1 July—I noted yesterday, in my brief but hearty approval of the Supreme Court’s ruling a few minutes earlier in 303 Creative et al. v. Elenis et al., allowing an evangelical Christian web designer in Colorado to refuse to do business with those whose lifestyles she didn’t approve of, “it’s a proper and desirable ruling simply because a person should be allowed to decide whom to do business with, for whatever reasons, ridiculous as some reasons may be.”

That comment inspired El Liberalissimo to reflect, “So you think it’s perfectly OK if businesses in Litchfield or elsewhere decide not to serve Jews?”

My answer, however regretful, must be “Yup.” Looking back at yesterday’s comment, I should have written “ridiculous or reprehensible as some reasons may be.” But that doesn’t change the fact that a privately held business of any sort ought to be given the freedom to choose its customers—and, in fact, its employees. Period. Certainly it’s morally and ethically indefensible discrimination, as far as even I’m concerned. And it’s outrageous and reprehensible and shameful.

But why should any nongovernmental entity be forced to do business with those with whom it would rather not do business or employ people it would rather not have working for it? That’s every bit as unfair to the discriminator as discrimination is to the discriminatee.

It certainly would appear to be a stupid business practice to refuse to serve any potential customers. But consider that it could also generate business from others of the discriminator’s sociopathic disposition. We see the effects—fallout—of business decisions all the time, for better or worse.

While it’s unlawful in federal and most state law for businesses to discriminate against so-called protected classes, businesses can nevertheless refuse to serve or employ non-protected classes. Those, however, are few and far between, based on such criteria as education level, economic level, social membership, illegal alien status, and criminal record. But even discrimination on those grounds is fair game for litigation.

Protected classes that have an affirmative right not to be discriminated against (except by religious fanatics who abuse the First Amendment, of course), on the other hand, include those based on race; color; religion (including religious dress and grooming practices); sex/gender (including pregnancy; childbirth, breastfeeding and/or related medical conditions); sexual orientation; gender identity and expression; marital status; medical condition (genetic characteristics, cancer or a record or history of cancer); military or veteran status; national origin (including language use and possession of a driver’s license issued to persons unable to prove their presence in the United State is authorized under federal law); ancestry; disability (mental and physical including HIV/AIDS, cancer, and genetic characteristics); genetic information; request for family care leave; request for leave for an employee’s own serious health condition; request for pregnancy disability leave; retaliation for reporting patient abuse in tax-supported institutions; age over forty.

That’s California’s comprehensive list of protected classes.

So a private enterprise should have the right to be run as the owners and managers see fit, including choice of employees and customers. But that right should be tempered with reason, thus making legislated protected classes and other anti-discrimination laws unnecessary.

We’ve got a hope . . .