It is perfectly legal to discriminate on the grounds of sexuality.
Not in a business open to the general public in civilized states...
It may be legal in Mississippi...but I am talking about civilized society.
"If it is immoral to unfairly and disrespectfully discriminate in business, it must also be wrong in private life."
I think it is wrong across the board...
However, it is legal to discriminate personally on the basis of sex, race, religion, etc. or in a private club, etc.
Legal is not always moral, nor is immoral always illegal.
Two different issues.
Racism is a practice.
You can't ban nor legislate what people should believe or enforce how to think...
However you can legislate actions and measure actions...
I don't think the blacks in America thought that because they were legally protected to enjoy the same rights as whites...that they believe the racists would not continue to hate blacks...they just knew that they would enjoy the same freedoms when it came to behaviors in society.
Someone can be a racist in their thinking, and never actually practice racism nor violate any laws which prohibit racism...
"Most racist businesses will go broke pretty quick, this is not 1950s Alabama any more."
Whites only private clubs have not suffered, so why would whites only businesses suffer? They might actually get more business in Mississippi or Alabama than if they were serving all people...
It is understood and accepted that some people only want to be around their own "kind" and they can join clubs that only admit their own kind, have private places, etc.
The issue that Rand would not deal with was a public restaurant owned by a private individual refusing to serve a black man...which he would not condemn.
Quote from Ghost of Cutten:
The only real legitimate principle to ban businesses practising racism is to claim that there is a "right" to be treated "fairly" and/or with respect. Discriminating on grounds of skin colour or other superficial non-relevant factors is grossly unfair and disrespectful, after all. And I have a lot of sympathy for that view. However, this right is not recognised in other spheres of modern liberal societies. It is perfectly legal to discriminate on the grounds of sexuality, attractiveness, intelligence, and race in many spheres of life such as choice of sexual and marriage partners, personal friends, even relatives (e.g. by refusing to talk to relatives who are of different background). For example, many american women discriminate against men of asian ethnicity (so does hollywood) yet that is not illegal. Ditto for many american men against black women. Isn't deny someone's right to reproduce, find love and start a family far more harmful and morally wrong than refusing to serve them a burger?
If it is immoral to unfairly and disrespectfully discriminate in business, it must also be wrong in private life. It's either one or the other. You can't have it both ways. Lozzer and the PC mainstream are total hypocrites who legally sanction grotesque racism as long as it stays indoors and doesn't frighten the horses i.e. fits some totally aribtrary definition of what is "acceptable" racism and what isn't. This public/private distinction is not justified by anything other than arbitrary delineation.
And if you ban private racism, it requires a degree of control and thought-policing that would be positively Orwellian. Thus the only morally and logically consistent position is to legally not act against non-violent racism, but rather to attack it through social/peer pressure. Most racist businesses will go broke pretty quick, this is not 1950s Alabama any more.
