A New Civil Disobedience

158 years ago, Henry David Thoreau published Civil Disobedience. In the first paragraph he echoed a sentiment shared by many of his contemporaries, as well as scores of people before and after him. He said, "That government is best which governs least," and I too believe this. As a Christian, however, I have struggled with the juxtaposition of individual rights, particularly in regard to private enterprise, and the endorsement of legislation that churches deem correct in God's eyes. As one such piece of tough legislature nears completion in Britain, I now firmly believe in a person's individual rights in private enterprise rather than in any argument from a "Christian" perspective.

The new legislation combines multiple United Kingdom equality agencies into one organization and will force schools (private and public), businesses, and other agencies to provide service to all people regardless of age, race, gender, religion, disability and sexual orientation. In addition to requiring Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender-only clubs to permit heterosexuals, the law also requires Catholic adoption agencies to grant adoption of a child to gay couples, as Britain legalized gay marriage last year. Numerous bishops, priests, and altar boys criticize the legislation as unfair and accuse the political leaders of refusing to allow religion to practice religion. In other words, of endorsing sin. How can a government that bans religious discrimination force a religious institution to follow a course that opposes the institution's beliefs?

More importantly, should a government have control over any agency or enterprise that isn't government? No. Many argue that the government in the United States contributed to the wealth of our society by forcing businesses to give equal opportunities to everyone and forcing them to integrate (or more recently, by banning smoking) but in reality, these measures have transformed our "free" society into a society catering to the whims of the nonproductive: a totalitarian regime for freeloaders. What happened to capitalism? What happened to supply and demand? Help us, Adam Smith!

Believe it or not, our society and its use of a free market system should allow discrimination. While isolationist, discrimination provides a service for the customer, and if that discrimination does not suit the customer, the customer may change the practice. If a man opens up a restaurant in a predominantly black neighborhood but refuses to employ black persons, then patrons can stop supporting that restaurant. The restaurant can still supply services, but to whom? The restaurant must then reevaluate business practices and cater to the customer. The bus boycotts in Montgomery and Birmingham display this scenario as well. If a family goes out to eat and doesn't want to inhale smoke from the already divided smoking section they should find a diner that doesn't allow smoking. If a church wants to preach only to the Cleavers, so be it.

Supply and demand gives us a system of checks and balances that naturally, and at the decision of a true democratic majority rather than the oligarchy in Washington, sifts out discrimination. I think most people agree that discrimination benefits no one, but few of us commit to changing our world. We expect the government to serve the people going to the restaurants and agencies instead of serving the agencies and restaurants. In doing so, we break from the fundamentals of a free society and allow hegemony to run rampant at the expense of the tenants of capitalism and to the joy of leeches.