To deny access to any one group on the basis of an immutable characteristic of their physical being is a dangerous precedent to set for a government. It just gives a license to discriminate against any out group. I believe you have a right to do whatever you want, so long as doing so does not violate the rights of others.
To take it to a logical extreme, would you defend the right to drink and drive, given that stupid people should be allowed to do stupid things, even if it is incredibly dangerous to the drinking party and everyone else around them? No? Then don’t tolerate the intolerance of others. That’s how the social contract frays.
Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
I don’t mind other people doing things that are stupid. I do mind other people doing things that are harmful. The difficult part is finding where that line is, if and how to legislate it and what the implications are on other important societal values.
In this example of a cafe refusing to serve people based in race, I’m personally totally fine with that being illegal.
quindraco@lemm.ee 6 months ago
How do you ban such a cafe while also banning slavery? How do you draw a line between permissible and impermissible compulsory labor when you’re drafting your Constitution to reign in future politicians?
Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
It is not permitted to own another human being.
It is not permitted to discriminate against a human being based on a protected class such as race.
Is there some contradiction there that I’m not seeing?
ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
I think the reasoning is that since having a job is essential for almost everyone, then by making it illegal to have a job in which one may refuse to deal with members of a protected class, the government is effectively compelling everyone to deal with them, which might be seen as a form of forced labor.