A few states have been experimenting with laws that allow private businesses the privilege of refusing service to people. The laws are specifically aimed at religious people. The idea is that they should be able to refuse service to somebody provided that offering that service would somehow violate their religious tenets.
It isn't uncommon for these laws to be called "anti-LGBT," or "homophobic," or even "racist." The logic in these accusations rests on the presumption that homosexuals will be denied service by religious business owners.
Frankly, the argument shouldn't be held over "religious rights." Since when did we have to start disguising basic property rights as religious rights in order to have them protected? A business owner ought to have the right to refuse service to anybody, anytime, for any reason.
Hear me out. It sounds cruel, but the opposite is much worse. First of all, if we acknowledge that people have natural rights including property rights, then the debate stops there. If they truly own their business and their labor, then they ought to be able to do what they like with it. Now, we can extend this argument into a hypothetical.
Hypothetically, let's imagine that I build chairs. I'm a chair-builder. In a free market, I own my means of production. That means that I own my place of business, my tools, and my labor. It also means I'm the one taking the risk with my business. I'm subject to either a loss or a profit.
Now, imagine a vegan walks into my place of business. Imagine that the vegan offers me some money in return for building him a chair. Hypothetically, as one who eats meat, perhaps I'm not comfortable with the thought of this man having a vegan meal while sitting in a chair that I built. Since I own my place of business, my tools, and my labor, I should have the ability to refuse that man service. Even if he [i]wasn't[/i] vegan, I should still have that right.
If I'm not allowed to refuse by law, a precedent is set. Laws are enforced by violence and the threat of violence, obviously. If I am not allowed to refuse service to someone, the state is in essence [i]forcefully compelling[/i] me to build chairs. I no longer own my labor. The state does. Not only is this counterintuitive to a free market, it's also a blatant violation of my natural rights.
The hypothetical situation I gave would be an example of private discrimination. Public discrimination (discrimination by the state) is unjustified, since the state must represent its constituents equally.
So, what are your thoughts on discrimination?
-
2 RepliesIts very ironic.