I'm probably going to say some things that are offensive to some, but bare with me, if you will.

This is all reading, no videos.

~

First let's talk about something that's going to be a source of alot of butthurt, and basically what equality doesn't mean.

I don't think you can legislate certain aspects of tolerance.

If a restaurant owner, for example, doesn't want to serve any particular patron; he is entitled to. It doesn't matter what the owner's reasoning is, it's his business and he can refuse it to you. There are pitfalls to having this, of course; institutionalized racism being a clear historical example. But that doesn't take away from the point that a government shouldn't be able to tell you that you "have to" give any person business. I think the pitfalls of this are culturally based, but I am also a proponent of being culturally a priori (putting your own culture first), as a matter of cultural/social permanence.

I'll digress if you don't want to read.

I'll give you an example.

#1 You own a corner store, and there's a guy who walks in the door, who's wearing nothing but a pair of tattered shorts and he's really dirty and smelly.

Would you tell him to leave?

Isn't that being unfair to the dirty and under-clothed?

~

#2 You own a corner store, and there's a man from your community whom you know is a (for argument's sake) a Wahhabist Muslim (preaches Taliban/AlQaeda Islam).

Would you tell him to leave?

What would you do if the law said you can't, because he's a minority and any discrimination against such person is illegal.

~

#3 You walk into a corner store, and the owner says he doesn't want your business.

What do you do?

-Go find somewhere else to get your energy drink?

-Complain that he's being discriminatory until he has to take your business?

~

I think most of you will probably still disagree with me here, but I don't think a small business owner has any federally mandated duty to be non-discriminatory if he/she so chooses. Now I'd also argue the constitutionality of making state/local injunctions to the same effect. I would however make the case that "corporations" (which I would deny the rights to own things like land and such, don't worry LS) would not have the same privilege as being business selective. But this is really the extent of it, government institutions (I like nationalized healthcare and education as well) would definitely have to be non-discriminatory.

But this all belies meritocratic discrimination, to which there has to be an established protection thereof. The problem with making equality entirely open ended is that you leave yourself no means by which you can be selective.

Affirmative action is a clear cut example of what kind of stupidity this leads to.

~

So...

Let's get back to what equality does mean.

-Equal protection under the law

-Equal rights on the open market

That second one may seem kinda silly, considering the rant above, but we are talking about corporate entities vs. small business. I really should have written out a short tirade about business structures/licenses and such, but I'm going to assume you can get where I am going.

What it means is that that Joe Blow who has some land, and opens a Gas Station, he can tell anybody he doesn't want their business, because he's a small business. But McDonalds or Texaco on the other hand, cannot, because they have a recognized interstate/international business license, which would require of them to meet the Federal non-discrimination standards. This however, does not mean that racial demographics between populace and x/y/z body of employees or students have to be the same, because that undercuts any sort of meritocratic power they might try to make use of to find the best and brightest.