Inevitable Result

Lydia McGrew: Pay Us For Harassing You -- the particular moral outrage to which Mrs McGrew points is the logically inevitable result of certain provisions of the 'Civil Rights Act of 1964,' and of the mindset behind the act, and of the entirely predictable cynical turn of the "civil rights movement." This sort of result was foreseen and predicted way back then, which is why Goldwater (no conservative, he) voted against the Act.

See also here for an attempted discussion of this mindset, and of where it *must* lead.


That you supposedly don't have the right to discriminate with respect to whom you will share your living quarters follows directly and inevitably from societal acceptance of the proposition that you do not have the right to discriminate with respect to whom you will rent your property in which you do not dwell. And, ultimately, it follows logically and inevitably from societal acceptance of the proposition that you do not have the right to discriminate with respect to whom you will serve at your lunch-counter.


If you don't want to have busy-body do-gooders (or, "Woman Involved in Public Matters," as Mrs McGrew so aptly calls the mindset) constantly meddling in the intimate details of your life -- in short, if you want to live in liberty -- then you must draw and enforce the lines well away from your own personal (or petty) concerns. If you are willing to acquiesce to the do-gooders using governmental force (including thread of violent death) to interfere in *that* fellow's use of his own property, then you really have no ground on which to object when they turn their sights on you: for you have already surrendered the principle; you have already submitted to their rationales.

If one accepts the propositions that discrimination is ipso facto immoral, and that it is a moral duty of government to stamp out all "discrimination," then one has already accepted the justification for this sort of thing. When a society accepts those propositions, this sort of thing is increasingly inevitable.


This isn't a question of: "Is it immoral to refuse to serve, due to his race, someone who sits at your lunch-counter?" Of course it is immoral! The pertinent question is: "Is governmental suppression of that sort of immorality compatible with a society of free citizens, based upon the liberty of the individual?" And it is not!

We cannot have both liberty and "anti-discrimination" laws; and I want liberty.


====
Edit: Incidentally, this particular moral outrage isn't even particularly new in outline -- what's new is the explicit involvement of government bureaucrats in harassing a citizen desiring to share living-space as conflict-free as possible. When I was at university, more than 30 years ago, one was not *allowed* to explicitly advertise in the student newspaper (which one was compelled to subsidize by one's fees) for a "Christian roommate." They simply would not run the ad (and might try to berate you as a “bigot”); one was forced to use circumlocutions, such as “quiet” or (especially) “non-partier.”