Idaho recently rejected adding the words “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to Idaho’s Human Rights Act dealing with discrimination. While many folks are quite upset about this (on both sides of the fence – some for having it rejected, others for having it brought up in the first place), I find myself asking if even the existing language goes too far by not allowing someone to exercise freedom of contract. While I feel that discriminating against someone solely on the basis of non-essentials is quite stupid, I don’t see why/how we can legislate our way out of that. I don’t have a “right to be hired” by someone – if they don’t want me either because I lack the skills or am the wrong color/gender/tribe/etc… what harm has been done to me? Or am I missing something here?
asked Mar 08 '12 at 14:34
Jason Gibson ♦
Jason, you are completely right.
Anti-discrimination laws are attempts to legislate morality -- which means to initiate force on people to make them do what is "right".
Force, applied by government, against a man who is racist or sexist or homophobic, violates his right to determine his own action by his own thinking. A man has a right to make his own choices by his own standards, no matter how foolish those standards are, as long as he doesn't initiate physical force against another individual.
answered Mar 09 '12 at 02:51
John Paquette ♦