SB2279 failed this time, but it’s going to pass eventually.
Here’s why. SB2279 is really about a fight that most people conceded decades ago. It’s about a fight few will name and fewer want to have. So, most opponents of SB2279 are trying to fight this specific bill, while fundamentally agreeing with the underlying ideology behind the bill.
What underlying ideology?
Surprisingly, the underlying ideology of SB2279 has nothing to do with gay people. The underlying ideology is a progressive disaster of an idea that simply says this: “there is a social class system in the US, and the government can prevent a private business owner from discriminating against potential employees or potential customers, if those potential employees or potential customers are members of specific classes”
This idea was forcefully codified in law via titles 2 and 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term “private”.
[mks_pullquote align=”right” width=”300″ size=”24″ bg_color=”#000000″ txt_color=”#ffffff”]Surprisingly, the underlying ideology of SB2279 has nothing to do with gay people. The underlying ideology is a progressive disaster of an idea…[/mks_pullquote]
Prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Title VII applies to and covers an employer “who has fifteen (15) or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year”
Most of the titles of CRA64 applied to government discrimination. Titles 2 and 7 applied to private businesses.
Fifty years ago, when CRA64 passed, the future of SB2279 was decided.
While CRA64 had broad bipartisan support, one of the key objectors to CRA64, specifically because of Title 2, was none other than Barry Goldwater. He had supported several previous Civil Rights bills which tackled discrimination by government, but couldn’t support CRA64, because it violated the rights of private individuals.
Most people – including most conservatives – have accepted the lie behind CRA64 and SB2279 without really challenging it. The lie goes like this: “businesses shouldn’t be able to discriminate”.
It’s a lie for two reasons.
The first is – because it’s not actually a valid principle for government to enforce or act on. Using the power of government to FORCE a private business to act in any particular way is harmful. It is a violation of the property rights of the business owner. Property rights are a sacrosanct piece of the foundation of the freedom that everyone in this country takes for granted. The private business owner should be able to hire or fire any of her employees for any reason. The private business owner should be able to serve or not serve any of her employees for any reason.
Should private business owners be able to do absolutely anything they want to anyone?
Of course not. Private business owners may not violate the rights of other people. Government has a role in restricting businesses from violating the rights of other people and organizations. Government has a role in punishing businesses who violate the rights of other people and organizations.
However, there is no right to be served by a particular business. There is no right to be employed by a particular business. There is no right for members of group A to be treated like members of group B by every business owner.
If these ideas were rights – they’d be positive rights, and we know that positive rights aren’t real, and are instead a lie progressives keep dumping on us to erode property and individual rights.
The second reason it’s a lie is because not even most progressives consistently believe it. If you ask them enough questions, eventually you can find a situation where a progressive will admit that, yes, a specific business SHOULD be able to discriminate against potential customers based solely on their protected class status.
In other words, an injustice based on a lie was dumped on private business owners 50 years ago, and few have bothered to fight it ever since. Every now and then someone will attempt to make the argument that I am making, and the primitive media flings monkey feces at them to drown out any possible discussion of the ideas. Rand Paul tried to articulate the libertarian opposition to CRA64 on one of his first national TV appearances, on, of all places, the Rachel Maddow show, and she predictably lost her damn mind and ran off into the weeds. Rand Paul learned his lesson and has tried to distance himself from that TV conversation every time it has come up.
So, it’s surprising to me that SB2279 didn’t pass this time, because almost nobody will actually fight against the idea behind SB2279. Anyone who does gets silenced.
At this point, most people agree that government can injure business owners by forcing them to do certain things that violate their rights and which are not done to protect somebody else’s rights. At this point, we’re apparently just quibbling over if there should be a new protected class or not.
The opposition against SB2279 this time boiled down to, not whether or not it would be OK to discriminate, but if this specific kind of discrimination is currently happening or not. The opposition has conceded that if discrimination were happening, it would be bad and wrong and the government ought to stop it.
SB2279 is going to pass one of these days, because nobody is willing to fight the underlying idea.
The argument was lost 50 years ago.