Anti-discrimination Laws are Anti-choice

Discrimination means recognizing the difference between to or more things. Every choice that we make is an act of discrimination. To oppose discrimination is to oppose freedom of choice. Anti-discrimination laws are anti-choice.

As an example, consider laws that prohibit “source of income” discrimination in housing. Such laws force landlords to accept housing vouchers, regardless of the property owner’s desires or choices. These laws negate the landlord’s freedom of choice.

As another example, employers are prohibited from discriminating on the basis of religion. It would be illegal for the owner of a Christian bookstore to refuse to hire an applicant because he is Muslim. Such anti-discrimination laws prohibit business owners from acting as they think best.

Undoubtedly, some individuals will use irrelevant or irrational criteria for evaluating others. They may use race or gender or sexual orientation in judging others when such criteria are irrelevant (in certain contexts, those criteria may be relevant). However, the fact that some people make poor choices does not justify anti-discrimination laws.

The freedom to choose is not contingent on making rational choices. It is not applicable only when we make choices with which others agree. The freedom to choose protects our freedom to make good choices and bad choices. Individuals have a right to be wrong.

When others make decisions with which we disagree, we have a choice. We can attempt to persuade them of their error, we can refuse to deal with them, or we can force them to act as we think proper.

If we want the freedom to choose, then we must protect and defend freedom of choice for others. This is particularly important for those who make unpopular choices. Those outside of the mainstream—such as bigots and homophobes—are often forced to act contrary to their own choices. However, anti-discrimination laws do not eliminate bigotry.

The proper response to racism, homophobia, and other forms of irrational discrimination is not the coercive method of anti-discrimination laws. The proper response is to shun and ostracize the guilty parties.

Similar Posts

  • |

    Rules of Evidence

    In a court trial, specific rules govern what evidence is admissible. According to Wikipedia The law of evidence, also known as the rules of evidence, encompasses the rules and legal principles that govern the proof of facts in a legal proceeding. The purpose of these principles is to assure a fair and impartial trial. However,…

  • An American Inquisition

    Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr recently wrote, “Broadcasters that are running hoaxes and news distortions — also known as the fake news — have a chance now to correct course before their license renewals come up. The law is clear. Broadcasters must operate in the public interest, and they will lose their licenses if…

  • |

    Facts vs. Fear

    A recent study conducted in New York State concluded that 13.9 percent, or about 2.7 million, of the state’s residents have been infected with the coronavirus. That number is ten times higher than the state’s official count of 269,000. While government officials were quick to point out that these are preliminary results, it supports a…

  • A Mixed Bag

    Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis recently signed a bill that bans rent control and removes some zoning regulations. While these are both positive measures—they are a step towards greater freedom—other provisions in the bill are anti-freedom. The bill, like DeSantis, is a mixed bag. As an example, local governments are now required to approve multi-family developments…

  • When we Disagree

    Rational people do not always agree on the proper course of action. They may not possess the same knowledge of the issue or put more emphasis on some facts. They may have different values or goals. When rational people disagree on the proper course of action, they attempt to persuade one another. They present facts…