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.