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.

Brian Garst

Brian Garst is the Director of Government Affairs for the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, a non-profit think tank dedicated to preserving tax competition and free markets. He also blogs at BrianGarst.com.


Tags assigned to this article:
discriminationPolitical Correctness

Related Articles

Saddleback Bump for McCain

FacebookTwitterEmail As it turns out, the Saddleback Forum may turn out to be one of the most significant events in

Village of the Obamatrons: Pyongyang Remix

FacebookTwitterEmail Since the inspiring Village of the Obamatrons video has been removed from YouTube, those who are curious to see

21

In a transparent attempt to wrest conservative leadership away from Wisconsin, Utah and Arizona name official state guns.

FacebookTwitterEmail If it wasn’t for that little shindig across the pond, this would’ve been the story of the day: The

Share This

Share this post with your friends!