on the constitutionality of anti-discrimination laws:

I submit that anti-discrimination laws (on a personal level) violate an individual's freedom of association and sometimes their right to contract. I further submit that these laws do have a place in our society, but only up to the point where the rights of the "discriminator" are violated.

In the united States, individuals have the right to associate (or not) with whomever they wish, and the right to enter into contracts (or not) with whomever they wish, for any reason they feel justified. However, some anti-discrimination laws violate those rights by forcing contracts upon unwilling parties in the name of "fairness".

Here are two versions of a scenario with a very slight difference, which illustrates where I believe the line should be drawn, and the rationale behind that line.

Let us suppose that an individual owns an extra house, which he offers for rent. This "business is not incorporated, and the income from it is considered the personal income of the individual. His finances are not held separate from the house in the eyes of the law. He is a very religious person who believes that living together before marriage is sinful, and he refuses to support such activity on moral grounds. An unmarried couple seeks to rent the house, and he turns them away, citing these moral grounds in as inoffensive a manner as possible. He can then be sued for discrimination.

In this case, where is his right not to enter into conrtact with the couple, and therefore support a lifestyle to which he is opposed? His personal fortune is tied up in the house and he is unprotected financially from any disaster befalling the property (lawsuits included). I believe he has the right to discriminate in this instance, and for any other reason, because the "business" has no legal protection.

Now let us suppose the same scenario, with one change: The rental property is a regular incorporated business separate from the owner, and enjoys the protection offered by such an arrangement (limited liability, etc.) In this case, I believe that in exchange for the protection the business must not discriminate. This is partly because the owner has waived those rights in exchange for those protections where it relates to the business. I also believe that those protections came ,in part, from the individuals that the owner might seek to discriminate against. I see it as a voluntary contract, in that sense, so he cannot renig on his side of the contract.


Comments are welcome.