Still chewin' on this, WW...
No problem, not all disagreements with Public Accommodation laws are based on hatred and bigotry.
Then there are those that agree with government overreach as long as it doesn't apply to the gays.
I think mine is a more reasoned opinion and strives for equal treatment under the law for all business owners not special rights to discriminate for those that would use religion as a shield from generally applicable laws. There is something fundamentally wrong (opinion) about a law that functions the way some want it to function. Religious shop owners should be able to discriminate against gays, but gay shop owners can discriminate a religious person for their beliefs. That is unequal treatment under the law.
.>>>>
Thanks again, but no thanks. I'd much rather keep obvious discrimination illegal.
Now, finally, regarding the balance of post #1454
Okay, I think the first bit (everything before the "**************************" roughly qualifies as arguing, like John Stossel, you feel "the market" will soon put all those who discriminate out of business or a satisfactory amount of them anyway. A best we can hope for given the circumstances kind of thing. I'm not so hopeful. Perhaps more practical or "conservative" than you here.
"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."
Yeah, never heard of those particular "rights" myself. Can't see "the desires of others to have access" being an actual thing either. A mischaracterization at best of the issues at stake.
"With the widespread discrimination 3-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. I find my position aligned with what were called Goldwater Conservatives quite a bit because Goldwater had the testicular fortitude to stand up against Federal Public Accommodation laws, not because he was a bigot or a racist - but because he believed in limited government."
Again, these vague "rights" you ascribe to property owners appear to be figments of your or some other's imagination. Wishful thinking. While the Constitution mentions many rights associated with property ownership it ascribes nothing like what you're talking about. And Goldwater, while certainly miles ahead of jerks like George Wallace, was none the less a bigot and horse's ass, much like the vast majority of whites back then, only more so.
Goldwater and Civil Rights
"But in general the widespread issues from 60 years ago have been resolved by fundamental shifts in society. Sure there will be isolated instances, that's 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 another photographer in the area."
Listen to yourself: "A burger joint" saying "I won't serve a black" is somehow "dealing with" its "own issues"? Whose "price of liberty"? No skin off the "burger joint's" back. Oh, the blacks can just use their iphones, search "Angie's List" for "non-racist burger joint" and count on a quick hit being just a "walk across the street". Good thing blacks always have those iphones instead of cars, else they might be late returning to work from their half hour lunch break due to all those pesky traffic lights, huh!
"Don't get me wrong, I'm all FOR keeping Public Accommodation laws in force in terms of the functioning of government and who the government can do business with, 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 private individuals"
"Citizens" vs "other private individuals"? I believe the term you're searching for is "people."
Does The Constitution Protect Non-Citizens? Judges Say Yes
