Columnists

Principles of Freedom – Freedom of Association – Part One

Issue 39.17

Part 1:

While not mentioned specifically in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence, the freedom to associate with those we choose to (and to not associate with those we do not choose to) has repeatedly been affirmed by the courts including the Supreme Court. It is true that there are some limitations on this right, but the basic principle is that individuals can freely associate with those they desire to and can refuse to associate with those they do not wish to spend time with.

Most of us would not want the government dictating who our friends must be or requiring that we allow someone into our group, club or church that is diametrically opposed to the general thinking or desires of that group. This seems to make a lot of sense, but there are some other things that have to be taken into account.

There is a sign that used to appear on the wall of many businesses. It stated, “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” In the wake of the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Division, et. al. by a Colorado court, that may have to be amended. The case is now before the Supreme Court and the decision will be interesting. The owner claims that his religious beliefs do not allow him to support a homosexual marriage by providing a cake for the partners celebration. Since the couple could have purchased a cake from a different provider, the issue is a sticky one for the court to decide.

While the courts have generally upheld groups (especially churches) that determine whether gender, race or lifestyle is a requirement or limiter for those wanting to join, the decision gets a little more hazy when applied to businesses and is pretty much not allowed for community or government actions or groups. For example, The NAACP is by definition a group specifically for those who are considered “Colored People”, but they have chosen on occasion to allow those who do not fit that description to participate with them. That is their choice. Similarly, some churches refuse to allow those identifying themselves as LGBT to participate with them or be members. Other churches welcome them or allow them as members but may not allow full fellowship if their lifestyle conflicts with their doctrines. Again, that is their right.

When it comes to government groups, no discrimination can be evident. Community inclusive groups such as Rotarians, Lions, etc usually include all that desire to participate. There are cases where this creates conflicts within the group. A case in point is the Boy Scouts of America. Ten years ago, only boys and men could be part of this group and those who admitted to be gay or bisexual were not allowed to participate. This made sense to a lot of people as the boys are going on campouts and the leaders and tent-mates were to be considered “safe” to be around in isolated situations.

As those policies have changed (some troops now allow girls to participate and many community boy scout groups allow homosexuals to participate and even be leaders) more and more families have decided to pull their children out of scouting. Church groups are allowed by the national organization to set their own policies for membership and leadership, but even though this is the case, the largest group supporting US Scouting (the LDS church) has recently decided to discontinue requiring local congregations to have scouting programs for  boys over 14 years old and have made additional moves away from the national organization.

This article will be concluded in the next installment.

Lynn West is a thinker, a teacher and a patriot. You can reach him through email at forgingthefuture2021@gmail.com or through this newspaper. Liberty is a state of being which must be continually created. These articles can help all of us discover the ways we can contribute to that outcome.

Comments are closed.