Whenever a story involving discrimination appears in the news statists are quick to demand more anti-discrimination laws. I believe that anti-discrimination laws are both ineffective and unnecessary. While I do believe one is free to believe whatever they want and associate with whoever they want I also know that markets have a history of treating those who discriminate very poorly. Case in point, some believers in religions that view homosexuality as a sin have chosen to discriminate against homosexuals. A recent clash between one of these individuals and a gay couple demonstrates the inevitable outcome:
A husband-and-wife bakery shop team in Oregon were forced to close their shop doors and move to cheaper digs — their home — after gay-rights activists hounded them and drove away contract business because they refused for Christian reasons to bake for a same-sex wedding.
The Kleins say they’re now closing up their doors and moving their operations to their home. Their business, they say, has suffered a serious revenue hit from the unexpected activism and backlash.
If you choose to discriminate then people who oppose discrimination are apt to cut off ties with you and encourage others to cut off ties with you. For a business such activism can be fatal. This story demonstrates why I prefer market-based solutions to statist solutions. Although the bakery owners did something many found disagreeable nobody brought force into the equation. The act, which many found disagreeable, lead to the end of the bakery, which should discourage other business owners from perusing the same path (although they are still free to do so if they choose).
EDIT: 2013-09-05: 09:44: Corrected a small typo that was pointed out to me via a Bitmessage (cool, huh).