toldailytopic: Should business owners have the right to not serve a gay customer?

[bybee]

Why? You've said it yourself: he intends to sell his goods.

Don't get sassy mister!
My point is that law does consider intent does it not?:think:

 

[Stripe]

law does consider intent does it not?:think:

No, it cannot.

A judge can consider intent, but a written law can only be against deed or word.

You could pen a law against selling cakes with homo themes, but you could not pen a law that criminalised the intent to make a homo themed cake.

 

[PureX]

The cake shop business owner that sparked this thread topic didn't make his stance public.

The two homos came into his cake shop and demanded he make them a gay marriage themed cake. He told them that was against his values and asked that they find another place to have their cake made.

The two homos then went on Facebook and caused a stir drumming up protests against the business owner.

And they are perfectly free to do so, just as the cake decorator was free to decline their request.

So what's the issue, here? No one was being forced to do anything against their will, and everyone was free to express their opinions. I don't think the cake decorator was misrepresenting himself in this case, unless maybe he was specifically advertising that he would make any cake for anybody. Personally, I think we would all be better off if we would get over ourselves, and quit trying to punish anyone who dares to disagree with us, but such is the nature of our society, today.

But this wasn't exactly the question you were asking in your opening post. In that post, you asked if a business owner had the right to discriminate against a customer simply because the customer is gay. In the case you just sited, however, the business owner was denying the customer not because of the customer's sexuality, he was denying the request for service because he felt that he couldn't/shouldn't do the job.

This is a more complex scenario because it involves a creative service. And it involves a more complex agreement between the two parties. If the cake were ready made, and the owner simply refused to sell it to a gay customer because the customer were gay, that would clearly be discrimination against the customer. Because he would sell the same cake to anyone else, and he has opened his business to the public under the pretense of selling cakes to the public.

But when the cake being requested is 'custom made'. The customer is purchasing a creative service, which then involves the seller's creative ability and reputation. Because of this added complexity, there are extra conditions to the agreement that allow the seller greater rights of refusal.

 

[bybee]

No, it cannot.

A judge can consider intent, but a written law can only be against deed or word.

You could pen a law against selling cakes with homo themes, but you could not pen a law that criminalised the intent to make a homo themed cake.

Thanks Stripe. I may be mixing my idea here with the "intent" that can be used in criminal cases?

 

[Stripe]

Thanks Stripe. I may be mixing my idea here with the "intent" that can be used in criminal cases?

Not sure.

In a criminal case, intent can indeed be judged. If it was the man's intent to murder, then he is guilty of a crime. And that ability of the judge may well be written into the law (which kinda complicates my point).

Actually, I think I need to really think this point through and write it out carefully because I'm just confusing myself with it at the moment.

:think:

 

[Town Heretic]

Is this analytic to the notion of a business, or is this by law? If the latter, then I've already called it into question. If the former, then ex hypthesi, the business in question does not have an open invitation to the public. It has an open invitation to the public with the exception of gay people.

Previously addressed. Would it help if I wrote my entire answer in Latin? You don't have a right to discriminate against a class of people as a matter of law. We tried the free association/my goods argument in the South to keep blacks out of the majority of the economic and social strata. That's what gave birth to the law.

Why? You've already granted that a business is a private enterprise.

Sure.

For you to claim that there is some injustice is for you to assert that there is something which is rightfully owed to B which A is denying to B by not entering into business contract. But for you to say this, it seems as though you have to deny A's 1. right over his possessions and 2. right of free association.

When you open your doors to the public you create an invitation to contract. Attempting to restrict that invitation with an arbitrary, non business related prohibition aimed at a class of people and not conduct works a harm against the class and is a violation of law. That's the injustice.

Is this right of access voluntary or intrinsic? If the latter, I deny that such a right exists. Others generally have no right of access to my property.

I answered the distinction between your home and a business.

If the former, then I am entirely free to deny them said right of access. This right of access exists only because I've freely granted it, and therefore I can grant it and deny it to whomsoever I please.

You can in your home, where there's no public invitation. You can't in your business, where there is.

How does this justify anything further than taxation? I buy things from amazon.com. This justifies my paying a state sales tax. But what I've purchased from amazon.com is mine. It belongs to me. I have a right of possession over it. You can't come up to me and say: "Hey, look, you got it via the interstate. So you have to let me buy it."

The interstate opens the matter to federal law and consideration.

Likewise, you've already admitted: the business gets good and services via the interstate. Therefore they belong to the business.

Sure. No one's saying the business doesn't own it's goods.

I've already set out the functional aspect of the law so here's a good place to begin your education on its particulars. We'll move on to particular Court cases in application after.

From The Civil Rights Act of 1964:

TITLE II—INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
Sec. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:

(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;

(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;

(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and

(4) any establishment (A) (i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.

(c) The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b); (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b), it serves or offers to serve inter-state travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b), it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b), it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, "commerce" means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.

(d) Discrimination or segregation by an establishment is supported by State action within the meaning of this title if such discrimination or segregation (1) is carried on under color of any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation; or (2) is carried on under color of any custom or usage required or enforced by officials of the State or political subdivision thereof; or (3) is required by action of the State or political sub-division thereof.

(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsections (b).

Sec. 202. All persons shall be entitled to be free, at any establishment or place, from discrimination or segregation of any kind on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin, if such discrimination or segregation is or purports to be required by any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule, or order of a State or any agency or political subdivision thereof.

Sec. 203. No person shall (a) withhold, deny, or attempt to withhold or deny, or deprive or attempt to deprive, any person of any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or (b) intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person with the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or (c) punish or attempt to punish any person for exercising or attempting to exercise any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202.

Sec. 204. (a) Whenever any person has engaged or there are reasonable grounds to believe that any person is about to engage in any act or practice prohibited by section 203, a civil action for preventive relief, including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order, may be instituted by the person aggrieved and, upon timely application, the court may, in its discretion, permit the Attorney General to intervene in such civil action if he certifies that the case is of general public importance. Upon application by the complaint and in such circumstances as the court may deem just, the court may appoint an attorney for such complainant and may authorize the commencement of the civil action without the payment of fees, costs, or security.

(b) In any action commenced pursuant to this title, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs, and the United States shall be liable for costs the same as a private person.

(c) In the case of an alleged act or practice prohibited by this title which occurs in a State, or political subdivision of a State, which has a State or local law prohibiting such act or practice and establishing or authorizing a State or local authority to grant or seek relief from such practice or to institute criminal proceedings with respect thereto upon receiving notice thereof, no civil action may be brought under subsection (a) before the expiration of thirty days after written notice of such alleged act or practice has been given to the appropriate State or local authority by registered mail or in person, provided that the court may stay proceedings in such civil action pending the termination of State or local enforcement proceedings.

(d) In the case of an alleged act or practice prohibited by this title which occurs in a State, or political subdivision of a State, which has no State or local law prohibiting such act or practice, a civil action may be brought under subsection (a): Provided, That the court may refer the matter to the Community Relations Service established by title X of this Act for as long as the court believes there is a reasonable possibility of obtaining voluntarily compliance, but for not more than sixty days: Provided further, That upon expiration of such sixty-day period, the court may extend such period for an additional period, not to exceed a cumulative total of one hundred and twenty days, if it believes there then exists a reasonable possibility of securing voluntary compliance.

Sec. 205. The Service is authorized to make a full investigation of any complaint referred to it by the court under section 204(d) and may hold such hearings with respect thereto as may be necessary. The Service shall conduct any hearings with respect to any such complaint in executive session, and shall not release any testimony given therein except by agreement of all parties involved in the complaint with the permission of the court, and the Service shall endeavor to bring about a voluntary settlement between the parties.

Sec. 206 (a) Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is engaged in a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of any of the rights secured by this title, and that the pattern or practice is of such a nature and is intended to deny the full exercise of the rights herein described, the Attorney General may bring a civil action in the appropriate district court of the United States by filing with it a complaint (1) signed by him (or in his absence the Acting Attorney General), (2) setting forth facts pertaining to such pattern or practice, and (3) requesting such preventive relief, including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order or other order against the person or persons responsible for such pattern or practice, as he deems necessary to insure the full enjoyment of the rights herein described.

(b) In any such proceeding the Attorney General may file with the clerk of such court a request that a court of three judges be convened to hear and determine the case. Such request by the Attorney General shall be accompanied by a certificate that, in his opinion, the case is of general public importance. A copy of the certificate and request for a three-judge court shall be immediately furnished by such clerk to the chief judge of the circuit (or in his absence, the presiding circuit judge of the circuit) in which the case is pending. Upon receipt of the copy of such request it shall be the duty of the chief judge of the circuit or the presiding circuit judge, as the case may be, to designate immediately three judges in such circuit, of whom at least one shall be a circuit judge and another of whom shall be a district judge of the court in which the proceeding was instituted, to hear and determine such case, and it shall be the duty of the judges so designated to assign the case for hearing at the earliest practicable date, to participate in the hearing and determination thereof, and to cause the case to be in every way expedited. An appeal from the final judgment of such court will lie to the Supreme Court.

In the event the Attorney General fails to file such a request in any such proceeding, it shall be the duty of the chief judge of the district (or in his absence, the acting chief judge) in which the case is pending immediately to designate a judge in such district to hear and determine the case. In the event that no judge in the district is available to hear and determine the case, the chief judge of the district, or the acting chief judge, as the case may be, shall certify this fact to the chief judge of the circuit (or in his absence, the acting chief judge) who shall then designate a district or circuit judge of the circuit to hear and determine the case.

It shall be the duty of the judge designated pursuant to this section to assign the case for hearing at the earliest practicable date and to cause the case to be in every way expedited.

Sec. 207. (a) The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction of proceedings instituted pursuant to this title and shall exercise the same without regard to whether the aggrieved party shall have exhausted any administrative or other remedies that may be provided by law.

(b) The remedies provided in this title shall be the exclusive means of enforcing the rights based on this title, but nothing in this title shall prelude any individual or any State or local agency from asserting any right based on any other Federal or State law not inconsistent with this title, including any statute or ordinance requiring nondiscrimination in public establishments or accommodations, or from pursuing any remedy, civil or criminal, which may be available for the vindication or enforcement of such right.​

 

[Wile E. Coyote]

When you open your doors to the public you create an invitation to contract. Attempting to restrict that invitation with an arbitrary, non business related prohibition aimed at a class of people and not conduct works a harm against the class and is a violation of law.

But is it a violation of the U.S. Constitution? Law is not always Constitutional.

 

[Town Heretic]

But is it a violation of the U.S. Constitution? Law is not always Constitutional.

The Court has ruled in support of the Act set out in part in my last post. I'll be getting into those cases as time and Jack permit. Last night he was up until midnight and ready for action around six.

 

[Arthur Brain]

It strikes me as a double standard if you're going to open a business designed to offer services to the general public only to discriminate against a certain customer base. Aside from poor business acumen - and unless you have some ingenious vetting process in place - your business will be serving gays, adulterers, robbers, muggers and who knows what from the get go. It's inevitable and has to be acknowledged before opening shop.

 

[bybee]

The Court has ruled in support of the Act set out in part in my last post. I'll be getting into those cases as time and Jack permit. Last night he was up until midnight and ready for action around six.

Ha! says the voice of experience. Try five little self-willed persons up at six and hungry!

 

[Town Heretic]

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241, 85 S. Ct. 348, 13 L. Ed. 2d 258, 1964 U.S. will be the starting point of Court consideration.

And here's a brief look at the holding courtesy of the good folks at Cornell Law:

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

No. 515 Argued: October 5, 1964 --- Decided: December 14, 1964​

Appellant, the owner of a large motel in Atlanta, Georgia, which restricts its clientele to white persons, three-fourths of whom are transient interstate travelers, sued for declaratory relief and to enjoin enforcement of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, contending that the prohibition of racial discrimination in places of public accommodation affecting commerce exceeded Congress' powers under the Commerce Clause and violated other parts of the Constitution. A three-judge District Court upheld the constitutionality of Title II, §§ 201(a), (b)(1) and (c)(1), the provisions attacked, and, on appellees' counterclaim, permanently enjoined appellant from refusing to accommodate Negro guests for racial reasons.

Held:

1. Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a valid exercise of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause as applied to a place of public accommodation serving interstate travelers. Civil Right Cases, 109 U.S. 3, distinguished. Pp. 249-262.

(a) The interstate movement of persons is "commerce" which concerns more than one State. Pp. 255-256.

(b) The protection of interstate commerce is within the regulatory power of Congress under the Commerce Clause whether or not the transportation of persons between States is "commercial." P. 256.

(c) Congress' action in removing the disruptive effect which it found racial discrimination has on interstate travel is not invalidated because Congress was also legislating against what it considered to be moral wrongs. P. 257.

(d) Congress had power to enact appropriate legislation with regard to a place of public accommodation such as appellant's motel even if it is assumed to be of a purely "local" character, as Congress' power over interstate commerce extends to the regulation of local incidents thereof which might have a substantial and harmful effect upon that commerce. P. 258.

(2) The prohibition in Title II of racial discrimination in public accommodations affecting commerce does not violate the Fifth [p242] Amendment as being a deprivation of property or liberty without due process of law. Pp. 258-261.

(3) Such prohibition does not violate he Thirteenth Amendment as being "involuntary servitude." P. 261.​

 

[Traditio]

Previously addressed. Would it help if I wrote my entire answer in Latin? You don't have a right to discriminate against a class of people as a matter of law.

I grant the law. I deny the justice of the law.

We tried the free association/my goods argument in the South to keep blacks out of the majority of the economic and social strata. That's what gave birth to the law.

Suppose I have a diner. As a policy, I don't want black people eating at my diner. All other white people have the same mindset. Therefore, black people can't eat at diners.

Consequently, laws were passed that said that diners had to let black people in.

That's the short end of it, right? I'll grant that the laws are in place and that the free association/my goods argument was not well-received by those who passed civil rights laws. But you'll have to pardon me if I ask for a counterargument for why the laws do not violate fundamental rights.

Presumably, the laws were looking towards an aim: black people can't eat at diners. We have to fix this. The solution proposed, in my view, violates the rights of those who own diners.

The better solution would have been to facilitate black people making their own diners. For example, establishing government loans.

I mean, think about it in these terms:

I am a young boy and I have a group of friends. I don't want little Billy hanging out with us, and none of us like little Billy. One solution is for Mommy to come along and make us let little Billy hang out with us. Which is not a good solution.

The better solution is for little Billy to get his own friends. :idunno:

When you open your doors to the public you create an invitation to contract.Attempting to restrict that invitation with an arbitrary, non business related prohibition aimed at a class of people and not conduct works a harm against the class and is a violation of law. That's the injustice.

1. What is this harm?
2. Does it involve an intrinsic right which this class possesses?
3. If it is not a matter of rights, then of what concern is that to the State? It may be a harm, but it must be a legally acceptable harm.

Again, if I and my group of friends don't want to hang out with little Billy, then little Billy thereby is deprived of our association. But it shouldn't be up to Mommy to make us hang out with him. It's our business who we do and don't want to hang out with.

I answered the distinction between your home and a business.

You are making a circular argument. Your answer is that, in the case of a business, I am making an open invitation to the public. I an contending that I am not necessarily making such an open invitation: I could very well be making an invitation to some of the public, but not others.

To which your answer is that...a business involves, by law, an open invitation? But it's the very justice of the law that I call into question.

Suppose that I put a status update on facebook that says that I am willing to sell a book to my Catholic friends, but not to my atheist friends. Why shouldn't that be my right? The book belongs to me. I can do with it what I please.

The interstate opens the matter to federal law and consideration.

Within certain boundaries. The State has the right to regulate interstate commerce. These goods may be bought and sold and taxed. These may not be.

But what does that have to do with what I do with my property once it comes into my possession?

I've already set out the functional aspect of the law so here's a good place to begin your education on its particulars. We'll move on to particular Court cases in application after.

Again, I grant the law. I am saying that the law is unjust. What are your arguments in favor of the law?

 

[Town Heretic]

I grant the law. I deny the justice of the law.

That's because you didn't grow up in the injustice of the segregated South created by the willful application of your notions of right. It's a myopic view. The Court disagrees with you and so do I.

Suppose I have a diner. As a policy, I don't want black people eating at my diner. All other white people have the same mindset. Therefore, black people can't eat at diners.

Answered prior by me and the legislators who passed he act and the Court that held their interference Constitutional, among other considerations.

That's the short end of it, right? I'll grant that the laws are in place and that the free association/my goods argument was not well-received by those who passed civil rights laws. But you'll have to pardon me if I ask for a counterargument for why the laws do not violate fundamental rights.

Read the history of case law and holding. I had started to give you that. But you can do it for yourself if you're not going to wait before holding out...

Presumably, the laws were looking towards an aim: black people can't eat at diners. We have to fix this. The solution proposed, in my view, violates the rights of those who own diners.

The better solution would have been to facilitate black people making their own diners. For example, establishing government loans.

Separate but equal was the phrase used to justify that notion. But it never really made it past the separate part. If a business can arbitrarily deny you access then a bank can do that to your loan, a university can do that to your education and you have the appearance of right and freedom without the essential means to make those anything approaching equal.

You need a significant amount of study. You're wading in with an uninformed opinion, no matter how logical it may seem to you. Everything you're saying has been argued and answered, both in illustration of its insufficiency and in relation to the law and right. You have some reading to do.

So far you don't seem particularly invested in being informed.

 

[bybee]

I grant the law. I deny the justice of the law.



Suppose I have a diner. As a policy, I don't want black people eating at my diner. All other white people have the same mindset. Therefore, black people can't eat at diners.

Consequently, laws were passed that said that diners had to let black people in.

That's the short end of it, right? I'll grant that the laws are in place and that the free association/my goods argument was not well-received by those who passed civil rights laws. But you'll have to pardon me if I ask for a counterargument for why the laws do not violate fundamental rights.

Presumably, the laws were looking towards an aim: black people can't eat at diners. We have to fix this. The solution proposed, in my view, violates the rights of those who own diners.

The better solution would have been to facilitate black people making their own diners. For example, establishing government loans.

I mean, think about it in these terms:

I am a young boy and I have a group of friends. I don't want little Billy hanging out with us, and none of us like little Billy. One solution is for Mommy to come along and make us let little Billy hang out with us. Which is not a good solution.

The better solution is for little Billy to get his own friends. :idunno:



1. What is this harm?
2. Does it involve an intrinsic right which this class possesses?
3. If it is not a matter of rights, then of what concern is that to the State? It may be a harm, but it must be a legally acceptable harm.

Again, if I and my group of friends don't want to hang out with little Billy, then little Billy thereby is deprived of our association. But it shouldn't be up to Mommy to make us hang out with him. It's our business who we do and don't want to hang out with.



You are making a circular argument. Your answer is that, in the case of a business, I am making an open invitation to the public. I an contending that I am not necessarily making such an open invitation: I could very well be making an invitation to some of the public, but not others.

To which your answer is that...a business involves, by law, an open invitation? But it's the very justice of the law that I call into question.

Suppose that I put a status update on facebook that says that I am willing to sell a book to my Catholic friends, but not to my atheist friends. Why shouldn't that be my right? The book belongs to me. I can do with it what I please.



Within certain boundaries. The State has the right to regulate interstate commerce. These goods may be bought and sold and taxed. These may not be.

But what does that have to do with what I do with my property once it comes into my possession?



Again, I grant the law. I am saying that the law is unjust. What are your arguments in favor of the law?

And then the day comes when your name is "little billy" and you are not allowed to play with the other kids. They take over the baseball diamond at the park and force you to get out of the way.
They won't let you shoot baskets and make you leave other groups which do accept you because they don't
like you.
And then, on another day, it is your son who gets this treatment.
There is no hope for you so what do you do?

 

[Traditio]

And then the day comes when your name is "little billy" and you are not allowed to play with the other kids. They take over the baseball diamond at the park and force you to get out of the way.

At this point, I grant an injustice. The injustice lies in the fact that group A monopolizes the use of publically held facilities to the exclusion of group B. In this case, group B (little billy) really does have a claim of right to the baseball diamond; the baseball diamond is, presumably, a publically owned facility.

If little Billy has his own friends with whom to play baseball, then group A indeed should be forced to let little Billy and his friends have access to the baseball diamond. Little Billy and his friends have just as much right to use it as group A.

On the other hand, if the baseball diamond is a privately owned facility and belongs to the parents of one of the children in group A, that's quite another story, isn't it?

They won't let you shoot baskets and make you leave other groups which do accept you because they don't like you.

Again, this would be an injustice. If little Billy is a part of group B, group A has no right to expel little Billy from group B. Little Billy has just as much a right of free association as they do.

And then, on another day, it is your son who gets this treatment. There is no hope for you so what do you do?

Rights are rights, Bybee. :idunno:

 

[bybee]

At this point, I grant an injustice. The injustice lies in the fact that group A monopolizes the use of publically held facilities to the exclusion of group B. In this case, group B (little billy) really does have a claim of right to the baseball diamond; the baseball diamond is, presumably, a publically owned facility.

If little Billy has his own friends with whom to play baseball, then group A indeed should be forced to let little Billy and his friends have access to the baseball diamond. Little Billy and his friends have just as much right to use it as group A.

On the other hand, if the baseball diamond is a privately owned facility and belongs to the parents of one of the children in group A, that's quite another story, isn't it?



Again, this would be an injustice. If little Billy is a part of group B, group A has no right to expel little Billy from group B. Little Billy has just as much a right of free association as they do.



Rights are rights, Bybee. :idunno:

I agree with you Trad, "rights are rights! It is in the defining of "Wrongs" that we disagree.

 

[Traditio]

That's because you didn't grow up in the injustice of the segregated South created by the willful application of your notions of right. It's a myopic view. The Court disagrees with you and so do I.

Answered prior by me and the legislators who passed he act and the Court that held their interference Constitutional, among other considerations.


Read the history of case law and holding. I had started to give you that. But you can do it for yourself if you're not going to wait before holding out...

Good. Then answer my three simple questions:

1. What harm?
2. Does this harm involve an essential right possessed by the minor party? [If so, which one(s)?]
3. If not, then of what concern is it to the State?

Separate but equal was the phrase used to justify that notion. But it never really made it past the separate part. If a business can arbitrarily deny you access then a bank can do that to your loan, a university can do that to your education and you have the appearance of right and freedom without the essential means to make those anything approaching equal.

Presupposing the bank and the university are private institutions and do not get federal funding, what business is that of the State?

 

[bybee]

An addendum: Regarding the defining of wrong. Legal rights and wrongs do not necessarily correlate to moral rights and wrongs.
I have five children. When they were small we were quite poor. I usually baked cakes and brownies for treats because they could go a long way.
If I shared the treats in a less than equal way because one of my children had annoyed me would that be fair? moral? kind?
What kind of feelings would that engender in each of the children? How would they subsequently treat each other based on my capricious or even planned bias?
As citizens, we are in society together.
I am a registered nurse. My license to practice comes from the state. I cannot legally refuse to help a patient who comes under my purview.
That means that I must stop at the scene of any accident and render whatever aid a reasonably prudent other registered nurse would render under the circumstances. I am not required to risk my life but short of that I must render whatever assistance I can.
This is one of the terms of my licensure.
Businesses require licensing in order to open their doors to the public. So they have a legal obligation to meet the requirements of that license.
But more than that. If we are to be an enlightened society we must strive for a moral equality in our treatment of each other.
If a baker bakes a cake it is a business arrangement nothing more.
Now Knight brought up a good point. The baker may refuse to do something he find morally repugnant and he absolutely ought not to be punished legally for that.

 

[PureX]

I have five children. When they were small we were quite poor. I usually baked cakes and brownies for treats because they could go a long way.
If I shared the treats in a less than equal way because one of my children had annoyed me would that be fair? moral? kind?
What kind of feelings would that engender in each of the children? How would they subsequently treat each other based on my capricious or even planned bias?

This is a very well articulated explanation for why and how prejudice and bigotry harm the societies that allow them to be practiced. And for why our society has laws against such behavior.

As citizens, we are in society together.

Sadly, selfishness has reached such a level of intensity these days that few people seem to recognize this fact, anymore.

I am a registered nurse. My license to practice comes from the state. I cannot legally refuse to help a patient who comes under my purview.
That means that I must stop at the scene of any accident and render whatever aid a reasonably prudent other registered nurse would render under the circumstances. I am not required to risk my life but short of that I must render whatever assistance I can.
This is one of the terms of my licensure.
Businesses require licensing in order to open their doors to the public. So they have a legal obligation to meet the requirements of that license.
But more than that. If we are to be an enlightened society we must strive for a moral equality in our treatment of each other.
If a baker bakes a cake it is a business arrangement nothing more.
Now Knight brought up a good point. The baker may refuse to do something he find morally repugnant and he absolutely ought not to be punished legally for that.

Great post!

 

[Town Heretic]

Good. Then answer my three simple questions:

1. What harm?
2. Does this harm involve an essential right possessed by the minor party? [If so, which one(s)?
3. If not, then of what concern is it to the State?

The state has a vested interest in its stability as a compact. Else, the answer to your questions are found in the case law and legislation. Time for you to dig in.

And despite some interesting examples of minorities withholding, the historical fact is that majorities use the reasoning of personal liberty as justification for denial of access to keep the minority on the out side of the power structure looking in. You can build, but only if we let you and where. You can stay, eat, ride, but only if we decide you can. And we've decided you can't. Stay among your own kind and scrape out whatever means you can. It is a dehumanizing, stigmatizing, marginalizing means to an ignoble end. It's an immoral, unethical form of tyranny. And our law has rightly rejected it.

Presupposing the bank and the university are private institutions and do not get federal funding, what business is that of the State?

Seriously, read the case law. It comments on both the ethical and legal reasoning behind rejecting the notions you've advanced and there's no point in my spending the time to do for you what you can do for yourself. I've given you the overview and a beginning point for the Court's application of the legislative measure. The rest is up to you.