Discrimination and prejudice have been given a bad name. The political-correctness nazis have succeeded, or, better said, we've stood by and allowed them to succeed in painting us into a corner when it comes to our freedoms of association and exchange.
I have the right to be/deal with whomever I wish. If I own a business and I don't want to serve black people or Mexicans or whomever, for whatever reason, I don't have to serve them, period. Now, I didn't say it was legal not to serve certain people or that I wouldn't get into trouble. But remember, rights aren't granted by the government or even by the constitution. Rights are granted by God.
Now, you may say that it would be wrong for me to refuse to serve certain people. And I might be inclined to agree with you. But, is it right that I should be forced by the government to associate or exchange with people with whom, if I were free, I wouldn't choose to associate/exchange?
Who gets to decide what's appropriate or good, if not me? Who gets to draw that line? Most would say, for instance, that it's ok for me to discriminate against one customer who offers to pay less than another customer, all other factors being equal. So, is that the line in the sand? Do we just all agree on it and then abide by it. Is there no individuality? No individual inalienable right to free association.exchange?
Let me see if I can bring this closer to home, literally. Part of the recent debate on the subject also holds that, for instance, if you own a duplex, you can't "discriminate" against potential renters. Really? So, what's the rule? First come, first serve? You suspend reason and judgement and randomly draw a name out of a hat? Or is there a rational way to meet with each potential renter and select whom you think is the best one? Remember, whatever your selection, you are discriminating against each and every one of the other hopefuls. You prejudiced crumb! Oh, wait, I get it. It's ok to discriminate against all of those other potential renters, as long as the person you selected is a member of a protected minority, right? Or as long as you can somehow prove that you used no untoward criteria in your decision, such as race, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, religious affiliation (certainly you couldn't turn away a cagey looking group of twenty something Muslim men. Please, can we please start profiling...but, I digress.) etc., etc. Well, let me see. Let's say someone shows up on your doorstep one night. You don't know him. You have a bad feeling about him. You see no reason to trust him. Too bad. You have to let him in. You can't discriminate against him by turning him away. Oh, I forgot to mention, he's a minority. Yep- mi casa su casa, come on in. How long will you be staying? Am I, as a white male, allowed to stay while you're here? No? Oh well. At least I can find solace in the fact that I'm not a _____ist.
This is illustrating absurdity by being absurd. Read that last sentence back to yourself. Yes, it's absurd to deny even white, rich males their rights of free association/exchange. And it's self-defeating. It looks pretty good when the rich white guy loses his rights, but what will you do when they come and take yours?
Now, am I stupid if I don't serve certain people, say, black people, in my business? Is it wrong? Well, I'd say yes. But I maintain that I have that right.
And Walter E. Williams, a black man, agrees with me, as illustrated in his column, "The Right to Discriminate."
No comments:
Post a Comment