Skullwaker said:
Don't get me wrong, I agree with your sentiment, but I believe people should at least have a choice. This is something that was at the center of the world's attention decades ago and has been resolved ever since, yet it's being brought up again? Very disconcerting, in my opinion. |
At that point it becomes a matter of property rights vs. anti-discrimination. If one is a liberal in a classical sense then they will believe that the owner has the private property right over the store and its goods, as well as themselves so they should be free to sell to whomever they wish. On the other hand, modern liberals believe in the concept of positive liberty where one is only free in so much that they are able to reach their projected ends. A classical liberal would argue that you can't have everybody be free in that circumstance, because in order for one group or person to reach their projected ends another must be limited. It gets very complicated, but basically the argument is how strongly does one have rights to their property? Personally, as a propertarian I think it is consistent to say that all people have full rights to themselves and their property and should be able to choose how they live their own lives and use their own property unless they restrict other people's usage of themselves and their property in some way (i.e stealing from them, enslaving them, or murdering them.) Since, in my opinion, discrimination would be very miniscule if it weren't for government mandating it (see discrimination in Northern states in 30-50's vs. Southern States) I think it is more harmful to society to weaken one's rights to their property and their liberty (what they can do with their things and with whom they do it.) I also think such laws make things so much more complicated, like identifying who truly is a respectable business owner and who isn't. That makes it a lot harder for me to make proper market decisions about who I want to give my money to so that they can profit.
