Nondiscrimination mandates, commerce, and religious liberty:
That church in the northwest that it was reported was being sanctioned for not marrying a gay couple
-turned out:
--it was a business, registered for profit and not as a church
and
--it married divorcees, Jews and Muslims, etc. even did a wedding for cats
--you can't treat differently based only on personal animus alone
Well why/what is the reason to all of that, above?
If there's going to be any discrimination at all, should it be on a sign so that everyone can see it as they enter, so that members of the discriminated group can avoid the experience of being rejected after spending time at the establishment/expend any opportunity costs, and so that allies can refuse to patronize them
or is no sign better, perhaps so as to not throw one's opinion of inferiority/immorality in their face?
(This seems like an example of the internecine lefty dispute between those with a focus on rhetoric and symbolism and those with a focus on material conditions.)
So private discrimination in commerce is ok when it's in the form of a boycott.
That is even considered the case when what is being discriminated against is viewed as an immoral practice, homophobic discrimination.
So boycotting some people for their immoral behavior in boycotting homophobic discriminators is OK, but boycotting what is perceived to be immoral behavior in game marriages is not OK?
Of course I agree, but not without violating content neutrality.
So it's not exactly: "
Private/civil society action against discriminator's legitimate?
And public/government action/interference against discriminators not OK?
Actual reason for all of the civil rights act, including nondiscrimination mandates for public accommodations:
-both constitutionally and philosophically, regulating private property can be permissible because it can be justified for government interference to remedy harms caused by government interference in the first place. The effect of slavery and legal discrimination doesn't automatically stop immediately when equity is achieved in current policy; policy can have long-term effects. Hence, the federal government can legitimately interfere in the private market place of public accommodations, and "separate but equal" can never be truly equal because of persisting "badges of inferiority".
And as a means of achieving equality/non-discrimination in society, government intervention was necessary and actions of civil society could never fully achieve it.
The Becker argument, while commonly portrayed by free-market and Chicago types as an example of what made him endearing/endeared, that the free market will reward non-discrimination and punish discrimination as much as theories of racial superiority are wrong because it is arbitrarily restricting their supply of labor. It's supposed to be an example of what makes Becker cute and lovable because it demonstrates that the free market can solve discrimination, supporting
But of course this argument doesn't apply when the consumers want and will pay for that discrimination.
-Discrimination against experiences versus discrimination against persons
-only against formally/officially recognize protective classes? How do you discover a protected class?
Is withholding tax exempt status using government/public force/coercion?
I think ultimately the way to answer all these questions about what is and is not discrimination and or what is permissible of what is discussed here is: how much is your discrimination/unwillingness to transact a denial of the means of survival or a voluntary and justly free cessation/withdrawal of mutually beneficial cooperation: I don't want to harm you/stop you from working/deny you the means of survival, but I just don't want to help you get it.
add in between private discrimination at once home through open houses and open parties to public accommodations, and businesses.
No comments:
Post a Comment