Discrimination as a Right

In my last article, which covered SB 1062 (recently vetoed by Arizona governor Jan Brewer), I stated that it was my belief that discrimination is a right. It was my estimation that people would understand what I meant and agree with me; however, I've had several personal requests to clarify, so I'm going to do so here.

Discrimination as a Right in Private

The Constitution protects the right of individuals to say what they please, to whomever they please, be it in private or in public. While you may not be protected if you lie or speak in a manner that purposefully incites violent action, you are protected in your right to insult people, verbally berate them, or to simply choose not to converse with them.

This is discrimination in its purest form and is protected not only by our society but by the written document that forms the foundation of our government.

Similarly, it is an intrinsic belief of American society that individuals have the right to interact with only those they choose when it comes to things such as making friends or having romantic relationships. While it may not condone, or even allow, all types of relationships, things such as arranged marriages, legal enforcement of friendship with certain individuals, and the like all seem antithetical to America as a concept.

Again, discrimination in private is a large aspect of what makes America how it is.

I would, in fact, argue that it is difficult, if not impossible, to have a free society where personal, private discrimination is not upheld as a right, both socially and legally.

Discrimination as a Right in Public

In public, the Constitution again provides us with some guidelines. Specifically, that the right to assembly includes the right to assemble for any reason, including to profess beliefs that are discriminatory in nature.

This right is considered of great importance to a free society and inherently allows for the spread of discriminatory beliefs.

Similarly, it is my personal belief that individuals should largely be able to discriminate when it comes to business. If you don't wish to server a specific group of people, you should not have to.

The Limits of Rights

My belief is undoubtedly an unpopular one with many people. However, I feel I have to make it clear that, even though I believe discrimination is a right I do not believe that it is right. And, perhaps more importantly, that right has limitations, just like any other right.

We can go right back to the right of free speech to see that this must be the case. Free speech lets you say whatever you want. Except for what you can't. Slander is a great example here, as is shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded building.

Other rights have limitations attached to them, and so does discrimination.

If we're talking about discrimination in business transactions, there are many great examples. Probably the best is the southern United States after the Civil War. Pretty much all businesses were owned by whites and, "coincidentally," pretty much all the businesses discriminated against blacks. As a result, that right of discrimination turned into an overpowering burden on people of color.

Eventually, the problem was corrected through legislation. This was a great and a necessary thing, as in this case one group's exercise of an essential rights were placing an unreasonable burden on the lives of others.

As a counter-example, I was once banned from eating at a local restaurant. That ban occurred as a result of actions taken by family over which I had no control and took no part in. I would say that this is a clear-cut example of acceptable discrimination. I may not agree with it or with the reasoning behind it, but it does not place an unreasonable burden on myself and I would defend his right to continue discriminating against me. Probably not with my life, because I'm not that sort of person. Maybe in court? Or something like that.

Going back to SB 1062, it is my belief that the bill is acceptable only insofar as the discrimination did not place an unreasonable burden on any one individual or group. If, for instance, it became difficult for individuals of the LGBT community to find a place to purchase groceries, the bill would clearly have overstepped its boundaries. Outside of that occurrence, which I find fairly unlikely, the bill simply legislates what should have already been a fundamental right of doing business - discrimination.