In a free society, individuals should be allowed to voluntarily choose who they wish to associate with, or not associate with. In an employment relationship, both the employer and employee should be free to terminate the employment relationship with or without notice, and for any reason or no reason – unless they contractually agree to something else.
In the recent case of the dentist who fired his dental assistant, the Iowa Supreme Court was correct in its decision to not penalize the dentist. The dental practice was the private property of the dentist. There was no employment contract between the parties, so the employment relationship could properly be terminated by either party.
People who disagree with what the dentist did are free to peacefully protest against the dentist, and they can try to peacefully organize a boycott of his practice. Remaining employees of the dentist are free to quit or to organize a peaceful strike against him if they wish. But, no one should be able to use force, even a majority through government, to dictate the terms of the employment relationship or penalize either party for terminating the relationship.
If a government had been the employer, it would have been a completely different situation. Governments are created by all of the people to serve all of the people. Government employers should only be allowed to discriminate based on factors related to job requirements and job performance. But peaceful people acting voluntarily should be left alone by government to decide for themselves whether or not to enter into any relationships with one another and to set the terms of those relationships.
What do we have to hide? Why would we object to letting international election observers watch our voting process? It doesn’t matter whether they are trying to learn what they can to take home to help in their own elections, or watching for fraud. We support sending these kinds of groups to other countries. We should freely allow them in the U.S. and in Iowa. I understand that there must be limits on the number of observers and where they are allowed to be in the polling places so that voters are not hindered or intimidated by the observers. It is possible that “observers” might have actually intend to disrupt the voting process, so there is a need for laws to stop any such disruptions if they occur. Iowa law does allow for specified observers, but does not allow for general observers. It should. We need to change Iowa law to allow at least a few general observers in our polling places.
Vote YES to retain Iowa Supreme Court Justice David Wiggins. His retention is being opposed by people who don’t like that he voted to overturn the Iowa law which had prohibited gay couples from getting married. He voted to overturn the law because it violated Iowan’s Constitutional right to be treated equally under the law. He correctly judged the case based on Iowa law. Those who oppose his retention don’t like the result, and they want to “shoot the messenger.”
The Iowa Constitution, in Article 1, Section 6 states: “All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.”
Individuals and private organizations, such as churches, should be free to decide who they recognize as married and who they will associate with. But government, which by its nature uses force to make all people comply with the law, should treat people equally unless there is a rational and overwhelming public purpose to treat some people differently. It should not be easy for a majority to prevent the equal treatment of minorities by government. If there are enough Iowans who Iowa want to prohibit gay marriage, then they should work to amend our Constitution, not vote to oust a judge who properly followed our Iowa Constitution.