The United States Commission on Civil Rights recently released “Peaceful Coexistence: Reconciling Nondiscrimination Principles with Civil Liberties,” a report examining the “balance struck in the law between faith-based exemptions from otherwise applicable nondiscrimination laws, and legal protections established in nondiscrimination law.” The commission concluded that the first amendment is actually about discrimination, not civil liberties, reinforcing a narrative that prioritizes group rights over individual rights.

“The phrases ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious freedom’ will stand for nothing except hypocrisy so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance,” says Martin R. Castro, chairman of the commission. This is a continuation of the ongoing debate on the nature of “rights,” with an emphasis on which special interest groups’ rights matter more.

But what do these rights imply? Do gay people and other minority groups have distinct rights from other people? It’s unclear how exactly we’re supposed to balance rights between different groups, but it necessarily entails deciding which groups’ rights will be compromised for the sake of other groups. As more special groups with special rights are added to this list, the more complicated it gets.

The other implication of this understanding of rights is that rights are not absolute because you don’t have the right to yell “fire” in the middle of a crowd. Mainstream discussions operates with a vague definition of rights,  which leads to compromising certain rights for others. The result is strange conversations about how to balance different rights that supposedly conflict with each other.

The commission says the government decides on what basis you’re allowed to discriminate, but how do you really determine why someone’s discriminated against, and why is it relevant? The issue has little to do with Christian supremacy and intolerance, and everything to do with property rights. All of these uncertainties and conflicts are resolved once you apply a consistent definition of rights.

Murray Rothbard provides such a consistent conception: “The concept of ‘rights’ only makes sense as property rights. For not only are there no human rights which are not also property rights, but the former rights lose their absoluteness and clarity and become fuzzy and vulnerable when property rights are not used as the standard.” One’s intention for refusing service is irrelevant in a free society because you can refuse service to anyone you like. The right to free association is inviolable. Individual justifications for refusing service don’t really matter, at least not where the coercive hand of the law is concerned.

Martin Castro is right about one thing: “Religious liberty was never intended to give one religion dominion over other religions, or a veto power over the civil rights and civil liberties of others.” It’s not valid to base rights on beliefs because beliefs shouldn’t be relevant at all here. What matters is people’s property rights. Grounding rights in individuals’ beliefs leaves the government to decide what counts as religion, what counts as discrimination, and, therefore, who’s rights get protected.

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is an agency charged with advising the President and Congress on issues of civil rights and issuing a federal civil rights enforcement report, which makes it kind of disturbing that a commission charged with protecting civil liberties has denied employers and businesses the first civil liberty listed in the first amendment.

The commission’s advice wasn’t unanimous. though. Gail Heriot told the Washington Times she was “troubled by the growing attitude that somehow anti-discrimination laws trump everything.” She added “We live in a more complex world than that.” It’s much simpler, actually. Human rights are based on property, not intent.

This piece solely expresses the opinion of the author and not necessarily the organization as a whole. Students For Liberty is committed to facilitating a broad dialogue for liberty, representing a variety of opinions. If you’re a student interested in presenting your perspective on this blog, visit our guest submissions page.