The necessity of freedom is a
no-brainer. At least it should be. For many Americans, this is the
most important factor in determining which candidate they will vote
to be President. Whether liberal or conservative, Americans care a
lot about liberty, though they certainly come at the issue with
different perspectives and double standards. Our nation was founded on principles of
freedom and accountability, and while there is most certainly an
attack on that freedom, it isn't coming from one side exclusively.
From the left, there is an obvious
attack on the freedom of religion. For example, with the legalization
of gay marriage, gays who are denied wedding services by Christian
organizations and businesses file lawsuits for having been
discriminated against. With the passing of Indiana's Religious
Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), gays believed it gave people legal
grounds to discriminate against them. Truth be told, there is no
federal law protecting people from discrimination regarding their
sexual orientation, so Indiana's RFRA didn't add grounds for
discrimination that the federal courts haven't already allowed.
Rather, state RFRAs protect religious freedom, something which has
not been protected at the federal level. The Civil Rights Act of 1964
protects people from discrimination based on sex, race, nationality,
color, and religion. But nowhere in this law are people protected based on their sexual orientation. Some
states, however, have chosen to make civil rights laws of their own
providing such protection gays and transgenders, and businesses offering public
accommodations are legally bound to these laws, even if privately
owned. Courts, too, have begun following suit with the Supreme
Court's leanings of protection under Title VII of the law, at least
for certain situations.
To give one example, Christian-owned
bakeries have been such targets of persecution. Rather than finding a
business which will cater to them, gays do not respect the rights of
the owners to operate their businesses as they see fit, and pursue
legal action, as a result. Because of their self-entitlement issues,
they hurriedly make cries of discrimination, forcing the business
owners to provide service, pay massive fines, and even close up shop
in some cases. In other words, they want people to accept their
lifestyle choices, yet they do not have the same respect for others.
Do some states require privately-owned businesses to provide service
without discrimination based on sexual orientation? Yes. But does
this mean gays should force these businesses to provide service, when
there are so many other businesses who willingly do so? I don't
believe so, as doing so only shows the same disregard for personal
freedom gays themselves have fought against.
To avoid such conflict, states would be
wise to pass RFRAs. In fact, twenty-one states have versions of the
law. And while it is unconstitutional to have the law at the federal
level, it is not so for the states. Enforcement of this law would
protect religious business owners from such legal actions as those
sought by gays for refusal of service. These business owners would be
able to operate their businesses according to their values, just as
other businesses can operate according to theirs. Thus, when a
Christian-owned business refuses service to gays because of religious
obligations, the persons being refused must simply find service
elsewhere. Likewise, if a business does not seek to operate in
accordance to such beliefs, they may do so.
You
will not find this writer stating this often, but this is one
instance in which we can learn from Jews. Ever hear of Kosher foods?
To define it simply, this is food that meets Jewish dietary
guidelines. Now, do you hear about Jews filing lawsuits against
businesses and manufacturers for not supplying Kosher foods? No. Why?
Because there exists such businesses and manufacturers who do
supply Kosher foods, from whom Jews then purchase. It's that simple.
For gays, this would mean seeking service from those who provide it
with no religious obligations, rather than suing these businesses for
not catering to the self-entitlement of others.
Isn't
liberty wonderful? And it's really so much simpler than society
makes it.
These issues aren't created solely by
the left, either. On the right, conservatives are taking issue with
others exercising their right to the freedom of religion. Like gays,
they want freedom for all, except for everyone whose freedom gets in
the way of their freedom, then its time for fisticuffs. A very recent
example of this is the unveiling of the Baphomet statue in Detroit,
MI on July 25th. For many Christians, this was simply
appalling. Yet, isn't the freedom of religion exactly what Christians
argue for when discriminated against? So,
why are Christians taking issue with Satanists who seek the same
liberties as those of other religions?
Satanists
do not wish to see the statue remain in Detroit. Despite failing to
have the statue placed alongside the Ten Commandments monument
outside the Oklahoma State House, Satanists are pushing to have the
Baphomet statue placed alongside the planned Ten Commandments
monument at the Arkansas State House. While the Oklahoma Supreme
Court has since ruled to have the Ten Commandments monument removed,
Arkansas may not rule the same in the future. Should this be the
case, as it has been with Texas, shouldn't Satanists—or any
religious group for that matter—be entitled to the same liberty as
Christians, and be allowed to erect a monument or statue
acknowledging their religion?
Perhaps
more evident now than ever is the attack on the second amendment.
With every shooting is the demand for stricter gun control. But
despite being a preferred weapon of choice (it is effective, after
all), the guns themselves aren't to blame. People are. When two
vehicles collide, we don't blame the cars, we blame the drivers. When
Walter J. Palmer killed Cecil the lion, everybody pointed fingers at
Palmer, not the gun. So why do we blame the guns when shootings
occur? There are still people pulling those triggers, just not at
lions. Any more, no one wants to be held accountable for their
actions. We'd sooner strip away our rights than be held responsible
for something. But the fact is, the second amendment grants us the
right to bear arms, and it should be upheld whether a particular
group likes it or not. Even I am not the biggest fan of guns, yet I
firmly and unquestionably believe we all have a right to bear them.
The
list of rights being violated, and the double standards we and our
government place on those rights, is far too long to cover in a
single article (a book, perhaps). I feel I've made my point, however.
It's
time to stop feeling entitled to everything. Society is crumbling
because we feel as though everything should be handed to us, that we
are owed something from the people around us. But truthfully, nothing
should be handed to us, nor is anyone indebted to the personal
choices we make. Is it so absurd to value personal choices this way?
To hold such little regard for freedom and liberty, as evidenced by
society today, there will never be anything resembling peace,
resembling harmony. Please, America, I urge you to start loving and
valuing your neighbor. Treat them as you wish to be treated.
I
began this article stating that many Americans value freedom above
all else. I do believe this is true. It doesn't change the fact that
many of these same people maintain such a belief with double
standards. But I believe if we are allowed to live our lives the way
we want, and we allow others to live theirs as they want, we can find
some form of harmony among us, the likes of which this nation has yet
to see.
If you or anyone you know can get
behind these ideals,vote Jason Watt for 2020.
Just kidding.
...But seriously.
