Lizard writes:
At 12:55 PM 12/23/97 -0500, Colin Rafferty wrote:
Freedom of expression is not the same as freedom of oppression.
How is someone 'oppressed' by my choosing not to deal with him for some reasons, but not for other reasons? Either way, he does not get my services.
I refuse to hire you because you are black -- you are oppressed. I refuse to hire you because you're an Aquarius and my astrologer told me not to hire Aquarians -- you are not oppressed. I refuse to hire you because you're a Republican and I'm a Democrat, and I don't think we'll work well together -- you are not oppressed.
But in all cases, you are not hired.
Explain the logic of this to me.
The logic is about patterns of discrimination of society and the State acting as a social engineer to remove the patterns. It is about basic human decency, and giving a person a fighting chance. If society, in general, discriminated against people with freckles, it is likely that it would be made illegal.
(Yes, it is perfectly legal to not hire someone based on star sign, political affiliation, or having freckles.)
No human being has a right to compel service from another human being.
No majority group has a right to discriminate against a minority. You prove that you know The Truth, and I'll prove that I know The Truth.
If I do not wish to engage in trade with you, that's my right. Would you be less oppressed if I just closed up shop and refused to trade with ANYONE?
Oppression is done by a society. It can only be stopped by acting against the individuals in the society that are doing the oppressing.
The issue here is not expression, but association.
That's a good point. However, the alternate doesn't have the same rhythm: Freedom of association is not the same as freedom of oppression. -- Colin