Recently our Not-So-Supreme Court agreed to take up a case involving the right of a private business to sell its goods and services to specific individuals. This is not the first time for such intervention. The real estate market felt the court’s wrath when “red lining” and other racial discrimination practices were outlawed many years ago. But now the court is casting a much wider net. The question is: can the court override the rights of one individual to enforce the rights of another individual? Specifically, does a non-gay private business owner have the right to deny his/her goods or services to a gay customer? Whose rights should prevail? The big picture is always helpful in these situations. Let’s broaden our view. If a white supremacy group member wants to buy an AK 47 assault rifle, he can go through the usual (if any) background checks and purchase the weapon. But–should a conscientious gun store owner be allowed to deny selling that weapon if he knows the background of the individual? If you said “yes”, then you must agree that a private business person has the priority right to sell/not sell to a potential customer. If you answered “no”, then you open the door for indiscriminate sales that could result in severe casualties to the local population. Again, whose rights prevail—the store owner or the customer? Every time the Not-So-Supreme Court addresses this issue they open the door for intruding on someone’s rights. In a totally free society that prides itself on freedom it is a slippery slope to try to preserve the rights of two opposing individuals who each have equal rights under the US Constitution. We think it much better to allow store owners to choose who they will sell to and let disgruntled would-be customers simply go elsewhere to find the shopping targets. Violating anyone’s rights is never allowed unless by protecting one set of rights you are forced to violate another’s set of rights.
Comments are closed