Nathan Forest
nforest@uwyo.edu
There has been uproar recently over the law coming out of North Carolina that is being smeared as discriminatory and anti-gay rights.
The law allows businesses the right to refuse services if the service conflicts with the business owner’s religious beliefs. The main problem this is addressing is the rash of lawsuits that gay couples have levied against Christian business owners who refused to cater gay weddings.
On the surface, this law seems to be a step back for the gay rights community, but in reality, it is a huge step forward for freedom.
Anti-discrimination is a worthwhile goal for any individual. In the current year, though, government has no place in the furtherance of that goal.
They say that the only color that matters under capitalism is green. So if someone wants to refuse money to uphold their personal values that just means that they are bad at capitalism.
The beauty of capitalism is that if a certain bakery doesn’t want to accept your money, another bakery that will take your money is just a Google search away.
Contrary to popular belief, you do not have the rights to the fruits of another person’s labor simply by existing. A business should have the right to refuse service for any reason. They already do this- ever hear of “no shirt, no shoes, no service?”
Now the simple argument against this is that every business would be able to discriminate against people for any reason they could think of. The simple counter to this is that businesses open their doors to make as much money as possible, so they will discriminate against as few people as possible.
This is not saying that not providing a good or service to a gay wedding is an inherently good or bad thing. This is where the pure force of the market takes over.
Those businesses that are discriminatory will draw the ire of the market and if the anger grows large enough and people are willing to forego the business, then that business will fail.
As an aside, there have been musicians and entertainment companies (Disney) that have decided to boycott North Carolina over disagreement over this legislation. How hypocritical that these entrepreneurs refuse to provide North Carolina a good or service in protest of a bill that protects essentially their ability to do so. If you disagree with that legislation, but side with those musicians and entertainment companies, you are being hypocritical.
The failure of such business will also be justified and the fault of no one but the business owners. In the current political setting, accomplishing these types of things shouldn’t be too challenging. Furthermore, if the refusal of select goods or services appeals to a demographic, a business ought to appeal to that body of customers.
However, refusing a good or service should not be illegal, nor should it be a litigation worthy act.
One problem with the outrage surrounding this law is that its opponents assume that it will only be used by Christian businesses to discriminate against gay people.
But this law specifies no such thing, meaning that if a Muslim owned bakery doesn’t want to serve a gay wedding, they are free to refuse. If a gay or Jewish owned bakery doesn’t want to serve a neo-Nazi convention, they are free to refuse. If a Jewish or Muslim-owned deli doesn’t want to serve pig-based meats, they ought to be free to do so.
Under freedom, everyone is afforded the same liberties to use as they please. Whether they use that liberty for the best or the worst, under freedom, everyone is able to come out a winner.
Rachel Allen
rallen19@uwyo.edu
The HB2 recently passed in North Carolina has caused controversy among residents of the state and of the country. The law effects the rights of transgendered individuals, the treatment of employees and customers by business owners and the way discrimination suits are pursued in court. This brings up a few questions, but the one that I’ve been hearing is, “should businesses be allowed to deny service to customers, particularly based on traits such as race, religion or sexuality?”
Immediately, my response is no. Do you people (North Carolina government officials, I’m looking at you) have any idea how long it took for the Civil Rights movement to eliminate full segregation? Diner windows used to have signs denying
African Americans the right to even enter. Protesting went on through the 1950s until America finally moved on from this ingrained bigotry and racism. And now you want to take us back a step to the days of this kind of animosity.
When faced with this kind of conundrum, I fall back on my most basic philosophy on life: “They’re not hurting anyone.” Fine, these business owners believe this, that or the other thing, and anything different than that is wrong and an abomination. Or you simply don’t agree. But are they causing you physical pain? Are these customers that you want to turn away doing anything wrong, aside from having beliefs and desires that are different than yours? No? Then bloody leave them alone.
My biggest problem with this kind of discrimination is that it dehumanizes the people who are being denied these rights. By saying, “You can’t eat/shop/work here,” you’re saying, “I see you as less than me,” and that’s not right. This kind of behavior tells others that it’s okay to treat people like they’re not people. They’re almost being treated like animals. “No dogs allowed” is a normal thing to see in shop windows. Dogs are pets, and no matter how well they’re trained, they can still cause trouble. They could contaminate products, break goods or cause allergies.
These are things that I define as physical problems that are worth avoiding by not letting dogs into the shop in the first place. But we’re not talking about house-trained, leash-bound, best friends of man; we’re talking about living breathing human beings. Do we really want to see “No dogs” replaced with “No queers” or “No Muslims/Indians,” or worse, “No blacks?”
