So some coworkers and I got into a very intersting discussion today over lunch. It started out being about the evils of Wal-Mart, then the evils of Target, then moved into whether pharmacists should be able to decide which drugs they will or won't sell (even if you have a doctor's prescription), then moved into the area of civil liberties in general and how far the constitution goes to protect your rights or how far it goes to impose certain behaviors on me.

I took the stand that people (including businesses) ought to be able to discriminate against anyone they choose, regardless of race, sex, religion, sexual preference, or whatever. Let's say my neighbor, JimBob, opens up an adult video store for whites only. That's disgusting and racist. And I wouldn't shop at Bob's store, because I'm not a racist and I think it's so abhorent that I'm not going to support anyone who is. But who am I to say the Bob can't run his business the way he wants?

It's one thing to say that he can't cook the books to avoid taxes, or that he can't dump harmful chemical in the river behind his store, or do anything else that's going to harm someone. But why should there be a law against discrimination? Again, I'm personally against discrimination, I just think it ought to be a personal matter. I don't want the goverment telling me what to think, and therefore it shoudln't be telling Bob what to think--even if he is an ignoramous.

Well, this is a heated topic and I could go on for days. Suffice it to say, I don't think I made a very good impression on my coworker. She didn't seem very tolerant of my tolerance for things she deemed unworthy of tolerance.

Posted by Hey Paul   |   Monday, March 06, 2006