Should the government force non-discrimination?
A friend of mine posted the following article, which I thought about for a bit and decided to respond.
http://www.bilerico.com/2010/09/freedom_of_religion_and_non-discrimination_law.php#more
I am not really certain of my answer here, I am just exploring some thoughts, so let me know if you disagree with any point.
This is a difficult issue for me. While I don't like to see people discriminated against because of their gender, I also don't like strong arm tactics used by government to force a company to hire someone they don't want to, especially if the company is a religious affiliated group with objections to certain lifestyles. The first best situation would be where people were more tolerant. Discrimination is unprofitable - companies who only care about the bottom line will be willing to hire anyone who can get the job done. People who have strong prejudices will overcome that to discriminate. The question is given a group that is discriminatory, what should people do, and what should government do, and what legal principals should be considered?
The second best situation would be where people could self sort into groups large enough that discrimination was not a big deal for either group. As long as there were a decently sized proportion of companies willing not to discriminate, those will alternative lifestyles could work for the non-discriminatory companies and those who were discrinimatory could work for more culturally homogenous companies. Perhaps that is wishful thinking.
What if a large percentage of firms are discriminatory? Is it right to force a company to hire someone they don't want to? If the worker isn't just gay, but also unproductive, the company could legitimately claim a government taking. Would it be right to force them to fire a worker who can make 100 widgets so they can hire a worker who can make 50 widgets, but is transgendered/ethnic minority/etc? The lines between equal opportunity and equal outcome can get blurry. I think in the case of non-profits and religious organizations, discrimination should be allowed. People who don't want to associate with a certain type of person should not be forced to if they are not a public or for-profit entity. Shouldering oneself into such a group will not earn you any friends. For example, the Boy Scouts of America does (did?) not allow homosexuals. I was very disappointed by that decision. I have a good friend who came out in high school who earned his Eagle Scout while in the closet. I think their decision is wrong and the BSA is missing out on on a lot of great people who could help the scouting movement. Perhaps there are many people who would get a lot out of scouting, but are discouraged from joining because they would have to hide their sexuality. I would be really annoyed however if the government forced the BSA to accept open homosexuals in their ranks. The BSA is non profit. They strive to promote certain values and encourage their members to serve the community, and they have many religious overtones (although not associated with any religion in particular). I would be disappointed to see the scouts forced to do something that goes against their values. I would much rather see them convinced, even if it takes much longer, that allowing gays is the right thing to do. I believe society is becoming more tolerant over time. I understand that waiting for injustice to slowly be resolved is excruciating. Perhaps morality progresses one funeral at a time.
Economics also has this problem of convincing people that something is right. What is the right thing to do may be unpopular and forcing it on the population can lead to backlash. Education is the basis of economic policy, not the frontier of economic science. If you can't convince someone of something, it can't really be a stable policy in a democracy, since people will vote it out.
http://www.bilerico.com/2010/09/freedom_of_religion_and_non-discrimination_law.php#more
I am not really certain of my answer here, I am just exploring some thoughts, so let me know if you disagree with any point.
This is a difficult issue for me. While I don't like to see people discriminated against because of their gender, I also don't like strong arm tactics used by government to force a company to hire someone they don't want to, especially if the company is a religious affiliated group with objections to certain lifestyles. The first best situation would be where people were more tolerant. Discrimination is unprofitable - companies who only care about the bottom line will be willing to hire anyone who can get the job done. People who have strong prejudices will overcome that to discriminate. The question is given a group that is discriminatory, what should people do, and what should government do, and what legal principals should be considered?
The second best situation would be where people could self sort into groups large enough that discrimination was not a big deal for either group. As long as there were a decently sized proportion of companies willing not to discriminate, those will alternative lifestyles could work for the non-discriminatory companies and those who were discrinimatory could work for more culturally homogenous companies. Perhaps that is wishful thinking.
What if a large percentage of firms are discriminatory? Is it right to force a company to hire someone they don't want to? If the worker isn't just gay, but also unproductive, the company could legitimately claim a government taking. Would it be right to force them to fire a worker who can make 100 widgets so they can hire a worker who can make 50 widgets, but is transgendered/ethnic minority/etc? The lines between equal opportunity and equal outcome can get blurry. I think in the case of non-profits and religious organizations, discrimination should be allowed. People who don't want to associate with a certain type of person should not be forced to if they are not a public or for-profit entity. Shouldering oneself into such a group will not earn you any friends. For example, the Boy Scouts of America does (did?) not allow homosexuals. I was very disappointed by that decision. I have a good friend who came out in high school who earned his Eagle Scout while in the closet. I think their decision is wrong and the BSA is missing out on on a lot of great people who could help the scouting movement. Perhaps there are many people who would get a lot out of scouting, but are discouraged from joining because they would have to hide their sexuality. I would be really annoyed however if the government forced the BSA to accept open homosexuals in their ranks. The BSA is non profit. They strive to promote certain values and encourage their members to serve the community, and they have many religious overtones (although not associated with any religion in particular). I would be disappointed to see the scouts forced to do something that goes against their values. I would much rather see them convinced, even if it takes much longer, that allowing gays is the right thing to do. I believe society is becoming more tolerant over time. I understand that waiting for injustice to slowly be resolved is excruciating. Perhaps morality progresses one funeral at a time.
Economics also has this problem of convincing people that something is right. What is the right thing to do may be unpopular and forcing it on the population can lead to backlash. Education is the basis of economic policy, not the frontier of economic science. If you can't convince someone of something, it can't really be a stable policy in a democracy, since people will vote it out.