DISCRIMINATION:
Most reasonable people say they believe in the idea that people should be judged on their merits as individuals, and not on any irrelevant or immutable trait such as race or gender. On behavior or association, people tend to agree discrimination on the basis of socially valued behaviors (such as religious practice) is wrong, but they are less sure about personal issues such as sexual orientation, which is part behavior and partly biological.
Pure "capitalism" would say people may, in their appropriation of their private property, decide with whom they want to be associated, whether for good or bad reasons. We have gotten used to the notion, however, that we cannot trust private citizens if we did without laws prohibiting race, gender, religious, handicap, or age discrimination. And we probably do need some anti-discrimination laws.
The government is the greatest purveyor of discrimination. Let's start with affirmative action, which today often leads to reverse discrimination. A.A. was originally intended to break open the "good-old-boy" mentality that kept some minorities out, but today simply may result in a persons gaining advantage at an individual level because of minority race or gender status. In the past, government actually goaded "private" discrimination with Jim Crow laws and other laws such as the Chinese Exclusion Act.
Today, government still practices "discrimination" against gays and lesbians, which ranges from almost outright exclusion from military service to unfavorable treatment in adoption and custody cases. The paternalistic nature of government in military personnel policy or in child protection seems to make some "discrimination" inevitable. Should government make up for this by passing laws like the 1994 proposed Employment non-Discrimination Act?
To me, this seems a bit disingenuous. Most larger employers are much more progressive than government in not only providing non-legally driven "diversity factors" covering sexual orientation in their personnel manuals, but even to providing spousal benefits.
But most employment growth is in small, more personal business. There is still the issue that some businesses may feel that the presence of open gays in their marketing forces, at least, could drive away customers, or that they may provide a health-care liability because of AIDS (but this fear is indeed receding). Furthermore, common law does provide gays some meaningful protection against wrongful discharge, invasion of privacy, or even indirect sexual harassment. But should people depend on income, to support their goals, on employers or customers who find their behaviors or values disturbing?
More important is that gays (especially the men) often really do have "freer" lifestyles and talking of a forced equality leads to the apples-and-oranges bushel. What is most important is that gays not be excluded and that government set an example by not invading the bedroom and by not excluding them or setting them up for private discrimination.
copyright 1997