I was reading an article the other day about the First Amendment, specifically about the freedom of association, which is granted under the Bill Of Rights. The article went on to say that the freedom of association simply means that a person has the right to associate, not with whomever he chooses, but with whoever is willing to associate with him. Inherent in the right to associate is the right not to associate. Any person has the right not to associate with whomever he chooses.

In a free society, any person or group of persons has the right to associate with any other person or group of persons willing to associate with him or it on the basis of any standard and for any reason. And likewise, any person or group of persons has the right not to associate with any other person or group of persons on the basis of any standard and for any reason.

[adToAppearHere]

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota.

“The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife.” Ron Paul.

I have to admit I never thought of any of these opinions before, like so many others I just accepted the law as law and that was that, but after reading that article it seems to me that The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and all other so called anti-discrimination laws just might be unconstitutional. Discrimination is favoring one over another. Affirmative action is favoring one over another. Therefore, affirmative action is nothing more than legalized discrimination. It amazes me how the government can pass a law condemning one thing, and then pass a law promoting the same thing only under a different name.

[adToAppearHere]

Giving one group the freedom to associate, while taking it away from another is not what the Constitution is about. Just the fact that the Government passes laws that favor one group of people over another should be unconstitutional in itself. Forcing people to associate with people they do not want to associate with is taking away freedom not providing freedom.

The people that fought against this law in 1964 were not haters, bigots or racists; (well, maybe some were) they were fighting against it because it was unconstitutional. The freedom of association is just as important as any of the First Amendment freedoms. Neither government nor society has the authority to force a person or group to associate with another person or group that they don’t want to associate with. In a free society, it can’t be any other way. So therefore, yes, I believe these anti-discrimination laws are un-constitutional.

“What Kind Of Society Are We Leaving Our Kids?” Available Here.

This is one man’s opinion.