I didnt bother reading the post so yes
I didn't bother reading the post so no
Help fight Zika, TB, HIV/AIDs and water pollution by donating your CPU's excess processing time to computing-based scientific research.
Out of all these regulations and requirements, none of which are loved by conservatives-libertarians, the one mentioned most often as onerous and unfair is the requirement that employees and customers are not subject to racial, religious etc. discrimination by business. Ironically, while advocating for allowing discrimination in public accommodations, they also argue that such discrimination would not happen very much, if at all, because people have changed since the Jim Crow days and it would harm the business.
My opinion is that the harm from business discrimination against potential employees, employees and customers outweighs the harm from being "forced" to tolerate undesirable races, religions etc in one's business. I don't believe that such discrimination will be as rare as claimed. These days it is as likely to be directed at Muslims and gays as blacks, but the tendency to ignorantly, irrationally and/or arbitrarily discriminate has not been sufficiently eliminated yet. For evidence, just look at all the racism and bigotry expressed on this forum and other public fora.
Also, I am willing to recognize the damage that it would cause to society and vulnerable people, something the conservative-libertarians ignore or downplay. In small towns, isolated and rural areas, just one or two discriminatory businesses could keep a significant portion of the population from getting a job, shopping, getting a place to live etc. without leaving town. Businesses have the ability to oppress people in their daily lives as much or more than government, especially in these days of a handful of mega-corporations, malls and big box retail dominating retail and services. Addressing government discrimination while allowing business discrimination requires tolerating discrimination and the hardship and oppression it will impose on unpopular minorities and society as a whole.
Last edited by Hard Truth; 02-12-14 at 02:21 PM.
And I understand Hamiltonian evolution and the needs of people to separate into us and them based on ethnic background. We discriminate for many other reason such as height, weight, speech impediments, and many other reasons that have not yet found their way into laws and protected classes. I am not opposed to laws in some cases in which there are very limited avenues for some goods or services. It seems to me rather silly to go after one photographer or one bakery out of hundreds in a community based on an unwillingness to provide a service.
As you probably know, a business can get around there anti-discrimination laws. They can form a private club and restrict membership. They can go underground and operate in the shadow economy. I believe that court cases indicate this is not a problem until the club becomes so dominate that it affects everyone. The Supreme Court approved of Boy Scouts and the BSA has now voluntarily changed their policies. It is probably better when groups operate above ground.
I think that it is probably good for society to have organization that discriminate. An African American businessperson's club can help other African Americans get started. Any minority group would benefit from similar organizations. In Madison, WI, some people, concerned about rapes, formed a transportation service to provide for women at night. Of course, this is illegal and men complained and were denied service. Don't know how it ended but I would hope somehow they were able to continue.
Last edited by Eric7216; 02-12-14 at 04:03 PM.
I have no problem with private membership groups and religious organizations discriminating because they are not businesses open to the general public. I am also open to allowing discrimination by sole proprietors who do not have place of business open to the public (such as many photographers), because that would have virtually no impact on others.
The Boy Scouts were established by federal law and receives government funding, which is why they should not be allowed to discriminate unless they are willing to relinquish their government provided status and privileges.