Do we have a right to not be discriminated against

[Ravi]

Yet they are considered Public Accommodation. Why is it wrong for states to enact PA laws?

They're private. Do you understand? Privately owned.

Public accommodations laws are government intrusions into private property. You will love the day that Big Brother compels you not to deny anyone entry into your home, won't you.

My home isn't a public accommodation.

Yet. It's a short hop from controlling private businesses to controlling private homes.

No it isn't. There are all kinds of castle doctrine laws on the books. There are all kinds of public accommodation laws on the books. Never the twain shall meet. Unless I turn my home into a hotel or some other public accommodation venue.

People used to think that way about their private businesses.

"No Shoes, No Shirts, No Service". I suspect somewhere (likely in San Francisco given the Folsom Street Fair exhibitionist), an Aggrieved LGBT Nudist will claim discrimination for having to wear clothing in a restaurant.

And the nudist would be SOL.

 

[Ravi]

Yet they are considered Public Accommodation. Why is it wrong for states to enact PA laws?

They're private. Do you understand? Privately owned.

Public accommodations laws are government intrusions into private property. You will love the day that Big Brother compels you not to deny anyone entry into your home, won't you.

My home isn't a public accommodation.

Businesses are private, too.

So no, then. You don't understand.

They aren't considered private if they accommodate the public.

One-track mind liberals.

Here is the definition for you since you seem confused:

Within US law, public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private, that are used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments and service establishments, as well as educational institutions, recreational facilities and service centers.

 

[boedicca]

They're private. Do you understand? Privately owned.

Public accommodations laws are government intrusions into private property. You will love the day that Big Brother compels you not to deny anyone entry into your home, won't you.

My home isn't a public accommodation.

Yet. It's a short hop from controlling private businesses to controlling private homes.

No it isn't. There are all kinds of castle doctrine laws on the books. There are all kinds of public accommodation laws on the books. Never the twain shall meet. Unless I turn my home into a hotel or some other public accommodation venue.

People used to think that way about their private businesses.

"No Shoes, No Shirts, No Service". I suspect somewhere (likely in San Francisco given the Folsom Street Fair exhibitionist), an Aggrieved LGBT Nudist will claim discrimination for having to wear clothing in a restaurant.

And the nudist would be SOL.

Well, yes, if he were a nudist for RELIGIOUS REASONS, but if it were because he was a Transgender Nudist, I suspect he'd find a large cabal of Moonbats ready to trash the restaurant on his behalf.

 

[zeke]

anyone with a gun that has a permit for open carry to be served, if they demand it? All against the beliefs of the business owner.

I think you have an interesting analogy in the gun issue. The Muslims and pork not so much. Muslim restaurants do not serve pork to anyone.

But the gun thing is interesting. In the my state of Ohio, if you have your gun permit you can carry a gun into a bar.
The bar owner has the right to post his place of business as no guns allowed. If you come in with a gun and the establishment has posted no guns and you demand service while showing a gun and then is refused, that would be a problem for the gun owner. But was he being discriminated against?

I would believe that you can discriminate against a gun. But not the person with the gun. In other words, you can't refuse to serve someone just because they have a legal gun permit. YOU can't even stop them from coming into your place of business. They just can't bring that gun in with them.

It isn't like you can leave your sexuality at the door like you can a gun so gays pose a bigger issue.

Kinda like dogs and restaurants. You can post no dogs. Are they discriminating against people with dogs? Except for service dogs.

 

[Foxfyre]

Should government protect a universal right to be treated equally in "public accommodations"? In employment? Education? Any social settings?

I'm trying to get my head around the general point of view that discrimination should be illegal. I'm not sure we have much clarity on what it means, other than ad hoc provisions regarding specific circumstances.

In a nutshell:

IMO the law should require, as a condition of the business license, all businesses to sell whatever product a business has in stock and normally sells to all customers without prejudice. A businessman should certainly be able to specify reasonable requirements of conduct and dress in order to receive service and he should be able to apply those to everybody.

The law should not require the businessman to provide a product that the businessman normally would not carry to anybody, nor to go to any location the businessman chooses not to go, nor participate or be present at any activity the businessman chooses to avoid for any reason.

 

[norwegen]

They're private. Do you understand? Privately owned.

Public accommodations laws are government intrusions into private property. You will love the day that Big Brother compels you not to deny anyone entry into your home, won't you.

My home isn't a public accommodation.

Businesses are private, too.

So no, then. You don't understand.

They aren't considered private if they accommodate the public.

One-track mind liberals.

Here is the definition for you since you seem confused:

Within US law, public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private, that are used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments and service establishments, as well as educational institutions, recreational facilities and service centers.

Read the next paragraph in your Wikipedia link and show us where it says sexual orientation.

And then try again to understand , eh. Big Brother is telling us how to think.

 

[bripat9643]

Should government protect a universal right to be treated equally in "public accommodations"? In employment? Education? Any social settings?

The issue is commerce. If its commerce related, the State's authority to regulate intrastate commerce is unquestioned.

Oh, it's 'questioned' more than you might guess. So should this apply to all parties engaging in commerce?

The State and Intrastate commerce? Not really.

And you asked under which social situations these types of laws would apply. The answer is situations of commerce.

The term "commerce among the several states" does not include any of the following:

Roland Original Understanding of the Commerce Clause

As originally understood, interstate "commerce" did not include primary production, such as farming, hunting, fishing, or mining. It did not include services, securities, or communication. Nor did it include manufacturing, transport, retail sales, possession, use, or disposal of anything. It did not include anything that might have a "substantial effect" on commerce, or the operations of parties not directly related to the actual transfers of ownership and possession.
​

In other words, it doesn't include bakers, photographers and Pizza restaurants.

 

[bripat9643]

Should government protect a universal right to be treated equally in "public accommodations"? In employment? Education? Any social settings?

I'm trying to get my head around the general point of view that discrimination should be illegal. I'm not sure we have much clarity on what it means, other than ad hoc provisions regarding specific circumstances.

In a nutshell:

IMO the law should require, as a condition of the business license, all businesses to sell whatever product a business has in stock and normally sells to all customers without prejudice. A businessman should certainly be able to specify reasonable requirements of conduct and dress in order to receive service and he should be able to apply those to everybody.

The law should not require the businessman to provide a product that the businessman normally would not carry to anybody, nor to go to any location the businessman chooses not to go, nor participate or be present at any activity the businessman chooses to avoid for any reason.

Businesses shouldn't be required to have a license, period. Why should anyone have to ask permission from the government to earn a living?

 

[bripat9643]

"Should government protect a universal right to be treated equally in "public accommodations"? In employment? Education? Any social settings?"

Yes, yes, yes, many not any.

Agree. If you are a business that is operated to make money off the public then you need to make money off the public, no matter who they are. Otherwise, find other employment.

Another bullshit principle of liberalism with no basis in fact. What if you only want to make money off of heterosexuals?

Open a Christian bookstore, be a portrait painter, cater Christian events, start a fee based club. The list goes on and on and on.

You didn't provide a shred of evidence to support your point. You also suck at career counselling.

 

[dblack]

Should government protect a universal right to be treated equally in "public accommodations"? In employment? Education? Any social settings?

I'm trying to get my head around the general point of view that discrimination should be illegal. I'm not sure we have much clarity on what it means, other than ad hoc provisions regarding specific circumstances.

In a nutshell:

IMO the law should require, as a condition of the business license, all businesses to sell whatever product a business has in stock and normally sells to all customers without prejudice. A businessman should certainly be able to specify reasonable requirements of conduct and dress in order to receive service and he should be able to apply those to everybody.

The law should not require the businessman to provide a product that the businessman normally would not carry to anybody, nor to go to any location the businessman chooses not to go, nor participate or be present at any activity the businessman chooses to avoid for any reason.

So you would, for example, support laws banning nightclubs from "curating" who is allowed in? (eg only the attractive or the rich)

 

[Ravi]

My home isn't a public accommodation.

Yet. It's a short hop from controlling private businesses to controlling private homes.

No it isn't. There are all kinds of castle doctrine laws on the books. There are all kinds of public accommodation laws on the books. Never the twain shall meet. Unless I turn my home into a hotel or some other public accommodation venue.

People used to think that way about their private businesses.

"No Shoes, No Shirts, No Service". I suspect somewhere (likely in San Francisco given the Folsom Street Fair exhibitionist), an Aggrieved LGBT Nudist will claim discrimination for having to wear clothing in a restaurant.

And the nudist would be SOL.

Well, yes, if he were a nudist for RELIGIOUS REASONS, but if it were because he was a Transgender Nudist, I suspect he'd find a large cabal of Moonbats ready to trash the restaurant on his behalf.

There are many things you are sure of that simply aren't true.

 

[bripat9643]

It just seems to me that it is hypocritical to demand or promote tolerance when such tolerance only extends to those things tolerable to those demanding it. Is not intolerance of intolerance itself intolerant?

If we truly believe in liberty, then we prohibit people from inadvertently, intentionally, or maliciously harming others, but otherwise allow people to be who and what they are no matter what that is. If the Christian baker doesn't want to bake anything other than heterosexual or Christian wedding cakes, then so be it. The tolerant who think the Christian is unreasonable and/or wrong don't have to patronize his business but they allow him to be who and what he is in peace.

And the blacks who were told they wouldn't be served at the lunch counter could just go to another restaurant, huh?

I didn't say that did I.

How is the situation significantly different?

One is demanding a proprietor to provide a product he chooses not to provide and would not normally carry.

The other is discriminatory against a person wanting to buy a product that is available to all and such discrimination should be illegal as a condition of receiving a business license. The black guy can buy anything on the menu, but he has no right to demand that the restaurant provide him with something that isn't on the menu any more than anybody else does.

And there is no law that supports that.

It's only a matter of time until there is.

 

[dblack]

So ultimately you have a problem with the concept of freedom of association? I'm just saying that, if you don't support a business, then don't enter into a business relationship with it. Don't force people to enter a contract with you and destroy their livelihood should they decline for any reason.

The premise seems to be that any person "engaging in interstate commerce" is implicitly sacrificing their right to freedom of association.

 

[Syriusly]

Should government protect a universal right to be treated equally in "public accommodations"? In employment? Education? Any social settings?

I'm trying to get my head around the general point of view that discrimination should be illegal. I'm not sure we have much clarity on what it means, other than ad hoc provisions regarding specific circumstances.

Anti-discrimination laws have generally been the result of blatant and historical discrimination against specific minorities. The laws are designed to stop that kind of discrimination.

I am not certain whether these arguments are genuine libertarian concerns, or just end run arguments to allow business's to discriminate against whatever minority a business owner doesn't care for- black- Jewish- Armenian- gay- Mormon.

 

[Ravi]

My home isn't a public accommodation.

Businesses are private, too.

So no, then. You don't understand.

They aren't considered private if they accommodate the public.

One-track mind liberals.

Here is the definition for you since you seem confused:

Within US law, public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private, that are used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments and service establishments, as well as educational institutions, recreational facilities and service centers.

Read the next paragraph in your Wikipedia link and show us where it says sexual orientation.

And then try again to understand , eh. Big Brother is telling us how to think.

Many states have added sexual orientation. Why are you against states rights?

 

[bripat9643]

Businesses are private. Why we're even asking this question tells us how corrupt and liberalized we've become.

Yet they are considered Public Accommodation. Why is it wrong for states to enact PA laws?

They're private. Do you understand? Privately owned.

Public accommodations laws are government intrusions into private property. You will love the day that Big Brother compels you not to deny anyone entry into your home, won't you.

My home isn't a public accommodation.

Businesses are private, too.

So no, then. You don't understand.

They aren't considered private if they accommodate the public.

Only be Nazis like you. Private property is private property.

 

[Flash]

The friggin filthy ass government needs to leave Americans alone and not try to social engineer this country.

Every individual should have the right of freedom of association and freedom of religion but the Left doesn't think so.

The Left has always believed in an authoritative government that would force extreme political and social ideology on the people.

 

[Ravi]

"Should government protect a universal right to be treated equally in "public accommodations"? In employment? Education? Any social settings?"

Yes, yes, yes, many not any.

Agree. If you are a business that is operated to make money off the public then you need to make money off the public, no matter who they are. Otherwise, find other employment.

Another bullshit principle of liberalism with no basis in fact. What if you only want to make money off of heterosexuals?

Open a Christian bookstore, be a portrait painter, cater Christian events, start a fee based club. The list goes on and on and on.

You didn't provide a shred of evidence to support your point. You also suck at career counselling.

None of what I listed are considered public accommodation. It is easily possible to tailor your business to serve only the segment you wish to serve.

 

[bripat9643]

They're private. Do you understand? Privately owned.

Public accommodations laws are government intrusions into private property. You will love the day that Big Brother compels you not to deny anyone entry into your home, won't you.

My home isn't a public accommodation.

Businesses are private, too.

So no, then. You don't understand.

They aren't considered private if they accommodate the public.

One-track mind liberals.

Here is the definition for you since you seem confused:

Within US law, public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private, that are used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments and service establishments, as well as educational institutions, recreational facilities and service centers.

Yes, we know what the horseshit unconstitutional law says.

 

[Ravi]

And the blacks who were told they wouldn't be served at the lunch counter could just go to another restaurant, huh?

I didn't say that did I.

How is the situation significantly different?

One is demanding a proprietor to provide a product he chooses not to provide and would not normally carry.

The other is discriminatory against a person wanting to buy a product that is available to all and such discrimination should be illegal as a condition of receiving a business license. The black guy can buy anything on the menu, but he has no right to demand that the restaurant provide him with something that isn't on the menu any more than anybody else does.

And there is no law that supports that.

It's only a matter of time until there is.

Right, and soon men will be able to marry dogs.