FUNDAMENTALS OF NATURAL LAW: We have a Natural Right to Discriminate

I have been watching this ‘debate’ over discrimination with great amusement.  First of all, I shouldn’t call it a debate.  In reality, it is bullying, but not by the people discriminating, but by the people who claim to be trying to stop discrimination.  Their hypocrisy is endless.  How can they not see that by forcing their views onto others — even in the supposed name of ending ‘unfairness’ — they are discriminating, themselves.  This notion that you can right a wrong with another wrong is irrational, but — sadly — it is what has come to pass for reason in our dysfunctional society.  The truth is, if we still understood the principles underlying this issue, we would understand that we all have a Natural Right to discriminate.  This right is even protected in the Constitution.  This means that the people trying to use government force to end discrimination are violating the individual rights of every American citizen who refuses to submit to their tyranny and I — for one — have had about enough of these mindless drones.

Discrimination is an unavoidable fact of human nature.  We discriminate to survive.  This is an inherent part of the definition of the word, and that makes it a fact.  Because it is a fact, we cannot argue with it.  Those who do are trying to sweep water uphill.  But I am not ignorant of what most people think about when they hear the word ‘discrimination.’  The majority of us think of something that is ‘unfair.’  It’s just too bad that they never stop to consider that they are discriminating when they decide what is and isn’t ‘unfair.’

At this point, if you wish to treat me as a ‘hostile witness,’ feel free to do so — because I have already decided to treat those advancing this anti-discrimination campaign as hostile toward me and my Natural Rights.  So, with this understanding, let us now be brutally honest about this politically correct tyranny.

First, it is ‘unfair’ to force someone to contract with another person.  We have a Natural Right to Contract, but it is based on free will.  If I do not want to marry a homosexual couple, or sell them a cake or flowers, I have a Natural Right to refuse service.  Society does not have a right to force me to do so — not even as a condition of operating a public business.  This is because both cases force me to do something against my will in order to survive, which is also a violation of my free will.  If I cannot run my business, I cannot eat, thus I cannot live.  Forcing me to serve people I do not want to serve is another violation of my free will.  In both cases, I am being harmed.  yet no one is actually harmed if I refuse to serve them.  They may be insulted, but insult is not harm.  Therefore, if there is anything ‘unfair’ in this action, it is on the part of those who are seeking to use government force to violate the free will and conscience of individuals who are otherwise doing no harm to other people.

This brings us to the next part of this issue: the people who call insult an injury.  There is no Natural Right to be free from offense, therefore, insult is not and can not be an injury.  The notion of mental anguish or pain is a fiction.  That does not mean people may not have their feelings hurt, but if me not selling you a cupcake hurts you to the point where you cannot function, then your real problem is internal — not with me.  Seek counseling, but do not think you suddenly have a right to use the government to make me do your bidding.  That is a real injury as it violates my free will.

What seems to have been ignored here is that we are really talking about the free market (it has not been forgotten, it is ignored. Communists will never forget it because it is the whole reason for their existence).  The free market must be exactly that: free.  This means every business owner must be free to willingly enter into a contract (i.e. do business with) every customer; just as every customer must be free to willingly do business with every business owner.  A perfect example of true ‘unfairness’ is not a private business owner refusing to sell a cake to a homosexual; it is the government forcing every citizen to buy health insurance.  That is discrimination of the type people claim to be fighting because it violates Natural Law.  Therefore, Obamacare causes actual harm in the form of tangible damages or cost that can be measured as well as the trampling of free will.

But we do not see the people complaining about discrimination toward gays complaining about Obamacare, do we?  Why do you think that is?  It is because discrimination is not really the goal.  The goal is control.  Discrimination is just the vehicle they are using.  They have so traumatized this nation over the stigma of slavery and racism that they can force almost anything on us and we will accept it — just as long as they can somehow attach that stigma to it.  This is why they treat discrimination as synonymous with racism.  But the truth is, we have a Natural Right to be bigots, too.  That right is also protected under the Constitution.  The government has zero authority in these matters because they are matters of individual conscience; of individual free will.

But the people pushing these agendas do not care about Natural Law because they do not believe in it. They are the decedents of Marx: the Secular Humanist heirs of materialism.  As such, the only ‘right’ they recognize is that which furthers their immediate goal, and everything that stands in the way of their goal is ‘wrong.’  They believe that the ends justify the means, and they bathe themselves in self-appointed moral superiority — even though they reject the very notion of morality.  To them, their superiority is born of their supposed intellectual superiority: they believe they see what the people they seek to control cannot.  These people believe they are saving humanity, but all they are really doing is trying to change Natural law by the shear force of their will.  The campaign to normalize homosexuality is just one example of this.  Given enough time, they will eventually seek to define ‘deviancy’ in terms of what was once thought decent, and they will define ‘normal’ as everything that was once thought deviant.  In short: these people are lawless.

If left alone, those people who discriminate wrongly or unjustly will suffer the consequences of their own actions.  The free market will deal with them better than the government ever could, but only if the government stays within its properly defined authority.  Discrimination by the individual is a Natural Right and the government should actually protect it, but it is a wrong when it is codified into law.  That is where discrimination becomes ‘unfair.’  When it is institutionalized as a matter of law, then and only then does discrimination cause actual harm.  This is because — at this point — discrimination violates the Social Contract. So, yes, we should fight against any attempt to make discrimination a matter of law, but this is exactly what the people who claim to be fighting discrimination are doing: trying to make it a matter of law. Attacking people of religious or conscience convictions and using the law to force them to act against their will is the type of discrimination we should be fighting.

So, the next time you hear someone arguing that the people who do not want to serve someone because of their personal beliefs should be punished, remember that they are the one who is being ‘unfair.’   They are the ones being intolerant.  They are the one trying to use government to force others to do what they want.  But they are also trying to re-engineer our society: to ‘fundamentally transform America.’   In short: they are tyrants and the enemy of individual rights and liberty.  STOP THEM!  Before it is too late and there is nothing left to save.

22 thoughts on “FUNDAMENTALS OF NATURAL LAW: We have a Natural Right to Discriminate

  1. Is there any Biblical basis for refusing to serve gay people? Jesus came not to be served, but to serve. To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.”

    1. NO! Except maybe where Paul cautions believers not to try to force higher understanding on weaker Christians. If a believer is at a point where they believe this is what God wants of them, it is probably wise not to try to push them into doing otherwise lest we harm their faith.

      Otherwise, Scripture teaches us to be in the world but not of it. Paul also says that if this meant we could have no contact with the lost, we would have to be taken out of this world. A believer is to testify not only by their word, but also by the way they live. We are to show the love of Christ to all — and this includes gays. Their sin is no different or greater than any other. It is an unfortunate thing that many believers forget they are still sinners, and therefore, on the same level with those they sometimes persecute.

      HOWEVER, that said, Scripture does tell us not to have close associations with such people. This means we should not make them close friends, business partners, etc. I know this sounds like a contradiction, but it is not. We are to have an agape love for the lost, but not a phileo love. God warns that making the lost a close part of our lives will lead us astray, as it did Israel. So the warning is for our sake, not the harm of the lost.

      DO YOU KNOW SCRIPTURE: The Many Types of Love in Scripture

  2. Reblogged this on The Grey Enigma and commented:
    The right of free association is the right to refuse to associate; the right to free speech is the right to say nothing. Both derive from the right to freely think, deduce, infer and judge. Collectivists cannot accept these facts as they know that their desired stances are incapable of being derived from these freedoms.

    1. Grey,

      I need to take lessons from you. You just said everything I said, only you did it with a handful of words rather than a book. I think I like your version better than mine 🙂

  3. Excellent Post ! Excellent discussion.

    The Majority is so important to the Left when they want to push their Agenda. As in “the Majority of Scientists say this or That…” But the Majority conveniently become “The Enemy” which must be attacked when pushing their gay agenda.

    Hypocrisy doesn’t even begin to describe them.

      1. What say I ?

        Lawless is a Good term. I’m not sure or not if it is the PERFECT term for them. I’ll have to think on that.

        For instance witness the Liberal Hater who addressed you. It doesn’t take much to see from their statement that they are describing “stalking” and intimidation characteristics very akin to the Mob. In fact their actions could also be descibed as harassment and even vere into slander.

        In fact, To me the sum of these actions and words are more akin to Jihadists.

  4. You are absolutely right, and businesses have a right to fail or succeed based on who and what they serve, and how they do it. Forcing someone to serve someone something with which they disagree on a fundamental level is wrong.

    I have a right to boycott, however, those businesses who discriminate, and I also have a right to spread the word about those businesses to my friends and neighbors. Bad publicity spreads about 10 times faster than good according to statistical analysis.

    I already make a point to refuse to frequent businesses who advertise their owners’ religious affiliations on their banners or equipment. That is my fundamental right. And I *do* discriminate.

    1. Yes, it is your right to boycott, as it is my right to shun religious bigots. However, I noticed that, rather than boycott this proudly Christian blog, you chose to reply to my post. Do you see what I see in that contradiction? 🙂

      1. Nope, I don’t see a contradiction. You voiced your opinion and I voiced mine. To me that’s a civil discussion on a topic we are both interested in. Why is that a contradiction? Is there some rule somewhere that we are not allowed to talk?

        1. LOL, no, nbot at all. I mean no offense. I just found it ironic that you would tell us you boycott businesses that advertise their owners religion, yet you did not boycott this blog or post. You do realize that Natural Law is based in the Judeo/Christain ethic, and that I make no secret of the fact I am Christian and this is a Christian blog…don’t you? This is all I was getting at. Peace to you, and thanks for stopping by 🙂

  5. Reblogged this on westfargomusings and commented:
    I was going to write a post on discrimination and how it’s become something associated with all sorts of negative feelings and stereotypes, when in reality we all exercise discrimination every day. Why someone of faith should be vilified for refusing to do business with/participate in a ceremony of someone who openly flaunts the first person’s convictions, while others embrace the depravity espoused by people who want to revel in sin seems upside down. Having the government force someone to lead another down the path to destruction simply because they have a business seems to be an over-reach of the type of government our founding fathers envisioned.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s