Get PJ Media on your Apple

PJM Lifestyle

Beyond ‘Turn Away the Gay,’ How About Consent in All Relationships?

Should people be able to force themselves on each other?

by
Walter Hudson

Bio

February 27, 2014 - 6:30 am

Arizona

If I approached ten random people on the street and asked them whether “relationships should be consensual,” ten out of ten would likely answer yes. I mean, what’s the alternative? People should be able to force themselves on each other? It’s a no-brainer.

Yet, if I asked the same ten people whether “a business should be able to deny service on the basis of race or sexual orientation,” seven or eight would probably answer no.

How do we reconcile that? Do we believe relationships should be governed by mutual consent, or not?

In the wake of Arizona governor Jan Brewer’s veto of S.B. 1062, a bill which by some accounts would have expanded the freedom of association in that state, we do well to consider the true nature of Jim Crow. Today, we all agree that the laws which emerged at the state and local level in the century following the Civil War mandating racial segregation clearly violated individual rights. But what about those laws made them a violation of rights? Was it the fact that they discriminated on the basis of race? Or was it the fact that they kept individuals from utilizing their judgment?

By replacing Jim Crow laws with anti-discrimination laws, all we did was change whom the state victimizes. Instead of mandating segregation, we mandated integration. We went from forcing people to abstain from relationships to forcing them to engage in them.

Who speaks for consent? Why have we never tried letting people choose whom they enter into relationships with, and whom they do not? How did we solve the offense of Jim Crow by inverting its trespass?

Arizona’s S.B. 1062 aims too narrowly, and at the wrong target. While businesses should be able to deny service to customers whose needs conflict with the owner’s religious conscience, that stands as only one example of a broader principle which must be applied universally. All relationships should be consensual. Indeed, the case for gay marriage rests upon that very notion. Rather than focus on whether a gay couple should be able to marry or whether a vendor should be able to deny them service, let’s broaden our consideration to whether individuals ought to define their own relationships in all contexts.

No one should be able to force themselves on someone else, ever, under any circumstances. Embracing that maxim and applying it to public policy would settle many of these divisive social issues.

Walter Hudson advocates for individual rights, serving on the boards of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Minnesota, Minnesota Majority and the Minority Liberty Alliance. He maintains a blog and daily podcast entitled Fightin Words. He also contributes to True North, a hub of conservative Minnesotan commentary, and regularly appears on the Twin Cities News Talk Weekend Roundtable on KTCN AM 1130. Follow his work via Twitter and Facebook.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
"By replacing Jim Crow laws with anti-discrimination law, all we did was change who the state victimizes."

Bingo.


I spent a few weeks in Germany back in the 70s, with a tour group called the U.S. Army. There was no forced integration there. We were warned that we might encounter businesses with signs saying, "No blacks", and that we had better not make an issue of it.

They had FAR less racial animosity than we have. The Civil War, whatever other merits or faults it had, and the forced integration which followed it, resulted in far greater racial disharmony than England experienced when they banned slavery.

We should not tolerate any racial discrimination in our government functions, but it's not the business of government to mandate racial integration in private lives, including private businesses.

If I want to put up a sign barring left-handed Lithuanians from my business, that's my right.

25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
If you think a business is bad for choosing who to associate with, by all means name'em and shame'em. Do not, however, use the law to force people to associate with each other. If people will be forced to associate with others in spite of moral/religious obligations, I look forward to the KKK wedding recorded by an African-American photographer and the Hindu grocer being ordered to provide hamburger for a customer.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
One of the things that is covered up by the propaganda of the leftists who write history was that the Civil Rights movement was primarily against government oppression.

Rosa Parks was not fighting the policies of the National City Lines. She was fighting a Montgomery, Ala. law enforced by big guys with guns and badges.

The reason why blacks did not advance and integrate to the same degree as Irish/Jews/Italians/Slavs who also faced economic and social discrimination was because the latter groups did not significantly face any laws aimed at them much less a 90-year state-sanctioned terror campaign.

But in my view Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (employment discrimination) is far more damaging to society, and especially "protected categories" than Title II (public accommodations) which actually makes some sense to me.

You have two prospective employees perfectly equal in qualifications, dress, demeanor etc. but one is black and one is white? Why does the white guy have the advantage? Because all private employers are secretly racists? No. It's because it is a whole, whole, whole lot easier to get rid of him if you find his work to be unsatisfactory.

And the same, btw, goes for promotions.

25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (44)
All Comments   (44)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Plato said that homosexuality is an outrage, a violation of nature. Acceptance of this unnatural act is a turning of society upside down. We see this turning upside down today. The ancient Spartan's demonstrated that the spirit of homosexuality is a predator, pedophile spirit. We see this today as advocates of this transgression are now encouraging cross generational homosexual sex; sex between adults and children. Scripture says it's a capital offense, an unspeakable transgression. When the spirit of homosexuality takes over a community, justice is completely perverted. God left a warning to the nations that allow themselves to be corrupted by such a spirit: Sodom, Gomorrah, and Pompeii were all destroyed by fire for the sin of homosexuality. A community's attempt to encourage and legalize this perversion will result in God's wrath in the nature of fire and utter destruction. The hope of the nations and for the protection of children from state sanctioned rape is the enacted justice of God. People do not have to act out their sinful passions. Jesus said, "deny yourself."
The ancients considered chastity a virtue and godlike. If you're caught in this sin call on the name of the Lord for your release, and be saved from the coming wrath of God. I endorse Article VIII to the US Constitution that makes God's law American law.
Plato writes in his Laws,” the crime of male with male, or female with female, is an outrage on nature and a capital surrender to lust of pleasure.”
The gay political activism that is corrupting American children in the public education system beginning in kindergarten will not stop until the death penalty is enacted for the crime of homosexuality. God in His wisdom instituted this punishment to protect the family especially children. It is the duty of sensible Americans to put God's law on the US Constitution. Article VIII to the Constitution makes God's law American law.
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
A simple solution to the problem of homosexual couples suing Bakers and Photographers for declining their business is to have the purchase agreement include the pre-printed statement that the vendor has the right to sublet any portion of the work. Since that is on the original document and not written in later, any same-sex plaintiff had clearly agreed to that condition. The vendor is then free to sublet the actual cake baking, etc. to a willing provider.
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
I have a question that has been bouncing in my head since reading this article: Does the state have a compelling interest in forcing a church to perform an inter-racial wedding? I mean that's one of the horrors we're supposed to picture would happen if people are allowed to discriminate. But so what if they do? What inter-racial couple would want to be married in such a church? When there is not a monopoly on churches and others doing wedding ceremonies why is there a problem?

I agree with another poster, below or on a similar thread, that public accommodation should not be the criteria for compelling service to all comers, but instead a more prudent criteria of monopoly carriers or government entities (eg. all should have equal access to a city park for a ceremony). Let's reinstate people's right to be bigots? Because trying to rid the world of them by forcing them by rule of law to be otherwise doesn't actually cause them to change. It just makes everyone else feel better.
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
Gay marriage has never been about consensual relationships. It is just a mechanism to force you to not just socially accept homosexuality, but ti force you to acknowledge its social and sexual superiority.

The concept of defining a person by who they engage in sex with is not at all like race. No matter what the origin of homosexual preferences it is about behavior not physical characteristics. A person is defined as being a member of a race by immutable physical characteristics. You can look at someone and be almost certain of their racial makeup but if you take a homosexual man or woman and it put them next to their heterosexual equal and you cannot tell them apart. They have the same physical characteristics and are only differentiated by their behavior.

Next time you run into someone who equates race and sexual behavior ask them if they would have a relationship with a person of another race. Then ask them that since race = sexual behavior would they have a same sex relationship (or opposite if they are gay). Their reaction is really quite amusing.
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
In Re Bill Lawrence: And the bitter truth is, the white guy is five times less likely to have a criminal record, much more likely to have decent credit and an exemplary work record, be a high school graduate, literate, courteous, properly dressed, polite, punctual, clean, neat, honest, emotionally mature and stable, etc. There are exceptions, but thats the general rule. I am white, my wife is chinese, our adopted son is mexican. We live in a Texas bordertown which is 98% mexican and every day experience racism; store clerks who refuse to serve you, cafe hosts unable to detect your presence, waiters who want to negotiate your order for six or seven minutes, drivers who cut you off or tailgate; then stop and park, etc. Suits me. We're going to love them, pray for them, and take our business where it is appreciated.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
1) Compelling a business person to serve others against his will is a form of involuntary servitude. I thought that was supposed to end with the Civil War.

2) If I do not consent to associate with you, then I merely wish that you and I leave each other alone. Where is the harm in that? How can I cause harm by to you by leaving you alone? Doesn't one need to prove harm to establish a civil claim?

3) The irony is compounded in the context of gay marriage. With the recognition of gay marriage, people now can enjoy the freedom to engage in sexual discrimination in selecting their legal spouse. Under traditional marriage, this was not so. So discrimination = good for some people while it is condemned for others.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
You can cause harm to others by leaving them alone if they need your help.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
That is only true if I caused them to need my help.
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
Liberals dote on the law or ignore it as it suits them. Identity is their law. Whatever suits gays, non-whites and feminists is their law. The white straight male is always on the wrong side of any debate by default. Arguing with bigots as if they're not bigots makes no sense.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
"No one should be able to force themselves on someone else, ever, under any circumstances." Would that include police officers handcuffing a suspect?
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
That's an awfully loaded question. What makes someone a suspect? Circumstances exist which suggest they may have committed a crime. The commission of crime is the initiation of force. The apprehension of a suspect is a response to that initiation. The only answer to force is force. That's why government exists at all. But government should not be initiating force, lest it become the thing it is constituted to protect us from.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
Ok, so you are qualifying your original statement? Using force against someone else is only reprehensible if he or she *initiates* the force (ie, commits a crime, etc.) Personally, I don't like using an unqualified, blanket statement -- there will be exceptions that invalidate the blanket assertion. There was a recent case in Canada (caused an inquiry) of a juvenile who was held in a detention center. The girl had psychiatric problems. She was put into a cell -- but she had hidden on her body, a cord. Under the watch of guards, she strangled herself. The guards were apparently reluctant to engage in a confrontation. By the time they decided to intervene (her face had turned blue), she was dead. Is this not a case requiring a forceful intervention?
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
Again, a loaded question. The girl in this case is not behaving rationally due to mental illness, and therefore is beyond the scope of the original question. Public policy needs to be based on an assumption of rationality does it not?
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
IF I refuse to photograph the wedding of two 18 year olds because I think they're too young, am I not guilty of age discrimination?
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment

Why do you say, "guilty" it as if it's a bad thing?

Where did you get the silly idea that discrimination is automatically bad?




25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
From Jesus Christ: Jn.7.24; "Judge not by appearances; but judge with right judgment."
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
Yes but it would still be your decision and the government should have no say in it.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
From mandating segregation to mandating integration. That about sums it up.

Also, that picture has one of the most unthinking phrases known to man. Don't legalize discrimination? It already is legal to discriminate!
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
Try to tell that to a young, emoting leftist. After all, emotions and intent carry more weight than logic and performance.
24 weeks ago
24 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Discrimination" is another one of those words the left uses to move the brain dead to their ill conceived causes. To discriminate is to "choose between different alternatives". It can be fair or unfair, but in itself, there is nothing wrong with it.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All