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. (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. 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? The issue here is not expression, but association. (Obviously, this does not apply in any area where there is government involvement, such as civil service, access to public places, receipt of government benefits, voting rights, public education, and the like.)