Too often, we mistake morality with legality. The overwhelming amount of opposition to Arizona’s recent discrimination law shows that the public is misguided with respect to property rights. 
Liberty is a barometer of the economic and social stability of a group, and America’s readings are bleak.
Louisiana has the unique opportunity to take a lead in support for laissez-faire principles such as business autonomy. As students at its flagship university, we should seize the opportunity to lead the national discussion in private property and discrimination.    
Progressivism, which has held the moral high ground since the 20th century, has led to the perversion of the free market.
Last week, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer —to no one’s surprise—vetoed a bill that would allow businesses to refuse service to gay or lesbian customers on the basis of religious freedom. Most of the nation rejoiced and labeled supporters of the bill as “anti-gay,” however the argument is about something much different.
The specific content of Arizona’s bill is far less important than its underlying principle: businesses have a right to discriminate. Property owners possess the legal right to refuse or accept anyone onto their land for any reason. Our Founding Fathers valued this ideal and fought effortlessly to                defend it.
Humans aren’t ghosts; we live in a material world and we require the land and its resources not only for our happiness but for our survival. Individuals own houses, individuals own vehicles and individuals — sometimes a group of them — own              businesses.
If someone were to knock on your door and say, “I’m coming inside to grab something to eat and you can’t say no,” no one would argue that this is right. Our culture doesn’t apply this mentality to corporations because most people see them as public servants.
Some worry that legalizing discrimination will lead to “private tyrannies.” By definition, and in principle, a private tyranny is impossible. Tyrannies apply to governments and can only result from oppressive ones — free markets have never bred private tyrants. 
A business cannot force a customer to purchase a product just as I cannot force another man to wear the same clothes as me. Private entities are incapable of initiating force, only governments can do such a thing.
In 21 states and in more than 140 cities, governing bodies have passed legislation explicitly banning discrimination. Congress also passed the Matthew Shepard Act in 2009 which widened the range of what is considered a hate crime. 
The argument that America is a bigoted country with no protection for the LGBT community is simply false. Legislation favors those who sue corporations for bigotry and a plethora of laws exist that prevent private institutions from discriminating.  
Although the civil rights movement deserves credit in lobbying for equality before the law, it led to the travesty that is the Civil Rights Act. I agree discrimination should be outlawed in public institutions, but disagree with the claim private companies should be banned from doing so. The Civil Rights Act unjustly limits the freedom of businesses with respect to their property.    
Governments have no right to discriminate against its citizens. It is proper to forbid any and all discrimination in government facilities. However a government should have no legal authority to force a business to accept or deny a customer, just as it has no power to say who one can let into his house.
Racism is an evil and irrational notion; private racism is a moral issue, not a legal one. As consumers, we should take it upon ourselves to boycott any company that exhibits bigotry with regards to employment. The government has no role in the matter. The erosion of liberty often has benign beginnings, but its effects are devastating. In order for the government to respect property rights, the people must demand it. 
       
           
Andrew Stolzle is a 21-year-old mechanical engineering junior from Baton Rouge.