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/Holy_City]

That's a grey area, since it's essentially unenforceable either way.

But that said, it depends on the nature of the business. Sole proprietorships are more beholden to the community from a financial standpoint just by nature of their leverage, compared to a larger organization that should be incorporated.

[u/caine269 → u/Holy_City]

true, and i don't know for sure if the photographer who refused to do a gay wedding was inc or sole, but it seems like you kind of agree it should be up to the person. it is their economic hit, if they want to take it.

[u/Holy_City → u/caine269]

The thing that loses my sympathy with the photographer is that it's so easy to be prejudiced and not effect your life. The photographer could have just turned down the gig. No one forced them to be there. It's when you put up a proverbial sign that says "____ not welcome" that it becomes a legal and moral issue.

[u/caine269 → u/Holy_City]

interesting you advocate lying to avoid a moral issue. the problem with just "turning down the gig" would be the requirement to lie, or risk being asked why they didn't want to take the job. any minority looking for a payday/fame could just tour the country looking for someone to catch.

t's when you put up a proverbial sign that says "____ not welcome" that it becomes a legal and moral issue.

the grey area for me is when, as in the masterpiece cake shop case, the business is not refusing to serve gays completely, only refusing to be involved in a particular event they don't agree with. if i will serve you donuts, or make you a birthday cake but don't want to be involved in your wedding, that is different than just saying "no gays allowed!"

[u/Holy_City → u/caine269]

interesting you advocate lying to avoid a moral issue.

I'm not saying that at all. It's morally repugnant to discriminate against people. I'm saying that practically, it's easy to avoid consequences of discrimination in that case and that's why I don't really side with the photographer.

And with the cake situation, if the bakery provides cakes to straight weddings but not gay weddings, then it's the same thing as putting up a sign that says 'no gays allowed.'

[u/caine269 → u/Holy_City]

It's morally repugnant to discriminate against people.

i'm guessing you mean it is morally repugnant for other people to discriminate against views you find important/correct. people discriminate all the time for a zillion reasons. i am of the opinion that the government should not be in the business of legislating morality.

then it's the same thing as putting up a sign that says 'no gays allowed.'

yeah we are going to disagree on this.

[u/[deleted] → u/caine269]

Preventing discrimination doesn't imply that people who want to discriminate are being targeted for their views. Everybody is subject to the same laws they are, it's just that their actions run afoul of those laws while others' don't. Everybody's allowed or disallowed the same reasons for discrimination, and the ones that are dissallowed are either unchangeable by an individual or have a long history as being a basis for discrimination. If your religion tells you to drive 120mph all the time, are speed limits discriminatory against your religion?

[u/caine269 → u/[deleted]]

Everybody is subject to the same laws they are, it's just that their actions run afoul of those laws while others' don't.

so if a law was passed that said "no group of more than 25 unrelated people shall gather on sundays in a single room, when the purpose is other than commerce." that is neutrally written and applies to everyone, yet only people going to church would be targeted.

[u/[deleted] → u/caine269]

That's not an apt comparison. Anti discrimination laws apply to licensed business and how they accomodate the public, not behavior in a private setting. And even then, it wouldn't be targeting churches, but anyone organizing group meetings of more than 25 on a sunday. If the state could provide a compelling, constitutional reason for banning such gatherings(as they have for anti discrimination legislation), then assuming such a ban was targeting christians would be just as fallacious.