Lent Post: Three-in-a-Day: Forcing Equality

Salvete.

So I was talking with my liberal friends last night, and we were discussing homosexuality for the tenth or so time. I brought up the Arizona businessman forced to work for the homosexual clientele by the government. I believe that his case would be justifiable to everyone, but apparently I was wrong. The reason, according to my colleague, is that equality must be enforced.

If you need the government to enforce equality in non-governmental institutions, you're trying too hard. You're forcing companies or individuals to do things against their wills and beliefs. That is tyranny, plain and simple. I don't care what cause it is; the government is never the best way to settle disputes, although it is quite an effective way.

What if people are violently assaulting minorities? We already have those laws in place; we simply need to enforce them. Schools are not integrated enough? The government is its own individual entity; it should treat all students equally, "equal under the law." Businesses do not have that same obligation, since they neither have control over nor are directed by the people. It's that simple. If you don't like the business, don't go there, or don't work there, if that applies. It is a free country. What about all the hatred? Hatred is not a crime, albeit hideous. Destroying hate would have greater repercussions than hate itself.

I dearly hope that my friends understand my point of view.

Update: I recently received a comment stating that it would be ridiculous for the reverse of this situation to happen. That is, to say, elitist groups such as Neo-Nazis would not bother choosing, say, Jewish businesses because it is, according to them, out of their league. It's funny how I don't recall mentioning this on my blog, but I will address it nonetheless. It's always good to encourage two-sided debate.

Perhaps that theory is correct, but the threat of said event is still both legal and plausible. Abstaining from a business because of beliefs is one thing; targeting businesses for their beliefs is completely another. If said Neo-Nazis boycotted the Jewish business, there would probably be no dire consequences, since the Neo-Nazi population is too small and too lunatic to make a difference. The Jewish business would probably be a lot better off without them. However, Neo-Nazis (and other bigoted organizations, mind you) would jump at the possibility of forcing said Jewish (or other minority) businesses to provide them with whatever services said businesses offer. The business would be helpless, and the government would side with the customer or risk inconsistency; the minority suddenly becomes a wide-open, perfect target. So, while the commenter was right in saying that "Nazi don't shop for Jewish wedding planners" before this ruling, the ruling now incentivizes Neo-Nazis to demand business from their target. That's what the homosexual couple did in Arizona. That's what anyone can do to anyone now, minority or majority, right or wrong.