And yet when enough people hate someone’s skin color or sexual orientation, you think the latter should find a new place to live, if they can manage it. You’re complaining about a safeguard preventing a majority from imposing its will on people.
I don’t know. You’re actually talking about what people should be able to do with their property in the absence of laws, as if what people can own and how others interact with it isn’t entirely defined by our agreed laws. And you’ve made this fictional conception absolute and insisted on viewing all life in terms of it.
So we see anti-discrimination laws don’t harm anyone by your own standards, and have made life better for a great many people. But it doesn’t matter; they don’t put property first, so they are not just bad but abominations, even as much so as the Jim Crow laws.
How much more rejoinder than “why would anyone want to follow this philosophy when trying to apply it gives horrible outcomes in practice” is needed?
