The Meaning of "Immutable" in the Starbucks Discussion.

The Brady Blog posted a wonderful article about the Starbucks controversy.

Which of the following hypothetical statements to prospective customers make sense, and which are to be rejected as wrong and discriminatory?

1. “You can come in, but you have to leave your skin color outside.”
2. “You can come in, but you have to leave your sexual orientation outside.”
3. “You can come in, but you have to leave your religious affiliation outside.”
4. “You can come in, but you have to leave your gender outside.”
5. To the paraplegic: “You can come in, but you have to leave your wheelchair outside.”

Versus

6. “You can come in, but you have to leave your gun outside unless you’re a police officer.”

Clearly, the first five statements are racist, homophobic, religiously discriminatory, sexist and discriminatory against the physically challenged and are unacceptable.

Why? Among other reasons, they are all impossible to comply with. All of those traits are immutable characteristics of individuals and cannot be separated from the person. It is impossible to comply with those statements because if you exclude one, you exclude both.

The sixth and last statement, however, obviously does not fall into that category, because guns can be separated from people. A gun is a thing outside human identity.

What's your opinion? Does that clarify the meaning of "immutable" as it's being used in this discussion?

Please leave a comment.