---

Hello Freedomphiles!  I have a new way of doing letters to the editor.  In each Freedom File, there is a button with my logo on it, saying to click it if you want to respond to the essay.  That button takes you to my discussion forums, and to the exact thread for that given Freedom File, where you may say anything you like about it – uncensored.

 

I also have a service where you can sign up for news updates, where I send you essays and news items I think are important and timely.  In each of those, there is a button you can follow to comment, take a poll, and see what other people are saying. 

 

While you are there, you can ask me any question about libertarianism, comment on current affairs, and generally make a nuisance out of yourself.

 

Now, sometimes, someone says something so thoughtful and intelligent – whether or not they agree with me – that I am forced to make a case out of it and send that letter out to each and every one of you.  I am going to do that very thing today.

 

But first things first.  An alert Freedomphile was reading one of my essays the other day in college, when a friend said, “Hey, a bunch of people on the debate team at Reagan High School in San Antonio read that.”  Now, I had no idea my influence spread that far.  So, if you are reading this, and you are one of those people – or anyone outside of Missouri and Illinois – drop me a note, tell me how you found my newsletter and what you think of it. 

 

Okay, our moment of insight comes from a reader in Saint Louis, MO, named Debbie.  She was reading the Freedom File entitled I Love My Dead Gay Son…  

 

The question:

 

“Rick, I can't believe you're saying this. Would it be ok for a company to refuse to hire someone just because they're Black or Jewish or Muslim? What about the disabled? What if they don't want to spend all that money to install wheelchair ramps etc? While the HRC might tell you that 92% of businesses do not discriminate in their hiring practices, you didn't mention that most of those businesses still do not offer domestic partner benefits to their gay and lesbian employees. Why should they if they don't have to? That's why we need federal protection under the law.

 

“I pay my taxes and except for my love of marijuana, I follow the laws of the land. Yet I'm still a second class citizen in this country. If you expect big business to do the right thing just because, well don't hold your breath. Bush is attempting to change the constitution to make sure that we are never allowed the same rights as our straight counterparts. Make no mistake. This administration has declared war on gays and lesbians in this country. Words and good intentions will not win the war. We must make the laws of the land represent all of the people. The civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's taught us that separate is NOT equal."

 

My answer:

 

I agree with your sentiment (I doubt you thought I wouldn't), and I agree that separate is not necessarily equal. I agree that the Federal Marriage Amendment is an attempt to enshrine injustice.

I believe that many components of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its amendments are also attempts to enshrine injustice. You asked me, "Would it be ok for a company to refuse to hire someone just because they're Black or Jewish or Muslim?" My answer is no, it would not be okay.

But it would be their right. I would never shop at those places, and would vocally admonish them for their bigoted practices, but would still defend their right to be fuckholes. It is the position I have taken on the Boy Scouts, as well. They have the right to discriminate against homosexuals, no matter how stupid and irrational it is. Unfortunately, because of those views, Connor will never get to be a part of their otherwise good organization, at least until they change that view.

There was a great episode of South Park called "Cripple Fight," where Big Gay Al is kicked out of the scouts for being gay. The person they got to replace him was not gay, and proceeded to molest all the scouts.

The SP kids took the scouts to court to force them to allow Big Gay Al back in, and they won. The following is from Big Gay Al's response to the ruling:

"Look, I appreciate what you kids did; really, I really do. But this isn't what I wanted. I'm proud to be gay. And I'm proud to be in a country where I'm free to express myself. But freedom is a two-way street. If I'm free to express myself, then the Scouts have to be free to express themselves, too. I know these men. They are good men. They are kind men. They do what they think is best for kids. No matter how wrong we think they might be, it isn't right for us to force them to think our way. It's up to us to persuade, and help them see the light, not extort them to. Please, don't cut the Scouts' funding. The Scouts help and have always helped a lot of kids. That's why I love them. I will continue to persuade them to change their mind, but this is the wrong way to do it. So, I am hereby dropping my case, and allowing the Scouts their right to not allow gays into their private club."

It really is a two way street. A group has the right to start Miss Black America, The Advocate has the right to hire only gay reporters and columnists (if that's what they do), private colleges have the right to discriminate in the name of diversity, New Lady Fitness has a right to turn away men, and the UNCF has the right to only give scholarships to African Americans.

Likewise, a person with a business should get to decide whom they want to do business with, who they want to hire and fire, and who they want to promote. If they pass up good talent for stupid reasons, that is a mistake that will cost them in lost productivity, revenue, and goodwill.

Furthermore, public pressure against blatantly arbitrary and racist companies is severe. Off the top of my head, I can think of two big examples of companies that have bent over backward to shed a racist image - the Adam's Mark Hotels and Denny's.

There are plenty of clubs and plenty of jobs out there for people of all views, no matter how enlightened or repugnant. Only when we have a system that allows each individual to offer or not offer their services, and other individuals to offer or not their money for those services - completely voluntarily - will there be room for coexistence and harmony. In the Freedom File, I quoted David Boaz, and I think it is something that bears repeating: “People who may not see themselves as comfortable members of a tight community with the others in the group can come together for a specific purpose, in the process learning to coexist if not to embrace.”

This is what is at the heart of liberty - that people with varying views and outlooks can coexist peacefully and without rancor, as long as the State protects our property rights in our things and our selves, treating every individual as equal before the law, leaving us otherwise free to regulate the course of our lives.

The core of this ideal was addressed succinctly by US Senator and presidential candidate, the brilliant Barry Goldwater: "Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism."

 

Until Next Time, Make it a Good One!

 - Rick

 

---