Sponsored Links

[Right Stuff News]

business, which are unable to discriminate based on ethnicity, gender, religion, &c.

This is a violation of the right to associate freely (which includes the right to not associate).

That's the best justifcation for racism in hiring or firing that I've ever seen.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9801/06/scouts.court.update/

The cases hinge on whether the Boy Scouts should be considered a business or a private organization. If the justices determine the Scouts are a business, the organization would be subject to California's civil rights act, which prohibits businesses from discriminating because of religion, sexual orientation and other factors.

I believe that if someone says they are in favor of negative rights, qualified with a "but..." clause, they are not in favor of them at all. This came up in the Boy Scouts of America thread.

Some posters said that businesses are not free to associate with whomever they want, that businesses are unable to discriminate based on their whims. The argument from intimidation that only a bigot would demand rights was made: "That's the best justifcation for racism in hiring or firing that I've ever seen."

Bigotry is bad, but it is not an initiation of force. As such, no retaliatory force is justified. Being discriminatory is an economic disadvantage, which is enough for me.

Figured out how to quote correctly

This post has been edited by Right Stuff News: Jan 14 2004, 04:15 AM