Morality versus legality has been a philosophical debate since the days of Aristotle. Although not all immoral things should be illegal, discrimination is immoral and illegal.
Often in defending private property rights for business and government regulation, people cite the economic development of the Western world as a basis for a free market and property rights. Although private enterprise played a significant role in the history of Western economic development, the state has always played an essential role to create a stable foundation for society and business to thrive.
Recently, Arizona Republican Gov. Jan Brewer decided to veto and shut down an attempt by the Christian Right to allow businesses to discriminate against LGBT individuals based on the ideals of religious freedom.
Students should applaud her bold move to block the regressive and oppressive actions of her own party. Although the bill didn’t become law, this is part of a growing division about the integrity of the Civil Rights Act.
If the Arizona bill became law, it would have been shut down by the Supreme Court in the same way DOMA and Prop 8 were because it violates the equality clause of the Constitution.
For this reason, businesses in Louisiana cannot discriminate against people based on race and gender — and before long, sexual orientation.
Despite libertarians claiming that owners of private businesses can discriminate against anyone for any reason, Congress changed that by passing the 1964 Civil Rights Act which banned private and public businesses and institutions from discriminating based on race.
This was a major progressive reform to combat the oppression of African-Americans in the South by white-dominated businesses, which refused to serve or hire blacks, fueling the racist environment and stereotypes.
The Civil Rights Act opposition abandoned the Democrats and became Republicans which is why the backlash against the Civil Rights Act now comes from Republicans. They often claim the Civil Rights Act violates private property rights and is a slippery slope to tyranny.
Criminalizing discrimination based on the Civil Rights Act does not constitute criminalizing fundamental rights because discrimination by businesses violates equal protection principles of the constitution.
Humans live freely in the world, but we cannot ignore the domination of societies in our lives. We are free to believe anything we want, but we cannot act completely freely because our actions affect others.
Although some try to compare a home to a business, they are fundamentally different. A home is a private residence. A business is an entity that exists in the market which the state protects.
Businesses don’t prefer to open in Somalia or other third-world countries because even though there is no government regulation, they don’t want the instability of a lawless land.
A modern business uses many things the state provides, including roads for owners and customers to travel, police to protect from thieves and violence, firefighters to protect from fires, regulation of insurance companies to ensure sound insurance, electricity, water, sewage, bank regulations and FDIC so businesses can protect profits and insure their cash, the Internet for marketing and logistics, etc.
With all of these benefits from the state, it is a moral and a legal problem if a taxpayer can be prevented from buying a good or using a service because of who he or she goes to bed with.
The argument we face is about where on the spectrum of liberty and tyranny we should be at. Absolute liberty leads to private tyrannies as opposed to public ones. Discrimination is not only immoral and bad for business; it is illegal and should remain so — like libel, slander, theft and murder — which are crimes in the eyes of the Founding Fathers. The Founders wanted to allow people freedom and equality, not to license tyranny.
Joshua Hajiakbarifini is a 24-year-old political science and economics senior from Baton Rouge.
Opinion: Yes. Discrimination is a legal right reserved for private property.
