12 Comments

Equal actually meaning equal really sucks, eh?

Welcome to the PC BS the rest of us have had to endure for several years now… And which groups brought this about, anyway?

It seems to me this article is blowing things a bit out of proportion. To begin with, the practice of hotels banning straight guests is clearly wrong. Should gay bars be able to refuse to serve beer to straight patrons? It also does not seem (but I could be wrong here) that advertisements that show “a preference for some guests based on orientation” is banned at all.” Rather, I think the proposed ban is on advertisements which say that ONLY those with a certain sexual orientation are welcome. Let me know if that sounds like a minor semantic point to you all, but I think it is a distinction these hotel owners are trying to blur.

“This so-called anti-discrimination law is actually discriminatory as it discriminates against gays.”

Here’s a nice example of the way in which the word “discrimination” has been drained of its literal meaning and filled up with a partisan one. Or less. It now just means, “anything we (insert protected/favored group here) don’t like.” Joe Sobran, formerly of National Review, had a good line on this issue, if anyone remembers.

To me, “anti-discrimination” laws are the single worst erosion of freedom in the West – worse than taxation, worse than regulation, and certainly worse than nanny-state laws on trans fats. I can’t think of a purer manifestation of human freedom than to make the basic determination about whom you will live with, work with and go to school with. I would put this value up there with freedom of speech.

David–How literally do you mean that? Surely you’re not arguing that hiring signs that say “No Irish Need Apply” should be allowed? What about “Whites Only” lunch counters? Or do you really mean there should be no limits to the right to determine how companies choose who they associate with. These hotels not only say they prefer gay customers, they say that straights are not allowed to stay there. The argument is over whether that kind of discrimination should be against the law in England.

What if the hotel simply picked a name that ensured straight men wouldn’t WANT to sleep there?

“Surely you’re not arguing that hiring signs that say “No Irish Need Apply” should be allowed? What about “Whites Only” lunch counters?”

I once applied for a journalism internship with a name implying that whites were not eligible, and indeed, as I discovered while pursuing it, they were not. I was told that point-blank over the phone. What do you think of that?

And I have walked through an urban neighborhood outside a housing project and been told, by a presumably helpful police officer, that I should not be there. The police officer directed me to leave the area. The racial implication was unmistakable. What do you think of that?

A clear sign in either of those cases might have been helpful to me… or at least honest. I didn’t like being personally excluded. I would (and in the case of the internship, did) object, legally and otherwise. But as a broader philosophical issue, I think that a fundamental basis for liberty includes just such a right to exclude. The right of association is meaningless without that correlate. Freedom means a wide berth for personal preference, as well as acceptance of others’ freedoms to exclude you. And it is a mark of a mature person – as well as a mature society – to accept your rejection peacefully. Children can scream and yell that they must be included where they are not wanted, but is that the standard we should use? I might also quietly suggest that if one or one’s group is told that it is not wanted, one could start by asking (introspectively) why. But this point is strong enough that we need not (and perhaps should not) inquire into the reasoning for the preference. A woman who declines the advances of a man DOES NOT owe him an explanation. He must carry on his way.

Keep in mind that none of this includes government action. We are talking about private action – a distinction that no longer exists, under our Constitution, I admit – but that ought to be revived.

Look at it from the side of the excluders as well as the excluded – by forcing them to accept association, you are negating a felt personal preference in a pretty direct, even violent way. The literal physical space of the person is shattered. Their orbit of action is utterly usurped. And on WHAT BASIS? For the personal satisfaction of the would-be excluded? The would-be excluded has no such right, morally or, I would argue, in any other way. Compare it to a forced marriage, a forced sexual relationship, yea… a forced friendship? In most instances, the association transcends the merely commercial. (The common law of England favored the right to be left alone over the “right not to be excluded,” if it recognized that right at all. It went far enough in this direction to declare, always to the shock of law students, that one was under no legal duty to help a drowning man, and could merrily whistle past as he sank to his doom.) ALL THAT IS HAPPENING WITH AN ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAW IS THE SUBSTITUTION OF ONE PERSON’S NON-VIOLENT PREFERENCE FOR ANOTHER’S VIOLENT DEMAND.

But back to the commercial nature of the forced association – it can be pointed to as justifying my position – if there is a call in the market for the person’s desires, it should be met, no? If someone is too exclusive, as one argument might go, they’ll be driven out of business. If not, we’ll learn something, won’t we? Whole new markets would spring up for the excluded! Right?

I would say finally that I acknowledge a fair measure of social disruption that might occur if people were able to put up signs saying, “No Whites Allowed,” etc. But then we should ask – wasn’t the social disruption already there?

“David–How literally do you mean that? Surely you’re not arguing that hiring signs that say “No Irish Need Apply” should be allowed?”

I would certainly argue that. There are many things I find morally repugnant that I would much MUCH rather tolerate than have the government attempt to “fix”. This is one of the more obvious examples, actually.

Anti-discrimination is a genuine grey area. The antipathy to discrimination has a sound basis–that some group’s participation in the public life of society could be hugely degraded by persistent discrimination. One need only cite the Jim Crow South to see that is true.

Anti-discrimination rules are, of course, a restriction on liberty. The liberty to exclude. But they are also an expansion of liberty. The freedom to use. Which is why it is not a simple issue.

They do not abolish choice per se, they abolish exclusion by category. I suspect that was is needed is not a blanket ban, but a legal test which allows someone to discriminate in cases where there are sufficient alternatives that to permit said discrimination would not be a significant degradation of the liberty of others.

“But they are also an expansion of liberty. The freedom to use.”

The freedom to use OTHER PEOPLE’S STUFF WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION. In other circumstances, that’s called “theft”.

As I said, I consider it morally repugnant to discriminate by race. I have seen absolutely no government or proposal for government action to “fix” this problem that I do not consider much worse.

“Jim Crow” was morally repugnant writ large. The government solution to this problem has been to seriously impact the concept of property ownership society-wide in a very detrimental fashion. That’s not a good trade for anyone, not even the people supposedly being helped.

The freedom to purchase is not remotely theft.

Anti-discrimination law says that, if one is offering a service or good for sale, one cannot exclude potential buyers who are willing to pay the set price by category. It is an equal treatment provision requiring entrants to the commercial market place to treat willing buyers equally.

One might argue that a competitive enough market will undermine any attempt to discriminate. But that is an empirical claimm which will be true, or not, to varying degrees. Hence my suggested legal test.

It is hardly an outrageous intrusion on the rights of property to set rules for market entry. It can be an outrageous intrusion on membership of a society to permit a group to be widely treated as second-class commercial citizens.

Taking my stuff without my consent is either theft or taxation, take your pick.

And if it’s taxation, then it’s already illegal, because it is not applied in a fair and equitable manner.

I don’t want to give you something (whether you pay me for it or not or how much is immaterial), and the government says I have to. Theft or taxation, take your pick.

If you offering something for sale, you are making a statement of intending to consent to its purchase. If you suddenly withdraw that offer once someone attempts to take it up, not due to any likely failure to meet the implicit contract on their part but because of the (otherwise irrelevant) personal characteristics of the purchaser, then clearly that is an act of exclusion. It is also an insult.

It would be perfectly reasonable to require people to announce any such exclusions to avoid wasted approaches. It would, however, make the insult patent.

Banning such exclusions is not taxation–since there is no payment to the state and it is completely avoidable. Given that it expands potential buyers, it is not an imposition of commercial loss. It is setting a rule for market entry.

A diverse society may decide that it is wise not to permit those who wish to take part in commerce to offer such insults. It may also decide that it wishes all citizens to be able to participate freely in the commercial life of the society. We are not merely atomised individuals.

That being said, blanket bans are obviously going to run into the sort of problem involved in the gay inns case. Exclusions which neither degrade any group’s participation nor are intended as an insult shouldn’t be a concern of the law.