I read a pro-liberty letter to the editor in a 1995 issue of Hot Rod magazine today. I also saw a book in Barnes & Noble claiming to prove mathematically that liberty is the best economic policy. Not so here in Asheville. In this town, the progressives are in the majority, so the progressives get to pass their agendas in the name of human rights, regardless of others’ freedom of speech and religion. Those with opposing viewpoints can stuff their opinions and opposing viewpoints and pay to support whatever beliefs council wants.

I am not alone in my opinions that there is no human right to reach into another’s pocket to grab a handful of change, no matter how worthy the cause. Consider the words of that old misogynist racist (at least that’s what the revisionists say) Thomas Jeferson:

. . . that the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction . . . that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

That should sound pretty good to even the most progressive people reading this post. Where we’re disagreeing is that many believe the absence of religion, or atheism, is supreme over respect for a diversity of religions. If we were following the Constitution, Reverend Keith Ogden, who vocally opposes domestic partner benefits for city employees, would have as much of a right to freely exercise religion and speech as City Councilman Gordon Smith and his supporters. To claim, as I do, that it is as much a religion to say something is not a sin as to say it is, would, according to Jefferson’s logic, justify Ogden’s plea that he not be “burdened in his body or goods” through taxation to support a belief system contrary to his.

Again, Jefferson wrote:

Our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could never submit. We are answerable for them to our God.

The problem is, progressives educated in public schools learn that liberty and mutual respect for diverse viewpoints applies only when they are in the minority. Now that they have a majority on city council, they may exercise tyranny of the majority to, among other things, make freedom of conscience subordinate to recruiting LGBT business. The documents appended to Smith’s presentation on domestic partner benefits clearly indicated provision thereof would endorse the LGBT community and serve as a magnet for their economic activity. I don’t see a proposal banning domestic partner benefits to explicitly recruit Christian business as gaining any traction, and it shouldn’t.