Should a black photographer be forced to work a KKK wedding?

[Quantum Windbag]

The OP has committed a false analogy fallacy, and the premise of his thread fails accordingly.

Unlike homosexuals, the Klan does not constitute a class of persons, the Klan is not a ‘race,’ nor is it representative of any race in general.

What is false about it? The law in New Mexico prohibits discrimination on basis of race, color, religion, national origin, physical or mental handicap, age, sex, ancestry or serious medical condition, not on the basis of class of persons. If you think that doesn't cover the KKK you have your head up your ass.

That prevents the clan from discriminating against black people, but it doesn't prevent black people from discriminating against the clan.

Funny.

It actually doesn't prevent the KKK, as a private organization, from discriminating against anyone. On the other hand, it does prevent anyone who runs a business that provides a service of any type to the public in any way from discriminating against the KKK.

Just in case you think I am arguing a slippery slope, I can point out that something similar actually happened already. A restaurant in California refused service to a group of neo-Nazis wearing a swastika unless they left it outside. They were sued by the ACLU, and lost.

The Volokh Conspiracy - A (Very) Strange But True ACLU Case:

Feel free to admit you had no idea how bad it is.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Being made to attend a wedding you disagree with is not the same as, say, providing flowers or a cake for the same wedding.
The photographer didn't have a gun to her head so she didn't have to attend, and she shouldn't have to. She can pick and choose which weddings she attends, and the couple can find another photographer if they don't like it.

No she can't "pick and choose," dingbat. The judge ruled that she had to provide the service, which means she had to attend the wedding.

This is ridiculous.

No one is ‘forced’ to attend a wedding, and no law compels anyone to attend a wedding.

Taking photographs as a professional photographer of a wedding is not ‘attending’ a wedding, it in no way condones the ceremony, it does not endorse same-sex couples marrying, and it in no way ‘violates’ the religious tenets of the photographer.

This is merely a lame and inane excuse for those hostile to the equal protection rights of same-sex couples to access marriage law, motivated by their fear, hate, and ignorance of homosexuals.

Excuse me? Can you explain, in detail, how a photographer can provide pictures of an event if she doesn't attend? Did someone invent magic cameras that can take pictures through walls that are miles away from said camera?

 

[boedicca]

Nobody should be forced to associate with anyone.

But the more government intrudes into our private interactions, the more our freedom of association (and other liberties) are violated.

 

[FA_Q2]

What is false about it? The law in New Mexico prohibits discrimination on basis of race, color, religion, national origin, physical or mental handicap, age, sex, ancestry or serious medical condition, not on the basis of class of persons. If you think that doesn't cover the KKK you have your head up your ass.

That prevents the clan from discriminating against black people, but it doesn't prevent black people from discriminating against the clan.

Funny.

It actually doesn't prevent the KKK, as a private organization, from discriminating against anyone. On the other hand, it does prevent anyone who runs a business that provides a service of any type to the public in any way from discriminating against the KKK.

Just in case you think I am arguing a slippery slope, I can point out that something similar actually happened already. A restaurant in California refused service to a group of neo-Nazis wearing a swastika unless they left it outside. They were sued by the ACLU, and lost.

The Volokh Conspiracy - A (Very) Strange But True ACLU Case:

Feel free to admit you had no idea how bad it is.

God that makes me fucking sick. To think that you can be forced to serve animals like that is pathetic.

This is an example of the most pathetic twisting of what freedom is supposed to mean. A complete lack of understanding what is right or wrong has taken hold here.

Its worthy of note that the cite claims it was settled so did not actually go to court so it is possible that they were mistaken with how the court would have found. The case should have been very clear though.

 

[Kondor3]

Being made to attend a wedding you disagree with is not the same as, say, providing flowers or a cake for the same wedding.
The photographer didn't have a gun to her head so she didn't have to attend, and she shouldn't have to. She can pick and choose which weddings she attends, and the couple can find another photographer if they don't like it.

lol


you cant have it both ways.....


either everyone has the choice of who they will and will not service..... or they dont.

As I said, attending a wedding is not the same as putting together some flowers for a wedding you won't attend.

Disagree.

Completely.

When you provide publicly-available goods AND services, you are selling a product.

The 'product' can be a tangible good OR it can be a service.

And, in this case, actually, there IS a Tangible Good to be generated.

The photographer's product is the outputs of the camera-shoot - the photographs, in various forms - which are, in fact AND at-law, a tangible good.

In order to CREATE those outputs, the photographer must attend the event in question.

Refusing to undertake the necessary on-site element of Outputs Creation is the same as refusing to sell someone your product, for all intents and purposes, from any of the vantage points of reality, logic, ethics, and the law...

The photographer refusing to CREATE those outputs is EXACTLY the same on the conceptual level as a baker refusing to sell a gay couple a cake or to deliver flowers to a gay wedding, etc...

Twist and squirm and wiggle on the hook all you like, on this one, but it is, truly, and ethically, the same, and should always be viewed as such at-law...

The law needs to be consistent, in order to retain the respect and assent of The Governed...

What's good for the goose, is good for the gander...

Every once in a while, that double-edged sword cuts a Liberal, or one for whom Liberals like to advocate, or works to the advantage of mindsets that are broadly loathed or despised...

Those business people who are thus adversely impacted must, on such occasions, take their lumps and cuts and bruises, and bandage them up, and move on...

Just like everybody else...

No exceptions...

Stop whiney-biotching about it...

Suck it up...

Conduct yourself professionally...

Get the job done...

Collect your money...

Move on...

Minority rights are still protected, and were not damaged or cheapened by the hypocrisy of double standards...

The world will continue to turn...

 

[Kondor3]

"...God that makes me fucking sick. To think that you can be forced to serve animals like that is pathetic..."

The only way around that, in all fairness, is to free Business Folk to choose for themselves, whom to serve, and whom not to...

And, of course, if we return to such a condition, then Blacks and Mexicans and Hindus and Muslims and Jews, et al, may find it difficult to shop in various stores or to eat at various restaurants and all a sudden we're back in the 1930s, from the perspective of equal rights for minorities...

Best to take the occasional teaspoon of bitter medicine along with gallons of the good stuff, else risk the gallons...

 

[WorldWatcher]

"...God that makes me fucking sick. To think that you can be forced to serve animals like that is pathetic..."

The only way around that, in all fairness, is to free Business Folk to choose for themselves, whom to serve, and whom not to...

And, of course, if we return to such a condition, then Blacks and Mexicans and Hindus and Muslims and Jews, et al, may find it difficult to shop in various stores or to eat at various restaurants and all a sudden we're back in the 1930s, from the perspective of equal rights for minorities...

Best to take the occasional teaspoon of bitter medicine along with gallons of the good stuff, else risk the gallons...

Sorry, I disagree with this. Considering the situation in the 30's, 40's, and 50's and while I can understand for the need for Public Accommodation laws at the time - society has changed. We are vastly different in a couple of fundamental areas:

1. We have seen an explosion in "corporate American" with the concept of franchised business and chain establishments who must function under the basic policies of the parent company. Even if every state and federal Public Accommodation law pertaining to businesses who provide services to the pubic were repealed, companies would still recognize that - in general - equal treatment of customers is a good thing from a business perspective. Ya, there are some mom & pop places that might then decide to discriminate, but it is there business and they should have the ability to determine who to serve and who not to serve.

2. The heralding of the information age has changed how we gather information about who we do business with. The internet with twitter, Facebook, yelp, Craig's List, Angie's Lists, etc. means information about an establishments business spreads real fast. And guess what? Discriminatory practices are going to drive away a lot of people - even if they aren't in the group targeted for discrimination.​

The fundamental issue is a conflict of rights: the perceived "right" of another individual not to be discriminated against by another private individual and the actual right of the property owner. If I understand you post correctly you are saying that the occasional "bitter teaspoon" applied to the business, the other side is that the "gallons of stuff" to be returned to is the recognition of personal property rights and the "teaspoon" of bitter is then that on a rare occasion (from a statistical standpoint) some jerk might decide to discriminate.


>>>>

 

[Kondor3]

"...If I understand you post correctly you are saying that the occasional 'bitter teaspoon' applied to the business, the other side is that the "gallons of stuff" to be returned to is the recognition of personal property rights..."

No.

I am saying that the occasional 'bitter teaspoon' of medicine (folks providing goods and services to those whose race or creed or sexuality or political views repel them) is worth the 'gallons of the good stuff' (ensuring that all receive goods and services regardless of their race, creed or views) in a fair and consistent manner at-law.

To refuse to sell a good or service to Gay person(s) because their sexual practices disgust you is EXACTLY the same - at law and ethically - as refusing to sell a good or service to someone whose political or racial views disgust you.

Equal protection and equal accommodation for ALL under The Law...

Or The Law loses traction due to double standards and the hypocrisy which allows those standards to exist and to thrive.

That means that the KKK asshole gets the same protection (and accommodation) under the law as the innocent Gay person.

As difficult as that is, on occasion, EQUAL protection and accommodation at-law, requires more effort or tolerance or forebearance from us than we are comfortable with, but the alternative (a fast sliding backwards to open and blatant discrimination at-will) is far worse. Consistency and fairness are all, on the ethical front, and, ultimately, legally, too.



I hear what you are staying about Trends and Internet Reputation and Customer Attraction and Prospect-Repelling and the like, but all of that is impermanent and imperfect and has no force at-law; it is unenforceable at-law. Frankly, and with respect, such things are FAR too important to be left to to such unaccountable and capricious ether as 'trends' and 'reputation'...

Far better to rely upon the Gold Standard in such matters... far batter to rely up The Law itself... and, in order to uphold The Law, and to ensure that it continues to benefit ALL in this context...

Better to have to take an occasional teaspoon of bitter medicine (being obliged to serve someone whom you find repugnant) than to have our Equal Rights Laws successfully challenged due to hypocrisy and inconsistent application, and us obliged to go back to Bad Old Days of whimsical discrimination, rather than being able to drink gallons of the good stuff (everybody having access to goods and services without discrimination)...

Folks who don't like racial minorities are still obliged to serve them, in a provider-customer setting...

Folks who don't like Gays are still obliged to serve them, in a provider-customer setting...

Folks who don't like Atheists are still obliged to serve them, in a provider-customer setting...

Folks who don't like the KKK should still be obliged to serve them, in a provider-customer setting...

Small price to pay, to keep things equitable and consistent, and free of charges of hypocrisy and favoritism and selective enforcement and application...

Small price to pay, to keep things on the right track, rather than giving the Old-Guard Racists and their fellow travelers an opening or weakness in the armor...

Right or wrong, palatable or no, that's my own personal, amateurish take on the subject...

Hope that helps to clarify where I was trying to go with that...

 

[FA_Q2]

"...God that makes me fucking sick. To think that you can be forced to serve animals like that is pathetic..."

The only way around that, in all fairness, is to free Business Folk to choose for themselves, whom to serve, and whom not to...

And, of course, if we return to such a condition, then Blacks and Mexicans and Hindus and Muslims and Jews, et al, may find it difficult to shop in various stores or to eat at various restaurants and all a sudden we're back in the 1930s, from the perspective of equal rights for minorities...

Best to take the occasional teaspoon of bitter medicine along with gallons of the good stuff, else risk the gallons...

You are under an incorrect impression that something like that would occur IMHO. In the 30’s that was a real problem. Not so much today.

 

[PaulS1950]

It is easy for a business to refuse service to anyone. All they have to do is have them fill out a form that specifies the date, the parties involved, the location and time. If they don't want to do the gig then they simply close the shop on that day or say they have a previous engagement.

You can refuse service as long as it is not because of a discriminatory reason.

 

[WorldWatcher]

"...If I understand you post correctly you are saying that the occasional 'bitter teaspoon' applied to the business, the other side is that the "gallons of stuff" to be returned to is the recognition of personal property rights..."

No.

I am saying that the occasional 'bitter teaspoon' of medicine (folks providing goods and services to those whose race or creed or sexuality or political views repel them) is worth the 'gallons of the good stuff' (ensuring that all receive goods and services regardless of their race, creed or views) in a fair and consistent manner at-law.

To refuse to sell a good or service to Gay person(s) because their sexual practices disgust you is EXACTLY the same - at law and ethically - as refusing to sell a good or service to someone whose political or racial views disgust you.

Equal protection and equal accommodation for ALL under The Law...

Or The Law loses traction due to double standards and the hypocrisy which allows those standards to exist and to thrive.

That means that the KKK asshole gets the same protection (and accommodation) under the law as the innocent Gay person.

As difficult as that is, on occasion, EQUAL protection and accommodation at-law, requires more effort or tolerance or forebearance from us than we are comfortable with, but the alternative (a fast sliding backwards to open and blatant discrimination at-will) is far worse. Consistency and fairness are all, on the ethical front, and, ultimately, legally, too.



Better to have to take an occasional teaspoon of bitter medicine (being obliged to serve someone whom you find repugnant) than to have our Equal Rights Laws successfully challenged due to hypocrisy and inconsistent application, and us obliged to go back to Bad Old Days of whimsical discrimination, rather than being able to drink gallons of the good stuff (everybody having access to goods and services without discrimination)...

Small price to pay, to keep things equitable and consistent, and free of charges of hypocrisy and favoritism and selective enforcement and application...

Small price to pay, to keep things on the right track, rather than giving the Old-Guard Racists and their fellow travelers an opening or weakness in the armor...

Equal Protection under the law is a concept embodied in the 5th Amendment (Federal) and 14th Amendment (States):

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​

Both of those amendments pertain the treatment of citizens by government entities they don't, and never intended to provide - equal treatment by non-governmental entities. Equal Protection under the law does not mean equal treatment by private individuals.


>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That prevents the clan from discriminating against black people, but it doesn't prevent black people from discriminating against the clan.

Funny.

It actually doesn't prevent the KKK, as a private organization, from discriminating against anyone. On the other hand, it does prevent anyone who runs a business that provides a service of any type to the public in any way from discriminating against the KKK.

Just in case you think I am arguing a slippery slope, I can point out that something similar actually happened already. A restaurant in California refused service to a group of neo-Nazis wearing a swastika unless they left it outside. They were sued by the ACLU, and lost.

The Volokh Conspiracy - A (Very) Strange But True ACLU Case:

Feel free to admit you had no idea how bad it is.

God that makes me fucking sick. To think that you can be forced to serve animals like that is pathetic.

This is an example of the most pathetic twisting of what freedom is supposed to mean. A complete lack of understanding what is right or wrong has taken hold here.

Its worthy of note that the cite claims it was settled so did not actually go to court so it is possible that they were mistaken with how the court would have found. The case should have been very clear though.

They didn't even refuse to serve them, they just refused to serve them while they were wearing a swastika.

It was settled after they lost the first round in court. The insurance company decided it was less expensive to settle than actually fight the case.

 

[NLT]

Where are USMB's resident angry bull dykes on this issue? Sea Butch and Bodey should explain to us why it is so important for gays to force people that dont agree with thier lifestyles to perform services for them.

You would think they would rather give the work and money to another LGBT photographer. But that doesnt shove it in a straight persons face like they want to do in the first place.

 

[hortysir]

Ok, this may be a dumb question or maybe someone has already covered it;

Why would a KKK group WANT to hire a black guy to do the photography?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"...God that makes me fucking sick. To think that you can be forced to serve animals like that is pathetic..."

The only way around that, in all fairness, is to free Business Folk to choose for themselves, whom to serve, and whom not to...

And, of course, if we return to such a condition, then Blacks and Mexicans and Hindus and Muslims and Jews, et al, may find it difficult to shop in various stores or to eat at various restaurants and all a sudden we're back in the 1930s, from the perspective of equal rights for minorities...

Best to take the occasional teaspoon of bitter medicine along with gallons of the good stuff, else risk the gallons...

Sorry, I disagree with this. Considering the situation in the 30's, 40's, and 50's and while I can understand for the need for Public Accommodation laws at the time - society has changed. We are vastly different in a couple of fundamental areas:

1. We have seen an explosion in "corporate American" with the concept of franchised business and chain establishments who must function under the basic policies of the parent company. Even if every state and federal Public Accommodation law pertaining to businesses who provide services to the pubic were repealed, companies would still recognize that - in general - equal treatment of customers is a good thing from a business perspective. Ya, there are some mom & pop places that might then decide to discriminate, but it is there business and they should have the ability to determine who to serve and who not to serve.

2. The heralding of the information age has changed how we gather information about who we do business with. The internet with twitter, Facebook, yelp, Craig's List, Angie's Lists, etc. means information about an establishments business spreads real fast. And guess what? Discriminatory practices are going to drive away a lot of people - even if they aren't in the group targeted for discrimination.​

The fundamental issue is a conflict of rights: the perceived "right" of another individual not to be discriminated against by another private individual and the actual right of the property owner. If I understand you post correctly you are saying that the occasional "bitter teaspoon" applied to the business, the other side is that the "gallons of stuff" to be returned to is the recognition of personal property rights and the "teaspoon" of bitter is then that on a rare occasion (from a statistical standpoint) some jerk might decide to discriminate.


>>>>

Why does everybody keep bring up Jim Crow to justify laws that are stupid? Are you so stupid you don't understand that the reason that segregation existed in the first place was that the law required it? Do you honestly think going the government forcing you to not do something to it forcing you to do it is an improvement?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ok, this may be a dumb question or maybe someone has already covered it;

Why would a KKK group WANT to hire a black guy to do the photography?

For the same reason a gay couple would want to hire a they hate to photograph their wedding, revenge.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The only way around that, in all fairness, is to free Business Folk to choose for themselves, whom to serve, and whom not to...

And, of course, if we return to such a condition, then Blacks and Mexicans and Hindus and Muslims and Jews, et al, may find it difficult to shop in various stores or to eat at various restaurants and all a sudden we're back in the 1930s, from the perspective of equal rights for minorities...

Best to take the occasional teaspoon of bitter medicine along with gallons of the good stuff, else risk the gallons...

Sorry, I disagree with this. Considering the situation in the 30's, 40's, and 50's and while I can understand for the need for Public Accommodation laws at the time - society has changed. We are vastly different in a couple of fundamental areas:

1. We have seen an explosion in "corporate American" with the concept of franchised business and chain establishments who must function under the basic policies of the parent company. Even if every state and federal Public Accommodation law pertaining to businesses who provide services to the pubic were repealed, companies would still recognize that - in general - equal treatment of customers is a good thing from a business perspective. Ya, there are some mom & pop places that might then decide to discriminate, but it is there business and they should have the ability to determine who to serve and who not to serve.

2. The heralding of the information age has changed how we gather information about who we do business with. The internet with twitter, Facebook, yelp, Craig's List, Angie's Lists, etc. means information about an establishments business spreads real fast. And guess what? Discriminatory practices are going to drive away a lot of people - even if they aren't in the group targeted for discrimination.​

The fundamental issue is a conflict of rights: the perceived "right" of another individual not to be discriminated against by another private individual and the actual right of the property owner. If I understand you post correctly you are saying that the occasional "bitter teaspoon" applied to the business, the other side is that the "gallons of stuff" to be returned to is the recognition of personal property rights and the "teaspoon" of bitter is then that on a rare occasion (from a statistical standpoint) some jerk might decide to discriminate.


>>>>

Why does everybody keep bring up Jim Crow to justify laws that are stupid? Are you so stupid you don't understand that the reason that segregation existed in the first place was that the law required it? Do you honestly think going the government forcing you to not do something to it forcing you to do it is an improvement?

Your questions above addressed to me make no sense. I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws being applied to private business transactions.


>>>>

 

[FA_Q2]

"...If I understand you post correctly you are saying that the occasional 'bitter teaspoon' applied to the business, the other side is that the "gallons of stuff" to be returned to is the recognition of personal property rights..."

No.

I am saying that the occasional 'bitter teaspoon' of medicine (folks providing goods and services to those whose race or creed or sexuality or political views repel them) is worth the 'gallons of the good stuff' (ensuring that all receive goods and services regardless of their race, creed or views) in a fair and consistent manner at-law.

To refuse to sell a good or service to Gay person(s) because their sexual practices disgust you is EXACTLY the same - at law and ethically - as refusing to sell a good or service to someone whose political or racial views disgust you.

Equal protection and equal accommodation for ALL under The Law...

Or The Law loses traction due to double standards and the hypocrisy which allows those standards to exist and to thrive.

That means that the KKK asshole gets the same protection (and accommodation) under the law as the innocent Gay person.

As difficult as that is, on occasion, EQUAL protection and accommodation at-law, requires more effort or tolerance or forebearance from us than we are comfortable with, but the alternative (a fast sliding backwards to open and blatant discrimination at-will) is far worse. Consistency and fairness are all, on the ethical front, and, ultimately, legally, too.



I hear what you are staying about Trends and Internet Reputation and Customer Attraction and Prospect-Repelling and the like, but all of that is impermanent and imperfect and has no force at-law; it is unenforceable at-law. Frankly, and with respect, such things are FAR too important to be left to to such unaccountable and capricious ether as 'trends' and 'reputation'...

Far better to rely upon the Gold Standard in such matters... far batter to rely up The Law itself... and, in order to uphold The Law, and to ensure that it continues to benefit ALL in this context...

Better to have to take an occasional teaspoon of bitter medicine (being obliged to serve someone whom you find repugnant) than to have our Equal Rights Laws successfully challenged due to hypocrisy and inconsistent application, and us obliged to go back to Bad Old Days of whimsical discrimination, rather than being able to drink gallons of the good stuff (everybody having access to goods and services without discrimination)...

Folks who don't like racial minorities are still obliged to serve them, in a provider-customer setting...

Folks who don't like Gays are still obliged to serve them, in a provider-customer setting...

Folks who don't like Atheists are still obliged to serve them, in a provider-customer setting...

Folks who don't like the KKK should still be obliged to serve them, in a provider-customer setting...

Small price to pay, to keep things equitable and consistent, and free of charges of hypocrisy and favoritism and selective enforcement and application...

Small price to pay, to keep things on the right track, rather than giving the Old-Guard Racists and their fellow travelers an opening or weakness in the armor...

Right or wrong, palatable or no, that's my own personal, amateurish take on the subject...

Hope that helps to clarify where I was trying to go with that...

As long as the law codifies racism to hide in the shadows, racism will forever exist.

The only way for it to truly be dealt with, IMHO, is to let society deal with it. There was a time when law was necessary to show people the way. Now we know and that law is more of a hindrance than it is a help; consistently reminding us that we are different and that those that are different are going to use FORCE to make you serve them.

That does not allow racism to fade into history as another failed human construct.

 

[Kondor3]

"...As long as the law codifies racism to hide in the shadows, racism will forever exist. The only way for it to truly be dealt with, IMHO, is to let society deal with it. There was a time when law was necessary to show people the way. Now we know and that law is more of a hindrance than it is a help; consistently reminding us that we are different and that those that are different are going to use FORCE to make you serve them. That does not allow racism to fade into history as another failed human construct."

I think we may be coming at this from two similar but not identical angles.

You (and, perhaps one or more colleagues) seem to be coming at this from the angle that we should not have such Equal Product/Service Access Under Law, at all; rather, we should let Society and Time sort that out.

You may be right, but I also see that as a related but separate topic.

I am coming at this from the angle of what IS... and that is, that providers of goods and services to the general public are increasingly being prohibited at-law from discriminating against one or more client-demographics... so...

IF we intend to maintain such laws on the books... and I assure you that "we" do... then... the laws must apply to all, not just to those demographic groups and mindsets which we as a society approve of...

That includes a Black photographer providing publicly-offered product to members of the KKK, or a Jewish photographer providing publicly-offered product to members of a Nazi hate group... just as a conservative and pious baker or florist who is taught to shun Gays is obliged by law to provide that product to those whom he-or-she finds repugnant...

IF we create and maintain such laws, then they must apply to all, or none at all.

It is the other (and undesirable but necessary) side of the double-edged sword.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sorry, I disagree with this. Considering the situation in the 30's, 40's, and 50's and while I can understand for the need for Public Accommodation laws at the time - society has changed. We are vastly different in a couple of fundamental areas:

1. We have seen an explosion in "corporate American" with the concept of franchised business and chain establishments who must function under the basic policies of the parent company. Even if every state and federal Public Accommodation law pertaining to businesses who provide services to the pubic were repealed, companies would still recognize that - in general - equal treatment of customers is a good thing from a business perspective. Ya, there are some mom & pop places that might then decide to discriminate, but it is there business and they should have the ability to determine who to serve and who not to serve.

2. The heralding of the information age has changed how we gather information about who we do business with. The internet with twitter, Facebook, yelp, Craig's List, Angie's Lists, etc. means information about an establishments business spreads real fast. And guess what? Discriminatory practices are going to drive away a lot of people - even if they aren't in the group targeted for discrimination.​

The fundamental issue is a conflict of rights: the perceived "right" of another individual not to be discriminated against by another private individual and the actual right of the property owner. If I understand you post correctly you are saying that the occasional "bitter teaspoon" applied to the business, the other side is that the "gallons of stuff" to be returned to is the recognition of personal property rights and the "teaspoon" of bitter is then that on a rare occasion (from a statistical standpoint) some jerk might decide to discriminate.


>>>>

Why does everybody keep bring up Jim Crow to justify laws that are stupid? Are you so stupid you don't understand that the reason that segregation existed in the first place was that the law required it? Do you honestly think going the government forcing you to not do something to it forcing you to do it is an improvement?

Your questions above addressed to me make no sense. I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws being applied to private business transactions.


>>>>

You keep saying that, yet you just argued that they made sense because, to quote you own words, "Considering the situation in the 30's, 40's, and 50's ... I can understand for the need for Public Accommodation laws at the time." The simple fact is that the laws in the decides you pointed to required business to not serve people, so how do you possibly justify the laws going the other way,even at the time.