"Gary L. Drescher" wrote in message
news:f%ASa.93708$GL4.25281@rwcrnsc53...
| "C J Campbell" wrote in message
| ...
| ...
|
| I'd just like to do a quick consistency check here, CJ. By the above
| reasoning, if (hypothetically) BA had ejected Mr. Glimore for being black
or
| Jewish (rather than for his button), then (although I assume you'd
| disapprove of that policy) you'd be equally unsympathetic to Mr. Gilmore
for
| suing them, and you'd consider him equally "hypocritical" for thereby
| challenging BA's "freedom"--correct? Indeed, you'd consider Mr. Gilmore's
| wrongdoing to be just as grave as a slave owner's, correct?
|

That is indeed correct. That does not meant that I approve of such
discrimination -- I merely assert that I think people have an inalienable
right to do business, or not, with anyone they please for any reason. There
is no moral difference between a company that will not do business with
blacks or Jews than a boycott of that business by blacks or Jews or any
other group. I will grant that I would probably honor a boycott against a
discriminatory business, but again I think this is a matter that is better
handled through social pressure than through official legislation. I believe
that government interference in this relationship does more harm than good.
Such laws breed more resentment than tolerance.

Frankly, I have never understood racial discrimination. Such divisions of
humanity have always seemed artificial to me. Why a business would
deliberately cut off a large potential customer base and then insult others
by doing so just seems to me to be really bad business. Nevertheless, I
think a business has a right to be stupid, to put it bluntly.