The 'D' Word...

One of the most misunderstood and controversial positions of libertarianism is the freedom of (dis)association. The PC buzzword for it is now 'discrimination'. This has been popping up more and more recently, primarily in regards to news items about private businesses "discriminating" against gays. In Kansas, for example, their House passed a bill allowing businesses to discriminate against gays based on religious grounds. The bill died in the senate just days later but not before major media networks picked up on it and created a frenzy among gay rights advocates and supporters thereof.

Just on its heels comes another major piece of state legislation up for approval in Arizona which asserts almost the same rights as the bill in Kansas, that businesses can deny service to gays based upon religious grounds. This bill is currently awaiting approval or veto from Governor Jan Brewer. 

Such legislation has been the result of a few high-profile cases of businesses discriminating against gay customers, like the cake baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple or the innkeepers in the U.K. who wouldn't let any unmarried couples, gay or straight, occupy the same room.

Let me be clear, I am not anti-gay. I gave monthly donations to the Human Rights Campaign for over a year before having to cut back due to finances. I favor allowing adoption for gay couples. I am in support of gay marriage. That being said, I also believe in private property rights and free speech. Private property entails being able to do what you please with your own property, including inviting (or not) people of your choosing to visit or do business with you.

Would anyone condemn a black store owner who refused to do business with a skinhead? I don't think so. Why is it okay for the skinhead to be denied service but not a gay person? Recently, acquitted killer cop Manuel Ramos, who was found not guilty for the savage beating death of a mentally ill homeless man, was forced out of a restaurant by fellow patrons. In response to the legislation in Arizona, some storefronts are posting signs reserving the right to refuse service to Arizona legislators. George Zimmerman is assuredly not welcome at many establishments he might like to frequent. There should be no problem with any of this. Each of these businesses has the right to discriminate against the skinheads, George Zimmermans, legislators, saggy pants wearing teens, or gay people of the world. Government's only role in any of this should be to enforce the rights of people to use their private property how they see fit.

Do I agree with the discriminatory practices of denying gays service? Of course not. But I do defend the right of people to conduct their business according to their beliefs. Much like Voltaire famously said, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I will also defend the rights of the consumer to boycott, petition, write negative reviews, or otherwise inform people of the discriminatory practices of these businesses. No government action is required.

Art Carden explains it another way in his article about this same topic. In his words,

"Calling on government to purify others' hearts and minds opens Pandora's box, pushes us farther down a very slippery slope, and invites all sorts of other hackneyed cliches. I hope that people find discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, physical "handicaps," and other arbitrary criteria morally repugnant. I do. However, my disapproval of another's attitude does not give me the right to use force to correct their erroneous ways. Indeed, it may backfire."

Precisely. What proponents of anti-discrimination laws are really calling for is for men with badges and guns to force others to accept the beliefs, ideas, or values of someone else. Forcing others to believe the same as you do through government's monopoly of force is not the best way to deal with people with irrational beliefs. Art Carden summed up his article like so,

"When we use force to restrict others' liberty, we endanger our own.
Governments coerce others with a two-edged sword: giving the state the power to do things you like necessarily requires giving the state the power to do things you don't like, and giving the state the power to restrict behavior of which you don't approve gives them the power to restrict behavior of which you do approve. The right way to change hearts and minds is not coercion. It is persuasion."

One final point about all this, and I will hat tip one of my favorite interweb figures, The Libertarian Homeschooler (find her on Facebook here, her blog can be found here, she is on Instagram @thelibertarianhomeschooler, but alas is not on Twitter yet despite my pleas). When we ban something, be it a substance or a behavior, all we do is drive that behavior underground and out of sight. It doesn't mean that behavior is eliminated. It just becomes secret and when it becomes secret, it can't be addressed either in society or in the market. Let's put it this way, wouldn't you rather know up front that you're dealing with a bigot and make the decision yourself to do or not do business with that person? Or would you rather unknowingly subsidize their bigotry by still giving them money because they have to keep their idiotic thoughts to themselves? I would prefer to knowingly vote with my dollars and give my money to non-bigots than unknowingly give it to bigots. Bigots also have the right to not want to accept money from people who wish to do business with them in exchange for services.

We all discriminate all day, every day for various reasons and based on dozens of criteria, not all of them rational. Nay, it's the only way to base a decision. Walter Block contends in his book The Case for Discrimination that "...discrimination -- choosing one thing over another -- is an inevitable feature of the material world where scarcity of goods and time is the pervasive feature. There is no getting around it. You must discriminate, and therefore you must have the freedom to discriminate, which only means the freedom to choose. Without discrimination, there is no economizing taking place." We pass by various store fronts and either decide to shop there or not based on the silliest reasons: the font of their store front, the neighborhood it's in, a friend of a friend of a friend said her aunt's hair dresser had a bad experience there. Heck, I'm amazed to see work trucks that have political bumper stickers on them. Passing by certain trucks I do think to myself "Gee, I guess I know who not to do business with now, clearly they're a bunch of dumbasses." Is that right of me? Probably not. But I'd bet dollars to donuts that we've all had crazy thoughts like that and have made decisions based on far less of criteria. Should we all go to jail or be fined?

I would prefer to live in a society where we can openly talk about these things and engage our neighbors in peaceful attempts to change hearts and minds instead of driving the problem underground. Will it end bigotry? Unfortunately not. But neither will enacting laws that essentially amount to thoughtcrime that must be enforced by the modern day equivalent of the Thought Police. In the end, we must decide whether discrimination is an issue that we would rather be decided in the public sphere by government, whose only tool of persuasion is the barrel of a gun, and the necessary increase in power it gives to government which can and will be used against us all one day, or whether we think we as a society can be trusted to do the right thing on our own and slowly, yet peacefully learn to exercise tolerance for those who are different from us.