Columnists

Principles of Freedom – Freedom of Association – Part Two

Issue 40.17

Part 2:

This is the concluding section of a two part article. Considered in the first part are concerns about the rights of individuals to refuse service to or allow participation of those who are of opposing viewpoints or lifestyles. We considered the case of the baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple (now before the US Supreme Court) and choices by church, community groups and other organization as to whether they would allow those of different beliefs, races, standards or genders to be members or to participate. You can read the first part at this link. http://seniorsampler.com/category/lynn-west/

The freedom of religion (Constitutionally guaranteed) is a cornerstone of many of these arguments and many believe the court will side with the baker in the above case. But others who watch these things believe that the court will follow public pressure and decide for the plaintiffs. There is no doubt that a government Justice of the Peace would have to perform the marriage or find someone who would if it was legal in their state. A JP that refused to do so on religious grounds was fired and that decision upheld. If a corporation (publicly held) made a similar decision, it would come under scrutiny from both the public and the courts. When it comes to a business owner who is a sole proprietor, the case is not so clear.

Freedom of association was also brought into the recent conflict over whether political parties could refuse to allow those not registered as members to vote in their primary elections. It was decided here in Utah that they could make that choice, reasoning that those from other parties might vote across party lines to disrupt the election. That reasoning seems sound. Often, decisions on candidates can swing on a small percentage of those who vote. A number of primary elections (which determine who the parties’ candidate will be) and even some general elections have rested on a few or even one vote. If those from another party were able to help choose the candidate that represents that party, they may throw their support to a weaker or more alienating candidate with hope of defeating them in the general election. The government has decided that this makes sense for now, but the idea is coming up again and will have to be opposed strongly again.

One thing that the proponents of this idea did get through is the concept that anyone can get on the ballot for a party primary by gathering signatures, even if their party convention voted against them or even if they did not submit their name to the convention for a vote. Those supporting this are again seeking to make it easier for someone who disagrees with a party platform or beliefs to end up as the representative of the party in the general election. That is a can of worms that may end up not being very palatable in practice.

As with all freedoms, we will have to continue to fight to retain our freedom of association. May we all do so.

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.