When Discrimination Becomes Tyranny

Joseph Farah
Tue, 09 Aug 2016 21:00:00 -0700
Opinion

Entrepreneur Nate Snell is hiring in Portland, Oregon.

You might think that would be good news in a country with 45 million working-age citizens completely out of the workforce.

But not so fast.
Updated: Wed Aug 10, 2016

Entrepreneur Nate Snell is hiring in Portland, Oregon.

You might think that would be good news in a country with 45 million working-age citizens completely out of the workforce.

But not so fast.

Snell, who owns Pip's Original Doughnuts and Chai in the northeast part of town, posted his job listing in search of prospective employees with "no medical, non-religious dietary restrictions," setting off a firestorm of attacks accusing him of discriminating against vegans.

The proprietor explained his position this way: "I want people who are passionate about what they sell. If you can't eat it, how can you be passionate about it? If the employee was to say something like, 'Well, I don't eat meat or I don't eat gluten, or I don't eat nuts or dairy,' any one of those things would preclude them from being able to give you an honest answer of what that tastes like or how good it is."

It's not illegal to discriminate in hiring on the basis of dietary preference - yet!

But how long will it be before governments require employers, as a matter of course, to stop making any judgment about the people they hire.

Let me suggest a few possibilities where the government's one-size-fits-all rules about employment might soon lead — if they haven't already:

—You've got a fine eating establishment — elegant, beautiful decor, great food, terrific service. Does a restaurateur have the right to require servers to "fit in"? What about rules against facial piercings, obvious tattoos, dress codes? Won't such restrictions offend some? Would they not be discriminatory?

—Suppose you own a bar and you determine it's not a good idea to hire alcoholic bartenders. Discrimination? Certainly, it is. But should the owner have the right to make that choice for the wellbeing of his or her establishment?

—Maybe you own a business that requires employees to handle lots of cash. Should you be forced to hire employees who have petty criminal records?

I'm telling you as sure as I am sitting here writing this column that the day is coming when every American will lose his or her God-given right to make choices that they believe are in the best interest of their safety, security, property and businesses.

It's already happening. The pressure is mounting. We are losing the right to follow our own consciences and common sense in determining our own destinies.

The government knows best — and that includes unaccountable judges.

We've already seen florists, bakers, caterers, photographers, videographers and others told they must accept clientele and jobs that violate their own sense of religious freedom.

Where does this end?

Is all "discrimination" bad?

The word simply means "an act or instance of discriminating or making a distinction."

Is it wrong for people to make distinctions?

Have we lost our individual right to choose what we think is right and what is wrong?

If so, who is wise enough to make our collective decisions for everyone?

We are rapidly approaching a point at which anti-discrimination hysteria becomes tyranny. Someone has to make decisions about right and wrong. That's ultimately what laws are all about. But we're making so many, and, in the process, micro-managing the lives of Americans to such an extent, that individual conscience and choice is falling by the wayside.

It's a consequence of people becoming too easily offended.

Why was there hysteria of the choice Nate Snell made about his little doughnut shop in Portland?

Do vegans and those with who can't tolerate gluten really yearn to work at a doughnut shop? Aren't there other options for them? Aren't there better choices to fit their lifestyles and diets?

I don't eat pork or shellfish, for instance. Would I want to work in the kitchen of a shrimp restaurant or a Honey-Baked Ham shop? No. So why can't people just make choices that conform with their own life choices? Why do they insist on seeing themselves as victims of "discrimination" only because business people set some common-sense standards in what they determine to be their own best interest?

Everyone acknowledges today that racial discrimination in hiring is wrong. It's arbitrary and immoral. Is it really progress to equate every lifestyle with race? Is it wise? Doesn't it diminish what people have been forced to endure in terms of racial prejudice?