Applying the same analysis we employed with the prostitution issue, this is also an easy issue to analyze. Who competent adults love and choose to spend their time with are their decisions. When competent adults voluntarily decide to live together, combine resources, pay joint bills, or engage in consensual sex, they do not violate the 3L Legal Principle. This conclusion remains true even if the competent adults are of the same gender. As with the issues of gambling and prostitution, there is nothing about this issue that violates any aspect of the aspirational values. This conclusion is the end of the analysis for the person committed to the 3LP.

As with gambling and prostitution, a person could recognize the rights of same-sex couples to live their lives as they choose while also holding any position about whether such arrangements are moral overall. There is no contradiction. We can say the same about whether another person’s life choices are healthy, wise, or safe. While these are legitimate inquiries, and we are always free to seek to persuade others, competent adults should be legally allowed to decide for themselves whether to engage in acts that are immoral, unwise, unhealthy, or unsafe to themselves. Neither freedom nor peace is possible without competent adults having the ability to judge risks to themselves for themselves. We all engage in countless risky activities to some degree. Deciding for yourself what activities to engage in is the essence of what it means to own yourself and to live your life.

People who do not morally approve of how other competent adults opt to live their lives should also not be forced to accommodate any aspect of another person’s choices. Forcing people to do so would violate the 3L Legal Principle. All people should be free to believe whatever they want, even foolish things. We should never force anyone to do business with others for any reason. This conclusion remains true even if their motives are racist, homophobic, or other irrational ones. To adopt a contrary position would be to violate the 3L Legal Principle. We must legally tolerate the foolish but peaceful judgments of others.

Some religions simply do not recognize same-sex marriages. People who adhere to these religions, and others for any reason, should not be forced to recognize same-sex marriages. This conclusion is proper because failing to recognize the marriage of others does not violate the 3L Legal Principle. We can say the same about someone who refuses to do business with another person. Because refusing to do business with another person does not violate the 3L Legal Principle, people should be free to refuse to do business with others for no reason or any reason at all, even immoral ones. Forcing a person to engage in business with another person, even for moral reasons, violates the 3L Legal Principle. Boycotting and peacefully encouraging others to boycott a company with immoral business practices that do not violate the 3L Legal Principle is always an option for the ethically-minded consumer.

We can quickly and justly resolve the current controversy over whether people who have undergone a gender reassignment surgery should be permitted to use a restroom associated with their preferred gender affiliation by determining who owns the bathroom. As with all other property, the restroom owner should be the person who decides under what circumstances another person may use their restroom. Although you and I likely have opinions and preferences about this issue, whether we approve of the rules imposed by a particular bathroom owner regarding who they allow to use their bathroom is irrelevant to the analysis. We maintain a right to complain about, publicize, or even boycott the owner of the bathroom and any affiliated business. Recognizing the right of the property owner to make the rule is very different from judging the wisdom, or lack thereof, of the rule, selected. Property owners should have the right to establish ridiculous, immoral, or unwise rules so long as they do not violate the 3L Legal Principle.

Recall that while the 3L Moral Principle promotes aspirational values such as open-mindedness, tolerance, voluntary kindness, civility, and rational thought, the person committed to the 3LP opposes importing these moral values into the law. As such, while the 3LP legally tolerates the nonviolent but morally repugnant white supremacist store owner who refuses to serve the LGBT, the non-white, the Jew, or any other person for any other reason, such a store owner is not a good candidate for the 3LM.

The 3LM proudly seeks to inspire others to adopt the aspirational values. While the 3LM intentionally encourages people to act morally, people have the legal right to act immorally so long as they do not violate the 3L Legal Principle. As with all other people, should the white supremacist, homophobe, or any other person violate the 3L Legal Principle, the law should immediately terminate that conduct and punish the person justly convicted.