Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Fine; I’ve got that out of my system. We can start the actual post now.
Anti-discrimination laws are … problematic.
By definition, they are an attempt to force citizens to behave in a way that is contrary to their personal beliefs.
The State should not be doing that.
As citizens, we should be deciding for ourselves what is right; the State should not be allowed to make that decision for us. That’s kinda the whole point of this democracy thing we claim to be so fond of.
The problem with that, of course, is that a bunch of us are just plain jerks and a lot of us can’t agree on how a society should work or even who should be allowed to participate.
But the State should still not be allowed to force anyone to act contrary to their conscience no matter how much a majority may disagree with them.
(With an obvious exclusion for letting the State forbid actions that cause a direct harm. Which is not problematic to define at all. I’ll totally address that one in a later post.)
Oh, goody; I just love it when principle collides with reality.
In this case, a reasonable place to draw the line is with incorporation: we can write corporation law so that your personal beliefs are not relevant to the actions required of the corporation.
Want to not sell wedding cakes to homosexuals? Fine: as long as you’re operating as a sole-proprietorship (or a partneship where all partners are willing to sign on to that belief).
Want to have a single-sex club? Again, fine: as long as it’s a partnership where all members are willing to sign on to that belief.
Want to not hire pagans to mow your church lawn? Yet again, fine: as long as the church is a sole-proprietorship or a partnership where all parishoners are willing to sign on to that belief.
Want to be a corporation?
Then you’ll need to be willing to do business with anyone who walks in the door, consider membership applications from any qualified person, or hire anyone who’s capable of doing the job.
