It is a fundamental principle of Natural Law that rights can intersect, but they cannot contradict each other.  Our society no longer understands this, and it has lead people to claim rights that do not exist while denying rights that are fundamental to the being of every human being.

First, rights can intersect.  My right to exercise my free will can overlap with your right to exercise your free will.  It is from this area — where our Natural Rights overlap — that morality is derived.  I have explained it here.  But this is the part where most people get confused.  Just because our rights overlap, this does not mean that they can negate the rights of another person.  The homosexual agenda is a perfect example of what I mean.

So long as we do not cause physical harm to another person, or trample on their ability to exercise their free will, you and I have a Natural Right to worship as we see fit.  It is inherent in the right to conscience.  Also inherent in this right is the right to actually live our lives according to our beliefs.  Again, so long as we are not sacrificing people, or enslaving them, we have a Natural Right to live our lives according to the principles of our faith.  So, in the case of the Christian bakery, that owner has a Natural Right to refuse to make a wedding cake for a homosexual wedding.  At the same time, the homosexual couple does not have a right to force the bakery to do so.  In that case, the bakery owner would be forced to act against his or her will and his or her religious convictions.  This would be two violations of Natural Law, and it is the primary reason that we know the homosexual couple cannot claim a right to force the bakery to bake their cake.

Now, I understand there will be objections to this, but those objections are all based on attempts to rationalize the trampling of another person’s rights.  First, you and I do not have a Natural Right to force someone to pay us for permission to open a business.  Since we do not have a right to do so, we cannot grant to the power to do so to the State.  Therefore, the State cannot force a person to pay it to open a business.  This is inherent in the Social Contract.  However, when the government forces a person to buy a license so they may attempt to earn a living, this is exactly what the government is doing: it is trampling the Natural Right of the individual.  The government’s sole purpose is to protect those rights.  So, by forcing a person to get a business license before they can earn a living, the State violates the Social Contract and tramples the Natural Rights of the business owner.

Second, by making it mandatory that the business owner must serve any and all customers, the State violates the individual’s Natural Rights to Contract, Freedom of Association, Conscience and Free Will.  You and I cannot force another to work for us.  This is defined as slavery and/or indentured servitude.  These are both violations of Natural Law, and when the State commits them, they are still violations of Natural Law.

Finally, there is no harm done to the homosexual couple by the baker.  The couple is free to find another bakery.  Their free will has not been trampled.  All that has happened is the first baker has exercised his/her Natural Right to refuse association or to Contract with the homosexual couple.

There are many such confusions in our society today, and many of them are the result of ignorance in our society.  Had our schools done their job and taught people how to think (not what to think), and explained the principles by which Rights are derived, we would have far fewer problems today.  But then, the people who benefit from this confusion would have far less power, so I guess properly educating the masses just won’t do.

By the way: that is another violation of Natural Law — using the public schools to indoctrinate children instead of educating them.  And yes, this causes real tangible harm to both the taxpayer and the child.

I realize that I am using a controversial example to illustrate the point of this post, so let me start by making this perfectly clear: I oppose slavery — in every form!

That said, it is a matter of fact that the North was in the wrong, and the South was (is) justified to call it “The War of Northern Aggression.”  The right to secede from the Union was clearly stated by the men who wrote and ratified the Constitution.  But, because the South seceded over the issue of slavery, the issue has become so clouded by emotion that no one can see that the Civil War really was about States’ rights.

Let us first understand that the founding fathers understood that the States were free to leave the Union:

If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation… to a continuance in union… I have no hesitation in saying, ‘let us separate.’

–Thomas Jefferson

“Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution”

–James Madison

“If the States were not left to leave the Union when their rights were interfered with, the government would have been National, but the Convention refused to baptize it by that name.”

–Daniel Webster

Let us also understand that those who took the time to learn and understand the principles upon which this nation was originally founded also understood that the States had the right to secede:

“The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the states; and these, in uniting together, have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the states chooses to withdraw from the compact, it would be difficult to disapprove its right of doing so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly either by force or right.”

–Alexis de Tocqueville

This means that the Confederate States were exercising their Constitutional Right to leave the Union.  So, when the North attacked, it was in the wrong.  Yes, the South was wrong to cling to slavery.  This is because, at its core, slavery tramples individual free will.  However, if the People of the South vote to secede and the People of the North attack to prevent that, then the majority in the North is using government to trample the free will of the majority in the South.  That is a violation of the same principle the North claimed to be fighting to end: the trampling of individual free will.

But the North did something far worse than the South.  Had the South been left alone, Natural Law would have eventually corrected the moral crimes of slavery.  Industrialization of farming would have made slavery less efficient, and thus, too expensive to continue.  The issue would have been resolved by running its natural course.  But by forcing the South back into the Union, the ‘Union’ was destroyed.  Before the Civil War, the United States was a Federation.  Every State stayed in the Federation voluntarily.  This is in accordance with the Natural Right to Contract.  But after the Civil War, the States were not free to secede, which means the Federation was ended and a National Government was established — in direct defiance to the letter and spirit of the Constitution.  In short, the North destroyed the Constitution as it was ratified.  This trampled the free will of the South and North, as it destroyed the Social Contract among all members of the United States — in the North and South.