Let's start with Martin Luther King's example. Hi...

2008-07-11T19:45:00.000-07:00

Let's start with Martin Luther King's example. His daughters saw advertisements on television for an amusement park, and wanted to go. Dr. King had to explain that the amusement park wouldn't allow them in because of their skin color.

The advertisement itself perpetrated a fraud. It offered something to the public. But if someone with a high concentration of skin melanin took the time and trouble to show up, they would be turned away. Even if they didn't have to pay money they still lost their time and travel costs.

The lunch counter example is less clear-cut, but the idea of race-blind accommodation isn't prima facie unreasonable. The government's job is to mediate the rights of individuals. Health codes ensure the customers aren't harmed because of risky restaurant practices. Similarly, race-blind accommodation laws are intended to ensure potential customers don't unfairly suffer opportunity losses of time and interest.

You and I might agree that government coercion is an improper tool to prevent race-based discrimination, but that's not the point of this posting. Instead, I'm trying to convince people to support the pharmacists' decision to control what they dispense, even if those people think the government has a legitimate interest in preventing race-based discrimination.

How is the lunch counter operator's right to choos...

2008-07-10T14:09:00.000-07:00

How is the lunch counter operator's right to choose his customers any different from his right to choose what he serves?

I think discriminating based on race is morally repugnant, but government coercion to stop it is far far worse.

Comments on It's the Software, not the Hardware: When Individual Rights Collide

Let's start with Martin Luther King's example. Hi...

How is the lunch counter operator's right to choos...