Jim Crow was legal. PA laws are legal. Either obey the law or face the consequences.
That's exactly what some of us are pointing out here. PA laws commit the same crime that Jim Crow did. They just have different targets.
State and local public accommodations laws are enacted at the behest of the people, through the political process, by the people's elected representatives, reflecting the will of the people.
And because the people have acted in concert with the Constitution – where public accommodations laws are necessary and proper regulatory policy as authorized by the Commerce Clause – the property rights of business owners have been in no way 'infringed' or 'violated.'
Moreover, those opposed to public accommodations laws remain at liberty to seek the repeal of such laws through the political process, to petition their elected representatives, and to appeal to their fellow citizens and voters.
Then I'll ask you what I asked Daniel. Would you defend similar Jim Crow laws on the same basis?