Well, I'm reluctant to get too dragged back in, but I'll have to answer from my experience in the civil rights movement of the 60s.
First, I don't know what you mean by operating under the radar. If he is servicing clients, and doing a good (or even a reasonably good) job, eventually he will get talked about and either a woman or an openly homosexual man will want to get a massage from this masseur. You say he will operate only by "word of mouth," but eventually that word will get to some interested woman or homosexual man. They will ask for an appointment, he will say no, and whether or not he says why, there is actual harm. So I don't see that it is possible for any significant length of time to operate under the radar to the extent that no targeted person will ever face actual exclusion. So I don't think the scenario of no actual harm exists.
Even if it did, I think there is a societal harm in any business, no matter how small, discriminating as he intends to. In fact, I think there is a societal harm in such discrimination even in private life, but also I think the right of personal privacy prevails there, so we allow the one harm because it is a lesser harm that trying to run peoples' private lives. But once a life becomes public, and any life which engages in business is public, I think that right of tolerance of private discrimination ends.
Any talk of "too small to matter" reminds me of the story often told of the man (it has probably been told with half the ministers/grandfathers/authority figures in the world as the alleged protagonist) asking a woman "would you sleep with me for a million dollars?" "Why, yes," says the woman. "Well then, would you sleep with me for twenty dollars?" Indignantly, "what kind of woman do you think I am?" "We've already established what kind of woman you are. Now we're just trying to establish how much."
Discrimination by a business is discrimination by a business, whether it is GM or Mojo.
Finally, while some may find this parternalistic to say, I think that society does harm to Mojo when it allows him to persist in running a discriminatory business. Yes, he is fully entitled in his personal life to be as discriminatory as he wants to on whatever grounds he wants to. But I submit that it is better for him not to be allowed to do so in his public life. I know this belief will be controverial, and no, I don't intend to spend dozens of posts defending it. There it is, take it or leave it as you will.
So yes, I do see harms. But also, I see harm in being sucked back into this discussion, given the contentious and even virulent tone it has taken. Even as I encourage Mojo to avoid doing harm to others, I will try to protect myself from harm, too. |
