From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: On Banning Private Discrimination
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 00:35:17 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.225019.8993@spdcc.com>, dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
> In article <1992Jul21.211216.23641@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
> >  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. 
> 
> Well, I wouldn't think much of it.  On the other hand, the "military"
> isn't an individual with rights.

  Oh, I get it (I think). Would it be OK if the institution that was 
being denied was the OCA or the Citizens for a Hate Free Oregon?

> 
> >  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?
> 
> I'm a private individual in my capacity here.

  Dodge. Which is it Steve, is SPDCC a business subject to the rules
you outline or not? If not, why aren't you subject to your own rules?
If so, should Jesse Helms be allowed to solicit your help even though
you would find it morally repugnant to do so? 

> I think it's pretty funny that you use the word conscience here.
> The problem isn't those who have 'em, it's those without 'em.

  But you specifically said that you would consider that a business
which refused to sell software to the military was practicing discrimination,
but "I'm not king". Also you brought up the situation of some business
which wouldn't sell its product to a drug manufacturer.
  I guess that your problem is not with those businesses who do not have 
consciences, but those with consciences who _you_ consider looney. How
very, um, elitist. Why should you, or anybody else be in a position to 
make such value laden judgements about what the proper "conscience" 
should be, backed up with the force of government? Can't you see this
is exactly where sodomy laws come from?

> In all of these examples, the "discrimination" is based on the potential
> for harm or misuse, and not on some irrelevant characteristic such as
> race, religion, veteran status, etc.

  Certainly, this does not apply to my example with Jesse Helms though.
In fact, what is more appalling is that Jesse Helms could probably force
_you_ to do business with him on the grounds that you are using the
"irrelevant" characteristic of Religion in basing your reason to tell
him to fuck off! 
  I can just see it now, gay space will not be safe because the religious
loonies get injunctions to allow them to do sit ins at any gay
establishment they choose to "save" from itself -- Ick. 

> >  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.
> 
> Yeah, it's called intelligence.

  Please educate me, obviously I lack 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.
> 
> "Therefore I support the right of businesses to arbitrarily discriminate
> based on irrelevant criteria."

  Therefore I support the right of people to make their own decisions,
and be solely responsible for their own judgements.
  Therefore I support the right of people to say things that others
find distasteful, and even hateful. 

> 
> Turning the issue into a straw-man cartoon does not make the problem
> (unjust discrimination) go away.

  Nor do edicts from a benevolent (hahaha) government. By your reasoning
gay discrimination cannot possibly *ever* go away until the good ole'
government steps in to help us helpless queers. No progress has been
made since Stonewall, it's just a fantasy.
  Discrimination goes away when the people who are practicing it
realize they are wrong, and willingly give it up. The point of a
gun only hardens the resistance IMHO.

> >  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?
> 
> I'm all for court decisions which refine this notion.  Techno-geek
> net libertarians who can only envision society as a set of logical
> proposition without any ambiguity or conflicts, and who wouldn't know
> a legal precedent if it fell on their foot seem to forget that this
> has been in process for the past 40 years or so, and much to the
> betterment of society, IMHO.

  Another Dodge. Which is to say that you cannot formulate a set of
rules which a judge could use other than the tried and true method
of coin flips. Are there situations where even the freedom of speech
is not sacrosanct, Steve?
-- 

		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)
Newsgroups: soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,alt.activism