Photo-Framer Denied Freedom To Operate....

[PoliticalChic]

....as they see fit!

This isn't America....certainly not the 'home of the free' America, if a business can't determine its own rules of operation!

When the photo-framing establishment was confronted by a customer, with pictures that any right-minded individual would recognize as offensive, even tasteless....they refused to offer the photo-framing services for which they'd become famous....

They proclaimed their right and refused to frame the horrid items!!!!

The full force of the government came down like a hammer on an anvil!!!


They were taken to court....

...fined $135,000 dollars for the refusal!!!

....and then the right-minded government officials slapped a gag order on the business owners, effectively proclaiming "Just shut up and get out of business!!!"


Why couldn't the 'customer' simply wandered on down the street to another establishment that was more.....permissive???


OH...WAIT!!!!

I made a tiny little mistake.


The customer did simply move on...and there was no government action...no fine, no gag order....because the customer was a conservative....
Unlike the Lesbian couple in the bakery controversy, this customer didn't file a claim with the state, stating that the refusal to frame a photo had caused her to suffer from 88 symptoms of mental anguish including “doubt,” “surprise,” “uncertainty,” “worry” and a “dislike of going to work.”



"Katie Richter, a 27-year-old St. Louis native who currently lives in Aspen, CO, attended inauguration last Friday to show support for President Trump. She even hit up one of the inaugural balls (Heartland States Society Ball) with her date and snapped plenty of photos to commemorate her trip to D.C.

However, when Richter went to Suitable For Framing in Aspen to frame some photos and memorabilia like her inaugural ball ticket, she was denied service because of her support for Trump.

Befuddled, Richter took to social media to share her account.

“Wow!” She wrote in a Facebook post. “Talk about a one-way street with liberals.”

In an interview with Red Alert Politics, Richter said that when she moved to Aspen from St. Louis, she joked about having to hide her conservative opinions and deleting her Facebook account."
Trump supporter denied service: Company won’t frame inauguration photo




"Where is all the tolerance and acceptance of other's views? What happened to "females sticking together and supporting one another"? What about extending respect to others that every Anti-Trump supporter loves to gab on about?" I'll tell you where it is. It doesn't exist! They only want to hear things that align with their ideology and their deranged agenda."
Suitable for Framing - Aspen, Colorado - Home Decor | Facebook

Did....you...know...that...political...affiliation....is....not...covered....by....state....P.....A....laws?

Thank you for the Fascist response.....but I covered that in the OP.

You totalitarians oppose free will, free speech, freedom of conscience, and smooth it over with government coercion.....that's called 'oppression.'



I strongly suggest a course in the meaning of liberty, if it is not too late for you.

1. Before our maxim was 'Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness," John Locke stated that one of the foundation stones of the classical liberal notion of private property as a natural right which all individuals have.


Now....let's see where you fit in:

2. Karl Marx's maxim, “Abolish all private property.”

3. "....private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners."
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian



Is there even the slightest chance that you will understand that entrepreneurs should have the ability not to deal with you, for any reason?

No?

Then you will remain a Democrat subject.

Fascist response? Let me ask you, silly person, what have you actively done to get rid of PA laws in your state?

I vote for the closest candidate who supports Liberty.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Business has a right to such decisions unless the state's PA laws say otherwise.

In other words, they don't have that right.

Once again, you only prove you don't know what a "right" is. You're a Stalinist douche bag, Fakey.

You believe in the 'right' of a diner to refuse to serve and kick out black customers.

Yes, actually I do. However, the only time blacks were ever denied service is when Southern Democrats mandated it by law.

Wrong. It was not universally mandated. It was however ALLOWED by law.

Wrong. It was mandated. Like all other douche bags, you are totally ignorant of what Jim Crow was.

No, states such as Tennessee had this sort of law:

1885: Public accommodations [Statute] All well-behaved persons to be admitted to theaters, parks, shows, or other public amusements, but also declared that proprietors had the right to create separate accommodations for whites and Negroes.

See? Doesn't MANDATE segregation, but allows proprietors the right to choose to segregate.

Read a book or something.

 

[bripat9643]

In a free country no business should be forced to serve a customer they don't want to, regardless of the reason. The issue is at the end of the day no Democrats and few Republicans actually believe in freedom.

Do you believe you should have the freedom to shoot someone you don't care for?

No one has the right to shoot another person. However, you do have the right not to associate with people if you don't want to associate with them. To claim otherwise is fascism.

Your right not to associate with people is covered by your right not to start a business that will require you not to discriminate.

I have a right to start any business I like, so long as it doesn't use force against other people - that includes a business that doesn't serve people I don't want to serve.

 

[pillars]

"Where is all the tolerance and acceptance of other's views? What happened to "females sticking together and supporting one another"? What about extending respect to others that every Anti-Trump supporter loves to gab on about?" I'll tell you where it is. It doesn't exist! They only want to hear things that align with their ideology and their deranged agenda."
Suitable for Framing - Aspen, Colorado - Home Decor | Facebook

Republicans begging for tolerance after trying repeatedly to legalize intolerance is the ultimate irony.

If this woman feels she was discriminated against inappropriately, she has the right to do what other patrons have done, and take it to her anti-discrimination commission in her state.

 

[bripat9643]

In other words, they don't have that right.

Once again, you only prove you don't know what a "right" is. You're a Stalinist douche bag, Fakey.

You believe in the 'right' of a diner to refuse to serve and kick out black customers.

Yes, actually I do. However, the only time blacks were ever denied service is when Southern Democrats mandated it by law.

Wrong. It was not universally mandated. It was however ALLOWED by law.

Wrong. It was mandated. Like all other douche bags, you are totally ignorant of what Jim Crow was.

No, states such as Tennessee had this sort of law:

1885: Public accommodations [Statute] All well-behaved persons to be admitted to theaters, parks, shows, or other public amusements, but also declared that proprietors had the right to create separate accommodations for whites and Negroes.

See? Doesn't MANDATE segregation, but allows proprietors the right to choose to segregate.

Read a book or something.

The Jim Crow laws didn't come into existence mostly until the 1890s. Prior to that a federal civil rights law mandated equal treatment of blacks, but it expired.

Jim Crow laws - Wikipedia​

In 1890, Louisiana passed a law requiring separate accommodations for colored and white passengers on railroads. Louisiana law distinguished between "white", "black" and "colored" (that is, people of mixed European and African ancestry). The law already specified that blacks could not ride with white people, but colored people could ride with whites before 1890. A group of concerned black, colored and white citizens in New Orleans formed an association dedicated to rescinding the law. The group persuaded Homer Plessy, who was one-eighth "Negro" and of fair complexion, to test it.[citation needed]
​

Legally mandated discrimination.

 

[NYcarbineer]

....as they see fit!

This isn't America....certainly not the 'home of the free' America, if a business can't determine its own rules of operation!

When the photo-framing establishment was confronted by a customer, with pictures that any right-minded individual would recognize as offensive, even tasteless....they refused to offer the photo-framing services for which they'd become famous....

They proclaimed their right and refused to frame the horrid items!!!!

The full force of the government came down like a hammer on an anvil!!!


They were taken to court....

...fined $135,000 dollars for the refusal!!!

....and then the right-minded government officials slapped a gag order on the business owners, effectively proclaiming "Just shut up and get out of business!!!"


Why couldn't the 'customer' simply wandered on down the street to another establishment that was more.....permissive???


OH...WAIT!!!!

I made a tiny little mistake.


The customer did simply move on...and there was no government action...no fine, no gag order....because the customer was a conservative....
Unlike the Lesbian couple in the bakery controversy, this customer didn't file a claim with the state, stating that the refusal to frame a photo had caused her to suffer from 88 symptoms of mental anguish including “doubt,” “surprise,” “uncertainty,” “worry” and a “dislike of going to work.”



"Katie Richter, a 27-year-old St. Louis native who currently lives in Aspen, CO, attended inauguration last Friday to show support for President Trump. She even hit up one of the inaugural balls (Heartland States Society Ball) with her date and snapped plenty of photos to commemorate her trip to D.C.

However, when Richter went to Suitable For Framing in Aspen to frame some photos and memorabilia like her inaugural ball ticket, she was denied service because of her support for Trump.

Befuddled, Richter took to social media to share her account.

“Wow!” She wrote in a Facebook post. “Talk about a one-way street with liberals.”

In an interview with Red Alert Politics, Richter said that when she moved to Aspen from St. Louis, she joked about having to hide her conservative opinions and deleting her Facebook account."
Trump supporter denied service: Company won’t frame inauguration photo




"Where is all the tolerance and acceptance of other's views? What happened to "females sticking together and supporting one another"? What about extending respect to others that every Anti-Trump supporter loves to gab on about?" I'll tell you where it is. It doesn't exist! They only want to hear things that align with their ideology and their deranged agenda."
Suitable for Framing - Aspen, Colorado - Home Decor | Facebook

Did....you...know...that...political...affiliation....is....not...covered....by....state....P.....A....laws?

Thank you for the Fascist response.....but I covered that in the OP.

You totalitarians oppose free will, free speech, freedom of conscience, and smooth it over with government coercion.....that's called 'oppression.'



I strongly suggest a course in the meaning of liberty, if it is not too late for you.

1. Before our maxim was 'Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness," John Locke stated that one of the foundation stones of the classical liberal notion of private property as a natural right which all individuals have.


Now....let's see where you fit in:

2. Karl Marx's maxim, “Abolish all private property.”

3. "....private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners."
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian



Is there even the slightest chance that you will understand that entrepreneurs should have the ability not to deal with you, for any reason?

No?

Then you will remain a Democrat subject.

Fascist response? Let me ask you, silly person, what have you actively done to get rid of PA laws in your state?

I vote for the closest candidate who supports Liberty.

Lie of the Year.

 

[bripat9643]

In other words, they don't have that right.

Once again, you only prove you don't know what a "right" is. You're a Stalinist douche bag, Fakey.

You believe in the 'right' of a diner to refuse to serve and kick out black customers.

Yes, actually I do. However, the only time blacks were ever denied service is when Southern Democrats mandated it by law.

Wrong. It was not universally mandated. It was however ALLOWED by law.

Wrong. It was mandated. Like all other douche bags, you are totally ignorant of what Jim Crow was.

No, states such as Tennessee had this sort of law:

1885: Public accommodations [Statute] All well-behaved persons to be admitted to theaters, parks, shows, or other public amusements, but also declared that proprietors had the right to create separate accommodations for whites and Negroes.

See? Doesn't MANDATE segregation, but allows proprietors the right to choose to segregate.

Read a book or something.

More laws enforcing Jim Crow:

Jim Crow Museum: Origins of Jim Crow

Jim Crow states passed statutes severely regulating social interactions between the races. Jim Crow signs were placed above water fountains, door entrances and exits, and in front of public facilities. There were separate hospitals for blacks and whites, separate prisons, separate public and private schools, separate churches, separate cemeteries, separate public restrooms, and separate public accommodations. In most instances, the black facilities were grossly inferior -- generally, older, less-well-kept. In other cases, there were no black facilities -- no Colored public restroom, no public beach, no place to sit or eat. Plessy gave Jim Crow states a legal way to ignore their constitutional obligations to their black citizens.

Jim Crow laws touched every aspect of everyday life. For example, in 1935, Oklahoma prohibited blacks and whites from boating together. Boating implied social equality. In 1905, Georgia established separate parks for blacks and whites. In 1930, Birmingham, Alabama, made it illegal for blacks and whites to play checkers or dominoes together. Here are some of the typical Jim Crow laws, as compiled by the Martin Luther King, Jr., National Historic Site Interpretive Staff:

• Barbers. No colored barber shall serve as a barber (to) white girls or women (Georgia).
  
  
• Blind Wards. The board of trustees shall...maintain a separate building...on separate ground for the admission, care, instruction, and support of all blind persons of the colored or black race (Louisiana).
  
  
• Burial. The officer in charge shall not bury, or allow to be buried, any colored persons upon ground set apart or used for the burial of white persons (Georgia).
  
  
• Buses.All passenger stations in this state operated by any motor transportation company shall have separate waiting rooms or space and separate ticket windows for the white and colored races (Alabama).
  
  
• Child Custody. It shall be unlawful for any parent, relative, or other white person in this State, having the control or custody of any white child, by right of guardianship, natural or acquired, or otherwise, to dispose of, give or surrender such white child permanently into the custody, control, maintenance, or support, of a negro (South Carolina).
  
  
• Education.The schools for white children and the schools for negro children shall be conducted separately (Florida).
  
  
• Libraries. The state librarian is directed to fit up and maintain a separate place for the use of the colored people who may come to the library for the purpose of reading books or periodicals (North Carolina).
  
  
• Mental Hospitals. The Board of Control shall see that proper and distinct apartments are arranged for said patients, so that in no case shall Negroes and white persons be together (Georgia).
  
  
• Militia. The white and colored militia shall be separately enrolled, and shall never be compelled to serve in the same organization. No organization of colored troops shall be permitted where white troops are available and where whites are permitted to be organized, colored troops shall be under the command of white officers (North Carolina).
  
  
• Nurses. No person or corporation shall require any White female nurse to nurse in wards or rooms in hospitals, either public or private, in which negro men are placed (Alabama).
  
  
• Prisons. The warden shall see that the white convicts shall have separate apartments for both eating and sleeping from the negro convicts (Mississippi).
  
  
• Reform Schools. The children of white and colored races committed to the houses of reform shall be kept entirely separate from each other (Kentucky).
  
  
• Teaching. Any instructor who shall teach in any school, college or institution where members of the white and colored race are received and enrolled as pupils for instruction shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be fined... (Oklahoma).
  
  
• Wine and Beer. All persons licensed to conduct the business of selling beer or wine...shall serve either white people exclusively or colored people exclusively and shall not sell to the two races within the same room at any time (Georgia).1
  

 

[NYcarbineer]

You believe in the 'right' of a diner to refuse to serve and kick out black customers.

Yes, actually I do. However, the only time blacks were ever denied service is when Southern Democrats mandated it by law.

Wrong. It was not universally mandated. It was however ALLOWED by law.

Wrong. It was mandated. Like all other douche bags, you are totally ignorant of what Jim Crow was.

No, states such as Tennessee had this sort of law:

1885: Public accommodations [Statute] All well-behaved persons to be admitted to theaters, parks, shows, or other public amusements, but also declared that proprietors had the right to create separate accommodations for whites and Negroes.

See? Doesn't MANDATE segregation, but allows proprietors the right to choose to segregate.

Read a book or something.

The Jim Crow laws didn't come into existence mostly until the 1890s. Prior to that a federal civil rights law mandated equal treatment of blacks, but it expired.

Jim Crow laws - Wikipedia​

In 1890, Louisiana passed a law requiring separate accommodations for colored and white passengers on railroads. Louisiana law distinguished between "white", "black" and "colored" (that is, people of mixed European and African ancestry). The law already specified that blacks could not ride with white people, but colored people could ride with whites before 1890. A group of concerned black, colored and white citizens in New Orleans formed an association dedicated to rescinding the law. The group persuaded Homer Plessy, who was one-eighth "Negro" and of fair complexion, to test it.[citation needed]
​

Legally mandated discrimination.

I said it was not universally mandatory. I was right. You were wrong.

 

[bripat9643]

"Where is all the tolerance and acceptance of other's views? What happened to "females sticking together and supporting one another"? What about extending respect to others that every Anti-Trump supporter loves to gab on about?" I'll tell you where it is. It doesn't exist! They only want to hear things that align with their ideology and their deranged agenda."
Suitable for Framing - Aspen, Colorado - Home Decor | Facebook

Republicans begging for tolerance after trying repeatedly to legalize intolerance is the ultimate irony.

If this woman feels she was discriminated against inappropriately, she has the right to do what other patrons have done, and take it to her anti-discrimination commission in her state.

You have no right to be served by other people. Making up vicious names for people that you don't like doesn't alter a thing.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, actually I do. However, the only time blacks were ever denied service is when Southern Democrats mandated it by law.

Wrong. It was not universally mandated. It was however ALLOWED by law.

Wrong. It was mandated. Like all other douche bags, you are totally ignorant of what Jim Crow was.

No, states such as Tennessee had this sort of law:

1885: Public accommodations [Statute] All well-behaved persons to be admitted to theaters, parks, shows, or other public amusements, but also declared that proprietors had the right to create separate accommodations for whites and Negroes.

See? Doesn't MANDATE segregation, but allows proprietors the right to choose to segregate.

Read a book or something.

The Jim Crow laws didn't come into existence mostly until the 1890s. Prior to that a federal civil rights law mandated equal treatment of blacks, but it expired.

Jim Crow laws - Wikipedia​

In 1890, Louisiana passed a law requiring separate accommodations for colored and white passengers on railroads. Louisiana law distinguished between "white", "black" and "colored" (that is, people of mixed European and African ancestry). The law already specified that blacks could not ride with white people, but colored people could ride with whites before 1890. A group of concerned black, colored and white citizens in New Orleans formed an association dedicated to rescinding the law. The group persuaded Homer Plessy, who was one-eighth "Negro" and of fair complexion, to test it.[citation needed]
​

Legally mandated discrimination.

I said it was not universally mandatory. I was right. You were wrong.

That's a distinction without a difference. The fact is that virtually all discrimination that occurred was legally mandated.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Where is all the tolerance and acceptance of other's views? What happened to "females sticking together and supporting one another"? What about extending respect to others that every Anti-Trump supporter loves to gab on about?" I'll tell you where it is. It doesn't exist! They only want to hear things that align with their ideology and their deranged agenda."
Suitable for Framing - Aspen, Colorado - Home Decor | Facebook

Republicans begging for tolerance after trying repeatedly to legalize intolerance is the ultimate irony.

If this woman feels she was discriminated against inappropriately, she has the right to do what other patrons have done, and take it to her anti-discrimination commission in her state.

No, silly....she simply went on to a different establishment....

...she didn't whine to the government.

See the difference between real Americans and you Fascists?

 

[PoliticalChic]

In a free country no business should be forced to serve a customer they don't want to, regardless of the reason. The issue is at the end of the day no Democrats and few Republicans actually believe in freedom.

Do you believe you should have the freedom to shoot someone you don't care for?

No one has the right to shoot another person. However, you do have the right not to associate with people if you don't want to associate with them. To claim otherwise is fascism.

Your right not to associate with people is covered by your right not to start a business that will require you not to discriminate.

I have a right to start any business I like, so long as it doesn't use force against other people - that includes a business that doesn't serve people I don't want to serve.

Well....you did once upon a time.....

...before the neo-Fascists gained control.

 

[Dot Com]

Don't see the BFD PoliSpice.

"To see the enemy where he doesn't exist is cowardice," someone once said.

What you have to note here is what I'd call the 'pre-assignment' of opinions to people like myself, aka liberals, IOW

the OP and others such as eflat assign us the opinion that we oppose one sort of discrimination and support the other,
and by that they manufacture out of thin air what they believe is their justification for labeling us hypocrites.

Your 1st mistake is posting on a PoliSpice thread and your 2nd taking anything eflat. or bripat. say. seriously let alone anything PoliSpice scrawls w/her rw crayons

Sent from my VS425PP using Tapatalk

 

[eflatminor]

Oh bullshit, and you know it. You're fine with the guy in the OP having to resort to a lawsuit, but the collectivist homosexuals? No, they get the full force of the federal government behind them.

Fucking hypocrite.

Notice you didn't share that advice when the customer was a homosexual.

Why the double standard?

Don't lie about what I've done or said.

Then call me out by stating it clearly. I will concede if you maintain a modicum of consistency here. Should the government force this guy to serve the conservative exactly as they did for the homosexual. Yes or no?

First, you apologize for baselessly labeling me a hypocrite.

Prove you're not and I will.

Not holding my breath on this one!

What do you think I meant when I said they should sue the business owners?

You meant to avoid admitting your hypocrisy. You want laws specifically designed to protect some, but not others that don't think like you. Those folks can sue, but otherwise, they're on their own.

Stated differently, you're a hypocrite and a troll.

 

[eflatminor]

Sue the company. End of story.

Notice you didn't share that advice when the customer was a homosexual.

Why the double standard?

Evidence?

Evidence of something that doesn't exist?

Wow, add stupid to your list of hypocrite and troll.

Does it hurt to be that dumb?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wrong. It was not universally mandated. It was however ALLOWED by law.

Wrong. It was mandated. Like all other douche bags, you are totally ignorant of what Jim Crow was.

No, states such as Tennessee had this sort of law:

1885: Public accommodations [Statute] All well-behaved persons to be admitted to theaters, parks, shows, or other public amusements, but also declared that proprietors had the right to create separate accommodations for whites and Negroes.

See? Doesn't MANDATE segregation, but allows proprietors the right to choose to segregate.

Read a book or something.

The Jim Crow laws didn't come into existence mostly until the 1890s. Prior to that a federal civil rights law mandated equal treatment of blacks, but it expired.

Jim Crow laws - Wikipedia​

In 1890, Louisiana passed a law requiring separate accommodations for colored and white passengers on railroads. Louisiana law distinguished between "white", "black" and "colored" (that is, people of mixed European and African ancestry). The law already specified that blacks could not ride with white people, but colored people could ride with whites before 1890. A group of concerned black, colored and white citizens in New Orleans formed an association dedicated to rescinding the law. The group persuaded Homer Plessy, who was one-eighth "Negro" and of fair complexion, to test it.[citation needed]
​

Legally mandated discrimination.

I said it was not universally mandatory. I was right. You were wrong.

That's a distinction without a difference. The fact is that virtually all discrimination that occurred was legally mandated.

You're still an ignorant asshole. If the government tells a theatre that they have to let anyone in as long as they behave properly, but,

if they WANT to, they can separate the races,

have they MANDATED segregation?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Don't lie about what I've done or said.

Then call me out by stating it clearly. I will concede if you maintain a modicum of consistency here. Should the government force this guy to serve the conservative exactly as they did for the homosexual. Yes or no?

First, you apologize for baselessly labeling me a hypocrite.

Prove you're not and I will.

Not holding my breath on this one!

What do you think I meant when I said they should sue the business owners?

You meant to avoid admitting your hypocrisy. You want laws specifically designed to protect some, but not others that don't think like you. Those folks can sue, but otherwise, they're on their own.

Stated differently, you're a hypocrite and a troll.

I have proven I'm not hypocritical. You have proven you're an asshole.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Don't see the BFD PoliSpice.

"To see the enemy where he doesn't exist is cowardice," someone once said.

What you have to note here is what I'd call the 'pre-assignment' of opinions to people like myself, aka liberals, IOW

the OP and others such as eflat assign us the opinion that we oppose one sort of discrimination and support the other,
and by that they manufacture out of thin air what they believe is their justification for labeling us hypocrites.

Your 1st mistake is posting on a PoliSpice thread and your 2nd taking anything eflat. or bripat. say. seriously let alone anything PoliSpice scrawls w/her rw crayons

Sent from my VS425PP using Tapatalk

I enjoy proving these people are stupid.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Sue the company. End of story.

Notice you didn't share that advice when the customer was a homosexual.

Why the double standard?

Evidence?

Evidence of something that doesn't exist?

Wow, add stupid to your list of hypocrite and troll.

Does it hurt to be that dumb?

Okay, so you have NO evidence of me being hypocritical. That proves that your accusation was retarded.

 

[bripat9643]

In a free country no business should be forced to serve a customer they don't want to, regardless of the reason. The issue is at the end of the day no Democrats and few Republicans actually believe in freedom.

Do you believe you should have the freedom to shoot someone you don't care for?

No one has the right to shoot another person. However, you do have the right not to associate with people if you don't want to associate with them. To claim otherwise is fascism.

Your right not to associate with people is covered by your right not to start a business that will require you not to discriminate.

I have a right to start any business I like, so long as it doesn't use force against other people - that includes a business that doesn't serve people I don't want to serve.

Well....you did once upon a time.....

...before the neo-Fascists gained control.

I still have that right, but our fascist government tramples on it.