anti-discrimination

Affirmative action proponents face a battle this Monday when the Supreme Court hears Christian Legal Society vs. Martinez. The challenger argues that a campus religious group should have the right to seek members only among those groups adhering to their religious beliefs.  The explicit challenge involves the right of CLS to exclude non-Christians, gays and non-celibate students.  This case raises the critical issue of whether organizations can “discriminate” – that is form associations to promote specific values or whether that option is precluded by currently dominant views of “anti-discrimination.”  It will be an interesting decision.  And the chances of America moving toward a truly free world where tolerance rather than value-affirmation becomes public policy are looking much better.  The author of the piece was Jonathan Turley, a left-of-center law professor at George Washington University!

Marginal Revolution’s Alex Tabarrok points to a proposed rule in California that would reclassify adult film actors as being subject to certain employment regulations. The unintended consequences are potentially fatal:

California’s anti-discrimination laws prohibit requiring an HIV test as a condition of employment; therefore the adult film industry’s current testing process, in which every performer is tested for HIV monthly, would be illegal. Nor would adult film producers be allowed to “discriminate” by refusing employment to HIV-positive performers. As a result, untested and HIV-positive performers would be able to work in the industry, raising the risks of HIV outbreaks–particularly since condom breakage or slippage can occur.

Sounds like regulators and activists need to think that one through a little more carefully.