You are hiring a babysitter. You can choose between a teenage girl who has no babysitting experience, or a paroled child molester who was a kindergarten teacher for 5 years. Is it discrimination to choose the less qualified candidate?
Yes. And the right to discriminate is a basic necessity of human interaction. It is about ensuring both parties in any interaction have given consent.
Okay, that was an extreme example. But what if KKK members came to the black owners of a clothing company, and forced them to make their robes? That is more reminiscent of the latest gay customer discrimination case.
A t-shirt printing company refused to print shirts for a gay pride event, citing religious beliefs. Actually, this happened five years ago, and another court just affirmed that the business does not have to provide services in this case because the owners objected to spreading the message of the group: gay pride.
This differs from the gay cake baking and flower arranging cases because in those instances the business owners were not objecting to spreading a message, but the actual behavior of the gay customers. So this case isn’t really a victory for consensual interactions, it is just a technicality.
Interactions should require consent on the part of all parties. The business owner should not be forced to provide services just as the customer is not forced to buy them (unless compelled by government, but that is another issue).
Just reverse the situation and anyone can see that the right to discriminate is necessary. What if the Westboro Baptist Church went into a gay t-shirt maker’s business and demanded 100 shirts that say “God hates fags.” Should they be forced to comply, or are they allowed to discriminate?
Making moral distinctions between what type of discrimination is okay will change with the time, place, and attitudes of the population.
The citizens, local, and state governments in various places and times throughout the country would absolutely support forcing the gay business owners to print anti-gay shirts. We shouldn’t have to depend on the majority to agree with us in order to exercise our right to discriminate. No one should be forced to do something without their consent.
The article explaining the case goes through the issue complaining the whole time that the shirts weren’t even promoting being gay, they were just acknowledging it.
But this is entirely beside the point. Having KKK cloaks made wouldn’t be promoting racism, just acknowledging it.
It doesn’t matter why the business owner wants to discriminate, they shouldn’t have to cite religious reasons, they should be able to refuse service to whomever they want, for whatever reason. Customers can decide whether they want to deal with them.
Then the article claims that since the company advertised the services, it has no right to then withdraw the offer. But when we look at consent for sexual intercourse, clearly either party has the right to withdraw consent for sex at any time, even if they previously advertised it. Just because someone says in a text that they want to have sex, doesn’t mean they can be raped if they later refuse.
If you want to be able to kick Nazis, KKK members, and child molesters out of your business, then you have to accept that some businesses will also kick out the groups they object to, whether that is right or wrong, even if they are intolerant bigots.
I personally think that businesses who refuse to serve gay people are silly. It doesn’t make any sense from a business perspective to refuse customers unless you are looking for attention or actually think serving those customers would hurt your business in the end.
I also doubt these business owners are applying their religion accurately and evenly. They probably choose to discriminate more against certain people they think are sinners (gays), versus others (adulterers).
And my personal thoughts do not matter at all. I get to choose not to go to those businesses, and I get to encourage others to boycott them. I can even write articles saying how mean and nasty and stupid the owners are if I wish.
But what I shouldn’t be able to do is use the government’s guns to get my way, and force a business to accept my money in exchange for their services.
If everyone is legally prevented from discriminating, I might inadvertently give my business to a company who actually hates gays, but is legally forced to hide that. I would personally rather have it in the open who doesn’t want my gay business.
Why on earth do some gays demand to give their money to a business who doesn’t like them? In these instances, the progressives seem to accidentally admit that businesses provide much-needed services.
But wait, I thought businesses were exploitative tricksters who oppress their employees and con their customers? Shouldn’t we be thanking the business owners for refusing to exploit the gays?
