Quote of the Day
Discovery consists of looking at the same thing as everyone else
and thinking something different.
Albert Szent-Gyorgy
Chart of the Day
 |
| Via Cato Institute |
Liberty vs. Compulsory Sales: Political Correctness Run Amok
It's the sort of distinction that's too subtle for most people: is a discriminatory policy part of public policy or private policy. The question of
Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment is clear: no state could discriminate; but what about privately-held public accommodations (restaurants, hotels, stores, private schools) where owners had implemented
Jim Crow-like policies? One could argue discriminatory policies in the private sector were counterproductive, even morally-reprehensible, but do I have the right to tell a store owner how to run his business, whom he has to service, etc.? As an entrepreneur I'm more than willing to take advantage of a competitor's stupidity... But take, for instance, a specialty shop, like a tall women's clothing store; is the store discriminating, say, against petite women or plus-sized women if it doesn't carry their preferred sizes? I submit that the invisible hand works: where there is an unmet consumer need, suppliers will seize on the opportunity to fulfill that need. In the case of the public accommodations, the 1964 Civil Rights Law invoked the
Commerce Clause (wrongly, in my judgment) to extend anti-discrimination policies to the private sector. (I say wrongly, since anyone with a modicum of economic literacy understands the Commerce Clause applies to guaranteeing a free market among the states (and between nations)). One could argue, perhaps for regulating discriminatory policies on transports across states, but SCOTUS has absurdly held the Commerce Clause allows the federal government to micromanage businesses within states and even non-transactions (like consuming one's own produce).
Now mere months after the dubious SCOTUS "gay marriage" decisions,
we have seen bad judges in New Mexico, Colorado, Washington and Oregon basically order Christian vendors (e.g., florists, photographers, and bakeries) whom don't want to service gay clients based on any or no reason (including religious moral beliefs) to do so. That's outrageous; it's a form of unconstitutional conscription. If a judge can do that, I want him to order a voluptuous Playboy Playmate to go out on a date with an unattractive obscure blogger... In the
Colorado baker's case (see below), Colorado is a traditional marriage state; a gay couple wanted a "gay wedding" in Massachusetts followed by a reception in Colorado. When a baker declined to fulfill a prospective cake offer, the gays unleashed the ACLU and a Colorado bureaucracy on him (because, as everybody knows, LGBT's are incapable of baking, snapping pictures, or growing flowers:; I'm being sarcastic, of course. A brief Internet search revealed LGBT-friendly New York bakers and eBay features a number of vendors selling gay wedding toppers, which you could put or replace on any standard wedding cake. This is all about attacking people whom disagree with your point of view. Who said this is America?)
