CRS Recommendation: Federal Civil Rights Statutes
A Stitch in Haste recommends the following report from the Congressional Research Service:
Summary:
Under federal law, an array of civil rights statutes are available to protect individuals from discrimination. This report provides a brief summary of selected federal civil rights statutes, including the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Pay Act, the Voting Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Fair Housing Act, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the Rehabilitation Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Equal Educational Opportunities Act, the Age Discrimination Act, the Civil Service Reform Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Congressional Accountability Act, and the Reconstruction Statutes.
The 12-page report is a quick and easy read and a good reference piece.
As the debate over the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (either with or without transgenderism as a protected status) returns to Congress (and the blogosphere), libertarians will again face the conundrum they have not always negotiated well in the gay marriage debate.
To pine for a freedom-drenched utopia where government intervention regarding invidious discrimination in private affairs is neither authorized nor needed (e.g., where there would be a “right to be a racist” but with few or no racists seeking to invoke such a right) misses the reality-based point: We don’t have such a utopia now, nor will we achieve it any time soon. These various civil rights laws exist, including the ones that infringe upon property rights and freedom of contract (the ones that prohibit discrimination by the government itself are, all libertarians should agree, not only legitimate but also desirable).
The question for libertarians therefore becomes: Taking these laws as a fact, as an external constraint that we may disagree with, do we then embrace the quest to make these laws as sensible, consistent and reflective of other desirable principles (i.e., equal protection) as possible (i.e., by adding sexual orientation to the list of protected classes)? Or do we close our eyes, put our hands over our ears and chant loudly, “Not a state actor! Not a state actor!”?
If you’re going to have a law, even a law you’d rather not have, then you might as well craft it right.
Previous CRS Recommendations:
The South Ossetia Conflict
Congress and the States
Political Activity by Tax-Exempt Institutions
The Law of Church and State
Constitutional Limits on Hate Crime Legislation
Same-Sex Marriage — Legal Issues
Saudi Arabia
The National Debt
Restricting Video Game Sales to Minors
Warrantless Wiretapping
Foreign Holdings of Public Debt
China’s Internet Censorship
Summary of Rumsfeld v. FAIR
Filed under: Constitutional Issues, Freedom of Contract, Law, Libertarianism, Property Rights, Society, Religion, Culture Wars
". . .do we then embrace the quest to make these laws as sensible, consistent and reflective of other desirable principles (i.e., equal protection) as possible (i.e., by adding sexual orientation to the list of protected classes)? Or do we close our eyes, put our hands over our ears and chant loudly, “Not a state actor! Not a state actor!”?"
I think that libertarians ought to look at minimizing the costs of these policies. This would mean that sexual orientation is not added as a protected class in most situations. But, it can be added when dealing with true monopoly situations i.e. the government's hiring policies.
Thus firms like eharmony.com would not be forced to provide services to homosexuals because of the ease of entry in internet dating. The potential damage from these types of lawsuits is just too high. Just look at the costly impact that the ADA or "just cause" firing interventions in the labor market have had.
Generally, I think the policy of cost minimization is the best policy for libertarians dealing with non-libertarian policies. Although the Utopian hopes should not be given up, and policies that are closer (in policy space) to the libertarian ideal should be preferred to expanding the effects of the policies.