Giving private businesses the right to “discriminate” (control who they conduct business with) isn’t about discrimination—it’s about private property rights. Fighting for social justice, equality, and tolerance is a very noble cause, but there comes a point when passing legislation to attempt to make things right actually makes things wrong.
Proponents of anti-discrimination laws are correct in some instances. Public, governmental entities don’t have a right to discriminate. If they are going to rule over everyone, they need to treat everyone equally. Private businesses, however, are different. They aren’t claiming control over anyone, so they have no inherent obligations to anyone.
Business transactions need to be consensual, which means that both parties agree to the transaction. When operating under these voluntary business agreements, both parties have equal power. Both can veto a transaction, and both must agree in order for a transaction to occur. Allowing private businesses to “discriminate” simply allows them to hold just as much power as their customers. If the customer can demand and receive a product from a business (which occurs under laws that ban private discrimination), then the business has no power in relation to the customer. Transactions need to be fair, not lopsided in whatever direction is politically favored. We wouldn’t make it so customers always have to enter a business or buy something from that business, so we shouldn’t make it so businesses have to allow everyone to enter or allow everyone to buy.
It isn’t immediately obvious why any businesses would even want to discriminate. Most businesses simply seek to make a profit, and, primarily, the best way to do that is to be accepting of all customers. Some businesses, however, put certain principles above profit. That means they’re willing to turn away certain customers if serving that customer would mean going against their beliefs. Other businesses have high enough demand to the point where they can ration their goods or services according to non-price factors without affecting their profits.
The most prominent example of anti-discrimination laws being an issue involves businesses with religious owners. For example, a cake shop in Colorado was forced to make a wedding cake for a gay couple after the state found their refusal to be in violation of anti-discrimination laws. Additionally, the state also required that all employees attend “sensitivity training” and that the store submit detailed sales reports to the state for two years in order to avoid future violations. This law put the rights of the gay couple above those of the store—the transaction was no longer voluntary, and the store lost their power to veto the transaction.
In 2013, a bakery in Oregon refused to bake a cake for a lesbian couple. This past July, a court ordered the owners to pay $135,000 in “emotional damages” to the couple they refused service to. It is inconceivable how a fine of any amount would be appropriate for something as innocuous as declining to provide a service. If anything, the emotional damage from being fined for exercising your private property rights and religion would be more severe than the emotional damage of having to find a different store to bake a cake for you.
Advocates of anti-discrimination laws see Colorado and Oregon’s actions as success stories. Their concept of equality and justice isn’t about both sides having equal rights (the ability to say yes or no to a transaction) — it’s about getting businesses to do what they want and punishing them severely when that doesn’t happen. Private transactions should be voluntary. It’s that simple. If one party doesn’t like the other’s reasoning for not completing a transaction, they should move on and find someone else who is more than pleased to do business with them.
There was a time when the playing field was unequal and riddled with discrimination, but during that time, the government was the one discriminating. Now, that wrong has been overcorrected for. It’s time to restore truly equal rights and reject lopsided rights that came about as an affirmative action repayment for past injustices. We need to restore the rights of private businesses by repealing anti-discrimination laws.
Tim is a freshman majoring in finance and economics. Do you think property rights have been deteriorating? Send all comments to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
