Dear Bill,
Oh, what a beautiful morning. Congratulations on being a distinguished citizen of Oklahoma. Or, as you say in New York, Oklahoma! (The Rodgers and Hammerstein tune is actually the official state song.)
The so-called “Mrs. Murphy” exception you refer to is actually part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. I believe it applies to public accommodations of less than four units. And sure, at some point private individuals have the right to be racist if they want. (And I would excuse your long-deceased friend Mr. Girard from the label itself on grounds of historical time and place, though I wouldn’t allow his racial restriction to continue today.) But to extend the Mrs. Murphy exception to every private institution obviously would swallow up the Civil Rights Act itself.
It’s a useful reminder, though, that many reasonable people–nonracists–did oppose the 1964 Act. Useful for two reasons: One is that reasonable people may believe and practice things today that may seem terribly wrong not so long from now. Justice is a ratchet. (You might wish to include abortion on this list, though I certainly wouldn’t.) Among those who opposed the Civil Rights Act, or certainly would have if they’d been around, there is now a tendency to romanticize it in the name of opposing any further developments.
The other reason cuts the other way: It’s useful to be reminded that using the power of the government to tell people whom they must do business with really is a major imposition on private freedom. (Robert Bork wrote a notorious and unpersuasive but definitely pause-giving article making this case in the New Republic during the 1964 debate.) There’s no question the imposition is justified–and has been hugely successful–in rectifying the historical injustice to African-Americans. And adding other groups to the list has worked pretty well. But it is not cost-free and ought to be reserved for really special cases.
As I conceded, these two lessons contradict each other. But you can handle it.
More later. New topic?
Mike
