You Have the Right to Choose Who You Live With in a Free Society
We’re not allowed to discuss it in polite company, but the dirty secret of anti-discrimination law is that it violates free choice, as well as the very civil rights it is ostensibly designed to protect. Take the case of a Michigan woman who advertised for a roommate with whom she would be compatible.: Specifically, she wanted a Christian roommate. Now, she’s facing a “civil rights” violation.
A civil rights complaint has been filed against a Grand Rapids woman who posted an advertisement at her church last July seeking a Christian roommate.
“The statement “expresses an illegal preference for a Christian roommate, thus excluding people of other faiths,” according to the complaint filed by the Fair Housing: Center of West Michigan.
“It’s a violation to make, print or publish a discriminatory statement,” Executive Director Nancy Haynes told Fox News. “There are no exemptions to that.”
Thus exposes the flaw in broad anti-discrimination law: it prohibits legitimate acts of “discrimination” that are a necessary part of every day life. There’s no real reason a person in a free society can’t decide who they do and do not want to live with. In fact, everyone picking a roommate “discriminates” in some fashion.: They pass over a person that is too messy, too loud, too bad with money, or just otherwise rubs them the wrong way.
It’s not like the law actually prevents this woman from choosing a Christian roommate. Rather, it merely prevents her from honest advertising.: She can still say no to anyone for any reason once she meets them, and there’s no way the thought police can really know why.: The intent of the law, then, is completely unenforceable, on top of being incompatible with the idea of a free society.: So why not let her save everyone’s time and let them know from the beginning what her major qualifications are?
The PC crowd behind this kind of runaway “anti-discrimination” law don’t have a good answer. Instead, they rely on ostracizing anyone who questions the legitimacy of prohibiting private “discrimination” in a free society, despite the fact that doing so is a violation of basic freedoms.
Brian Garst blog at Conservative-Compendium.
FacebookTwitterEmail This is awful — and the parents are going right along with it. The blogger at the link nails
FacebookTwitterEmail Question: “Who do you think would be a good potential nominee for President Bush to pick as a justice