I wrote a letter to the NY Times in reply to Gail Collins' piece on Arizona. It was published but, of course, even though the point of the letter was to ask for an explanation, there were no replies.
Here's the letter:
"On the political spectrum I'd align most closely with Elizabeth Warren. I say this because I feel like I'm not supposed to have such thoughts as these. I would like someone to explain how the law is supposed to deal with someone [in the private sector] who refuses to serve ANYONE for ANY reason. Seinfeld's "Soup Nazi" was hilarious but fictional. I don't care HOW good his soup is, he'd be out of business in a flash.
"discrimination is bad for business"
Obviously if any public funds were at stake, use the ton-of-bricks provisions. But firstly, how does the government force a private business to provide goods/services to a particular party. Secondly, shouldn't "the market" decide what gets provided and what gets consumed?"
To expand a little, say a wedding cake baker is stupid enough to decide that he will not provide a cake with two tuxedoed guy figures on top. Is the government supposed to MAKE him bake such a cake. I can tell you I'm one person who would refuse to eat cake baked under those circumstances.
I believe there is a political point to be made here. I'm just surprised that it's ME making it.
Discrimination is wrong.
Discrimination is stupid.
But don't people have a right to be wrong and stupid? To my understanding the government only gets involved when government/public interests/money are involved - like MAKING a school accept a black student.