🚀 go-pugleaf

In <74792@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt5254a@prism.gatech.EDU (William Dennis Herrin) writes:

>  The question then comes to 'why?" and the answer is: history. We discovered
>that you could garuntee blacks equal rights under the law, but if a large
>percentage of businesses subsequently refused to do business with them, then
>they did not, in reality, have equal rights. And if you can't see how
>large percentages of businesses refusing to do business with blacks is
>relevant to whether or not a business owner should have the right to do
>business with gays, well, oh well.


I'm not convinced that using the government as a great blunt
instrument to beat the heads of the people who don't behave
in the ways YOU think are proper is any better.

If you don't like a business's practice of discrimination,
cease to supply that business with your money.  Tell them
why you stopped giving them your money.  Tell everyone you
`know that you stopped patronizing their establishment, and
why.  If the people (public) agrees, then the business
feels plenty of pressure, without the use of force.  If the
public doesn't agree, and continues to patronize that business,
then you have lost in a most democratic battle, in which case,
the public wouldn't have agreed with your law anyway.  But
for a powerful government elite to pass laws which tell you
what you can do with your private property, and this includes
your business (who you transact with and whom you employ),
this looks awful oppressive to me.  Worse than some small
businesses discriminating agains some somewhat ill-defined
segments of society.

--D
-- 
+++ David S. Meyers (dmeyers@math.gatech.edu)  *** PGP key avail.! *** +++