Duncan v. Koppelman debate

[Eric Segall]

>I would think that this arrangement might appeal to the libertarian
>in Rick. Doesn't it reduce the government role more than both the
>traditional approach and the new world order represented by Mrs.
>Smith and the Boy Scouts? I wonder whether the arrangement appeals to
>Andy and Sandy. Are they willing, in principle, to protect the rights
>of private groups and private individuals to use their property and
>their rights of association in ways that express disapproval of
>homosexual conduct, if this is coupled with an end to governmental
>discrimination in public law contexts?
>
>
>-- Michael McConnell (U of Utah)
>
>This is a hard question. If the government prohibits private groups and
individuals from discriminating on the basis of race, gender, religion,
etc., but allows discrimination on the basis of sexual orienatation, then
the government is certainly taking a serious stand on the moral question at
issue, even if the government doles out benefits without regard to sexual
orientation. The reason the government does not prohibit discrimination on
the basis of hair color is that no body discriminates against people based
on hair color, but people definitely do discriminate on the basis of sexual
orientation and thus the government has a decision to make. Because I feel
that discrimination based on sexual orientation is the equivalent to
discrimination based on race, gender, national origin, etc., Michael's
proposed solution seems troubling.

Eric Segall (GSU)