Freedom vs Rights

There seems to be a lot of confusion these days about what freedom is, what rights are, and who grants them.

Let me attempt to explain, at least my perspective.

First, lets define some terms, that shouldn't need to be defined, but that we in "the land of the free" seem to have forgotten:

Freedom:
"the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint."

"the power of self-determination attributed to the will; the quality of being independent of fate or necessity." 

Rights:

"Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory." 

Liberty:

"the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views. "



Now, with these definitions in mind, lets look at the state of our current world around us.  Most everyone is all for their freedom, and for the liberty and rights of people, groups, causes and businesses they agree with.

But, many of those same people, given something they disagree with, suddenly want the mighty arm of the law and of government behind them. Tell them they cannot do something they wish to do, and they will scream loudly about this being America, the land of the free, and in the very next breath proclaim that those other people must be stopped

Now, don't get all excited folks, because this brush applies broadly, most, if not all are guilty of it.  Be it in favor of or against gun rights, homosexual rights, birth control, drug laws, gambling, or any other of the vast majority of social issues, we have made the government our moral compass, and then act chagrined when the monster we have created is used against us.

Freedom of a person or party, in the eyes of the law, does not mean you need to support it, it does not mean you are in favor of it, but it does mean, if you wish to be free to live your given life as you see fit, without unreasonable intrusion of government and regulation, that you need to allow others to do the same.

You cannot in one breath insist marriage is a religious institution, and in the next demand government define it, it is one or the other. I use this example because it is the glaring one before us currently, but this applies overall

We in this country are all about our rights and our freedoms, but not about those of the others ie anyone that does not see things our way.

This is a problem, and it runs counter to the mindset this country was founded on. No, not the "Christian nation" diatribe, but the free nation, free for any and all, granted, with some imperfections, growing pains, and road bumps along the way, but the basic, underyling principle: You are free to think, speak, believe, live, and do as you please, so long as those actions do not cause harm or an infringement of anothers rights to do the same.

Now, you may ask, given the current debate, isn't refusal of service an infringement of someones rights? No, and here's why.  If a group got together and ensured, through force of law, or other means of coercion, that group A could not be served in any business, then yes, that would be an issue to be addressed.  But if business or person B decides that he has an issue with group A, whatever that issue may be, and regardless of your belief on that issue, he has the right of freedom of association, and you have the right, if you disagree with that decision, to not spend your money there.

Now, some have compared the current view of Christian business owners not being forced to provide services at gay weddings to Jim Crow laws, there is a fundamental error in that view.

Jim Crow laws were legislation that mandated  segregation, meaning if a business chose to serve a group, in the case of jim crow laws, chose to be desegregated, they were in violation of the law.

There are no laws, and no rational person I know of, is arguing for laws mandating refusal of homosexual weddings.  If a business chooses to cater, photograph, etc etc, they are free to do so.  That is the distinction, Jim Crow laws were a forced discrimination, regardless of the individual business owners beliefs.

Another argument is that the laws, such as the one in Indiana, allow businesses to refuse to serve gay people.  First of all, unless you are being overtly lewd, it is really nobodies business, and I can't think of any business that would refuse to serve you, or require you to state your sexuality first. For the record, I believe that marriage is a sacred institution of the church, and that homosexuality is a sin, and I would choose to avoid any business that made such a choice. There is a distinct and important difference in refusing to take part in a ceremony you see as immoral, and refusing to serve someone lunch, or cut their hair, sell them a soda, etc, that seems lost on many.  The purpose of the RFPA laws (the first of which was pushed through with broad bipartisian support and signed by Bill Clinton) is to prevent people from being mandated from participating in an event they see as an affront to their religious beliefs.  This is something already protected in the constitution that should not need further laws.  It is not relevant if you support their beliefs, agree with their beliefs, they are free to choose, as you are.  Freedom means people can do things you view as wrong, even immoral, so long as those actions do not harm another

 You do not give up your humanity, your faith, your beliefs, when you open a business, we used to believe in the freedom of association in this country.

Let me perhaps explain another distinction.  As many of you know, I am an EMT and a volunteer firefighter.  Those claiming laws such as RFPA mean EMT's and Doctors, etc, can refuse to provide medical service to gay people, that is absurd.
From a personal standpoint, I really don't care what you do in your bedroom when I am called to treat you or to respond to a fire, and unless it is directly relevant to patient care, I'm not going to ask.  These laws mean someone must present proof that their personal beliefs would be compromised, meaning, say, refusing to take part in a homosexual wedding service, treating a gay man in no way burdens a persons faith, in fact, we are Biblically required to offer assistance free of judgement (I was hungry and you fed me...), legally required (Duty to act), and ethically required (First do no harm).

The government and the law exist to keep society safe, for the public defense and to provide needed services.  They do not exist to use as a cudgel to beat others into submission, to force acceptance of your particular beliefs, or to force your way of life on others.  I speak that equally to all sides, because all are guilty of trying to legislate morality, and it simply does not work, and is a multi edged weapon.  Remember, anytime you use the government to control another, that same control can, and likely will, be used against you.