>>> If you really believe in that so-rad idea of hiring who I want, then you shouldn’t have a problem with me owning a bass shop, in the deep south, serving those with confederate flags on their trucks, hiring whom I think would be an asset to the business, regardless of his skin colour.
That is, if you really believe that, as opposed to other possibilities, eh?>>>
Don’t know what you think you are reading into my post, but no, I have no problem with the owner of any business hiring whoever he or she thinks he or she should hire. If we allow Hooters to hire only good looking women with nice bodies - and we do - then we should allow any other business to hire for whatever reasons they want to.
Where did you think I was going with this? If a business owner and an employee reach an agreement they both like, then it shouldn’t be the business of the government or of applicants who didn’t get the job to interfere.
It’s called liberty.
You’re the one who read into my post, when you got on my case about government involvement interfering with whom a business chooses to hire.
I never said one word about government involvement.
That's exactly right.
Private individuals/property owners have a natural right to associate or disassociate with whomever they please for any reason whatsoever.
The idea of a business being a "public charge" is completely abstract concept created out of whole cloth by statists and 60s liberals.
Private property owners forcibly share an ownership interest with the collective.