I share Martin Luther King’s Dream when he said:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

AMEN! I don’t believe MLK wanted reversed racism or any other form of racism at all. But here we are perpetuating racism by the very laws they are meant to diminish. Affirmative Action Laws judge man by the color of his skin. These laws force employers to “diversify” their staff, not based on qualification, but on minority status. WOW!

On a side note- I am half-Mexican and I think it’s so ridiculous that there are rules/laws which favor me over others. I REFUSE to receive any special treatment because of my heritage or what the color of my skin is. For those “minorities” who do accept special treatment or pull the race/gender/religion/age/orientation/I’m-different card… It’s not fair to believe everyone in their particular minority group are non-principled moochers. It’s a human defect, not a group defect.

One time we had a job opening for a manager. The top 3 applicants were a white male, a white female, and a black female. The white male was the most qualified, but we all knew that they would give the job to the black female (and they did). I think that it is more discriminatory to give a job to someone with lower qualifications just to supposedly prove that you are not discriminating.

I had a friend whose mother was Mexican. My friend didn’t like anyone to know she was part Mexican, but she used it at work because it helped her move up faster.

Nonetheless. Thank you for your comments and this blog as it provides us with opportunities to discuss matters civilly, even if we disagree. Keep it up.

I oppose the proposed ordinances, since they violate basic property laws and freedom of association. This is not to say that I think homosexuals should be fired or evicted, but I do believe that employers and landlords should retain that right if they choose to exercise it.

This statement by the Church relates, in my view, to the specific issue at hand in Salt Lake City, and was made in direct response to the city. It is not counsel given to all members of the Church to support similar laws in their own communities, nor is it direct communication of any kind to church members. I see it as the Church taking a step to be nice neighbors, rather than taking a generalized position that all members in all areas of the world should likewise pursue.

I remain, then, in opposition to so-called anti-discrimination laws.

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-supports-nondiscrimination-ordinances

Do you support this or oppose it? I’m interested in the extent to which you are willing to stand by your principles, even if your ecclesiastical leaders take a different position.

People are crying out against how irresponsible the octuplet woman is. Why are they crying FOR this woman for being irresponsible with her pregnancy. Double standard.

If she does have a partner in her life, shouldn’t she be able to depend on her partner until she’s had time to bond with the baby?

Doesn’t the mantra “best for the children” apply here? No, only when it helps the liberal/socialist agenda. This won’t help that agenda, so we want her to get a job at a time where she can cause the most damage to a business. And if she can’t, then we can use her to sue the business and bankrupt it.

I honestly don’t understand why it is so important for EVERYONE to be working. Oh, right. So the totalitarian rigime can have more slaves. But I digress.

Face it. Anti-discrimmination laws are not about including everyone. They are not about providing opportunity. They are about destroying the human spirit. They are about eliminating free speech. They are about making government the ultimate power rather than the people.

At least those injustices of the recent past (or even today) were due to human stupidity not about power. Now, we have the stupidity of government enforcing the same thing they claim to banish while encouraging the struggle for power.

“Redistribution of wealth” is a hot topic these days, perhaps we should coin the term “redistribution of liberty.” It’s an erroneous and an insidious ideal that a group should be made equal, for you can’t make anything equal but the individual. Where a shop owner may refuse credit to a man based entirely on individual merits, how is he to prove his state of mind to the law if that individual happens to be in group X protected by the ill-conceived law?

I will reiterate for for clarity’s sake… “Rights can ONLY be protected on an INDIVIDUAL basis.” Note that right cannot be “granted” except by God, or derived as necessary from those God given rights. To find such words as “minority” or especially enumerated groups in legislation is to find legal and even mandated discrimination.

3 a: the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually

This discrimination may be spelled out such that it is discrimination in _favor_ of a group, but as all things must be balanced, this discrimination is necessarily in _hindrance_ of another group, specifically anyone not belonging to the favored group. I doubt anyone would be all gung-ho for anti-discrimination legislation in favor of caucasian white males. Such legislation would be immediately labeled as bigotry, so why the double standard?

An example of a typical response by one who disagrees.

Your argument is that these laws hinder economic prosperity in that they do not allow business owners to have their personal prejudices protected by the laws of the state.

No, this is not my argument. Your assertion to the contrary shows that you have no understood the most basic point of my post. I am arguing nothing about the economic impact, for that does not worry me. The economy is impacted by a myriad of things, and just as you said earlier, a wise economist cannot specifically predict what forces will cause what things to happen. Or perhaps you don’t fully believe that since you here write that the repeal of anti-discrimination laws “would have a greater economic impact”?

My sole concern, and the point of my post, revolves around the restriction of liberty, abolition of free association, and discharge of private property.

The alternative is something you cannot serious be willing to promote.

What is the alternative you speculate? I would be curious to hear your prediction, in light of your earlier assertion:

And as one who has studied the economy (and economists) extensively, bare in mind that any attempt to foresee economic impact is akin to a roll of the dice at the craps table.

The main alternative to the restriction of liberty is more liberty. So long as it does not infringe upon the liberty of another, more liberty in any realm cannot be a bad thing. So yes, if that is the alternative you see, I am willing to promote it.

Your argument is that these laws hinder economic prosperity in that they do not allow business owners to have their personal prejudices protected by the laws of the state. The economic effect of protecting those prejudices by avoiding legislation that promotes fairness would have a greater economic impact. Again, if a state declares it will not support racism, homophobia, gender bias, etc, institutionally, it must back this up with legislation.

The alternative is something you cannot serious be willing to promote.

You’re arguing semantics here. By saying that I cannot not associate with people of a certain type, your are therefore saying that I must associate with them. Preference is not given to one group over the other, but the restriction of my personal preference implies that I must potentially enter into a forced association.

When it comes to our judicial system, that is exactly, entirely, and without doubt the entire purpose of the application of legislation overall.

You are then promoting a right that does not exist. No person can morally force another to discharge his/her private property in a way they do not desire. Why, then, does the government assume this power?

When a governing body decides that discrimination is something it won’t accept, it has an obligation to it’s people to back that decision up with legislation making it a crime to discriminate.

To what end does such legislation exist? What will be next? Will Hooters be forced to employ male waitresses? Will the Boy Scouts of America have to open its doors to homosexuals? Will Mormons be required to permit homosexual marriages in their temples?

Your reliance in and obedience to a “governing body” enshrined with the authority to determine what may or may not be discriminated against is worrysome, as it fails to state from whence such a body derives its authority. Again, if we as citizens do not have such authority, the government we delegate our inherent powers to cannot either.

Fairness and the legislation of ethical practice… is an intrinsic part of any judicial system, and is a necessary component in a satisfied people, who are themselves a key piece of the larger whole of a healthy economy.

Your frequent mention of judicial implications is of little import, for the judicial system exists only to interpret the law. I am here concerned with the law itself—why it exists, what problems it purports to remedy, and upon what authority it is mandated. Only after such questions are satisfactorily answered do we need worry about what judges think.

To say that these laws lead to economic downturn ignores the larger issue of economic stabilization that blossoms from a fair and ethical state.

I’m here referring to the loss of liberty and freedom of economic association caused by anti-discrimination law—not a specific economic downturn. As Bastiat noted, the money that would have been spent in one direction (with government intrusion) will still be spent in another, thus maintaining economic integrity and progress.

So in essence, screw Joe Dirt.

This argument encapsulates the conventional belief enshrined in anti-discrimination and other laws. Screw individual liberty! We’ve got equality to promote, and force to use! Time to get busy!

This book really is an interesting read, and I wish every voter understood its content. Too many politicians play to voter sympathies (and their lack of basic economic education), promising the world, and ruining the world for everybody as a consequence.

I have the entire book on CD as well, so if you (or any of your readers) would like to borrow it. Just let me know.

What is being sidestepped here is (as I argued) the application of these laws withing a judicial system designed (albeit imperfectly) to ensure ethical practice and reasonable action. If our justice system is not going to promote fair practice (in all aspects of life, including business) what exactly is it there to do?

The application of these laws is not to tell you who you must associate with (quite a stretch of logic there on your part, by any means of understanding) but rather to ensure that you operate your business inside of a recognized state within the laws and values of that same state. If you were addressing “hate-crimes” legislation, you would get no argument from me (I find them redundant…and ineffective when the real problem with hate is human stupidity, and how each generation chooses to raise and educate the next). But you are pointing this gaping argument of yours towards equal rights legislation. Again, you are using the same argument the entrenched establishment of the south used to combat integration during mid-century civil rights battles. “If you tell me I can’t discriminate against a person for being black, gay, female, etc, then you are infringing upon my rights.” Damn right, and we should do more of it! When it comes to our judicial system, that is exactly, entirely, and without doubt the entire purpose of the application of legislation overall.

When a governing body decides that discrimination is something it won’t accept, it has an obligation to it’s people to back that decision up with legislation making it a crime to discriminate. Without that obligation, we simply reduce ourselves to lawlessness, and become subject to the whims of trogloditic reasoning of fools.

Consider how you would fair in today’s southern bible belt, as a Mormon. Evangelical Christians do not recognize the LDS faith as a Christian faith. They would most likely choose to not associate with you. Were you to move there with your family, the judicial system would protect you from the obstacle of finding unemployment when nobody wants you working for them because you are a Mormon. They can not hire you because you aren’t skilled, or because you do not fit their needs, but they cannot refuse you employment simply because of your choice of religion.

Again, you are ignoring the application of legislation designed to promote fairness with was is indeed a straw man argument that legislating fairness infringes on the rights of business owners, and therefore hinders our economy.

I draw you once again to the example of countries facing uphill battles in stabilizing their own economic potential. You will see, in each and every example, an ongoing or very recent history of civil-rights abuses in those countries, without exception. Fairness and the legislation of ethical practice (assuming one feels discrimination based on race, sexual orientation, gender, hair color, shoe size, etc is un-ethical) is an intrinsic part of any judicial system, and is a necessary component in a satisfied people, who are themselves a key piece of the larger whole of a healthy economy.

Your depiction of this legislation is that it legislates the subjectivity of private property and free choice of associate “in someone’s favor.” The point you are missing (again by not recognizing the application of such legislation within a judicial system) is the question of who is in favor. To argue that not allowing business owners to discriminate irrationally within the laws of the state stacks the deck in “someone else’s favor” is, again, missing the forest for the trees. If you are going to argue the effects doing so has on the economy, you must also acknowledge the effects fairness and ethical business practices have on the economy. To say that these laws lead to economic downturn ignores the larger issue of economic stabilization that blossoms from a fair and ethical state.

Bubba Joe Dirt may be quite upset when you tell him he can’t refuse business to a qualified customer or employee simply because of the color of their skin, but the economic impact of Joe Dirt’s frustration pales greatly in comparison to the economic impact of marginalizing an entire race, creed, or gender by not protecting their basic god given rights with legislation. So in essence, screw Joe Dirt. Infringing on his “right” to practice business unethically has but a tiny fraction of the economic impact that allowing the free range of archaic prejudices would have on longterm economic growth, freedom, and stability.

For an interesting exposition on the subject of “equality of opportunity”, I found this article to be enlightening.

I think the assumption that the market will alleviate the prejudice can be incorrect or in some cases take too long.

It is interesting to note that this same argument was and is often used by those condoning the Civil War in rooting out slavery. What should be noted, however, is that we are the only country in the world that did so—all others transitioned naturally and without violent force.

I think we underestimate the goodness in people if we surmise that left to themselves, they would prejudicially homogenize and refuse to interact with diverse people. Bastiat had this to say about such a lack of faith:

Our adversaries believe that an activity that is neither subsidized nor regulated is abolished. We believe the contrary. Their faith is in the legislator, not in mankind. Ours is in mankind, not in the legislator.

Too often, the knee-jerk reaction is to seek government intervention to solve our problems. This sidesteps the source of the problem and the potential solution: peaceable, voluntary change. We need to have more faith in individuals, and by corollary, the market.

Social change is least effective when it is forced. Just as a teenager cannot effectively be forced to love his little brother, so too a person cannot not discriminate due to legislation. This principle is reflected in scripture when we read:

For behold, if a man being evil giveth a gift, he doeth it grudgingly; wherefore it is counted unto him the same as if he had retained the gift; wherefore he is counted evil before God. (Moroni 7:8)

The prevention of discrimination is, I believe, most effective—and morally sound—when brought about by natural, societal transitions free from bureaucratic mandates.

The question is: do we have a right to the liberty of opportunity?

I see your points, but I still want to explore this a bit. I can see how unfair it would seem to have the government decide how you hire and service the community.

But at what point do we allow this to happen, and at what cost does this become an issue that requires government intervention?

If a community rallies, prejudicially, against some minority how does this minority survive? I think the assumption that the market will alleviate the prejudice can be incorrect or in some cases take too long. Asking the minority to leave also may not work either. How does someone gather the resources to move if they can’t find a job or be a consumer in a community? Especially if the prejudice is wide-spread?

The only moral decision government should make is to establish a level playing field — equality — for all. That’s why we can’t steal or murder – not because it’s wrong, but because we can easily show that it puts some people at a disadvantage.

Equality is a broad subject that must be explicitly defined to be best understood and applied. Equality under the law implies that all citizens are treated equally with no exceptions made based on discriminatory characteristics. Equal opportunity however, implies that the government should provide an “equal playing field” so that each person has the same chance to succeed as the next.

My argument relies upon the fact that the latter type is a farce. Government cannot provide equal opportunity. In order to do so, as I noted in my post, they must create rights in people and hence create corresponding duties in other, thus assuming the role of manager in determining who is not doing their duty, where it applies, how it should be enforced, etc.

However, one might also define equal opportunity to be “equality of the potential to succeed and fail”. Under this definition, government is likewise not permitted to intervene, for in order to succeed or fail, the business owner must be left to make his own choices and suffer the consequences.

I think allowing this sort of unfair behavior and prejudice to fester and grow will cause problems in the long run. Blacks won’t be able to find a hotel room in certain states. Mormons might not in others.

I agree with your assessment that such things might occur. But the fact remains that government is not morally authorized to compel associations and force business owners to discharge their private property in someone’s favor. One might hope that in our day, these examples would be far and few between. But regardless of their frequency, they should not be remedied by government force.

It gives too much trust in the market – waiting too long for obvious problems to fix themselves slowly. I realize you wouldn’t argue for this, but it’s akin to allowing inner-city crime to run rampant with the idea that people will eventually abandon the crime-ridden areas. Or allow the criminals to create their own community.

I believe that your examples are not comparable here, in that you equate business exchanges with stealing, murder, and crime. Whenever the infringement of life, liberty, and property is in question, the government is morally authorized to intervene. Obviously, such crimes should not be permitted. However, nobody has the right to somebody else’s services or products (the result of the discharge of their private property), and therefore the right of refusal remains inherent in the owner. Since no liberty has been infringed, the government is not authorized to intervene.

P.S. – What statutes apply to every business? I wonder which businesses actually are forced to hire/service in certain ways. Is it truly everyone?

More info here.

The only moral decision government should make is to establish a level playing field — equality — for all. That’s why we can’t steal or murder – not because it’s wrong, but because we can easily show that it puts some people at a disadvantage.

Making sure that people get hired based on their qualifications, rather than on a lack of the employers prejudices, is a step in the direction of equality.

I don’t think anti-discrimination laws are enforcing some sort of false morality. They allow for equality of opportunity.

The market should be left to itself to handle these situations. As my example stated above, the customers can rally and boycott whatever store does this and ultimately cause the owner to either change his own policy or financially suffer. Regardless of whether this happens or not, it is not the proper role of government to interfere.

I suppose I’ll agree to disagree. I think allowing this sort of unfair behavior and prejudice to fester and grow will cause problems in the long run. Blacks won’t be able to find a hotel room in certain states. Mormons might not in others.

It gives too much trust in the market – waiting too long for obvious problems to fix themselves slowly. I realize you wouldn’t argue for this, but it’s akin to allowing inner-city crime to run rampant with the idea that people will eventually abandon the crime-ridden areas. Or allow the criminals to create their own community.

Allowing groups to forge their own homogeneous culture will fracture the nation. History shows that race (at least) has done it before.

P.S. – What statutes apply to every business? I wonder which businesses actually are forced to hire/service in certain ways. Is it truly everyone?

What sorts of good, moral wishes do anti-discrimination laws prohibit entrepreneurs from acting on?

Morality is unimportant in the analysis of the entrepreneur’s decision, since government should not be the arbiter of moral choices. Individuals should be left free to act and choose as they please (within certain limits) and are ultimately responsible for their own actions. If a white person refused to serve a black person, they should be held accountable themselves instead of government enforcing some sort of equality.

These changes are best left to society itself. Think of when forced integration took place in the 70s with whites and blacks. Forcing whites to permit blacks into their stores, onto their buses, etc., created havoc and disarray. It would have been better, in my opinion, had that transition occurred naturally and without government propulsion. Let society change itself as attitudes and perceptions change.

This is a bit more optimistic that would actually happen in some communities. I still know places where blacks have a hard time getting service in “public” places.

While regrettable, this is tolerable. Again, the government has no moral authority to force associations upon us. We may repudiate the actions of such business owners, as I do, but that does not empower the government to force them to serve somebody they would prefer not to.

The market should be left to itself to handle these situations. As my example stated above, the customers can rally and boycott whatever store does this and ultimately cause the owner to either change his own policy or financially suffer. Regardless of whether this happens or not, it is not the proper role of government to interfere.

Jasonthe,

The laws do not legislate the hiring of or promotion of an individual based on minority status, but rather that you cannot refuse employment to a person, nor terminate employment, nor refuse service, nor make subject your offered service to any individual simply because they are in a minority.

Contrary to your opening statement, I fully understand this and discussed it in my post. The point made was that government forces associations that might not otherwise occur, and compel discrimination by mandating that the employer refuse a job to another person (that which is not seen) because somebody else came along and qualified. What if a homophobe entrepreneur came across an application of a potential employee who was evidently homosexual. Should the government be permitted to mandate that this person be hired despite this characteristic—something that offends and disgusts our hypothetical employer? Sure, the person may have the right skill set. But that is not the only factor in the decision making process of employing another person. Private property theory dictates that this owner should be free to dispose of his assets as he sees fit, and therefore hire whomever he chooses to, for whatever reason.

One major problem created by such laws is that the government is denying the freedom of association based on alleged motivation (that is, the psychological state of mind) of the employer. This cannot be proved, and so the business owner is targeted more for political reasons than for justice.

And as one who has studied the economy (and economists) extensively, bare in mind that any attempt to foresee economic impact is akin to a roll of the dice at the craps table.

This depends entirely upon what you are attempting to foresee. To be sure, foreseeing an upswing in a company’s stock price or a rise in consumption is difficult to do. However, foreseeing the effect certain principles will have is far easier, and entirely feasible. When analyzing the effects that certain decisions will have, one can study the underlying principles behind each proposed action and assess how they will affect the market, free associations, employer/employee relationships, etc., and thus make a wiser decision. In essence, the wise economist will analyze market forces based not only upon practicalities, but also principles.

Your missing the forest for the trees here in what amounts to the straw man argument that I, as a business owner, will be discriminated against as a result of laws meant to stop me from discriminating against others. Ridiculous.

This is most certainly no straw man argument. The categorization of such is an attempt to sidestep the entire argument and condone the laws I here repudiate. The argument is essential to free exchange and association, for despite wishes to the contrary, government is not morally authorized to compel me to pay people (with my own money) I would otherwise not wish to.

Remember, government does not have any authority that we citizens do not inherently and originally have. Delegated power cannot assume new authority unless we the people first had it, and then granted it to the government. Since you on your own cannot force me to associate with somebody against my will, it stands that the government does and should not have this authority either.

The laws do not legislate the hiring of or promotion of an individual based on minority status, but rather that you cannot refuse employment to a person, nor terminate employment, nor refuse service, nor make subject your offered service to any individual simply because they are in a minority. More simply put, business owners are only restricted in that they must act upon reason (and it can be any other reason… read the legislation itself) other than racism, discrimination, hate, etc.

The foundation of your suggested idea is based on a misconception of such civil-rights legislation, and how it is applied within the legal system.

And as one who has studied the economy (and economists) extensively, bare in mind that any attempt to foresee economic impact is akin to a roll of the dice at the craps table. Guesswork. Conjecture. Speculation. The best economists attempt to foresee, but still base their theory and policy advising to that which can be sighted in precedent, much like our system of law. Parsing the “economic impact” of legislation that relates to the balance of personal liberties is a horrible and dysfunctional method for achieving justice within a legal system, or understanding the correlation between “fairness” in a system and the overall health and stability of an economy. Look simply to any country with a wobbling economic structure, and you will see (always) an ongoing, or fairly recent history of civil-rights abuse against other races, women, homosexuals, coupled with battling factions of religious persecution.

Your missing the forest for the trees here in what amounts to the straw man argument that I, as a business owner, will be discriminated against as a result of laws meant to stop me from discriminating against others. Ridiculous. I simply have to operate my business fairly, honestly, and without irrational prejudice or animosity toward my fellow man, and I will be free to prosper, despite these “horrible” laws you wish stricken down.

It’s also the same argument the southern establishment used in the 1950′s and 60′s to defend their “right” to enforce segregation.