Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2008 09:17:06 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

OTOH, the left/gay alliance will not stop here. Once recognized as
legally legitimate marriage, there is going to be a big push to
demand that the *private* sector recognize it equally as well.
And this I oppose, again on principle. The 14th amendment is binding
upon *government*. If private sector institutions wish to recognize
different unions differently, they ought to be able to. The Constitution
also protects the "Freedom Of Assembly" - as private employers, schools,
churches, hospitals ... are formed, their constituents and/or owners
ought to be legally free to include or exclude anyone they wish.

As long as those NGOs are not taking government funds, I agree in
principle. Unfortunately, most of them are grabbing all they can get.

Agreed. If you take a dime of public money, you have to live by
public rules. That means government contractors, schools,
airlines, and so forth.


And we have to be on the alert for those who think "lack of recognition"
and "exclusion" are the same thing. A private hospital may well refuse to
provide equal benefits for employees based on whatever, but they should
not be able to refuse treatment. Nor should they be able to exclude a
legal partner from visitation rights or a voice in care decisions.

Why? Assume that such an institution is wholly private and is not
acting with fraud, force, or threat. How is the government (all of us)
morally entitled to tell them what to do even if they do discriminate
on the basis of gender, race, religion, etc.? I'm not saying that them
doing so is *morally* OK, I'm saying it ought not to be *illegal* -
i.e., Any of the government's business.

See, this is where folks on the progressive left get into the same
bathtub full of very hot water as the conservative religious right. In
both cases, you'd like to see government act to enforce an kind of
"morality" that goes well beyond ensuring that citizens do not
infringe upon each others' liberty (which is a proper role for
government). You want government to get into the "what's good and
what's bad" business and that is just deadly. Why? Because there is
not complete agreement among citizens as to what (moral) good or bad
beyond the preservation of freedom. Tell me what the difference is
between a leftie telling Big Evil Company Inc. that they cannot
discriminate on the basis of race, and a Right Wing Church trying to
enforce their moral code against homosexuality via law? There isn't
any. Both are implicitly forceful acts wherein one group, with a given
moral code, wishes to use the power of government to make others who
do not share that moral code do as they demand.

An excellent example of this can be seen at the moment wherein
government is jamming anti-smoking legislation down the throats of
small, privately owned bars and restaurants. You don't like smoke?
Don't eat or work there. Really simple. Better still, open up a place
of your own and forbid smoking voluntarily. Don't get the government
to be your bully and make everyone else do what you want.

This is why I keep yammering on about why a "Living Constitution" is
such a profoundly evil legal construct. Being free means putting up
with people you don't like, ideas you don't like, and morality you
find noxious. But unless another party's actions actually cause
another citizen harm - and this *always* involves some form of fraud,
force, or threat - it is simply none of your business. The smoking
thing leaps to mind here again. No one forces anyone to go to or work
in a smoking environment. There is simply *no* justification for
government action here. People will argue that because government pays
for part of the healthcare of its elder citizens, it *is* a legitimate
concern of government. But this too is utterly bogus. The government
has no business being *in* the healthcare business in the first place,
certainly not the Federal government anyway.

Do I think racism, as another example, is a horrible moral
malfunction? Absolutely. But I think forcing private sector
institutions to be race neutral at the point of the government gun
causes far more damage than the most vile Klacker ever could. When law
is used as a proxy for "morality", then all you get is the dominant
morality of the moment dictating law. Law ceases to be a neutral point
that binds our freedoms together, and becomes a competition for whose
flavor of the month/year/administration we will be *forced* to follow.
Law is not an instrument for goodness. It is an instrument for
liberty. When you try to use it for the former you will always lose
the latter.




-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/