It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong - Andrew P. Napolitano [40]
Free individuals have the right to choose the people with whom they associate. The corollary of that right is free persons can choose the people with whom they do not associate. And to take it a step further, the right not to associate with others is synonymous with the right to discriminate against others. Because we are free individuals with mental capabilities and decision-making skills, these choices to associate and discriminate are ours, and the government must not interfere. In fact, the government exists to protect this right to discriminate.
While the right to discriminate may sound wrong or even immoral, this is not the case at all. Every day, we make discriminating decisions that result in an exclusion of some kind. When I invite a small group of friends to my home, some of my larger group of friends are included, and some are not. When I have a pizza delivered, I choose one restaurant and eliminate the other options. When I hire a new staff member, I hire one person and reject the other applicants. When I board the subway, I choose to sit in the seat next to one person over a seat next to another person. When we say that a person has “discriminating taste,” it signifies a good quality—that she has sophisticated style.
If we did not have the right to make these discriminating choices (which always result in some kind of exclusion), we would be the victims of force or coercion. Walter E. Williams, a professor of economics at George Mason University, further illustrates this concept and right in his article, “The Right to Discriminate”:
Should people have the right to discriminate by race, sex, religion and other attributes? In a free society, I say yes. . . . When I was selecting a marriage partner, I systematically discriminated against white women, Asian women and women of other ethnicities that I found less preferable. . . . The Ku Klux Klan discriminates against having Catholic and Jewish members. The NFL discriminates against hiring female quarterbacks. The NAACP National Board of Directors, at least according to the photo on their Web page, has no white members.8
55
There is nothing wrong with these discriminating choices at all. Professor Williams and each of these organizations have every right to exclude people and make discriminatory decisions because they fall into one of the following three categories: Free individuals, private groups, or private companies. Not one is a public entity; therefore, they are all free to associate and to discriminate.
Regrettably, with all the benefits that come with this fundamental right to associate, there are also unfortunate consequences. People make good associational choices, but people also make bad associational choices. But the truism here is: Freedom entails the right to make bad decisions. As a result, as morally repellant as it may be, a racist has the legal right to be a racist. A misogynist has the legal right to be a misogynist. A homophobe has the legal right to be a homophobe. And while the existence of these kinds of people in the world is disappointing and aggravating, they have every right to discriminate based upon their prejudices because they are free human beings. The government is here to protect free choices—even bad ones—from the tyranny of the majority.
Why There Really Is No Difference
If Mrs. Murphy decides to host a garden party in her backyard, she is free to invite her fellow Irish friends over to enjoy her fresh-squeezed lemonade. At the same time, she may also (intentionally or unintentionally) exclude her Italian neighbors because she owns her house and has the right to be the gatekeeper of its front door. She may discriminate between invitees because Mrs. Murphy has the absolute right to decide with whom she associates in her own home. Few would dispute this fact.
If Mrs. Murphy sets up a lemonade stand outside her home on her property, she is free to serve only those customers she wishes. She may refuse to