anti-discrimination laws

fly in the face of common sense. By classifying more and more people as a protected class, you are making ohwhattheheckistheword... Let's start by defining our terms (a most important thing!)

Discrimination, Websters 11th Dictionary:

3 a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment

Hmm... Prejudiced.Let's look at the definition (same dictionary)

2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics.

No, much of what goes on is NOT discrimination, and people screaming their rights are violated because they can't see their burrito at Chipotle being made, is just CRAP. Here is part of it from the AP: “because the restaurants’ 45-inch counters are too high. The company now faces hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages.”

Because someone can't see their darn burrito being made, it's some kind of violation of their constitutional rights? NO its not. The government has been in the business of finding more and more 'rights' that are about as much of rights, as I am a chipmunk.

Check out the book "You Can't Say That! The growing threat to civil liberties from anti-discrimination laws". At the Amazon site, you can look inside the book - click on "look inside". I bought it, quite a good book.

I'm of a libertarian bent, and this blurb fits my views:

The libertarian concept of freedom of association is often rebuked from a moral/ethical context. Under laws in such a system, business owners could refuse service to anyone for whatever reason. Opponents argue that such practices are regressive and would lead to greater prejudice within society. Right-libertarians sympathetic to freedom of association, such as Richard Epstein, respond that in a case of refusing service (which thus is a case of the freedom of contract) unjustified discrimination incurs a cost and therefore a competitive disadvantage. Left-libertarians argue that such refusal would place those businesses at an economic disadvantage to those that provide services to all, making them less profitable and eventually leading them to close down.The libertarian concept of freedom of association is often rebuked from a moral/ethical context. Under laws in such a system, business owners could refuse service to anyone for whatever reason. Opponents argue that such practices are regressive and would lead to greater prejudice within society. Right-libertarians sympathetic to freedom of association, such as Richard Epstein, respond that in a case of refusing service (which thus is a case of the freedom of contract) unjustified discrimination incurs a cost and therefore a competitive disadvantage. Left-libertarians argue that such refusal would place those businesses at an economic disadvantage to those that provide services to all, making them less profitable and eventually leading them to close down.

Ok. I have to go cut up the cauliflower for tonight's dinner with salmon, so I'm done ranting. :)