Gut the Civil Rights Act

405px-Ben_Carson,_MDJoe Biden invoked Jesus on Friday responding to Ben Carson’s bizarre argument that prison inmates “turning gay” after going into prison straight proves homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, rather than a genetic or otherwise innate trait.

As a libertarian, this debate holds little interest for me. Even if homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, it is one that does not harm other people and thus falls into that vast category of human behavior called “liberty,” which should be beyond the reach of any government.

What does concern me is Carson’s argument on why homosexuals “don’t have a right to be served in every single store.” Carson argues that store owners should be able to “refuse service if it violates their religious convictions.”

I’m immediately reminded of George Orwell’s Animal Farm, where a law at the beginning of the book reads “No animal should kill another animal,” but by Chapter 8 reads, “No animal shall kill another animal without cause.”

Read the rest at…


Tom Mullen is the author of Where Do Conservatives and Liberals Come From? And What Ever Happened to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? Part One and A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America.

1 thought on “Gut the Civil Rights Act

  1. Steve Gilmore

    Not only would it be a better world if the term “public accommodation” were banished from the lawbooks (and for that matter, the lexicon in general), but also if the whiners and complainers who whine and complain about not being “served” would quit their whining and complaining (and tying up the court system) and simply take their business elsewhere.

    For every bakery, florist, caterer, etc. who refuses to service weddings of same sex couples, there are plenty of gay-owned (or gay-friendly) businesses who would jump at the chance to serve this clientele. Just one word of advice: I wouldn’t ask Chick-Fil-A to cater the reception.

    Lastly, to those who believe only government can create equal opportunity, I counter with two names that are overlooked in this arena: Branch Rickey and Jackie Robinson. It wasn’t Brown vs. the Board of Education that was the seminal event of the civil rights movement, but Branch Rickey’s signing of Jackie Robinson to a Dodgers contract seven years earlier (when everyone followed baseball and baseball was THE national pastime). Mr. Rickey, bless his soul, performed a noble and courageous act when he added Jackie Robinson to the roster of the Boys of Summer. He wasn’t coerced by the EEOC or the courts to do this. Nor did he do so to promote “diversity” (or satisfy a quota) on the Dodgers roster. He did so simply because he knew that Robinson had the talent to help advance the coming of “next year” when the Dodgers would finally win a World Series. The Dodgers went on to win six pennants and their only World Series in Brooklyn during the ten years when Robinson was on the team. Not only was Robinson a great African-American player–he was one of the greatest baseball players of all time–period. Considering that all of this happened after Robinson was 28 years old, probably Rickey’s biggest regret was that he didn’t sign Robinson sooner.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *