An analysis of Obergefell vs Hodges and the grave danger it poses to liberty

The recent Supreme Court in decision in Obergefell v Hodges that legalized “same-sex marriage” across the United States has many ominous implications for liberty - beyond the issues related to “same-sex marriage.” This decision, which is based on incoherent and contradictory principles, promotes four fundamental ideas that are dangerous to liberty: the idea that rights are a product of evolution, the idea of positive rights,  the idea that marriage rights entail a state monopoly on marriage, and the idea that non-support for same-sex marriage necessarily demeans those who wish to partake of it.

The following is analysis of the ObergeFell vs Hodges decision. The decision can be found at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf.  This decision is heavily cited in this analysis. Citations take the form of (Page in document{page in PDF]). The discrepancy is due to the fact that the PDF contains multiple documents, the majority decision, dissenting opinions by Roberts, Thomas, and Scaliam each of which is paginated separately.

An incoherent and contradictory opinion

The arguments presented in this opinion are incoherent and self-contradictory. No fewer than three examples are to be found in the text of the majority opinion: Privacy vs public recognition of marriage, Marriage as a state issue vs a Fundamental Federal right, and evolved rights vs fundamental rights.

In the majority opinion, the majority opinion referred to several cases that held to a right to privacy. The Majority held that these privacy rights means that “Due Process Clause extends “certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy” accepted in a majority of states across the state lines of a handful of states that still banned the practice.” How can a right to privacy extend to public recognition?

In Windsor vs Ontario, the Supreme Court ruled that marriage was a state issue, and the certain provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act unduly interfered with  the rights of individual states. Two years later, the same court and the same justice write another decision that now claims that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right. Is it a state issue or a Federal Constitutional right? The contradiction is so blatant, that when viewed in light of other decisions written by Justice Kennedy, it becomes apparent that Kennedy was resorting to scheming sophistries. This decision was not birthed in good faith and principle, but in a political agenda that is dangerous to liberty.

The majority decision asserts that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right, and that marriage is evolving. These ideas are fundamentally contradictory. Traditionally, fundamental rights involve rights have historically or logically intertwined with America from the beginning ”The theory is that some liberties are ‘so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental’ and therefore cannot be deprived with-out compelling justification. “Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291Cite as: 576 U. S.____ (2015)11 ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting U. S. 97, 105 (1934).

 How can such a right evolve? Justice Roberts goes on to say that the majority opinion amounts to judges simply transforming personal beliefs into constitutional mandates(12-14). In layman’s parlance, fundamental rights is simply what the Supreme Court wishes to impose on the democratic process at the time. This is what Francis Schaeffer called “sociological law,” a concept that says that in the absence of a Judeo-Christian base for law, that law degenerates into the whim of those who has power - being simply whatever society or its elites happen to want at the moment. The contention that rights are based on evolution necessarily leads to sociological law. 

The idea that rights are a product of evolution 

The contention that rights - and particularly right tethered to the institution of marriage -  are based on evolution necessarily leads to sociological law because there is no universal reference frame. If rights are a product of evolutionary forces, then they exist only in specific evolutionary contexts. An evolutionary development of rights can lead to bizarre and contradictory consequences that are limited to local context. An evolutionary paradigm of rights can lead to the conclusion that homosexuals are privileged in one society and subject to execution in another. Evolutionary theories can be used to justify atrocities such as those committed by the Nazis, Stalinists, and Islamists. All of these groups can justify their child abuse, raping, robbing, maiming and murdering on the basis of the evolution of the cultures that produced their respective movement. It is only from a universal, personal-transcendent reference-frame that these atrocities can be absolutely condemned. The meta-physical requirements for moral absolutes require an infinite-personal God as the ground for morals and law.

The majority opinion boldly affirms that rights are the result of evolution. The case for the evolutionary basis of “the right to marry” occurs in pages 11-21 of the majority opinion. Marriage is seen as a product of evolutionary forces subject to change and redefinition. “The history of marriage is one of both continuity and change. That institution—even as confined to opposite-sex relations—has evolved over time...As the role and status of women changed, the institution further evolved...”

Marriage is presented as an evolutionary foundation of civilization where everything, including our liberties, is a product of evolution.

”In Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190, 211 (1888), the Court echoed de Tocqueville, explaining that marriage is “the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.” Marriage, the Maynard Court said, has long been “ ‘a great public institution, giving character to our whole civil polity.’ ” Id., at 213. This idea has been reiterated even as the institution has evolved in substantial ways over time, superseding rules related to parental consent, gender, and race once thought by many to be essential. See generally N. Cott, Public Vows. Marriage remains a building block of our national community.”

While some features of marriage have changed, there is no evidence that the core definition of marriage has undergone any evolution. Marriage has, until recently, been universally thought as a bond of man and woman with a natural substrate in normative human biology. Justice Roberts observes 

“The majority observes that these developments “were not mere superficial changes” in marriage, but rather ‘worked deep transformations in its structure.’ Ante, at 6–7. They did not, however, work any transformation in the core structure of marriage as the union between a man and a woman. If you had asked a person on the street how marriage was defined, no one would ever have said, “Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, where the woman is subject to coverture.” The majority may be right that the “history of marriage is one of both continuity and change,” but the core meaning of marriage has endured. Ante, at 6.” (8[47])

Marriage as nothing more than a social construction powered by evolution

The court does presents marriage as the foundation of society, but not in the traditional understanding that it was ordained of God or even the broader idea that it has a rational, natural basis in fundamental biology. The court explicitly denies the possibility of such a definition being legally permissible.

“Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here. But when that sincere, personal opposition becomes enacted law and public policy, the necessary consequence is to put the imprimatur of the State itself on an exclusion that soon demeans or stigmatizes those whose own liberty is then denied.”(19[24])

This denial begs the question. What if ‘the honorable philosophical premises are true? What if those premises are the best description of the objective reality of marriage. The objective reality of marriage is irrelevant to the majority opinion, as they hold marriage as nothing more than a social construct. It is not the objective reality but subjective recognition that counts “The right to marry is fundamental as a matter of history and tradition, but rights come not from ancient sources alone. They rise, too, from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.”(18-19[23-24])  It is society’s perception, labeled as understanding here, that counts as the source of rights.

This decision promotes the idea of positive rights

This decision affirms same-sex marriage as a positive right. In the syllabus of the decision, it is asserted “Same-sex couples have the same right as opposite-sex couples to enjoy intimate association, a right extending beyond mere freedom from laws making same-sex intimacy a criminal offense.”(3[3]) What does it mean when it says that these rights extend beyond mere freedom from laws making same-sex intimacy a criminal offense?

This is a reference to a concept in law called positive rights. Positive rights are contrasted with negative rights. The adjective refer to the method by which these rights constrain others. Negative rights prevents others from stopping an individual from enjoyment of their liberty. Negative rights are stated as a negative “thou shalt not!!!” Positive rights are stated positively in the form “thou shalt.” Positive rights constrains others to take action to provide material assistance in the exercise of those rights. Gay rights as negative right means that others cannot prevent homosexuals from pursuing their relationships, gay rights as a positive rights means that homosexuals can require others to assist them in their self-actualization of their sexual rights.

Obergefell establishes homosexual rights as positive rights. The majority decision has asserted that the right of same-sex couples to marry obligates “society” to provide “material benefits to protect and nourish the union.”

“For that reason, just as a couple vows to support each other, so does society pledge to support the couple, offering symbolic recognition and material benefits to protect and nourish the union.”(16[21])

The word “society” is used rather than “state,” meaning that the Court is assigning an obligation to you, me, and all other Americans to provide “symbolic recognition and material benefits to protect and nourish the union.” This no doubt set a precedent to be used to compel bakers and wedding photographers, and preachers to have “boots” on the ground at same-sex ceremonies.This Court is also presuming that it can compel individual citizens and organizations to recognize same-sex ceremonies as marriages.  Because same-sex marriage rights are being established as positive rights, there is no limiting principle to either the extent or the scope of burden that can be placed on others. While this decision purports to establish equality, it actually created a pecking order in which homosexuals are given preferential status1 and those who hold to fundamental faith are relegated to second-class citizen status. 

The idea that marriage rights entail a state monopoly on marriage

Some of the language in the majority opinion seems to imply that states are constitutionally required to be in  the marriage licensing business. The majority argues that state recognition is an essential part of the right to marry. 

“Under the laws of the several States, some of marriage’s protections for children and families are material. But marriage also confers more profound benefits. By giving recognition and legal structure to their parents’ relationship, marriage allows children “to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.” Windsor, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 23)...

...Excluding same-sex couples from marriage thus conflicts with a central premise of the right to marry. With-out the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents,relegated through no fault of their own to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. See Windsor, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 23). (15[20])”

State recognition is viewed as a central premise to the right to marry. This translates into the idea that there is no marriage outside of the state. The majority opinion has effectively declared that marriage is no longer a sacrament of the church, but that of the state. If marriage is exclusively the scope of the state, then the state has total dominion over it. The state can both use this power to control how people may interact with marriage, but internally regulate family life established under the legal structure of marriage. On the basis of this principle, the state can both prohibit ecclesiastical ceremonies that are not under the state license and regulate the manner in which ceremonies that occur under state licensure are executed. The state, using this principle, can compel ministers to marry same-sex couples [ or triplets, polygamy, bestiality, etc, whatever the state requires] as a condition of being able to conduct ecclesiastical ceremonies.

The majority decision has bought into the lie that disagreement equals hate.

The majority decision has bought into the lie that disagreement equals hate.This concept has had a long history of being used to attack freedom of speech. According to the majority opinion, denying same-sex couples the right to marry is not only Constitutionally incorrect, but it demeans their personhood

“Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right.”(19[24])

The concept of demeaning their personhood elevates what is perceived as an injustice to the level of a hate crime. This concept has led to the concept of designating certain modes of beliefs and speech as  hate speech2 In many countries and on university campuses, the concept of hate speech is being used to restrict freedom of conscience and freedom of speech. There is currently a case in Montana where a man is being prosecuted for hate speech3. Political support for banning hate speech is growing in America4. Politicians, such is Chris Cuomo, are now arguing that the First Amendment does not protect “hate speech5.” This language in the majority opinion could perhaps be a signal that the Supreme Court will gut the First Amendment by putting speech codes into play in the future. 

There is concern that the language of the Obergefell decision will be used as a weapon to persecute undesirable beliefs, particularly Christianity. Marco Rubio recently said that there is a clear and present danger of Christianity being labeled as “hate speech6”

The only assurance given in the majority opinion is “that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered (27[32])” The freedom to advocate is much weaker protection than ‘Free exercise,” which include the right to ACT on one’s religious beliefs. This will likely be interpreted to mean that people of faith can believe what they want, but every action is subject to the unbridled hand of government which will dictate what they will do and what they will not do.

Justice Roberts shares these concerns that Obergefell may pose a threat to religious liberty - particularly the right to act on one’s religion:

”Federal courts are blunt instruments when it comes to creating rights. They have constitutional power only to resolve concrete cases or controversies; they do not have the flexibility of legislatures to address concerns of parties not before the court or to anticipate problems that may arise from the exercise of a new right. Today’s decision, for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority—actually spelled out in the Constitution. Amdt. 1. 

Respect for sincere religious conviction has led voters and legislators in every State that has adopted same-sex marriage democratically to include accommodations for religious practice. The majority’s decision imposing same-sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommodations. The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their views of marriage. Ante, at 27. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to “exercise” religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses. 

Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage—when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage. See Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 1, at 36–38. There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.(27-28[66-67])”

Justice Clarence Thomas devotes almost three pages to this:

“Aside from undermining the political processes that protect our liberty, the majority’s decision threatens the religious liberty our Nation has long sought to protect.The history of religious liberty in our country is familiar: Many of the earliest immigrants to America came seeking freedom to practice their religion without restraint. See McConnell, The Origins and Historical Understanding of Free Exercise of Religion, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1409, 1422–1425 (1990). When they arrived, they created their own havens for religious practice. Ibid. Many of these havens were initially homogenous communities with established  religions. Ibid. By the 1780’s, however, “America was in the wake of a great religious revival” marked by a move toward free exercise of religion. Id., at 1437. Every State save Connecticut adopted protections for religious freedom in their State Constitutions by 1789, id., at 1455, and, of course, the First Amendment enshrined protection for the free exercise of religion in the U. S. Constitution. But that protection was far from the last word on religious liberty in this country, as the Federal Government and the States have reaffirmed their commitment to religious liberty by codifying protections for religious practice. See, e.g., Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 107 Stat. 1488, 42 U. S. C. §2000bb et seq.; Conn. Gen. Stat. §52–571b (2015). 

Numerous amici—even some not supporting the States—have cautioned the Court that its decision here will “have unavoidable and wide-ranging implications for religious liberty.” Brief for General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists et al. as Amici Curiae 5. In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution;it is a religious institution as well. Id., at 7. Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples. 

The majority appears unmoved by that inevitability. It makes only a weak gesture toward religious liberty in a single paragraph, ante, at 27. And even that gesture indicates a misunderstanding of religious liberty in our Nation’s tradition. Religious liberty is about more than just the protection for “religious organizations and persons . . . as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.” Ibid. Religious liberty is about freedom of action in matters of religion generally, and the scope of that liberty is directly correlated to the civil restraints placed upon religious practice.”(14-16[91-93])

References

1 http://dallascartersblog.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-new-definition-of-nondiscrimination.html

2 http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/initiatives_awards/students_in_action/debate_hate.html

3 http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/05/montana-hate-speech-case

4 https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/05/20/hate-speech/

5 http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/may/07/chris-cuomo/cnns-chris-cuomo-first-amendment-doesnt-cover-hate/

6 http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/marco-rubio-christianity-hate-speech-118313.html

Rebellious children - the smoking gun that evolution cannot explain humanity

I recently went shopping with my wife and four of our grandchildren. The grandchildren were...well being grandchildren. They were having a shared, rebellious episode in the store. The episode was nothing particularly alarming; it was simply that of small children who were being self-willed rather than being on a productive page.

A thought occurred to me while we were shopping. Given this normal tendency of children, humanity would have been killed off long we could become masters of the world. Rebellious children prove that humanity could not be the product of evolution.

The reason for this impossibility lies in the reasons that underlie why children rebel in the first place. God has gifted human beings with two properties: free will and capacity for abstract intelligence

For the purpose of this argument I will presume that evolution is a plausible explanation of the development. It is not because I do not believe that there are other difficulties, but to focus on one peculiar problem that would invariably occurred as primate would have begun  evolving into human if man were indeed the product of evolution: successful transition from instinctual predominant behavior to rational-volitional modes of behavior.

Alvin Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism constructs an argument related to the one I will develop here in this piece: Plantinga argues that evolution selects for belief that promote survival rather than for true beliefs. According to Plantinga, Naturalism via evolution would imply that our rational faculties would not be reliable enough to justify faith in, and arguments for, Naturalism. In this work I will take a different approach. I will begin by stating that lower animals do not have beliefs and do not act on  beliefs. Animals act in terms of pre-programmed responses to stimuli that we call instincts. While there may be some uncertainty in animal behavior, there is no free will and no rational, abstract thought process that governs decision-making.

What happens when that first intelligent ape-like creature is born. Intelligence and freedom come at a cost. This young ape-oid does not follow the instinctual pre-programming like his parents. The parents are not equipped to deal with an intelligent child, and the intelligent child behaves in ways that deviate from tested and robust instincts. Is this behavior advantageous?

Intelligence depends heavily on education and acquisition of a knowledge base. Most of the paths in trial by error result in error. Intelligence requires a heavy investment before it becomes an advantage. Intelligent ape-oids would represent both a quantum evolutionary leap and an evolutionary disadvantage in competing with their instinctual-driven cousins who evolve through incremental modification of instincts. Modern civilization protect our fragile children, and ancient humanity imposed a regime of discipline that would universally be considered child abuse today. The instinct-dominated ancestors, however, would not be equipped to deal with their reasoning children. Once the spark of conscious abstract reason - self-awareness -  was lit, it would invariably and  fatally disadvantage its recipient long before he or she could gain the benefit technologically from the value of a logically developed knowledge-base. Humanoids would have been killed off long before any intelligence could evolve to be an advantage.

The real reason the state is interested in promoting same-sex marriage.

Recently, the push for same-sex marriage has become quite popular with the government of various jurisdictions. It is popularly justified on the grounds that denial of same-sex marriage is discrimination. This argument, however, fails miserably. It fails because the rules for government recognition of marriage are consistently applicable for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. During the oral argument in the recent Supreme Court case, interrogation of lawyers by Justices Scalia and Alito revealed that traditional marriage was normative and same-sex marriage absent even in societies that were very pro-homosexual.Additionally, there is an abundance of evidence that people have Fighting discriminatio sincere religious beliefs concerning homosexuality who practice nn is simply a smoke screen to hide the real reason for states to promote same-sex marriage.   

The real reason for states to promote same-sex marriage is rooted in the fundamental differences in the definitions between traditional and same-sex marriage. Traditional marriage is grounded ontologically in certain fundamental realities that are normative of human sexuality. Heterosexual relations are normative among humans, and the traditional institution of marriage was constructed to channel these powerful forces to function in a manner conducive to the formation of civilization. Traditional marriage fostered the formation of stable families as the basic unit of civilization and the front line for socializing children into behaving like civilized human beings and not like wild animals. 

  Same-sex marriage, however, is not rooted in any ontological ground. It only exists in the minds of those who identify theirs or others’ homosexual relationships as such. It is merely a virtual construct. In fact, much of the radical LGBTQ agenda can only be understood understood as redefining the fundamentals of personal and sexual identity as nothing more than merely virtual constructs. It is this idea that fuels the idea that a person can choose whatever gender they are regardless of the biological facts that pertain to gender. This idea of de-grounding the fundamentals that ground personal meaning has been around for quite a while. The significance of Roe v Wade is that it divorced the concept of person-hood from  any grounding in the sanctity of human life. It only mattered if a fetus was a legal person, and that was determined in terms of recognition by society and the state. Person-hood  is seen here as a mere construct of the state. 

Grounding person-hood, relationships, and sexual identity imposes limiting principles that are inherent in the nature of whatever grounds these things. This imposes limitations on what individuals and states can do with these constructs. The abortion rights and LGBTQ movements attacked these grounds and persuaded many to abandon these foundations because they were seen as too limiting. What they failed to see was that ontologically grounding personal and sexual identity also limited the role of the state. Once these were taken away, there were no longer any limiting principles to super-massive state intervention in matters that were very private and personal. Another problem in de-grounding personal and sexual identity is that this created a need for a virtual replacement. Personal and sexual identity cannot exist in society in a vacuum. Without any ground in the fundamentals of human nature or higher law, then an arbitrary ground had to be created and vested with sufficient force to hold these things together This need of a virtual ground has resulted in these groups looking to the state to step in to create and uphold these constructs.  If person-hood and sexuality are nothing more than constructs of the state, then there is nothing to limit the power or scope of the state in intervening in some very sensitive and private matters. This would give the state unlimited control over personal lives, and this is the real reason the state is interested in promoting same-sex marriage.

The new definition of nondiscrimination : a grave threat to liberty

Recently, the commonwealth of Kentucky is making headlines concerning the upcoming battle over same-sex marriage at the United states Supreme Court. They are making the argument that bans on same-sex marriage are not discriminatory because they “stop heterosexuals from marrying others of the same-sex.¹”

In the current of rabid obsession with things homosexual, this argument is met with scorn. This argument is. However, perfectly valid in light of historic conceptions of discrimination and anti-discrimination. Since the 1960’s, we have had a diversity of anti-discrimination laws that outlaw discrimination based on membership in one or more of various protected classes.

If inappropriate discrimination is based on selection based on “membership in one or more protected classes, “ then neither same-sex marriage nor any of its related issues involve such discrimination. Laws banning same-sex marriage apply equally to all groups in society. Discrimination along related issues is also appropriate in terms of the historical understandings of acceptable discrimination. Not a single one of the recent cases involving whether bakers, florists, and photographers can legally refuse to service same-sex ceremonies involves  denying service to individuals or groups based on membership in a protected class. In all of these cases, the vendors serviced members of the LGBQT community. The discrimination was based on the content of the service: these vendors refuse to perform only the specific services that violated their conscience. They would have denied performing these services to anyone, regardless of what class of which they were a member.

The rejoinder that is given is that these regulations have disproportionate impact on members on the LGBTQ communities. Bans on same-sex marriage are of no consequence to heterosexuals, who presumably would have little use for such legal constructs. This type of arguments, however, marks of major redefinition  of what constitute non-discrimination.

To understand the change that is happening here, one must understand the difference between negative rights and positive rights².

Negative rights simply mark what cannot legally be done. They restrain the government and others from doing thing that would hinder the pursuit of their own happiness. It was each person’s responsibility own their own pursuit of happiness, and own their success or failure. No one else is obligated to assist in that pursuit.

The concept of positive rights, however, asserts that others have a positive legal obligation to assist in one’s search of happiness. The conception of positive rights further implies that the state has a responsibility and right to compel such service.

The difference between negative and positive rights on LBGTQ issues can be described as this. Negative rights for  LBGTQ issues implies that they should not be subject to prosecution for pursuing their peculiar types of sexual relationships and that they should not be denied access to services because they are members of the class of people that do these things. Negative rights do not impose an obligation on anyone else to help them actualize their happiness. They must procure these as free economic agents in the marketplace. In the case of same-sex ceremonies there is both a demand for such services and an abundant supply of vendors willing to perform these services. In a negative rights conception of liberty, vendors are not obligated to provide any particular service: only provide equal access to all people to the services of their choosing. In a positive rights conception, however, others are obligated to provide assistance in one’s pursuit of happiness. What this means for photographers, bakers, and other providers of services that might be demanded for same-sex ceremonies; is that they can be compelled in term of the types of services he/she must offer.

The dangers of positive rights³
The are three dangers to positive rights. They result in forced servitude. They result in the necessity of a government bureaucracy whose authority trumps all liberties. They contain no limiting principle to the exercise of arbitrary state power. They require that tribunals pick winners and losers in cultural conflicts. The enforcement of nondiscrimination as a positive rights allows dominant groups to discriminate against, marginalize, and even genocide other groups with less social power. Finally, the enforcement of the schema of positive rights results in the state being for all practical intents and purposes god on earth.

They result in forced servitude because people must be made to do things they would not do otherwise. Under negative rights, people are free to make their own choices as to what type of business they do; Constraints may exist to ensure equal opportunity and public safety, but no one is compelled to provide types of services they would not otherwise do. Under positive rights they can be forced to provide types of services that would otherwise not be offered. This mean that bakers can be forced to bake cakes for same-sex ceremonies. This means that if all bakers stopped doing wedding cakes, that the state can draft them into providing wedding cakes for same-sex ceremonies. This means that if everyone stopped baking, then the state could draft into baking those who would otherwise not be bakers. The result is forced servitude which is otherwise known as slavery. This would have implication that go way way beyond baking cakes. Thus could lead to a society where the state centrally plans all economic activity, even to the point of assigning people their occupations.

They result in the necessity of a government bureaucracy whose authority trumps all liberties due  the complexity of positive rights claims. If, access to healthcare is a positive right, then a bureaucracy must exist to define standards for its delivery and which healthcare issues will have priority. Such a bureaucracy would necessarily have greater authority than any rights claim it adjudicated in order to define and adjudicate them. If such an authority decides that abortion is a right, then it will compel those who believe abortion is murder to assist in performing abortions. If the healthcare bureaucracy believes that it is in the interests of public health to resort to euthanasia to weed out the unfit, then genocide is marketed as a human right.

Because positive rights involve coercing others in assisting in one’s self-actualization (a.k.a the pursuit of happiness), there is no limiting principle to what government may demand. Any issue that relates to one’s self-actualization may be a legitimate target of government regulation. The new definition of enforcing non-discrimination means the end of limited government. Since beliefs, speech, and religion all relate to one’s self-actualization and how it affects the self-actualization of others, there will emerge programs to regulate speech, beliefs, and religion. Speech codes will be enacted that dictate what type of ideas are permissible to express.  

They require that tribunals pick winners and losers in cultural conflicts because there is no coherent way for everyone to fully actualize in a pluralistic society. Different individual’s pursuit of happiness sometimes collide. In the infamous controversies involving same-sex couples wanted their wedding cakes baked by those who want to live that pleases a God who commands them to not support a homosexual lifestyle. In a system of negative rights, these collisions were minimized. People were free to do anything that was not explicitly outlawed, and laws were structured to allow personal freedom for all. Negative rights, in effect, created a personal bubble where the individual was sovereign in his personal sphere. This mitigated collisions of rights claims, proving clear directions for their resolution when they did occur. Positive rights, because they impose an additional positive legal obligation to assist in another self-actualization, allows for an individual to be forcibly dragged into the personal sphere of another. This increases the number of collisions that require state intervention, often at an extreme level. The result is that the state must pick winners and losers. In the name of nondiscrimination, the state must engage in  systematic discrimination.

In the ongoing dispute between the LGBTQ crowd and Evangelicals and Conservatives, in almost every case where there has been conflict, the LGBTQ crows has won and Christians have been told that they must surrender their liberties. When the issue of this unequal burden on religious people was brought to Penn Jillette, he snidely remarked that they “you're not being asked to engage in gay sex.⁴” However, the same logic that is used to force christian bakers to bake homosexually themed cakes could be extended to legally force people to engage in gay sex. If Christians have a positive legal obligation to assist in the self-actualization of a homosexual there is no limiting principle, and the state has decided to discriminate in favor of homosexuals in who wins under this new definition of nondiscrimination, then upon what what basis can the Christian say no if the homosexual path to self-actualization  includes bending said Christian over and sodomizing and otherwise sexually violating him or her.

Genesis 16 describes a homosexual crowd in  Sodom who committed trespassing on Lot’s private property and DEMANDED to engage in homosexual sex with the angels God sent. Lot tried to peacefully co-exist with their demands and meet them half-way. They replied by accusing Lot of judging them. This is telling, as Lot had every rational basis to judge them. They were trespassing on his private property. Lot had the right to demand that they back off and use his sword to defend his property rights. The men of Sodom used language eerily similar to that of the modern gay rights movement. They believed that they had a right to rape, and that any opposition to their advances was unlawful judging. The spirit of Sodom is raging today, and the logic used to compel bakers to bake homosexually themed cakes leads to justifying homosexual rape.

Due to the above reasons, enforcing a schema of positive rights effectively exalts the state  into a position of god on earth. Under this evil scheme, no case based on conscience and personal autonomy can prevail against any claim made by the state or those who have the favor of the state, no matter how intrusive against personal freedom it may be. This could lead to a world where murder, sex trafficking, armed robbery, and rape are all legal when done by the state or by individuals or groups that the state decides to protect. In this world there is no equality under law, but a strict "pecking order" created by the state's selection of who its cronies are and who will be vilified as the dirty dogs.  In this world all who appeal to a higher law will be considered enemies of the state, and those who persist in that appeal will be marked for genocide.

References

1 Kentucky Says Straight People Can’t Have Same-Sex Marriage Either 

http://politicalwire.com/2015/04/01/kentucky-says-straight-people-cant-have-same-sex-marriage-either/

2 Positive Rights vs. Negative Rights, Prof. Aeon Skoble, Learn Liberty

http://www.learnliberty.org/videos/positive-rights-vs-negative-rights/

3 The Perils of Positive Rights
Positive Rights Conflict Most of All with Our Basic Negative Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property
April 01, 2001 by Tibor R. Machan,
http://fee.org/freeman/detail/the-perils-of-positive-rights

4 Penn Jillette on Indiana RFRA: "You're Not Being Forced to Have Gay Sex", Reason Magazine
Nick Gillespie|Apr. 2, 2015,
http://reason.com/blog/2015/04/02/penn-jillette-on-indiana-rfra-youre-not