I was perusing social media the other day and stumbled across an article about ChristianMingle.com being sued because they don't have an option for the gay community. This got me thinking about the idea of minority rights. I was wondering if this is really a win for minority rights. If it's a win for minority rights it should be a win for everyone's rights considering the smallest minority is the individual. Sure, it allows the gay community the opportunity to be a part of an entity they may wish to join, but is that really a positive for minority rights? I don't think so.

If we want to look at minority rights, we should start with the smallest minority that all other groups stem from, the individual. There is no smaller minority than one person. So if we can just respect the rights of the individual, wouldn't all other minorities be covered by this? So what rights does an individual have? The answer to that is very simple, but at the same time extremely long. The easiest, and possibly most agreeable, answer is that any individual has the right to do what they want without violating anyone else's right to do the same. You as the individual you have the natural right, adopted at birth, to act in any matter you want, as long as you don't restrict that right of another. It is pretty simple, but the list of actions that legitimate is too long and always growing (with new inventions and technologies) to write out. You just don't have a right to aggress on another. If we could accept the ideas of the non-aggression principle we could base our society around voluntary transaction and peaceful cooperation, instead of arbitrary rule, plunder and illegitimate authority. Let us get back to the example laid out earlier.

So, if I create a dating website designed for men to meet women, what right does another have to force me to market to a group I never intended to (personally I think the more people you include the more people you can profit from, but that's just me)? They no such right, no legitimate claim. They would be infringing on my right, as the creator, thus owner, of the service to do with it as I please as long as it isn't violating anyone else's right to do the same. It is immoral, even criminal, to force someone to allow you access to their product, service, and/or property against their will. People would argue this restricts the rights of the gay community because they can not use this (my) certain service. But, it most certainly does not.

Instead of forcing me to offer you my services, you are free to start a competing service, such as "GayChristianMingle.com" (well unless arbitrary, man made law says you can't use that name because of copyright, but that isn't me stopping you, that's the state). If there is enough demand that the courts will make me offer you my services, why not just create a competing website where you VOLUNTARILY offer gay Christians the opportunity to "mingle" online?

But, there is an even more blatant reason you shouldn't force someone else to offer you their services if they do not want to. Why on earth would anyone want to do business with someone who doesn't want to do business with them? Why do business with people who think your sexual reference is a mental disorder or whatever other bullshit rationale they give? You are helping people profit who don't even like you, who believe you are going to burn in hell fire and whatnot. If i were gay, one of the last people i would want to do business with is someone who thinks being gay is immoral. I think if most people thought about that we would care a little more about where our money goes as well.

A more obvious example can be shown in the of the Civil Rights Act. People will say if you don't agree with the Civil Rights Act you must be a racist, you must think black people don't have the right to sit in a white man's restaurant. But, that is completely wrong, well half wrong. I believe that individual rights are given to us all at birth and the only restraints put up against those rights are created by the state. No matter your color, your creed, you sexual orientation, you are bestowed these rights. We've all heard, "No shirt, no shoes, no service." If a business owner wants to put that in his window he has every right to not allow people not in proper clothing in. But, it isn't because of sanitary issues, or other customers. It is his right to not allow people who don't wear shoes onto his property.

That holds true even in the most immoral of actions. If for some awful, undignified reason an owner doesn't want to allow black, Irish, Asian, whoever, onto his property he need give no reason. The only reason he needs is that it is his property. Now I didn't agree with his actions, or his racist ideas, but I do agree that if he wishes to drive himself to bankruptcy or even retaliatory action, then by all means start your business. The point here is that, if the owner of a business doesn't think you and your money are valuable to him, if he thinks you aren't a real person because of the arbitrary color of skin you were born with, well fuck him. I, as a white guy, wouldn't associate with this business, I wouldn't even be caught walking by it because of fear I could be associated with it. Most people would feel the same. I wouldn't want to tell my black friends that I had a great time at the all white diner. That just seems really messed up to me. Instead of clamoring for the state to violate other's property rights, we should look to capitalize on the intolerance and show them that tolerance will win out. Start a competing business down the street that accepts everyone. The chatter about the racist business sounds like a fountain of profit for someone who can bring the service, along with tolerance, to that market. But, instead, we said, "Force the racists to cook for us (that actually sounds dangerous). We have every right to be here." We would rather make them hide their racism (which held down for too long could actually motivate violence instead of letting it out in a more healthy way like just on your property), so that we don't know which business owners are racist. You could unknowingly be helping a racist profit, and succeed off of your money. Who would want such a moral bankrupt person to succeed? I wouldn't, I would hope their business fails massively. Instead of helping the racist keep his business running we should look to market options that will drive the racist out of business. Doesn't that sound like a better deal for everyone? The racist fails, the tolerant succeed and we all get to have dinner together.