I would argue exactly the opposite. Nothing should be done about it. She should still be fired. Is it a short-sighted and stupid policy? Absolutely. But people have the right to make stupid policy decisions.

I think that she should indeed make it known in as many avenues as possible that they do descriminate against non-Muslims, but at that point, keep the government out of it and let the market handle it.

In the theoretical sense, I would agree with you. But the fact is, innumerable anti-discrimination laws exist and are a fact of life. Why should Muslims be allowed a privilege of discrimination not available to everyone else?

You raise a good point, but unless you think I should be allowed to fire a Christian employee for wearing a crucifix or a Muslim for covering her head, then (present laws being what they are) I am unable to fully agree.

I will never understand the logic which holds that just because unjust laws exist, then everyone should obey them as if they're a "fact of life" like a hurricane or an earthquake instead of something that stupid or evil people have deliberately instituted, and which could (and should) be un-done with reason. I will never understand it because things that are wrong are incomprehensible to me.

The question, "Why should Muslims be allowed a privilege of discrimination not available to everyone else?" is chidlishly impertinent. The pertinent question is: Why are people not allowed -- in an ostensibly "free" country -- their prejudices? In a truly free country, wise enough to approach things like this with adult sense, people of that limited ethical capacity would also be free to pay the price of prejudice, at going market rates. Would you do business with someone like that?

The question at the root of this case is private property, and I am the first person you're going to see saying that, and quite possibly the only one.

You're certainly not going to see anyone in the press, and far less the courts, approaching the principle of the thing with a ten-foot pole.

What I want to know is, how can anyone not like bacon?

Thanks Billy,

Interesting questions, and I don't mean to be impertinent; only to attempt to grapple with realities.

I agree with you in principle (and I also agree that few will touch principle with a ten foot pole), but I was a landlord under Berkeley rent control and ran a nightclub in the same city, so my view of the world is jaundiced accordingly. I see no moral duty to obey unjust laws, but there's no contradiction between that and wanting fair enforcement. It bothers me that only Muslims are given the right to pray in New York public schools, for example. Building codes are also an unfair limitation on property rights, but why should a church be allowed to get away with something I can't?

I am against income taxation too, but when exemption are given only to certain groups, I oppose that.

Some of these questions become ridiculous in the real world. For example, I am an absolutist on the Second Amendment, but I don't worry about whether handguns should be sold in elementary school vending machines (I've sat and listened to others debate this), because it will never happen.

Anyway, how far does this go? Would you allow a Muslim landlord to refuse to rent to Jews? What about a fundamentalist landlord with gay tenants? I know a guy in New York who owns 2500 rental units; should he be allowed to evict all Republicans he discovers? Or all Muslims? Should Muslim parents be allowed to force their children into prearranged marriages, and punish daughters for disobedience? Is circumcision a religious right?

I supported the Boy Scouts' right to bar gay scoutmasters (because they're a private organization) but it's tough to know what's fair anymore. The legal system has thoroughly contaminated private property rights.

Some of us agree with Richard Epstein that the law should permit private employers to discriminate on whatever basis they please. We also agree (presumably) that discrimination based on race, religion and sex is almost always detestable.

Having said that, it seems pretty clear to me that Rising Star did violate federal law. According to the E.E.O.C.: "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits workplace discrimination based on religion, national origin, race, color, or sex. .... Title VII requires an employer to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of an employee or prospective employee, unless doing so would create an undue hardship for the employer. Some reasonable religious accommodations that employers may be required to provide workers include leave for religious observances, time and/or place to pray, and ability to wear religious garb."

Even if we oppose the law, there's nothing "impertinent" about wanting the government to enforce it evenhandedly.

Good to see Billy Beck here in Classical Values. This is a most interesting thread. Yes, we must get back to private property and freedom of association, our fundamental freedoms. The Boy Scouts have a right to exclude girls and also men's men, though that seems a contradiction. Men's men have the right to exclude women from their bedrooms, and Lesbians have the right to exclude men from their bedrooms. Muslims have the right to exclude us heathens, and I have the right to refuse to associate with such Muhammadans. The Pope has the right to exclude Chick tracts from his encyclicals, and Jack T. Chick has the right to refuse to sell rosaries. Nazis have the right to exclude Jews, and Jews and the rest of the human race have the right to exclude Nazis. Freedom for all.

As for unjust laws, repeal them, of course. But, yes, I have often thought that it would good if all such laws were ruthlessly and impartially enforced. If gun control laws were used to disarm the hired bodyguards of the politicians and celebrities who push them on everyone else, we might soon see an end to gun-ban agitation. If "sodomy" laws had been consistently enforced, and dramatized, I think they would been put to an end a lot sooner. Interesting questions....