The Right To Be Wrong
Over on Quora (follow me!), I frequently see a question of the form "what would you add to the Bill of Rights?" My oft-repeated reply is:
Freedom of association.
This would cover a wide range of stuff, including the right to contract. It would diminish or obviate countless government distortions of free market activities, restore individual and property rights that have been eroded across the decades. And, it'd have trumped the Jim Crow laws, which precluded free association across races, that required much sturm und drang to undo.
I fleshed out the idea back in 2015.
It'd also have resolved such matters as that of a web designer (Lorie Smith, at 303 Creative) who got in trouble for advertising her religious values and subsequently refusing to create a site for a gay couple's wedding. The Supreme Court just agreed to hear the case, and it'll be interesting to see how they balance First Amendment rights against coercive equality.
I disagree with Ms. Smith's apparent view on gay marriage (libertarians, myself included, were way out in front on gay marriage advocacy), but I support her right to that view, even if it means she gets to reject a potential customer.
This isn't a matter of 'systemic' bigotry. The designer isn't operating under or seeking a law that would prohibit gay couples from having such work done for them. It's a matter of individual choice, even if that choice is one we'd not make, or we'd disagree with, or we'd find repugnant.
In a free society, an individual must have the right to be wrong.
Otherwise, we cede the power over "truth," over what is to be considered "right" and "wrong," to the government. Grand idea, that.
I love that phrase, the right to be wrong. Back when the Charlottesville event happened, I had a debate with my then 30 year old son. He felt like "white supremacists" should not be allowed to express their views publicly, and I tried to explain to him that, no matter how reprehensible a person or group may be, they still have the right to gather and express their opinions. It should be obvious that when you silence one point of view, then others (including your own) will follow. The line will continuously move. Unfortunately he just didn't get it. I'm hoping that the wisdom that comes with age, along with two new daughters, will help him to eventually understand.
Peter,
Great article as usual. From a passing familiarity with contract law, I believe that "specific performance" is not allowed as a remedy under the law, even if a person has contractually agreed to do something. The reasoning supposedly is that forcing some one to do a specific task, even if they have previously agreed to it, is tantamount to slavery. Why is that not an argument against coercing Lori Smith and Masterpiece Cakeshop to perform specific actions. It is hard to argue that there are substantial damages to their refusal as alternative web designers and bakeries are clearly available.