CDZ Is Title 2 and 7 of the CRA really Constitutional?

[G.T.]

you cut the rest. dude.

that changed the context COMPLETELY.

jeebus.

It really doesn't. Because the only part of the CC that applies to this in the interstate part. The other is about Indians and foreign commerce.

I wasnt talking about the CC.

I was talking about the principle of regulating commerce PERIOD.


Which, if you read for better comprehension....you would have gathered. Read it again and again now that I clarified it for ya.

Fair enough. To be fair, you are not exactly the most transparent poster GT.... lol

I know........


i dont have views, thats why.

i dont believe in "nations" to start with. where do you even go from there? it varies.

lol
I would be right there with you if there was another option besides individual liberty.
You know what paradise for humans would be in my view? Communism. But I know it wouldn't ever work without a worldwide revolution against the elite and central govts.
Communism is just a fairy tale in my book. But an interesting one.

Jacques Fresco has some VERY interesting ideas.

Spend a whole hour and watch "Future by Design" on youtube.

 

[TNHarley]

Title II - Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".[40]

Title VII -
Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of title 42 of the United States Code, prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2[41]). Title VII applies to and covers an employer "who has fifteen (15) or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year" as written in the Definitions section under 42 U.S.C. §2000e(b). Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, such as by an interracial marriage.[42] The EEO Title VII has also been supplemented with legislation prohibiting pregnancy, age, and disability discrimination (See Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Age Discrimination in Employment Act,[43] Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990).



Did our Founders really want private property to be regulated by the Federal Government just because they sell to the public?

Doesnt really matter what the founders wanted. They tailored the constitution to be flexible enough to address issues they could not see in the future.

How do you know?

 

[G.T.]

I just dont see some Magical reasoning that someone engaging in commerce via running a business shouldnt being subject to reasonable accommodations Laws is having their liberties violated.

Its like crying over spilled milk....something completely unreasonable to make such a fuckin stink over. If you dont like x, y z type people than operating a business isnt for you. Comes with the territory.....its corny to me. I dont care what a centuries old brained product of that days society had to say about it either.....i like to make decisions in an argument as though i was the king and go from there

Its their private property, period. It isn't magical, it is America.
I get what you are saying, but I think that opinions form the people that made a document you are discussing is important.
GRANTED, the constitution was made by many people with many ideas.. Maybe you are right man..
Nonetheless, interstate commerce has nothing to do with business hiring and local transactions. Which, would make it unconstitutional IMO.
That's me using my own brain, not some SC justice.

But pointing to state versus interstate is getting out of arguing the principle on a technicality, versus using reason. That should matter.....unless youre a judge or lawyer which.........youre already purporting to know BETTER than them anyhow.

So I shouldn't use the Constitution to discuss constitutionality?
Im not saying I know better than them. I am giving you my opinion. I do however think the SC was wrong with their multiple rulings on the CC. OF course, I dont like/trust the SC. Their decisions sway with the wind. They seem to have been nothing but activists for the last 80 or so years.

In MY OPINION, or the LAW'S opinion?

In MY OPINION, no, use your own compass, not the Constitution, and argue the principles on their merits(or non). As though you were the Master and Ruler of your Universe.

For x's and o's and quibbling over Legalities - use the damn thing but if you happen to disagree with rulings it both doesn't mean you're right n'or that the system is defunct.

So you want me to rely on emotion rather than a common basis that applies to everyone? I cant do that.

Since when is the opposite of using a prewritten law to determine if a principle is right or wrong necessarily then using emotion?

what a waste of a post .



Not, not "emotion."

How about "reason."

 

[Asclepias]

Title II - Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".[40]

Title VII -
Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of title 42 of the United States Code, prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2[41]). Title VII applies to and covers an employer "who has fifteen (15) or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year" as written in the Definitions section under 42 U.S.C. §2000e(b). Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, such as by an interracial marriage.[42] The EEO Title VII has also been supplemented with legislation prohibiting pregnancy, age, and disability discrimination (See Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Age Discrimination in Employment Act,[43] Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990).



Did our Founders really want private property to be regulated by the Federal Government just because they sell to the public?

Doesnt really matter what the founders wanted. They tailored the constitution to be flexible enough to address issues they could not see in the future.

How do you know?

8th grade history. How did you not know?

 

[TNHarley]

Title II - Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".[40]

Title VII -
Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of title 42 of the United States Code, prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2[41]). Title VII applies to and covers an employer "who has fifteen (15) or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year" as written in the Definitions section under 42 U.S.C. §2000e(b). Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, such as by an interracial marriage.[42] The EEO Title VII has also been supplemented with legislation prohibiting pregnancy, age, and disability discrimination (See Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Age Discrimination in Employment Act,[43] Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990).



Did our Founders really want private property to be regulated by the Federal Government just because they sell to the public?

As to the title question:
Are you intending to imply that you do not think they are constitutional? If so, what makes you think so?
As to the final question:
Huh? How else would the federal government regulate ANYTHING, but to regulate what happens on private property? If they did not intend for this, then why is it illegal to [insert violation of constitutional rights here] on your "private property" that sells to the public?

I do not. Read the thread.
Good question. Making sure that people dont lose constitutional rights on private property is different than micro-managing business tactics. I dont support anarchy, but I do support individual liberty. As in someones right to be an asshole. Nobody has a right to someones private property. At least, that's what I thought..

 

[TNHarley]

Title II - Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".[40]

Title VII -
Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of title 42 of the United States Code, prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2[41]). Title VII applies to and covers an employer "who has fifteen (15) or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year" as written in the Definitions section under 42 U.S.C. §2000e(b). Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, such as by an interracial marriage.[42] The EEO Title VII has also been supplemented with legislation prohibiting pregnancy, age, and disability discrimination (See Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Age Discrimination in Employment Act,[43] Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990).



Did our Founders really want private property to be regulated by the Federal Government just because they sell to the public?

Doesnt really matter what the founders wanted. They tailored the constitution to be flexible enough to address issues they could not see in the future.

How do you know?

8th grade history. How did you not know?

I skipped all the way to senior Naw..
Can you post some info I could look at?

 

[TNHarley]

Its their private property, period. It isn't magical, it is America.
I get what you are saying, but I think that opinions form the people that made a document you are discussing is important.
GRANTED, the constitution was made by many people with many ideas.. Maybe you are right man..
Nonetheless, interstate commerce has nothing to do with business hiring and local transactions. Which, would make it unconstitutional IMO.
That's me using my own brain, not some SC justice.

But pointing to state versus interstate is getting out of arguing the principle on a technicality, versus using reason. That should matter.....unless youre a judge or lawyer which.........youre already purporting to know BETTER than them anyhow.

So I shouldn't use the Constitution to discuss constitutionality?
Im not saying I know better than them. I am giving you my opinion. I do however think the SC was wrong with their multiple rulings on the CC. OF course, I dont like/trust the SC. Their decisions sway with the wind. They seem to have been nothing but activists for the last 80 or so years.

In MY OPINION, or the LAW'S opinion?

In MY OPINION, no, use your own compass, not the Constitution, and argue the principles on their merits(or non). As though you were the Master and Ruler of your Universe.

For x's and o's and quibbling over Legalities - use the damn thing but if you happen to disagree with rulings it both doesn't mean you're right n'or that the system is defunct.

So you want me to rely on emotion rather than a common basis that applies to everyone? I cant do that.

Since when is the opposite of using a prewritten law to determine if a principle is right or wrong necessarily then using emotion?

what a waste of a post .



Not, not "emotion."

How about "reason."

I think liberty is worth more than an individuals principles. Again, I believe in general welfare. A basis for everyone makes more sense. Then, you can work off that.
Reason is awesome. Being a fan of liberty, I think that "reason" includes someones right to be an asshole and do what they want with their private property.

 

[G.T.]

But pointing to state versus interstate is getting out of arguing the principle on a technicality, versus using reason. That should matter.....unless youre a judge or lawyer which.........youre already purporting to know BETTER than them anyhow.

So I shouldn't use the Constitution to discuss constitutionality?
Im not saying I know better than them. I am giving you my opinion. I do however think the SC was wrong with their multiple rulings on the CC. OF course, I dont like/trust the SC. Their decisions sway with the wind. They seem to have been nothing but activists for the last 80 or so years.

In MY OPINION, or the LAW'S opinion?

In MY OPINION, no, use your own compass, not the Constitution, and argue the principles on their merits(or non). As though you were the Master and Ruler of your Universe.

For x's and o's and quibbling over Legalities - use the damn thing but if you happen to disagree with rulings it both doesn't mean you're right n'or that the system is defunct.

So you want me to rely on emotion rather than a common basis that applies to everyone? I cant do that.

Since when is the opposite of using a prewritten law to determine if a principle is right or wrong necessarily then using emotion?

what a waste of a post .



Not, not "emotion."

How about "reason."

I think liberty is worth more than an individuals principles. Again, I believe in general welfare. A basis for everyone makes more sense. Then, you can work off that.
Reason is awesome. Being a fan of liberty, I think that "reason" includes someones right to be an asshole and do what they want with their private property.

If their business is open to the public, we have a clearly different scenario than just saying "do whatever you want...! Private property!"

Using reason, alone.

But using legal inconsistencies - is theft FROM your private property punishable by YOU, to jail a person in.....say... your Basement? Because who is the Government to come in with ITS methods (trials/punishments) when it happened on YOUR PRIVATE PROPERTY!!Grrrr.

Theres a lot going on there.

 

[Asclepias]

Title II - Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".[40]

Title VII -
Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of title 42 of the United States Code, prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2[41]). Title VII applies to and covers an employer "who has fifteen (15) or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year" as written in the Definitions section under 42 U.S.C. §2000e(b). Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, such as by an interracial marriage.[42] The EEO Title VII has also been supplemented with legislation prohibiting pregnancy, age, and disability discrimination (See Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Age Discrimination in Employment Act,[43] Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990).



Did our Founders really want private property to be regulated by the Federal Government just because they sell to the public?

Doesnt really matter what the founders wanted. They tailored the constitution to be flexible enough to address issues they could not see in the future.

How do you know?

8th grade history. How did you not know?

I skipped all the way to senior Naw..
Can you post some info I could look at?

I charge no less than $400 an hour for my time. Look up "living constitution".

 

[Asclepias]

But pointing to state versus interstate is getting out of arguing the principle on a technicality, versus using reason. That should matter.....unless youre a judge or lawyer which.........youre already purporting to know BETTER than them anyhow.

So I shouldn't use the Constitution to discuss constitutionality?
Im not saying I know better than them. I am giving you my opinion. I do however think the SC was wrong with their multiple rulings on the CC. OF course, I dont like/trust the SC. Their decisions sway with the wind. They seem to have been nothing but activists for the last 80 or so years.

In MY OPINION, or the LAW'S opinion?

In MY OPINION, no, use your own compass, not the Constitution, and argue the principles on their merits(or non). As though you were the Master and Ruler of your Universe.

For x's and o's and quibbling over Legalities - use the damn thing but if you happen to disagree with rulings it both doesn't mean you're right n'or that the system is defunct.

So you want me to rely on emotion rather than a common basis that applies to everyone? I cant do that.

Since when is the opposite of using a prewritten law to determine if a principle is right or wrong necessarily then using emotion?

what a waste of a post .



Not, not "emotion."

How about "reason."

I think liberty is worth more than an individuals principles. Again, I believe in general welfare. A basis for everyone makes more sense. Then, you can work off that.
Reason is awesome. Being a fan of liberty, I think that "reason" includes someones right to be an asshole and do what they want with their private property.

They have a right to be an asshole. They just dont have the right to break the law on their private property. especially when the public is invited into their private property.

 

[TNHarley]

So I shouldn't use the Constitution to discuss constitutionality?
Im not saying I know better than them. I am giving you my opinion. I do however think the SC was wrong with their multiple rulings on the CC. OF course, I dont like/trust the SC. Their decisions sway with the wind. They seem to have been nothing but activists for the last 80 or so years.

In MY OPINION, or the LAW'S opinion?

In MY OPINION, no, use your own compass, not the Constitution, and argue the principles on their merits(or non). As though you were the Master and Ruler of your Universe.

For x's and o's and quibbling over Legalities - use the damn thing but if you happen to disagree with rulings it both doesn't mean you're right n'or that the system is defunct.

So you want me to rely on emotion rather than a common basis that applies to everyone? I cant do that.

Since when is the opposite of using a prewritten law to determine if a principle is right or wrong necessarily then using emotion?

what a waste of a post .



Not, not "emotion."

How about "reason."

I think liberty is worth more than an individuals principles. Again, I believe in general welfare. A basis for everyone makes more sense. Then, you can work off that.
Reason is awesome. Being a fan of liberty, I think that "reason" includes someones right to be an asshole and do what they want with their private property.

If their business is open to the public, we have a clearly different scenario than just saying "do whatever you want...! Private property!"

Using reason, alone.

But using legal inconsistencies - is theft FROM your private property punishable by YOU, to jail a person in.....say... your Basement? Because who is the Government to come in with ITS methods (trials/punishments) when it happened on YOUR PRIVATE PROPERTY!!Grrrr.

Theres a lot going on there.

That's the thing, I dont agree with that.
No. Rights dont go away when you step on someones property. But see, there isn't a right for someone to buy someones product or service. Its a special right granted to us by big brother.

 

[TNHarley]

Title II - Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".[40]

Title VII -
Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of title 42 of the United States Code, prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2[41]). Title VII applies to and covers an employer "who has fifteen (15) or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year" as written in the Definitions section under 42 U.S.C. §2000e(b). Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, such as by an interracial marriage.[42] The EEO Title VII has also been supplemented with legislation prohibiting pregnancy, age, and disability discrimination (See Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Age Discrimination in Employment Act,[43] Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990).



Did our Founders really want private property to be regulated by the Federal Government just because they sell to the public?

Doesnt really matter what the founders wanted. They tailored the constitution to be flexible enough to address issues they could not see in the future.

How do you know?

8th grade history. How did you not know?

I skipped all the way to senior Naw..
Can you post some info I could look at?

I charge no less than $400 an hour for my time. Look up "living constitution".

It is nothing more than a claim. I was hoping you had proof...

 

[G.T.]

In MY OPINION, or the LAW'S opinion?

In MY OPINION, no, use your own compass, not the Constitution, and argue the principles on their merits(or non). As though you were the Master and Ruler of your Universe.

For x's and o's and quibbling over Legalities - use the damn thing but if you happen to disagree with rulings it both doesn't mean you're right n'or that the system is defunct.

So you want me to rely on emotion rather than a common basis that applies to everyone? I cant do that.

Since when is the opposite of using a prewritten law to determine if a principle is right or wrong necessarily then using emotion?

what a waste of a post .



Not, not "emotion."

How about "reason."

I think liberty is worth more than an individuals principles. Again, I believe in general welfare. A basis for everyone makes more sense. Then, you can work off that.
Reason is awesome. Being a fan of liberty, I think that "reason" includes someones right to be an asshole and do what they want with their private property.

If their business is open to the public, we have a clearly different scenario than just saying "do whatever you want...! Private property!"

Using reason, alone.

But using legal inconsistencies - is theft FROM your private property punishable by YOU, to jail a person in.....say... your Basement? Because who is the Government to come in with ITS methods (trials/punishments) when it happened on YOUR PRIVATE PROPERTY!!Grrrr.

Theres a lot going on there.

That's the thing, I dont agree with that.
No. Rights dont go away when you step on someones property. But see, there isn't a right for someone to buy someones product or service. Its a special right granted to us by big brother.

Theres not a special right to anything granted to us by anyone unless you believe in God based on Faith, which has no bearing.

Since God is neither here, n'or proven, humans are the only BAROMETER to decide upon which rights are innate/universal/etc. but calling them that is kind of redundant once admitting that God is only faith based.

To which being protects anyone's rights to anything as being "universal?"

To humans, I see.


So I dont get teary eyes and use keywords like "individual liberty" to tug at the emotional want to have a business owner who benefits from operating PUBLICLY(KEY) be able to be a bigot, serve some not others, and I just sort of take these issues 1 by 1 as they come.

This issue id say im undecided, and definitely not going to petition for or feel bad for said business owners to be bigots or else feel like their "liberty" has been trampled upon.



heres a novel idea.

grant everyone the liberty to be a dick to everyone.....but.....grant me the liberty to pop them in the mouth in reaction. thats fair imo

 

[Asclepias]

In MY OPINION, or the LAW'S opinion?

In MY OPINION, no, use your own compass, not the Constitution, and argue the principles on their merits(or non). As though you were the Master and Ruler of your Universe.

For x's and o's and quibbling over Legalities - use the damn thing but if you happen to disagree with rulings it both doesn't mean you're right n'or that the system is defunct.

So you want me to rely on emotion rather than a common basis that applies to everyone? I cant do that.

Since when is the opposite of using a prewritten law to determine if a principle is right or wrong necessarily then using emotion?

what a waste of a post .



Not, not "emotion."

How about "reason."

I think liberty is worth more than an individuals principles. Again, I believe in general welfare. A basis for everyone makes more sense. Then, you can work off that.
Reason is awesome. Being a fan of liberty, I think that "reason" includes someones right to be an asshole and do what they want with their private property.

If their business is open to the public, we have a clearly different scenario than just saying "do whatever you want...! Private property!"

Using reason, alone.

But using legal inconsistencies - is theft FROM your private property punishable by YOU, to jail a person in.....say... your Basement? Because who is the Government to come in with ITS methods (trials/punishments) when it happened on YOUR PRIVATE PROPERTY!!Grrrr.

Theres a lot going on there.

That's the thing, I dont agree with that.
No. Rights dont go away when you step on someones property. But see, there isn't a right for someone to buy someones product or service. Its a special right granted to us by big brother.

Yes there is a right to by something offered to the public. Who told you different?

 

[Asclepias]

Doesnt really matter what the founders wanted. They tailored the constitution to be flexible enough to address issues they could not see in the future.

How do you know?

8th grade history. How did you not know?

I skipped all the way to senior Naw..
Can you post some info I could look at?

I charge no less than $400 an hour for my time. Look up "living constitution".

It is nothing more than a claim. I was hoping you had proof...

You have to do research to find the proof. I dont do that for free.

 

[TNHarley]

So you want me to rely on emotion rather than a common basis that applies to everyone? I cant do that.

Since when is the opposite of using a prewritten law to determine if a principle is right or wrong necessarily then using emotion?

what a waste of a post .



Not, not "emotion."

How about "reason."

I think liberty is worth more than an individuals principles. Again, I believe in general welfare. A basis for everyone makes more sense. Then, you can work off that.
Reason is awesome. Being a fan of liberty, I think that "reason" includes someones right to be an asshole and do what they want with their private property.

If their business is open to the public, we have a clearly different scenario than just saying "do whatever you want...! Private property!"

Using reason, alone.

But using legal inconsistencies - is theft FROM your private property punishable by YOU, to jail a person in.....say... your Basement? Because who is the Government to come in with ITS methods (trials/punishments) when it happened on YOUR PRIVATE PROPERTY!!Grrrr.

Theres a lot going on there.

That's the thing, I dont agree with that.
No. Rights dont go away when you step on someones property. But see, there isn't a right for someone to buy someones product or service. Its a special right granted to us by big brother.

Theres not a special right to anything granted to us by anyone unless you believe in God based on Faith, which has no bearing.

Since God is neither here, n'or proven, humans are the only BAROMETER to decide upon which rights are innate/universal/etc. but calling them that is kind of redundant once admitting that God is only faith based.

To which being protects anyone's rights to anything as being "universal?"

To humans, I see.


So I dont get teary eyes and use keywords like "individual liberty" to tug at the emotional want to have a business owner who benefits from operating PUBLICLY(KEY) be able to be a bigot, serve some not others, and I just sort of take these issues 1 by 1 as they come.

This issue id say im undecided, and definitely not going to petition for or feel bad for said business owners to be bigots or else feel like their "liberty" has been trampled upon.



heres a novel idea.

grant everyone the liberty to be a dick to everyone.....but.....grant me the liberty to pop them in the mouth in reaction. thats fair imo

No, I dont believe in any man made "gods". I meant by the rights granted to us from our Nations founding.
Way to end that post! lol

 

[TNHarley]

So you want me to rely on emotion rather than a common basis that applies to everyone? I cant do that.

Since when is the opposite of using a prewritten law to determine if a principle is right or wrong necessarily then using emotion?

what a waste of a post .



Not, not "emotion."

How about "reason."

I think liberty is worth more than an individuals principles. Again, I believe in general welfare. A basis for everyone makes more sense. Then, you can work off that.
Reason is awesome. Being a fan of liberty, I think that "reason" includes someones right to be an asshole and do what they want with their private property.

If their business is open to the public, we have a clearly different scenario than just saying "do whatever you want...! Private property!"

Using reason, alone.

But using legal inconsistencies - is theft FROM your private property punishable by YOU, to jail a person in.....say... your Basement? Because who is the Government to come in with ITS methods (trials/punishments) when it happened on YOUR PRIVATE PROPERTY!!Grrrr.

Theres a lot going on there.

That's the thing, I dont agree with that.
No. Rights dont go away when you step on someones property. But see, there isn't a right for someone to buy someones product or service. Its a special right granted to us by big brother.

Yes there is a right to by something offered to the public. Who told you different?

Can you show me that, or is that another question that is too much to ask for?

 

[Asclepias]

Since when is the opposite of using a prewritten law to determine if a principle is right or wrong necessarily then using emotion?

what a waste of a post .



Not, not "emotion."

How about "reason."

I think liberty is worth more than an individuals principles. Again, I believe in general welfare. A basis for everyone makes more sense. Then, you can work off that.
Reason is awesome. Being a fan of liberty, I think that "reason" includes someones right to be an asshole and do what they want with their private property.

If their business is open to the public, we have a clearly different scenario than just saying "do whatever you want...! Private property!"

Using reason, alone.

But using legal inconsistencies - is theft FROM your private property punishable by YOU, to jail a person in.....say... your Basement? Because who is the Government to come in with ITS methods (trials/punishments) when it happened on YOUR PRIVATE PROPERTY!!Grrrr.

Theres a lot going on there.

That's the thing, I dont agree with that.
No. Rights dont go away when you step on someones property. But see, there isn't a right for someone to buy someones product or service. Its a special right granted to us by big brother.

Yes there is a right to by something offered to the public. Who told you different?

Can you show me that, or is that another question that is too much to ask for?

Sure thing. Look up the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Title II - Public Accommodation