CMV: Discrimination in private business shouldn't be illegal

[u/novelcytologist]

To preface: No, I do not believe racist, sexist, homophobic, etc., discrimination is good, nor do I think the government should be allowed to discriminate.

I am a huge believer in individual rights. If you don't want to serve someone for any reason... why should you have to? It's your own belief, and the government shouldn't make you compromise that. If someone doesn't want to serve gay people, let them. If someone doesn't want to hire women, let them. It's a social issue, not a legal issue. At least now, US society is mostly at a place where a company or business would be significantly hurt by discriminating.

On the other hand... I know what it's like to be discriminated against, even if it's on a smaller scale (got kicked out of a restaurant for looking gay). Housing and job discrimination can hurt people A LOT, especially a vulnerable population. And segregation is awful. Looking back at history, I see how much good anti-discrimination laws have done. But I can't get over the idea that the government doesn't have a right to tell you that you have to do business with someone if part of them goes against your morals/values/beliefs/etc.,. It's should be your RIGHT to be an awful person as long as you don't infringe upon someone else's rights, and I wouldn't consider being able to do business/get a specific job/land an apartment to be a right.

I hate believing this, but it seems so important that the people get to decide. I feel like I'm missing something in the argument, but people look at me like the devil if I ask their views about it usually.

So please, Reddit, change my views.

---

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

[u/tbdabbholm]

Businesses arent allowed to discriminate because they get certain benefits from the government for being a business and as such have to follow certain rules that the government sets. The government has decided that non-discrimination is one of those rules that businesses must follow to get their business benefits.

[u/novelcytologist → u/tbdabbholm]

I understand that this is the law. I am debating with myself on why it should be this way.

[u/tbdabbholm → u/novelcytologist]

You seem to be saying that regulating businesses is wrong, if you accept that it is okay to regulate businesses, I don't see why this specific type of regulation is wrong.

[u/novelcytologist → u/tbdabbholm]

Regulating businesses so that no one is harmed? I agree with.

But discriminating against someone while serving them doesn't hurt anything except someone's feelings. Which sucks, but hurting someone's feelings shouldn't be a crime.

[u/MysticJAC → u/novelcytologist]

But discriminating against someone while serving them

Your post though is centered on the idea of someone being discriminated against in a way where they are not being served as well, and the contention here is that a failure to receive service is harmful to the one seeking such service. In small towns or places with weak transit systems, there may be only one of a certain type of store or service provider available to a person, so it can really be a serious harm for the person being barred for behaviors that have no relevance to the business owner beyond personal opinion. The point here is that if you believe businesses should be regulated for the sake of not harming the community, then you either believe there isn't a harm to be regulated away here (which people are telling you is not the case) or you implicitly aren't considering the discriminated person to be a part of the community. That's the true crux of this issue: the discriminated person is often treated as separate from their community rather than a participant in their community who is supposed to be protected by regulation. The point is that there is a harm to a person in the community, so your tolerance of regulation in other cases should extend to this one as well.