As per my last post, as I read the New York Times yesterday, I caught something which gets at the essence of conservative and liberal (using those terms in their contemporary, not classical context) attitudes toward discrimination:
. . . the Obama administration is planning a major revival of high-impact civil rights enforcement against policies, in areas ranging from housing to hiring, where statistics show that minorities fare disproportionately poorly. President George W. Bush’s appointees had discouraged such tactics, preferring to focus on individual cases in which there is evidence of intentional discrimination.
Regardless of what one feels about the state adjudicating discrimination in the private sector, if the government is going to get involved, shouldn’t it limit that involvement to sanctioning (or otherwise punishing) those who single out individuals from protected classes?
The contemporary conservative wants to want evidence of bias before pursuing a case of discrimination, the liberal proceeds when he finds inequality of results. Now you see why I bristle at gay activists demanding equality, particularly when they claim their goal is “full equality” (whatever that is). As the Times article shows, under a liberal (in the contemporary context) Administration, we’re not talking about equal rights, but about equal outcomes.
And that means less freedom and increased government intervention in the decisions of private associations and enterprises.