A high-class restaurant in Chicago is being sued for allegedly failing to hire black people in their ten restaurants. Ann Henry, a trial lawyer at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), said, “Rosebud…discriminated against African American applicants by failing to hire them to work at their restaurants, so that’s the basis for our suit.” (For the record, Rosebud denies the claim, but whether it’s true or not is irrelevant, as I shall explain.)
The basis of their suit, to rephrase Miss Henry, is that Rosebud restaurants practiced their right of free association and hired who they thought would be best suited in their restaurants. The lawsuit alleges that qualified blacks were turned down over white applicants. If they win the lawsuit, it means that if a white person and a black person are both qualified for a position, it is absolutely illegal to hire the white person.
This would counter Miss Henry’s other claim: “It is absolutely illegal under federal law to make hiring decisions based on race.” This assertion is patently untrue; it is absolutely illegal to hire white people based on race, and emphatically encouraged to hire black people based on race.
Chicago’s Fox News affiliate reports perhaps the most absurd aspect of this lawsuit:
“The federal agency [EEOC] says it’s asking for a permanent injunction…ordering the restaurant group to…provide appropriate back pay with interest to a specified group of African-Americans [emphasis mine].”
The federal government, in its authoritarian way, wants to require a private entity to pay to every single black person who alleges he applied for a job there an amount of money equal to the accumulative amount he would have earned from the time he applied to the present day. It reminds me of my “white privilege,” which permits me to be paid money I never earned by businesses who never hired me.
What if every black person who has applied at Rosebud had a garbled, low-class way of speaking? This is not a stretch to believe, considering the restaurant is in Chicago. Is the restaurant required to even consider hiring someone whom patrons will struggle to understand? Is the restaurant required to potentially lose some customers and to damage itself and its employees because there are servers there who don’t make an effort to enunciate, thus causing the high-society patrons to patronize a different restaurant instead, one that has more respectable servers? Or is the restaurant allowed to be as offensive as it wants and to suffer the market consequences thereof? If its customer base prefers to eat in a non-black environment, why can’t a private restaurant provide that? If other customers prefer to eat in a mixed-race or all-black environment, what’s wrong with letting those people go to other private restaurants that have made the business decision that a “diverse” or all-black environment would best serve their goals?
Liberals often confuse desires for rights. Nobody has the right to a job, otherwise it would be illegal for any business or any person to say “no” to anybody who asks them for a job. It would mean that we are all breaking the law every second that we refuse to hire, say, a lawyer for his services. It is his “right,” after all, to have that job, and if you don’t hire him, you are breaking the law.
When I go into a Popeye’s restaurant for some fried chicken and mashed potatoes, I see that 100 percent of the employees there are black. Every single one. Does that restaurant have an obligation to hire a white person? Legally, no, so privileged are we whites. Should they have that obligation? Again, no. If whites are being discriminated against in the hiring process at Popeye’s, I have a choice: I can be offended and refuse to patronize that restaurant from now on, or I can enjoy some delicious fried chicken and recognize that one of America’s fundamental rights is the right to freely associate with or disassociate from any entity we choose. Therefore, we do not have the right to take away that freedom from someone else, even if that someone else is a restaurant owner.