Freedom of Association is Hard

I’m going to take a break from my series on U.S. departments to discuss the freedom of association. There seems to be an all-out war on this, one of the most important freedoms that we have. The freedom or right of association is covered under the first amendment as the “right to assemble”. Being able to associate freely with like-minded people is a natural right that, like freedom of speech, life and liberty, predates government or man-made laws. Not many people besides libertarians talk about association as a vitally necessary freedom, but everyone likes to use the comfort it provides.

Freedom is hard. Part of the responsibility that comes with freedom, is not interfering with the freedom of others. Sometimes, this is not as easy as it sounds. Natural rights all come in the form of a two sided coin. If we take the right of free speech as an example, one side of the coin says we can say what we like, the other side of the coin says that we cannot force others to listen. In the case of freedom of association, we can choose to associate with whomever we wish, but we cannot force others to associate with us. Sounds pretty simple right? How is this so hard? A conflict arises when man-made laws interfere with natural rights. Like many laws, these laws came from good intentions. Consumer protection laws and anti-discrimination laws are being used to force association upon groups of people who do not wish to associate with certain other people.

Associations like the NAACP, labor unions, the Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street and countless others have been protected over the years to peaceably assemble. The NAACP has had to use the defense of freedom of assembly several times in the past to protect its members from the federal and state government. Where this becomes hard is defending the right to assemble for groups that one might find distasteful, like the KKK, or Black panthers. This is generally where liberals diverge from libertarians. Liberal’s typically only defend groups that they like or agree with. Libertarians , for the most part, defend the rights of everyone to say what they want. Nothing is absolute of course, but that is my general feeling on the issue. You will find many examples of liberal groups trying to get conservatives or simply non-liberals fired for what they might say on TV or radio, but not many examples of conservative groups or libertarians  trying to get liberal commentators fired.

This “war on the freedom of association”, that I mentioned earlier is coming from gay-rights groups. There are countless stories in the news where florists, photographers, caterers, etc… are being sued for not providing services to same sex couples, mainly for wedding ceremonies. They are using consumer protection laws and anti-discrimination laws as a basis for forcing people who have a moral opposition to same sex marriage to serve their needs. These small businesses are using religious beliefs as grounds for not serving these customers. In other words, they do not want to associate with a same sex wedding on the grounds that it violates religious principles. Regardless of my personal feelings on the matter, I have to believe that a natural law outweighs a man-made law on any subject. What is really disappointing is that the ACLU, which is supposed to be a watchdog for civil liberties, has decided that it hates religion more than it loves civil liberty and is starting many of these lawsuits on behalf of the gay-rights groups.

Some of you might be wondering what would happen if these consumer protection laws were redefined or eliminated. Wouldn’t it become ok to discriminate against minorities, or fat people, or gay people? The short answer is yes. A business should be able to hire who they want, and serve who they want. To illustrate why, let’s look at a few examples. A health food store, who’s owner decides that it only wants thin, fit women to work there in order to project a healthy, fit image, should have the right to not hire people he or she deems unfit. A bar catering to chubby chasers should be able to hire only overweight waitresses to attract the desired clientele. A Chinese restaurant should be able to hire Chinese people to keep with the theme of the restaurant if they wish. In each case, the owner of the business assumes the risk associated with his or her decisions. If the patrons of these establishments don’t like the hiring practices they can simply spend their money elsewhere.

Now it gets a little harder. What if a black business only wanted to serve black people and turned away whites, Hispanics and Asians. Is this ok? Yes. Again, the people would decide with their dollars to support or not the right of the business owners to only associate with other black people. This would also be true if you substituted for white, Hispanic, Asian or any other race to that business. In the end, all the people that were refused service would become a market unto themselves and businesses would sprout up to take their money for the service they were denied. I find it very hard to believe that any business deemed racist in current times would last very long in a marketplace that sees no distinction in the color of the money it receives based on the color of the hand from which it was received.

Should those laws be abolished? No. Anti-discrimination laws and the like should only apply to the government. No two citizens should be treated differently in the eyes of the law by the government. Discrimination in public employment should be illegal. Our government is supposed to be “by the people, for the people”. If this is true, then it needs to be for all the people equally, or not at all. What these gay-rights groups and the ACLU don’t seem to understand is the aspect of that two sided coin. If they can force Christian bakers to make them pro-gay cakes, then Christian groups can force gay bakers to bake anti-gay cakes. I get that some people will be offended by the choices of others, but we most certainly do not have the right to not be offended. Freedom is hard people, but that’s no reason to take it away.


15 thoughts on “Freedom of Association is Hard

  1. Kudos…. on a well thought out well written article. I have tried in vane numerous times to emulate your thoughts about that baker being forced by a court to bake a cake for a gay wedding with dismal results, but you have hit the target dead on…..again thanks for a great post.


    • I appreciate it. It makes me crazy when people try to use the govt to force people to accept them or their decisions. They will find out the hard way if they win.


  2. Matt Wilson, I find it absurd that same-sex marriage is even talked about on the political scene. If we had just left the defining of the word marriage to the Dictionary, that would negate all of this arguing about it. Your profile says that you are a single father of 4 teenagers. Be prepared for your kids to be opinionated, even stubborn, about some things.


      • no. but then again, neither do I. they have the tools to not fall into the social justice trap. hopefully, they have to tools that allow them to think critically and skeptically about individual issues. I’ve planted the seed of individualism, but what they choose to do with the tools I’ve given them is up to them.


  3. Matt Wilson, it is obvious that nobody knows everything. I was not intending for the question to be taken in a literal context. The purpose was meant both in a humorous context, as well as illustrating the fact that some kids seem to think that they know more than adults do on things. By the way, I have been enjoying reading your posts. We seem to think along the same lines.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Matt Wilson, on the matter of freedom of association, I really don’t care who knows who. I really don’t care who another person marries either. A person who wants to marry another person of the same sex should have every right to do so. Even though you identify as a libertarian, as do I, do you think that being gay is a sin personally, or that it is purely a biological thing?


    • it’s a biological thing mostly. the important thing about the freedom of association is the ability NOT to associate, if you choose. really, the right to say no is the foundation of all rights. that’s why negative rights are rights and positive rights aren’t rights.


  5. Matt Wilson, people can obviously distinguish between marriage and simple association. Having said that, even though we agree that marriage is of no concern to the government, does the issue of tax filing render that point as invalid?


    • generally, while the government tries to incentivise marriage, it is better to be single for tax purposes. in a perfect world the government would treat every citizen like a single individual. the issue of social security has a bigger impact than taxes I think. but again, in a perfect world there would be no social security


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 )

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s