The stakes are high but the rewards are rich.  Live your life by the right principles and achieve the happiness you deserve—by consequence you will show that you are worthy of respect and consideration, not by virtue of being gay but by virtue of being human

Presumably, gays and other minorities are also included in those Americans who have the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” If so, the above quote tells them that they have the right to translate these rights into reality.

But if bigots discriminate against gays in matters such as employment, they are also violating the rights of gays to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, because they are acting to prevent the right of gays to translate their rights into reality. 

So what we have here is a clash of rights – if an employer refuses a job to a gay, he is violating the gay’s right to translate his rights into reality; if legislation forces the employer to hire gays, it violates the employer’s self-same right.

So this matter can’t be decided by an appeal to rights, because the rights in question are the problem, not the solution. It’s a question of whose rights will prevail, and questions of this sort have to be settled by appeal to other considerations.

Brendan

I’m not arguing for a right to a guaranteed job. I’m questioning whether the quote that heads this article supports discrimination in employment on grounds other than merit. I don’t think it does.

I assume that Rand meant what she said: “…no rights can exist without the right to translate one’s rights into reality”. If we take as an example the right to work, most working people exercise this right through paid employment. If employers have the right to discriminate on grounds other than merit, they are denying some people the right to translate their rights into reality.

To ensure the latter, there should be no legal impediments in the way of translating one’s rights into reality. Stated positively, everyone should have the opportunity – as of right -- to apply for any job for which they are qualified, and to expect to be treated solely on their merits.

Brendan

Stated positively, everyone should have the opportunity – as of right -- to apply for any job for which they are qualified, and to expect to be treated solely on their merits.

I noted this passage, but it’s not specifically relevant to discrimination in employment, which is an active process rather than a passive attitude. This sort of discrimination aims to prevent certain people from being hired, and so amounts to a restriction placed on their right to work.

And Rand seems to agree with this interpretation, when she enunciates the principle – “no rights can exist without the right to translate one’s rights into reality”.

Brendan

Hi Jon. I’m having a real education today. I’m not sure what this poly-thing is, but it sounds pretty weird, so I’ll accept your offer that I must have a legal right to refuse to work for this particular boss.

 I think you’ve misunderstood my position. I’m not arguing that an employer must accept a particular person for a job, or vice versa. I’m saying job opportunities should be open to all on merit (“all other things being equal”).

I’m sure we’d agree that the hiring process is often highly subjective. The way I see it, apart from the moral aspect, anti-discrimination laws are a way of bringing a degree of objectivity into the hiring process. I think this is a good thing.

Brendan

No man, neither Negro nor white, has any claim to the property of another man.  A man's rights are not violated by a private individual's refusal to deal with him.  Racism is an evil, irrational and morally contemptible doctrine -- but doctrines cannot be forbidden or prescribed by law.  Just as we have to protect a communist's freedom of speech, even though his doctrines are evil, so we have to protect a racist's right to the use and disposal of his own property.  Private racism is not a legal, but a moral issue -- and can be fought only by private means, such as economic boycott or social ostracism.

This sort of discrimination aims to prevent certain people from being hired, and so amounts to a restriction placed on their right to work.

The way I see it, apart from the moral aspect, anti-discrimination laws are a way of bringing a degree of objectivity into the hiring process. I think this is a good thing.