Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site rand-unix.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!rand-unix!edhall
From: edhall@rand-unix.UUCP (Ed Hall)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: 1986 SUPREME COURT RULING - (nf)
Message-ID: <1830@rand-unix.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 27-Jun-84 05:06:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: rand-unix.1830
Posted: Wed Jun 27 05:06:25 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 1-Jul-84 05:36:14 EDT
References: <162@sb6.UUCP>, <10100052@ea.UUCP>
Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica
Lines: 30

+
> This brings up an interesting point: why do we pick on businesses, and not
> consumers?
     . . .
> Does anyone really think this is reasonable? If so, why? If you don't, how
> do you justify placing restrictions on a business that you wouldn't place
> on a person?
>
>         <mike

Really, now.  How do you justify placing restrictions on a government
that you wouldn't place on a person?  And no value judgements on the
relative worthiness of businesses vs. governments.

The answer is a simple one: like any other form of law, restrictions on
business practices are (ostensibly) for the good of the community at
large.  In the U.S., freedom is usually considered a large component of
this public good.  But tradeoffs need to be made between the freedoms
allowed people: the freedom to be secure in person and property must
supercede any supposed freedom for assult or larceny.  And the freedom
of being treated equally must supercede the freedom to discriminate
against people on racial or sexual grounds.  However, the highest
freedom is that of self-determination.  Outlawing discrimination in
personal choice would go against this.  On the other hand, outlawing
discrimination in commerce enhances self-determination.

End of civics lesson.

		-Ed Hall
		decvax!randvax!edhall