A few decades ago a woman I knew well, of Japanese descent, told me a story about a time she walked into a Korean restaurant. “We don’t want your kind in here,” someone staffing the eatery bluntly told her. Old prejudices die hard, and the woman promptly left. She could’ve filed a lawsuit, of course, as some people might have; really, though, the restaurateur did her a favor. How? Let’s consider an alternative reality in her situation.

The restaurant owner, fearing government anti-discrimination law and court action, could’ve felt compelled to seat my friend. Then, with the prejudice-born hatred exacerbated by resentment over having to serve someone they detest, the staff could have—and likely would have—contaminated her food with foreign matter. (Use your imagination. Yuck.) So, question:

Is it wise creating a situation in which someone who hates your guts is forced to serve you? Do you want that person preparing your meal? Are you fine with such an individual baking your cake and sticking his wrathful hands in the dough?

Admittedly, though, I’m biased myself. You see, I have this bizarre hang-up where I’d rather not give my money to someone who despises me with the fires of a thousand burning suns. With the 33-million-plus businesses in the U.S., a business owner needs my money far more than I need his products or services. So reveal the hatred—and, most importantly, let’s have government allow its revelation—so that I can spend my cash where I’m appreciated.

But that’s just me. The masochists among us may feel differently. Thankfully, however, there are other reasons to accept race and sex discrimination.

Virtually all of us would agree that hatred-driven discrimination is wrong. But try this on for size: A woman close to me used to own a small gynecological practice. She would only hire female assistants because she concluded that her patients would be more comfortable having intimate medical care provided by other women. “Well, that’s understandable,” you say?

Ah, but it’s still “sex discrimination.”

Once, however, we establish that this can be legitimate, what about other situations? For example, let’s say a security company wants to hire only men for security-guard positions because it learns, via research, that they create more of a deterrent against crime than female guards do. Moreover, because of this, the outfit’s owners find that businesses desiring security services are more likely to retain theirs if they provide only male guards. Should they have to engage in quota hiring, and possibly sacrifice clients, in deference to a feminist agenda?

Moving on to race, a couple of West Indian restaurants I went to years ago had, unsurprisingly, all-black staff. It certainly lent an air of authenticity. Ditto for Chinese restaurants with all Chinese-descent employees. What, though, of a German or Scandinavian eatery that, also endeavoring to cultivate authenticity, only wants to hire white Germanic/Scandinavian-looking workers? Owing to conditioning, this idea may make some people uncomfortable. But if the restaurateurs determine that such authenticity is a market imperative, should they have to sacrifice business and money in the name of someone else’s social imperatives?

Now, whether or not the security company or restaurant is correct in its market determinations is not the point. It’s entirely possible, too, that if word spreads that an establishment is discriminating “unfashionably,” it may lose business even if its motives are pure. The question is: Who decides?

Will the government, or some social-activist set, financially compensate a business when anti-discrimination standards do cost it money? (Note: U.S. companies spend approximately $20.2 billion annually complying with anti-discrimination law.) The reality is that the people calling the tune here are not the ones paying the piper.

Speaking of which brings us to the next point: freedom of association. Consider: You have the right to include in or exclude from your home whomever you please, for whatever reason you fancy.

Why should you lose this right simply because you decide to erect a few more tables and sell food or peddle flowers or marriage-related services from your dwelling? It’s still your property, bought with your money and maintained by the sweat of your own brow. Should the government really have the right to say, “You can have the freedom to earn money as your own boss or freedom of association—but you can’t have both”?

The reality, too, is that only a minuscule percentage of us would, left to our own devices, discriminate in odious, unjust ways. Yet anti-discrimination law isn’t just used against such people. For example, the pre-woke Boy Scouts were sued by a girl who wanted to be a “boy” scout, homosexual activists, and atheists objecting to God being in the organization’s pledge. (Among other things, such lawfare sends a message: Capitulate to the plaintiff’s demands—or risk bankrupting yourself with legal fees.) So, question:

Should we really spend billions adjudicating such cases, as we sue each other into oblivion and enrich trial lawyers, in the name of thwarting those invidious-discriminator “one-percenters”?

The kicker is that anti-discrimination law doesn’t even eliminate all unjust discrimination—only discrimination the government doesn’t approve of. That is, the law establishes “protected classes”—ergo, there are also unprotected classes, in what was meant to be a classless society. So if you don’t want that drag queen working at your daycare center, a costly lawsuit may be nigh. But if someone refuses to serve or hire you because you’re conservative (or liberal), unattractive, poor, or a multitude of other things, well, tough luck. In other words, the government itself is discriminating—among types of discrimination.

Some may say that anti-discrimination law was at one time necessary (debatable). Even if so, however, those days are long past. Forced association is not free association, and coerced service likely won’t be good service—and does a disservice to the causes of liberty, fraternity, and market-choice clarity.