So in a small town, when there was only one print shop, that would be worse than in a big city? And government services, where there’s only one source, need to allow everyone.

Ethics are subjective though, so it’s hard to debate an issue without laying out the framework to discuss it in. To me, there is no right to do business with someone else, so I believe it is the business’s right to discriminate. I’ll add the note though that government services shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate.

The problem with theories like that is that they rely on the fundamental goodness of people, and assume that people will do the right thing. Maybe back when Smith originally wrote out his theory that was true (although what I know of history doesn’t support that), but especially when we’re in cities, and dealing with so many people, most folks will not worry about the ethics of their choices.

I know that I frequently justify choices that I know are unethical by “I can only do so much”. Would I use that printer? Probably no more often than I do other things I oughtn’t. FYI, I ate meat meals three times last week, along side my out-of-season cucumbers. I don’t think that they’re going out of business any time soon.

“If people want to act stupidly and lose business, that’s their choice. I also support the public’s ability to call them out on their discrimination even if the negative press harms them.”

There’s always a line somewhere. The public have a right to be protected, for example, from someone practicing proactive hate. But a private enterprise? They should be allowed to refuse service for any reason, and risk the consequences.

Can a restaurant refuse to serve based on skin colour? In practice, it doesn’t really matter whether such a thing is legally permissable—the ensuing boycott would soon put them out of business.

Anyhow, thanks for the updates. I hope your midterms go well. We should have a chat sometime.