building. Again, let's take the Arizona example. Suppose enough people get really angry at this business owner for what they are calling "discrimination." What will the business man (or woman) do if left to his or her own devices when confronted with these angry consumers? Will he 1) ignore them and continue his business practices only to see his business fail and be replaced by a more "gay-friendly" enterprise? Or will he 2) change his business practices, stop refusing service to homosexuals, and save his business?
The answer, obviously, is that we do not know. Either way, however, the problem is solved either by way of the business owner going out of business or by way of the business owner changing his ways to attract new business. And this is a classic example of an unrestricted, minimally-regulated, free market can solve the societal ills that too often divide and trouble us.
The flip side of my argument is that while I do not think Governor Brewer made an entirely prudent decision in her decision to veto, I also do not completely buy that this turn of events completely spells certain doom for small businesses owned by people of faith. Could it make the lives of faith-based small business owners a bit more difficult? Absolutely. Could these small business owners have benefitted from the layer of protection afforded by this new law? Certainly.
However, it is important to remember that any lawsuit filed against a business for refusing service could easily be defended on First and perhaps even Fourteenth Amendment grounds. Free speech and equal protection counter-arguments could (and should) be made forcefully on behalf of small business owners should they be taken to court in the wake of these events. And liberty lovers everywhere would then do well to support these enterprises by donating to their defense funds wherever they may be found.
That's all I have for this week. Until next time, live free.
-Warren Brisbane
No comments:
Post a Comment