It’s time to end anti-discrimination law

Originally protecting blacks, anti-discrimination laws have expanded to new protected classes including women (not men), immigrants, religious minorities, nonwhite races that were not historically unprivileged, the disabled, illegal aliens, and now homosexuals and other sexual fetishists. There doesn’t seem to be an end in sight.

Laws forbidding private parties such as individuals, corporations, clubs, homeowners associations, and restaurants from discriminating against members of protected classes are blatantly unconstitutional. The 14th amendment states (in part):

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Denying private parties the right to conduct business or to refuse to conduct business with whomever they choose deprives those parties their liberty and the use of their property.

Laws requiring people to interact with people they do not want to interact with are oppressive*. Under a fair reading of the constitution, such actions would only be permitted as punishment for crime**, were they not blatantly cruel and unusual.

The federal government and states should be free to forbid discrimination within their own organizations, but they may not apply these restrictions to private parties.

The original purpose of anti-discrimination laws was to correct the longstanding abuses of black Americans by pro-discrimination laws. But pro-discrimination laws were eliminated during the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Jim Crow laws have been gone for over 50 years. Anti-discrimination laws’ justification has elapsed.

Anti-discrimination laws should be struck down now.

*Under the current reading of the law that disparate impact among protected classes is evidence of discrimination, these laws are also capricious.

**Maybe this is the justification for forcing convicts to share prison cells with homosexual rapists.


Reforms and consequences

Progressives arguing for the institution of same-sex marriage claimed that their proposed reforms could not possibly tread on the religious freedom of those who wanted no part in the institution. The passage of laws recognizing* the institution was contingent on this understanding.

Consequently, it has been shown that the institution of same-sex marriage does tread on the religious freedom of those who chose not to observe the institution.

Therefore, the institution of same-sex marriage was created under false pretenses. It should be dissolved and reevaluated under our current better understanding of the institution’s consequences.

*I refuse to say permitting or legalizing in regard to same-sex marriage. The issue was never one of permission but one of institutionalization.