For decades, legislative bodies have enacted laws that prohibit businesses and landlords from discriminating against an ever-growing list of individuals, such as ethnic and racial minorities, women, gays, the handicapped, and more recently, transgender individuals. Like many other issues involving the violation of property rights, anti-discrimination legislation is founded on fuzzy and imprecise thinking. It is an attempt to equate things that are dissimilar.
To discriminate means to recognize a difference between two or more things. It is a recognition of the fact that things are not the same. Every choice that we make, from the most mundane to the most life shaping, is an act of discrimination. The criteria we use for making such decisions may be rational or they may be irrational. But the advocates of anti-discrimination laws make no such distinction—they regard all discrimination based on certain characteristics as patently unfair and irrational. And so, they seek to prohibit discrimination based on certain characteristics. In reality, this is impossible.
For example, many (if not most) people select their friends or lovers based on characteristics such as race, religion, or sexual orientation. They discriminate based on these characteristics. If government mandated that individuals could not select their friends or lovers based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other criteria, we would recognize such edicts as absurd and a violation of our freedom of association. The principle does not change simply because we open a business or become a landlord. Freedom of association does not apply solely to our private lives.
If a business owner wishes to use irrelevant criteria when deciding whom to hire or serve, that is his right. If he wants to refuse to hire blacks or women or men named Frank, he has a moral right to do so. Or, he may decide to hire only black women named Frank. In the end, he will benefit or suffer for his choices.
It is worth noting that in some situations, discriminating based on race, sex, or any other characteristic might be entirely appropriate and rational. For example, if a business sells hair care products for black women, the owner may decide that hiring black women makes sense. Unlike white men, black women are more likely to use and understand the benefits of such products. Yet, if hired only black women, he would be guilty of violating anti-discrimination laws. He would be guilty of making hiring decisions based on race and sex, and that is a violation of anti-discrimination laws.
But even if the business owner uses criteria that are irrelevant and irrational, that is his choice and his moral right. He will reduce his labor pool by using criteria that aren’t relevant to the job. The quality of his products and service will likely suffer as a result. And, when enlightened consumers learn of his policies, many will take their business elsewhere, preferring to deal with those who aren’t racist, sexist, homophobic, or Frankist. Everyone is free to pursue his own values. Each individual is free to associate with others based on whatever criteria he chooses.
The right to property means the freedom to determine the use and disposal of one’s property. This includes setting the terms and conditions for employees and customers. For example, many restaurant owners establish a dress code for employees and customers. Those who don’t like the requirements are free to work or dine elsewhere. Each is free to act on his own judgment. If enough people find those terms and conditions unacceptable, the business will suffer. The business owner can revise his criteria or go out of business.
This is true whether those criteria pertain to attire, skin color, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic. The owner has a moral right to determine the use and disposal or his property, and he will enjoy the rewards or suffer the consequences accordingly.
We recognize this principle in many different ways on a daily basis. We choose which stores and restaurants to patronize based on our personal criteria, whether it is price, quality, service, location, or something else. We choose whom to befriend, what books to read, and what movies to watch. We discriminate constantly. Why should consumers be free to act on our own personal criteria, but business owners can’t?
It is understandable that individuals think it is unfair to be discriminated against. And it often is unfair. But forcing individuals to associate with those they may dislike or find repugnant is not the way to eradicate racism, sexism, homophobia, or Frankism. Forcing individuals to act contrary to their own judgment won’t make them more rational. It will only breed contempt and anger. It will only create unnecessary conflict and animosity. Again, we see another example of the inevitable conflicts that result when rights are applied to groups rather than to individuals. If we respect property rights, discrimination is no longer a divisive political issue.
If we really want to end irrational discrimination, then we must respect the freedom of individuals to act on their own judgment, even when we disagree with their choices and decisions. And that means respecting their property rights.