From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 21:12:16 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.195425.1286@spdcc.com>, dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
> In article <1992Jul21.170758.20353@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
> >  Steve, this is silly. Can you honestly say that spdcc will not refuse
> >work from anybody, for any reason? I just cannot believe it. Would you
> >actually take a contract from Jesse Helms to create faggot database 
> >with names numbers of Known Homosexuals? I refuse work all of the time
> >when it does not meet the goals of the company. Where is this bright
> >line which segregates the permissible and impermissible? Who decides?
> 
> There's a difference (to me) in selling my limited time as a
> private individual, and in operating a commercial enterprise
> where I am selling what is essentially a commodity to whoever
> has the $$$, and where the <undesired attribute> of the purchaser
> is not relevant to the provision of such product, nor is it
> frequently known beforehand.  In such cases, I believe one should
> start off with the assumption that you sell to anybody, least of
> all because it's impossible to do otherwise.

  This contradicts what Roger said before which is that once you open
your doors you must do business with anybody for any reason at the sole 
discretion of the *buyer*. Your comment about that a company should not
be able to discriminate toward the military (as in not wanting to sell
to them) seems to imply that you support Rogers position which is the
kernel of this thread. 
  Which is it Steve, are you a private individual when you hang your
shingle out or are you a business? Are businesses owners not allowed 
to have a conscience about whom they provide their wares to or not?
  If a business sells chemicals which could be dangerous in the wrong
hands and deranged person came in the door should the business be 
_required_ to sell it anyway? Or should he wait for some tragedy to
happen and *hope* that there is some legislation which allows him
to legally discriminate?
  Where does this end?  Is there some sort of guideline which we could
follow when making these sorts of proscriptions or is it essentially
arbitrary and dependent on the whim of the moment? If there is I'd
be glad to hear it.
  This is where the quagmire of forced association leads. Under such 
a bizantine legal framework there is no way a reasonable business person
could determine what discrimination is and what it is not, thus making
a mockery of the entire problem. We seemingly cannot even agree upon what
a *business* is.

> 
> >  Who else but the goverment is allowed to do the "forcing". They
> >make the rules, albeit at the majorities supposed behest. Majoritism
> >is hardly an optimal state as I'm sure you can realize. 
> 
> My problem with arguments like this is that they're used to justify
> racist and discriminatory behavior.  Why indeed can't I decide not
> to sell my software to Jews/blacks/gays/etc?  Ick.

  Unquestionably some do. People use freedom of speach to justify saying
hateful things as well. Shall we restrict that as well? Allowing people
freedom is not tantamount to supporting any abuse that can come from
that freedom. The other side of the coin is the forced censorship of
the state -- which is better?
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Xref: sparky soc.motss:32754 talk.politics.misc:36268 alt.individualism:4669 alt.activism:13629