Jeffrey Tucker made the following observation on the issue of discrimination (bold emphasis added).
Notice how anti-discrimination law applies to the producer but not the consumer. Consumers are allowed to use any grounds they want for denying money here or spending money there, and that’s never questioned. How is it that you should lose your right to choose just because you stand on the other side of the counter?
Any argument that can be made for prohibiting discrimination by business owners could also be made for prohibiting discrimination by the consumer. You didn’t buy my cake because (fill in the blank reason)? That’s illegal; it’s violating my right to a livelihood.
It’s actually more defensible because unlike the consumer, the business owner has invested more. The consumer can choose not to buy, but the business owner has to sell in order to remain in operation. Does that give him a higher moral authority in the situation as far as discrimination is concerned? Should we not also be as concerned about how people discriminate in which businesses they frequent as we do the customers business owners provide services for?
Even if someone were to try implementing such a law, is there anyone who actually believes such as a law would succeed and people wouldn’t simply conceal or hide the true reason for their choices?
Trying to coerce people to behave the way you want them to is futile.
The best way to get people to behave the way you want them to is to provide voluntary, non-coercive incentives. Coercion, aggression and threats of violence only harden people’s resolve because it reframes the fight into one over control over their life.