Patience is a Virtue – Politically Speaking
Once, in a far more primitive, wicked, and immoral time, we, Americans, had slavery. We’ve learned, and adapted to what the truth is, and that is that every man is equal. This, generally speaking, has been a good thing. Where I see there to be any kind of controversy is to what power the state should have in such a matter. Theoretically, it is a good thing that the government stepped in to end slavery. It never should’ve existed, and shouldn’t have existed a second longer. However, the times an minds were already in the midst of change, beginning to encourage equality. One may argue this is incorrect, especially considering that racism is far from extinct, in our nation, even today. So what was the correct move?
More recent events have seen bigotry in the form of homophobia. There are people that would refuse to serve those of the LGBTQ community, such as refusing to bake wedding cakes for gay marriages. The fact is that it shouldn’t be a thing, to refuse any person based on these things, in the realm of morality. Bigotry, and making people unequal is, naturally, unacceptable behavior. On this, we can all agree. However, the question isn’t whether people have a right to do these things, it is what entity should be correcting these issues.
Business Rights as Individuals
I have this belief that a government with more power, is more easily corrupted. The power should be with the people. That being said, the government stepping in, to tell a business to whom they must sell, is a form of power. It means letting the government dictate the rules of your business. If they can dictate that you must sell your services or products to a specific group to whom you did not wish to sell (whether or not this is morally acceptable” what else can they dictate of your business? Can they then begin to tell you at what price you should sell your goods?
Perhaps this problem is even bigger, because one may argue that this is a dictation of restriction of a person’s religious beliefs (considering that most that would not sell to this community, did so under the name of their religious beliefs). Should they then, also, be required to sell specific products, that they don’t believe in?
Maybe someone that doesn’t support President Trump, should be forced to sell merchandise that is supportive of Trump? Perhaps a person that is not supportive of gay marriage could be required to, not only sell their products to this community, but also supply specific products? For instance, in the situation of gay marriage, should a person against gay marriage, be required by law to sell cake toppers that has two males on them? In short, can the government tell a person not only to whom to sell their services and goods, but also what to sell?
However…
I will reiterate that I don’t condone that behavior, at all, and it should be openly condemned. However, do have concerns about how far the government can push. I have concerns of the government using these actions as stepping stones to usurp power. The government taking power which sets a legal precedent of what they are allowed to do. This isn’t the only controversial item in recent history, regarding religious and business freedoms. There is this open idea that a person that owns a business can not have their religious beliefs in their business. For instance, the idea that business should be providing insurance that also provides abortion care to their employees.
Forced Financial Support
The problem with this, is that by not providing abortion care to employees, the business owner is not directly giving money to a cause of which they do not believe. It may be that abortion is legal, and it may be that abortion is morally correct, but does that then mean that someone that disagrees with this practice, has to spend their own money to provide it to those that do believe in this practice? The idea being that the person can say that it is none of the business owners’ business about their healthcare, but also have demands that the business pay for the healthcare that is none of the their business. What’s more, the government is stepping in to enforce such things.
Should a business with an atheist owner, also. be required to sell Bibles or the Qua-ran? I understand that this is not exactly the same. Frankly, tax money is used to provide executions in some states, so obviously, we all are supporting politics in a financial way, regardless of how we feel. This concept isn’t a matter of being for or against abortion or capital punishment. It’s about what the government can require of citizens financially. Whether you agree or disagree with abortion or capital punishment, the topic of the government requiring it’s citizens to directly financially provide to those causes should cause pause. I don’t know the solution to this problem, I just know that it is a problem.
Power to the People!
The ideology behind these actions is understandable, because people shouldn’t be discriminating among each other. Furthermore, the ideology seems to suggest that a business is an entity and that the owner isn’t a person, but a business, itself. Businesses, theoretically, shouldn’t have beliefs that would alienate any single person. In truth, it is bad business to alienate any group of potential buyers or investors in ones business. The question is, “Should the government be enforcing businesses to act morally?” Should the government be deciding what is moral? Freedom of speech allows for people and groups like the KKK to continue to have the right to speak horrifically bad things. So, how is this different?
The other common argument I hear among supporters of equality and humanity, is that people that suggest the business owners should have these rights, “obviously” believe in what the business owners are saying. This is not necessarily correct. It is a logical fallacy. It makes sense that people come to this conclusion, but it is incorrect. An example would be, “Oh you don’t agree with Jane? Then you must agree with John!” It is actually possible to disagree with both parties. In the aforementioned statement, it is possible to believe people should have the right to discriminate, but also not agree with the discrimination. (I will also take a moment to mention that having a “right” to do something, does not mean it is condoned behavior, merely that there are ways to “ban” behavior, without doing it legally.)
More Misleading Accusations…
Another example would be suggesting that people that would vote against the government programs for welfare, are not supportive of the people that need welfare. This is also misleading. It makes sense that someone might consider these options the defaults. However, there is an option they are not seeing. The free market is remarkably powerful. People are astonishingly powerful. Protesting a business, protesting a hate group, is within the power of the people. Thus, believing that the private sector can take care of the people that need welfare, better than the government can take care of people that need welfare, is an option that is not being considered when making such an accusation.
Maybe I’m blissfully naive, but I believe that the government didn’t necessarily have to step in about slavery. This is not to say I’m not glad they did. I just believe the people could’ve come with the same results or better ones. Similarly, hateful people that won’t sell their services to minority groups, can be handled externally from the government. Don’t shop there, and discourage others from doing so! It was the people that started the America Revolution. How many people stood behind Rosa Parks not giving up her seat? How many people did Betty Williams march with in Ireland, in 1976? One man, Frank Willis, was the beginning of the end of one US president! Our world’s biggest evolutionary changes have occurred because of the act of people.
We are Stronger Than ANY Government!
In the end, What we see, time and time again, in story after story, of our history, is that the governments continuously get so big that they begin to oppress their people, and the people, in turn fight back. Time after time, the people reclaim their freedom, and the government starts from a restricted point again. As I said, I don’t think that it is a bad thing that the government freed the slaves. I think it’s a bad thing that the government freeing slaves was not the altruistic act that people think it was.
Would the government have freed slaves if there wasn’t something in it for them? Does the government ever do anything that is truly altruistic? There is a reason that long-time lawyers hold these positions. They can reinterpret the laws with more ease than your average man. We will never see a day that an average Joe Blow is president. It takes millions of dollars, connections with all who serve the devil (aka politicians), and an expensive law degree, to become a politician. They haven’t served the will of the people for a very long time.
Evil is Rampant in Politics…
What worries me isn’t that the government has stepped in on these matters. What worries me is that the government stepping in on these matters sets a precedence of what the government can do. The government deciding law based on morality isn’t the problem (obviously there are laws against murder, and murder is morally wrong). The government deciding law about what people can believe and how they can practice that belief, based on morality, is the problem.
This is because today, the government may have the “morality” part right, but what if tomorrow the “morality” is wrong? The Nazis said that the moral thing to do was the eradicate Jews. They convinced the country that Jews were the cause of all their problems, and that the only right thing to do was to banish them and kill them. What happens when the government comes for your belief?
Contemplating the “What If”
So I ask, what would happen if we just waited and worked hard, as a people? If we rallied together, against hatefulness, ourselves, instead of asking government to “fix” it for us? What kind of world would we live in now if we didn’t allow government to dictate to businesses who, what, and how they must sell their services and products? What difference would people have made for racism if the government hadn’t told us to eradicate slavery?
Personally, I suspect that racism would’ve been stigmatized much more harshly if the people stood up against slavery instead of the government sanctioning it. It’s one thing to obey the governmental laws, because you are a lawful person. It’s another to do what is right regardless of law. Those that are bigots, argue, to this day that people would do differently if there wasn’t a threat of the government punishing such behavior. It isn’t true, but we don’t have a way to prove it at this moment.
We would if the people had protested and fought, tooth and nail, like we have throughout the rest of history, to eradicate slavery on our own. This is because fighting for what’s right regardless of the law, makes a difference about why someone is acting. It makes a difference for what is socially acceptable. Changing socially accepted behavior might have been better for us all.