I had an interesting discussion today with a now-ex Facebook friend of mine. To protect the name of the guilty, let’s call this person Peter.
Peter, who gets the majority of his news through such hard-hitting sources like ThinkProgress.org, the Huffington Post and the Washington Post, is a very proud Obama-supporting liberal. And as such, this person can safely be assumed to be a tender-hearted, compassionate person. He loves every ONE and every THING, and hates discrimination.
I mean, just can’t stand it.
Recently, Peter posted a message to his Facebook wall about how proud he was of a CEO of a tech company (let’s call this company Tender Hearted, Inc) who pulled their business from Indiana after the recent signing of a law by Governor Mike Pence that, according to its detractors, would essentially legalize discrimination.
As a comment to that post, I wrote a message in an attempt to prove that the concept of “discrimination”, contrary to popular belief, isn’t a one-way street.
I wrote that the CEO of Tender Hearted, Inc discriminated against the state of Indiana by pulling its business from the state, and that the government should step in and do something about it. Tender Hearted, Inc, I wrote, has absolutely no right to pull its business from the state of Indiana, just like businesses should have no right to refuse service to anyone.
This message upset Peter, upset him greatly. He proceeded to do three things as a response to my comment:
- Called me an idiot
- Invited me to eat shit
- Removed the thread and banned me from his Facebook account
He also accused me of supporting a position that a business SHOULD refuse service to people because of whom they love.
Unfortunately, this is what happens when you let emotion get in the way of your mind. Peter is a smart guy. But when you let your emotions rule your life, you end up angry, frustrated and hating the world most of the time, often resorting to the use of grade school name calling as your only response.
That is no way to live.
Of course I in no way insinuated that I actually support a business discriminating against anyone. But logic and objectivity have no place in a political debate when emotions rule your position.
In truth, the point that I was making is that this CEO is discriminating against the state of Indiana because the Governor of the state took a position that the CEO did not like. Why is this discrimination okay, but it is not okay for a business owner to refuse service to someone whom they do not like?
This is a different situation, right? Well actually, no, it’s not. The state of Indiana is the customer of Tender Hearted, Inc. The state took a position that this CEO did not agree with, and the CEO responded by essentially refusing service to the state of Indiana. This is the exact scenario under which so-called “anti-discrimination” activists would have the government intervene if the situation were between a business and an individual customer.
As believers in a free market, we understand that discrimination is bad for business. Even if all discrimination were legal, the large majority of businesses would not discriminate, and for what should be obvious reasons. Businesses operate to make money. The minute that someone finds out that a business owner refused service to someone based on the color of their skin, their origin, gender or sexual preference, they’ll be run out of business in a flash.
Customers don’t like doing business with racist bastards.
Ironically, these anti-discrimination laws are essentially enabling these very same racist bastards. If a business cannot legally discriminate, they will continue doing business with those that they hate. Customers are handing over their hard-earned money to businesses owners who hate their guts, and may even contribute to organizations that those customers would abhor.
All because anti-discrimination laws require commerce.
What Peter is inadvertently supporting is an anti-free-market system that keeps bigots behind the wheel of businesses, and keeps customers forking over money to these bigots. I understand that it makes Peter feel better about himself that he opposes discrimination, and that’s great.
I also oppose discrimination…in ALL its forms.
However, I do not support the unintended consequences of these laws that wind up hurting people whom they were designed to supposedly protect.
The problem is in order to observe this dreadful phenomenon, one first needs to remove the emotional cloak that prevents the brain from taking hold.
All the best to you, Peter.