(02-09-2015 03:42 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  I cut and am pasting these questions and answers below from a legal website. It might help the discussion of the issues being discussed here.


Do Restaurants Have the Unrestricted Right to Refuse Service?

No. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits restaurants from refusing service to patrons on the basis of race, color, religion, or natural origin. [Presumably this would apply to sexual orientation as well]. In addition, most courts don’t allow restaurants to refuse service to patrons based on extremely arbitrary conditions. For example, a person likely can’t be refused service due to having a lazy eye.

The federal CRA hasn't been updated to include sexual orientation, but it will be in the future. There are a handful of states that have state CRAs which do include sexual orientation as a category and apply the law against any business that sells goods or services within their borders. Even a photography business that operates out of the owner's home and only provides services by appointment, which isn't really something classically thought of as a public accommodation like hotels, motels, restaurants, retail stores, etc. is bound by the law in New Mexico.

The notion that a business, such as a restaurant, is the equivalent of a private home is absurd. The moment you've opened a business, you've become part of the marketplace. You're not really "private" anymore. Moreover, being allowed to conduct business in a society is a privilege that comes with a series of responsibilities.

Businesses make a profit from the commons--a long list of things that law-abiding citizens contribute to, and people take for absolute granted: a stable currency, paved roads, street lights, legal protections, trash pickup, and a bunch of other stuff. In exchange for the privilege of making money off of those commons, you have to provide a public service and serve the population, so long as its law-abiding and doesn't directly interfere with your transacting of business. Just like you can't run a business that breaks up the street pavement or photocopies our stable currency for your selfish gain, you can't run a business that antagonizes entire swaths of its population on your whim, and takes up space and resources that another business could use to provide the same goods and services to everyone.

In other words, one has the freedom (which, ironically, is one of the most abused words by the very people most intent on depriving others of freedom) to privately be a racist dick who just 'dun like black people. But you can't make money in public by acting on that shit.

(02-09-2015 03:42 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  I cut and am pasting these questions and answers below from a legal website. It might help the discussion of the issues here.

But Aren’t Restaurants Considered Private Property?

Yes, however they are also considered places of public accommodation. In other words, the primary purpose of a restaurant is to sell food to the general public, which necessarily requires susceptibility to equal protection laws. Therefore, a restaurant’s existence as private property does not excuse an unjustified refusal of service. This can be contrasted to a nightclub, which usually caters itself to a specific group of clientele based on age and social status.

Thanks for posting this. The conclusion I draw from this is that it's ok for nightclubs to perform acute discrimination on age and elitism because some people say so, and it's deemed socially acceptable.

-If a restaurant billed itself as a Chinese only establishment and had a bouncer with velvet rope, could they do the same?
-Are other establishments able to discriminate like nightclubs as well, as long as they don't serve food?

This seems so ridiculously arbitrary while condemning equally arbitrary choices.

People are legally incentivized to whore out in clubs because their parents generation likely can't get in the door, while (as someone said) the kkk can send their hoods to a dry cleaner in the heart of Baltimore and almost demands good service.

There has to be more to this.

(02-09-2015 03:52 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  So I guess Apartheid wasn't so bad after all. LOL

America, got to love it.

The biggest issue with apartheid was mandatory discrimination. So even if you didnt want to treat black people differently, you still had to under the law.

(02-09-2015 04:05 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  The notion that a business, such as a restaurant, is the equivalent of a private home is absurd. The moment you've opened a business, you've become part of the marketplace. You're not really "private" anymore. Moreover, being allowed to conduct business in a society is a privilege that comes with a series of responsibilities.

Businesses make a profit from the commons--a long list of things that law-abiding citizens contribute to, and people take for absolute granted: a stable currency, paved roads, street lights, legal protections, trash pickup, and a bunch of other stuff. In exchange for the privilege of making money off of those commons, you have to provide a public service and serve the population, so long as its law-abiding and doesn't directly interfere with your transacting of business. Just like you can't run a business that breaks up the street pavement or photocopies our stable currency for your selfish gain, you can't run a business that antagonizes entire swaths of its population on your whim and takes up space and resources that another business could use to provide the same goods and services to everyone.

In other words, one has the freedom (which, ironically, is one of the most abused words by those who would seek to deprive others of freedom) to privately be a racist dick who just 'dun like black people. But you can't make money in public by acting on that shit.

Businesses pay taxes, as do all citizens capable of paying them, that go toward funding all those things we take for granted so I don't know what your point is in bringing that up. They're not parasitic organizations in that regard. They contribute.

And yes, while you can't legally run a business that maliciously destroys public property for profit you can run a business that antagonizes entire swaths of the population by offering products and services that are intentionally antagonistic. You just can't deny your services or products to people based on race, religion, gender, etc. in most jurisdictions.

In countries where laws like these exist you get absurd things like lesbian women suing Muslim barbershops, gays suing photographers and bakers, and all sorts of other nonsense.

The government should never discriminate in providing services, but private businesses that do not classically qualify as public accommodations should not be forced to serve everyone.

Promoting diversity and then forcing everyone to always do business with each other despite their vast differences is idiotic. In reality these laws now primarily exist to serve as avenues for legalistic revenge and extortion by passive aggressive rainbow marxian activists.

In the US they were originally devised for decent reasons (to eliminate the systematic discrimination against black Americans in lodging, food, etc.) but have been expanded and perverted since.

This thread is one of those rare instances (!) where it actually took a turn for the better, rather than a turn for the worse.

It has evolved into a good discussion on the state of the Equal Protection laws and how they relate to restaurants or other "places of public accommodation." And the case law on this issue is clear.

What is interesting to me is how the courts have left open the question whether nightclubs or other "semi-private" clubs might fall under the Equal Protection laws.

In other words, at what point might a nightclub, private club, or semi-private club become more of a "public accommodation" place than a private place?

It's in interesting question. There is a grey area here, and some overlap in what might be legal and what might not be.

.

(02-09-2015 02:09 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 02:00 PM)Goldin Boy Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 01:09 PM)TonySandos Wrote:  So did you flip the argument to freedom of assembly(political and religious rights), ignoring individual rights because it had no more fuel against the commerce commentary that Scorpion provided?

No. The "right" for freedom of association doesn't exist so nothing was "flipped". Why debate on imaginary standards?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_...nstitution

This supports my stance. You should've read it and the associate links before you posted it.

Quote:the text of the First Amendment does not make specific mention of a right to association. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama that the freedom of association is an essential part of the Freedom of Speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others.

Not only does this corroborate "right to association" isn't an actual right but it also says that the idea applied to people, not business entities. A for-profit business providing operating in the public sphere aren't covered by it. Underlined is why Scorpion's talk of house guests is tangential, the standard is different.

He's selling sandwiches, he's not establishing an "intimate relationship" so freedom of association isn't applicable. And homo's can't be excluded because they're not proselytizing or demonstrating there, they just eating food so Hurley vs Irish-American, et al couldn't be used as precedent. If they were handing out LBGT fliers, then yes but they weren't.

From your same link, Roberts vs US Jaycees could be used as precedent to justify not excluding gays. How does a queer couple eating hinder other patrons from eating? They don't.

(02-09-2015 04:05 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  The notion that a business, such as a restaurant, is the equivalent of a private home is absurd. The moment you've opened a business, you've become part of the marketplace. You're not really "private" anymore. Moreover, being allowed to conduct business in a society is a privilege that comes with a series of responsibilities.

Businesses make a profit from the commons--a long list of things that law-abiding citizens contribute to, and people take for absolute granted: a stable currency, paved roads, street lights, legal protections, trash pickup, and a bunch of other stuff. In exchange for the privilege of making money off of those commons, you have to provide a public service and serve the population, so long as its law-abiding and doesn't directly interfere with your transacting of business. Just like you can't run a business that breaks up the street pavement or photocopies our stable currency for your selfish gain, you can't run a business that antagonizes entire swaths of its population on your whim, and takes up space and resources that another business could use to provide the same goods and services to everyone.

In other words, one has the freedom (which, ironically, is one of the most abused words by the very people most intent on depriving others of freedom) to privately be a racist dick who just 'dun like black people. But you can't make money in public by acting on that shit.

You're making this huge distinction between businesses and private citizens, when really there is an enormous overlap between the two, especially in the case of small businesses. I mean, what is a small business, exactly? It's just a private citizen making a living. The whole thing about public infrastructure is a total non-sequitur: everyone is using those things and paying for them with taxes. That applies to businesses and individuals. The government has no place telling people what kind of businesses they can or cannot run, that's the job of the free market. If a racist restaurant does gangbusters business, the government has no place stepping in "for the good of the people" or with similar rationale. It's nonsense to say this sort of exclusionary behavior hurts consumers. That's like me saying that my rights as a consumer and citizen are harmed because there's a Chinese restaurant and a Mexican restaurant down the street from me, and my stomach doesn't tolerate foreign cuisine. It's risible to suggest that anyone is having their human rights violated by being told they can't eat at a particular restaurant. This isn't sub-Saharan Africa in the middle of a famine. No one is starving on the street here because they were turned away from a restaurant. Further, if there was an epidemic of racist restaurant owners, that would simply open up the market for minority entrepreneurs to open their own restaurants and appeal to that underserved demographic. This is how a free market should function.

White restaurants usually suck and are over priced so I wouldn't care

^ Yet another insightful contribution from Brian. Why do you even bother posting in this thread?

(02-09-2015 06:29 PM)Goldin Boy Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 02:09 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 02:00 PM)Goldin Boy Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 01:09 PM)TonySandos Wrote:  So did you flip the argument to freedom of assembly(political and religious rights), ignoring individual rights because it had no more fuel against the commerce commentary that Scorpion provided?

No. The "right" for freedom of association doesn't exist so nothing was "flipped". Why debate on imaginary standards?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_...nstitution

This supports my stance. You should've read it and the associate links before you posted it.

You wrote that the freedom of association doesn't exist, when clearly it does.

(02-09-2015 06:52 PM)scorpion Wrote:  If a racist restaurant does gangbusters business, the government has no place stepping in "for the good of the people" or with similar rationale. It's nonsense to say this sort of exclusionary behavior hurts consumers.

It keeps coming back to a restaurant but the Civil Rights Act applies to all businesses, not just restaurants. Earlier I provided several examples where discrimination would hurt or kill consumers and the economy at large, and only the restaurant was acknowledged. Does the anti-CRA crowd actually propose to govern every single business (why would a corporation be any different, as long as a majority of shareholders go along) by different rules and how many people might be harmed or killed by that business adopting a racist policy, or is the restaurant example simply the easiest to trivialize?

(02-09-2015 12:54 PM)Gorgiass Wrote:  This goes beyond restaurants, imagine for example a mid-size chain of hardware stores where the owner decides he's made his fortune already so upon repeal of the CRA he will refuse service to non-whites. In large areas of the country they're the only show in town so suddenly any Latino contractor is going to have to drive further and pay a premium to perform the same job as a white contractor, meaning he'll take a large pay cut or go out of business altogether. Imagine the last gas station for 200 miles in central Texas refusing service to somebody who will never make it out of the desert on the 1/4 tank they have left. Imagine a private hospital turning away trauma victims to die in the street.

Why should the government have any say in who private business owners engage in commerce with? It's simply not an issue for the state. If the state wants to operate hardware stores to ensure that Mexican contractors have access to materials, that is something the state can decide to allocate taxpayer money on. But the free market has no obligation to serve any particular group over another. The state's role in regulating a free market should be minimal, and concentrated mostly on enforcing contracts, preventing fraud and ensuring that companies are not engaging in harmful behavior (i.e. dumping waste, using dangerous ingredients in products, forcing employees to work in unsafe conditions, etc...). A company or business that discriminates against customers is not harming anyone, because customers are not entitled to engage in commerce. Commerce, like sex, requires consent on both ends. If the buyer is interested but the seller is not, there is no transaction. The government has absolutely no place stepping in and saying, "Excuse me, seller, you MUST sell to this customer, or else you will face prosecution." That's egregious overreach by the government.

And as I pointed out to Tuth, even if some racist white hardware store owner refuses to sell to Mexicans in the face of sustained demand, all that would happen in a true free market is that some other entrepreneur would open another hardware store to serve the Mexican customers. The point is that private business owners should be able to make the choice for themselves rather than have the government make it for them. And this is not hypothetical, either. This was exactly the situation in the segregated South - there were businesses and restaurants that served exclusively blacks and whites. Everyone got what they wanted. No one was harmed. The free market worked just fine without the government having to step in and destroy the right of free association.

We have a Consitituion that says all men are created equal. If a legal citizen who has the means to pay is turned away because the restauranteur say it's "Whites-Only" or "No Homosexuals" then we're not equal.

Quote:And as I pointed out to Tuth, even if some racist white hardware store owner refuses to sell to Mexicans in the face of sustained demand, all that would happen in a true free market is that some other entrepreneur would open another hardware store to serve the Mexican customers. The point is that private business owners should be able to make the choice for themselves rather than have the government make it for them. And this is not hypothetical, either.

The market isn't free so let's focus on how things are instead of fantasy.

Let's say an EMT arrives at a gory car accident, the wounded is a part of group that he doesn't like so he refuses to shuttle them to the hospital. Would this EMT be justified in not serving that person?

When business, not the man who runs it, is serving the public and advertising itself as doing so it abdicates the right to pick and choose who it wants to serve. You keep ignoring that this imaginary "right to association" is for people, not the companies they run because that fact runs contrary to your point.

Quote:This was exactly the situation in the segregated South - there were businesses and restaurants that served exclusively blacks and whites. Everyone got what they wanted. No one was harmed. The free market worked just fine without the government having to step in and destroy the right of free association.

Yes no one was harmed in the separate but equal South except when there were race riots, initiated by non-residents by the way, like Greenwood and Rosewood. And the fact that although the ostensibly equal groups both paid taxes to the same gov't, only one of the two "separate" groups was running the gov't with state and municipal tax dollars allocated from everyone because the other group couldn't vote let alone run for office.

If a business can deny a transaction for any reason, people would get frivolous. Democrats wouldn't sell to Republicans (and vice versa), Packer fans wouldn't sell to Bears fans, Armenians wouldn't sell to Turks. Just about everything you can imagine.

It's good to put these "restaurant cases" in some historical context.

Robinson v. Florida was one of five segregation cases from 1964 that had roughly similar fact patterns. Those who are truly interested in this subject should check these cases out. Many of the issues we're talking about here were discussed in these cases.

The other four cases were Griffin v. Maryland, 378 U.S. 130 (1964), Barr v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 146 (1964), Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347 (1964), and Bell v. Maryland.

Interestingly, in these cases, the Supreme Court didn't reach the merits of any argument addressing whether private actions of segregation constituted a "state action" which violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The issue took care of itself when Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Presumably, private actions of discrimination against homosexuals by restaurant owners would fail to pass constitutional muster, under the same logic of the racial segregation cases of the 1960s. The issue is going to be decided sooner or later. It seem clear, to me at least, that the Supreme Court will rule that any action of private discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is not permitted.

In these restaurant cases from the 1960s, the Supreme Court and Congress were concerned with ending racial segregation, and the restaurant issue provided an opportunity.

Goldin Boy, it's obvious you are approaching this issue emotionally when you are seriously equating restaurants with emergency services and citing the Declaration of Independence's (not the Constitution) "all men are created equal" as having some sort of legal binding on the interactions of private citizens. You're just all over the place with your argumentation and demonstrate a poor understanding of the law and the philosophy of individual liberty behind it. But on the bright side, this makes me think you could have a promising future as a federal judge in today's modern judiciary.

I'm glad we brought up this topic. I just finished rereading this recommendation from Roosh:

The Law by Frederic Bastiat
http://www.returnofkings.com/24892/the-f...-socialism

As controversial as Clinton's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was, it would have served both sides perfectly. Judging from their attitudes and body language, the male couple must have strutted into Big Earl's with flamboyant bravado. Their interview with Tosh reveals that they are prideful of being "The Gay Couple" in town, the miraculous Grindr success story. Big Earl didn't need to ask because the gay couple didn't just tell, they hollered. Big Earl would be guilty if he took their money, then denied them after asking. However, since no financial transaction was made there was no actual discrimination. Intent does not equal action. Furthermore, their sign simply says men should act with masculinity, and women with femininity, the text is too vague to be incriminating. If I walked in with UGG boots and an iPhone I wouldn't be enraged for being booted. I'd say this couple was baiting for discrimination to gain publicity: it's a modern Sherman's March to the Sea. This couple struck Texas, the final Conservative bastion, for propaganda to be broadcast home in liberal California.

Scorpion's great point about the over-extension of the Interstate Commerce clause is alarming and the overreach won't be solved in the near future. Americans are prideful of our "balanced branches of government", but Congress will cradle this blank check of power to the grave. Most constituents are sadistic sheep who want to oppress their lifestyle on other citizens, and legislators yearning for incumbency have no option but to pull the trigger. Bastiat coins this as "forced fraternity", and predicted our downfall two centuries ago.

Businesses should be allowed to deny services to anybody without disclosing the reason, but should have to follow specific laws that genuinely protect the welfare of people (American Disabilities Act or a fire/maximum-capacity code). Other decisions can be based on charity while still optimizing human capital gain, such as hiring a skilled, but disabled veteran out of gratitude for his service to the nation. The only exceptions are institutions that are government-granted monopolies or federal subsidized (public utilities, hospitals, etc.), or companies with high negative economic externalities (manufacturers with chemical/sound pollution). If large financial corporations who caused a devastating recession are allowed to discriminate in form of burdening loans, interest rates and mortgages, why can't a honest family business use the word "faggot"? Furthermore, since the proud gay couple were a local singularity, Big Earl's wasn't a bigot, but simply reflects the position of the entire town. Big Earl's would lose more money from accepting the couple than rejecting them; it is still an old-fashioned family style diner.

Verdict from a socially liberal and minority Californian: Not Guilty

(02-09-2015 09:20 PM)scorpion Wrote:  Goldin Boy, it's obvious you are approaching this issue emotionally when you are seriously equating restaurants with emergency services and citing the Declaration of Independence's (not the Constitution) "all men are created equal" as having some sort of legal binding on the interactions of private citizens. You're just all over the place with your argumentation and demonstrate a poor understanding of the law and the philosophy of individual liberty behind it. But on the bright side, this makes me think you could have a promising future as a federal judge in today's modern judiciary.

Scorpulus, even in those (quite rare!) instances when I see you as being on the wrong side of an issue--as here--I still do relish your razor sharp wit, ability to keep your composure, and adroitness in fighting your corner.

Cheers.

Both Scorpion and Tuth make excellent points.

But "bigger picture" aside, I would love to pull this stunt in West Hollywood.

Create the most gay-friendly menu on earth. Tuna tartare with avocado and yuzu. Grilled peach salad with burratta. Zucchini and goat cheese quiche. Bottomless mimosas.

And then hire this little redneck chick to work the door.

I think the publicity alone would make it a huge hit. People love abuse and rich assholes in L.A. love being denied service, it's like a sick thrill for them. It'd be like the modern day Ed Debevic's; instead of a generic catch-all surliness you'd expect of a grungy diner, it would fulfill all of the pent-up frustrations that normal people feel heaped upon their shoulders from the progressive PC-complex. The modern-day surly diner; some polarized bigotry to go with your tuna melt.

(02-09-2015 09:20 PM)scorpion Wrote:  Goldin Boy, it's obvious you are approaching this issue emotionally when you are seriously equating restaurants with emergency services and citing the Declaration of Independence's (not the Constitution) "all men are created equal" as having some sort of legal binding on the interactions of private citizens. You're just all over the place with your argumentation and demonstrate a poor understanding of the law and the philosophy of individual liberty behind it. But on the bright side, this makes me think you could have a promising future as a federal judge in today's modern judiciary.

Right and with your evasive ad hominem I would find you in contempt of court.

I think we're going to see how well the liberal worldview of "making very different people get along, even if they don't want to" works out in about ten to twenty years on the streets of Europe.

Furthermore, I think it will increasingly play out on the streets of the US.

One of the things I like most about living in Taiwan is that it largely has a society that is set up to serve the overwhelming majority, not every single minority at their expense. Likewise, whilst I am sure that there are all sorts of anti-discrimination laws here, like many other laws (e.g. traffic laws, business laws, etc.), they're laxly enforced, if at all. No one should be forced to serve me or interact with me at all if they don't like.

I say that as a distinct minority who will never be in the majority. It's ironic that we don't see any Fergusons or Charlie Hebdo massacres here (nor the inevitable tit-for-tat responses that are coming).

Every time I see what's happening in the West these days, it makes the line that the West is freer, more advanced, more civilised, safer, etc. harder and harder to swallow. It's probably the main thing stopping me from ever returning to live in Australia.

Although I find myself in disagreement with brother Scorpion on this issue, I will say that his position does have some precedent. It is very similar to the dissenting opinion written by Justice Black in the case of Bell v. Maryland, 378 U.S. 226 (1964). The full text of the decision can be found here:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ge...&invol=226

In the Bell case, the facts were similar to what is being discussed in this thread. But instead of homosexuals being the target of refusal of service, it was a group of black students who asked to be served at a privately-owned restaurant.

In 1960 the twelve students refused to leave Hooper's Restaurant in Maryland where they had been refused service. When they refused to leave, they were arrested, convicted of criminal trespass in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, and fined $10. They appealed their convictions to the highest court in Maryland, the Court of Appeals, which upheld their conviction. They then appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari.

The Supreme Court vacated the convictions. Justice Black, however, wrote a dissenting opinion that is worth reading. I find it similar to Scorpion's position. For that reason, I think we should give Scorpion the courtesy of being heard, even if we disagree with some of his conclusions. (In fact, Scorpion, I'd like to know what you think of Justice Black's dissent here).

I will quote Justice Black in full here:



Petitioners, but not the Solicitor General, contend that their convictions for trespass deny them the right of freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution. They argue that their

"expression (asking for service) was entirely appropriate to the time and place at which it occurred. They did not shout or obstruct the conduct of business. There were no speeches, picket signs, handbills or other forms of expression in the store possibly inappropriate to the time and place. Rather they offered to purchase food in a place and at a time set aside for such transactions. Their protest demonstration was a part of the `free trade in ideas' (Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 , Holmes, J., dissenting) . . . ."

Their argument comes down to this: that since petitioners did not shout, obstruct Hooper's business (which the record refutes), make speeches, or display picket signs, handbills, or other means of communication, they had a perfect constitutional right to assemble and remain in the restaurant, over the owner's continuing objections, for the purpose of expressing themselves by language and "demonstrations" bespeaking their hostility to Hooper's refusal to serve Negroes.

This Court's prior cases do not support such a privilege growing out of the constitutional rights of speech and assembly. Unquestionably petitioners [378 U.S. 226, 345] had a constitutional right to express these views wherever they had an unquestioned legal right to be. Cf. Marsh v. Alabama, supra.

But there is the rub in this case. The contention that petitioners had a constitutional right to enter or to stay on Hooper's premises against his will because, if there, they would have had a constitutional right to express their desire to have restaurant service over Hooper's protest, is a bootstrap argument. The right to freedom of expression is a right to express views - not a right to force other people to supply a platform or a pulpit.

It is argued that this supposed constitutional right to invade other people's property would not mean that a man's home, his private club, or his church could be forcibly entered or used against his will - only his store or place of business which he has himself "opened to the public" by selling goods or services for money. In the first place, that argument assumes that Hooper's restaurant had been opened to the public. But the whole quarrel of petitioners with Hooper was that instead of being open to all, the restaurant refused service to Negroes.

Furthermore, legislative bodies with power to act could of course draw lines like this, but if the Constitution itself fixes its own lines, as is argued, legislative bodies are powerless to change them, and homeowners, churches, private clubs, and other property owners would have to await case-by-case determination by this Court before they knew who had a constitutional right to trespass on their property. And even if the supposed constitutional right is confined to places where goods and services are offered for sale, it must be realized that such a constitutional rule would apply to all businesses and professions alike.

A statute can be drafted to create such exceptions as legislators think wise, but a constitutional rule could as well be applied to the smallest business as to the largest, to the most personal professional relationship as to the most impersonal business, [378 U.S. 226, 346] to a family business conducted on a man's farm or in his home as to businesses carried on elsewhere.

A great purpose of freedom of speech and press is to provide a forum for settlement of acrimonious disputes peaceably, without resort to intimidation, force, or violence. The experience of ages points to the inexorable fact that people are frequently stirred to violence when property which the law recognizes as theirs is forcibly invaded or occupied by others. Trespass laws are born of this experience. They have been, and doubtless still are, important features of any government dedicated, as this country is, to a rule of law.

Whatever power it may allow the States or grant to the Congress to regulate the use of private property, the Constitution does not confer upon any group the right to substitute rule by force for rule by law. Force leads to violence, violence to mob conflicts, and these to rule by the strongest groups with control of the most deadly weapons. Our Constitution, noble work of wise men, was designed - all of it - to chart a quite different course: to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility . . . and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

At times the rule of law seems too slow to some for the settlement of their grievances. But it is the plan our Nation has chosen to preserve both "Liberty" and equality for all. On that plan we have put our trust and staked our future. This constitutional rule of law has served us well. Maryland's trespass law does not depart from it. Nor shall we.

We would affirm.

(02-09-2015 05:10 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  This thread is one of those rare instances (!) where it actually took a turn for the better, rather than a turn for the worse.

It has evolved into a good discussion on the state of the Equal Protection laws and how they relate to restaurants or other "places of public accommodation." And the case law on this issue is clear.

What is interesting to me is how the courts have left open the question whether nightclubs or other "semi-private" clubs might fall under the Equal Protection laws.

In other words, at what point might a nightclub, private club, or semi-private club become more of a "public accommodation" place than a private place?

It's in interesting question. There is a grey area here, and some overlap in what might be legal and what might not be.

.

One of the complicating factors that I haven't seen mentioned yet is that "private actors" are typically quasi-private actors, i.e. corporate entities. As you know, the process of incorporation only exists with the blessing of the State and the vast majority of all businesses are incorporated in one form or another, usually in the form of a simple pass-through entity which provide certain benefits, usually limitation of personal liability, with the responsibility to follow certain specific laws. Traditionally this arrangement was considered quasi-governmental or quasi-private, though I will admit that I haven't kept up on this area of the law.

I can't think of any respectable businessmen who keep their business as a D/B/A in their name. It's quite foolish on multiple levels and even the simplest greasy spoon is 2 or more corporate entities.

For the benefit of those who don't follow, every corporate entity begins formation from the filing of organizational documents at the State level. The corporation then exists separately from the partners/shareholders/owners and must adhere to general regulations as well as regulations specific to the industry in which it operates. There are also benefits to the corporation and the beneficial owners, mostly in the form of tax deductions and a limitation of removal of personal civil and criminal liability for most (but not all) of the actions of the owners/corporate officers acting in the interests of the corporation.

It is with this understanding that I don't have any problem with the State or Federal government regulating who businesses can and cannot serve using the commerce clause as justification. There may need to be an overlapping State law to effectuate this change for some particularly insulated businesses, but that's nothing a little Federal Highway Slush Fund Money can't fix. It's likely that each State includes a certification that the Corporation is only used for "legal" purposes under State and Federal law anyway. It creates a catch-22 of sorts, I suppose.

For the same reasons above regarding the exchange of responsibility and benefits in corporate formation, I do not see a peaceable assembly clause infringement. Maybe I'm just a Federalist thug?

As an aside, the erosion of true corporate personhood is also why I was upset with the Hobby Lobby decision. I'm generally a conservative with a libertarian streak, and allowing even a closely-held corporation to pick and choose what laws to follow is another breakdown of society delving us into continued corporate-feudalism... even if social conservatives consider it a "win."

It's true. But it's not because they care about black people.

I guarantee 100%, white people who doesn't even get associated with black people, will get offended too. That's just the culture here.

If someone put 'No Gays' sign, I would feel guilty of standing up to defend them because I chose not to hang out with them or don't have any gay friends.
(I don't mind sharing the public place with them but I don't want to see them checking me out, acting flamboyant, getting romantic each other etc)

Put 'No Gays' sign and you will see a bearded, camo hunter gear wearing who drives lifted pick up truck (someone who will hate them the most) getting mad.

(02-08-2015 07:25 PM)blairnaso Wrote:  Let's be realistic. In 2015, if a restaurant had a sign that said "No Blacks Allowed", then they'd go out of business in a week. White people wouldn't eat there either.