Let’s say I own a florist shop. I’m an atheist, and consider our existence — what we are — to be the result of ongoing evolutionary process. We are a sexually-dimorphic species, in other words, male and female. The population of male to female in our species is very close to a one-to-one ratio.
As a species, we form relatively strong male/female pair bonds, which is very strong evidence of that one-to-one male/female ratio. As follows, our past evolutionary survival depended, and for continuation depends upon, the consistent flow of the evolutionary process of differential reproduction.
So, I, as an “atheist/evolutionist” (which I am) refuse to provide wedding services to same-sex couples, as I believe in the scientifically-defined processes of evolutionary laws, and believe same-sex pair bonds violate the objectively defined definition of our species as being sexually dimorphic.
So, I’m not using religion as a basis for my objection to provide services for a same-sex marriage. I’m basing my non-actions — to not comply with someone else’s wishes to establish a contract — on evolutionary law.
Never miss a local story.
Of course the entire issue doesn’t really involve my evolution argument. It involves the assertion of pseudo-rights trumping actual rights and thus destroying another principle of evolutionary nature for us humans. That critical characteristic is called cooperation.
Cooperation, not coercion, is the cornerstone of human societal evolution. Barronelle Stutzman did not violate anyone’s rights by not cooperating with a potential customer. Cooperation can only occur when two or more humans freely agree to some mutually beneficial activity. Any third party which imposes a set of outcomes to those engaged in free association, is employing coercion — force, or the threat of force.
Contrary to the state’s attorney general’s statement of not having the right to translate belief into action, he, in fact, violated Stutzman’s right to not take action based on her belief. Not only that, he exposed the obscene concept carried by many collectivists, that ideas, whether religious or otherwise, have little value beyond floating abstractions.
The corollary of every right is the right to an opposite action, or inaction — the right to speak, the right to remain silent, the right to own a firearm, the right to not own one — and so on. The assumption that a potential consumer has a preordained right to access a product or service outside of mutual consent, violates the owner’s right to dispose of those products and services in a contractual relationship.
The only legitimate situation for state overview and action would involve a state-owned, tax-supported entity denying products or services based on sexual orientation, race, or religion.
As the state grows and expands the public sphere of citizen interaction, the lines between public and private become blurred. As this public sphere expands, private relationships involving mutual cooperation will become less frequent, and those relationships will become more coercive, as dictated by the government. That creates a lush environment for fascist thought to emerge in our government.
The only thing Stutzman might have violated would be the guideline for a good capitalist. That is hardly a reason for the state’s attorney general to plunder constitutional principles in the name of hurting someone’s feelings.