Putting all of the legality aside for a moment, let me ask you an honest question:
Should a man give up his religious beliefs to a) run a business and b) adhere to public accommodation laws?
Honest answer, Public Accommodation laws should be repealed in general because they usurp the rights of free association and property of the business owner. Whether the views of the business owner are based on secular reasons or religious reasons is irrelevant under equal treatment. Public Accommodation laws should apply only to government entities and on the vary narrow area of emergency/life threatening medical treatment where failure to act will result in death.
A. If the business owner is making the decision and chooses for his business to discriminate, that's the end of it.
B. If an employee of the business owner fails to conduct business and complete their assigned duties in the prescribed manner - then it is an issue between the owner and the employee.
C. Government entities, and employees acting as a representative of the government, would be subject to Public Accommodation laws, as such they can make employee accommodation only so long as the tax paying, US Citizen isn't burdened.
D. As part of Public Accommodation laws applicable to government entities, those spending taxpayer dollars, would be restrictions on the ability to make purchases or enter into contracts with private companies that exhibit discriminatory behavior.
There would be no need for special exemptions for religious views.
Does that help?
>>>>
Public accommodations laws are predicated on Commerce Clause jurisprudence, not First Amendment free association or Fifth Amendment Takings Clause doctrine, consequently no rights are usurped or violated.
Business owners are subject to all manner of appropriate and Constitutional regulatory policies, including public accommodations laws, where to allow businesses to discriminate based solely on race, gender, or sexual orientation would clearly be disruptive to both the local market and markets nationwide, and where Congress is clearly authorized to protect markets from such disruptions:
Congress’ power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic “class of activities” that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce is firmly established. See, e.g.,
Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146, 151. If Congress decides that the “ ‘total incidence’ ” of a practice poses a threat to a national market, it may regulate the entire class.
GONZALES V. RAICH
Just because a government has the power to do something, doesn't mean that the exercising of that power is the correct course of action.
Consequently to advocate for the repeal of public accommodations laws is both unwarranted and unwise.
Well that of course is your opinion and you are welcome to have it.
On the other hand I think, see this is my opinion, is that society has changed.
As I said in another thread, we used to have:
1. Areas of the country where black people couldn't rent a room for the night when traveling.
2. Areas of the country where black people traveling couldn't buy gas from white station owners.
3. Areas of the country where blacks couldn't eat unless they could find a black's only food establishment.
4. And we had systematic discrimination against minorities in terms of how government functioned, such as segregated mass transit (buses, trains, etc.), schools, law enforcement, etc.
In those days such things were commonplace, but society has changed in the last 50 years and changed a lot. There has been a "corporatisation" where you can't spit without finding a company gas station, movie theater, restaurateur, motel/hotel, etc. Just because we repeal Public Accommodation laws, doesn't mean that things are going to go back to the way they were 2 generations ago. And there are a number of factors that impact this:
1. We are much more mobile society. People routinely travel in a manner unprecedented then both temporary and "permanent" relocation's out of the area they grew up in.
2. We are more informed society and information is much more available today about how a business conducts it self in term so taking care of customers we have Criag's list, Angie's list, Yelp, and a plethora of hotel, restaurant, and review sites for any type of business and it's not just the discriminated against who would choose not to associate with such a business. It includes many in the majority that would shy away from such businesses.
3. The "corporatisation" of businesses in America watches the bottom line and having your "brand name" associated with and appearing to condone discrimination has a negative impact on the bottom line. With corporate owned "shops" and franchises who still fall under policies of the home office means that these businesses will not allow or condone what was going on prior to the 60's.
**************************************************
So the question becomes the balance of the rights of the private business owner to manage their private property according to their desires as compared to the desires of others to have access to that private business. With the widespread discrimination 2-generations ago there may have been justification to say the rights of the property owner needed to be usurped - on a temporary basis - but those times are pretty much gone. The balance was greatly tilted toward discrimination.
But in general the widespread issues from 50 years ago have been resolved by fundamental shifts in society. Sure there will be isolated instances, that the price of liberty and dealing with your own issues. A burger joint says - I won't serve a black? OK, walk across the street to Applebee's. A photographer doesn't want to shoot a same-sex wedding? OK, Google or Angie's List other photographers in the area.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all
FOR keeping Public Accommodation laws in force in terms of the functioning of government but that is because citizens have an inherent right to equal treatment by the government. There is no such right to equal treatment by other individuals.
>>>>
