Nope. Not when you open it up to the public. You have a right to be a bigot in your own home. You even have a right to be a bigot in your business. But you are not allowed to practice your bigotry by violating anti-discrimination laws. That's part of doing business in the US. Don't like it? Don't open a business.
There is no such thing as a business open to the public. It's a legal concept forced on business, but not one that exists in real life. All the rights these laws violate however are real, and many of them are protected by the Constitution by amendment.
Should business be allowed to refuse to provide services because of race?
Well then I suppose thank god for the internet. There's a way out of it with brick and mortor too - limited membership buyers clubs.
If the government wants to run my business from soup to nuts, what's the point? Let them do the work.
Anthony Scalia, on if you are allowed to break a law because: First Amendment!
We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate.
On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.
And, also (quoting Justice Frankfurter):
Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs.
Also, too:
Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a "valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)."
And, finally:
It may fairly be said that leaving accommodation to the political process will place at a relative disadvantage those religious practices that are not widely engaged in;
but that unavoidable consequence of democratic government must be preferred to a system in which each conscience is a law unto itself or in which judges weigh the social importance of all laws against the centrality of all religious beliefs.
LINK
While you might disagree, this country has decided that a business holding out to the public is subject to stricter oversight and regulation. No amount of religious fervor gets your restaurant out of food safety laws. Adding to that, discrimination on the basis of certain characteristics has been made illegal because of the harm it causes to society.
Nice colors.Did you understand the part of "valid laws"? If a state puts into practice laws that violates the Constitutional Rights of others it is not valid and should be challenged.
When federal judges start basing their opinions on "hurt feelings" as in the case of the Colorado baker, over constitutional law something is very wrong and should be challenged.
This is much more that religious rights, but the violation of expression of free speech and property rights. For what is the purpose of the First Amendment if it is not going to protect all? Sexual Orientation discrimination laws need to be defined in the originalist view of the Constitution. Not some living breathing rendition that anyone can make it to mean whatever they want it to.
Let me guess. You think the Civil Rights Act and the various states' versions of Civil Rights Acts are not valid.
Originalists view? The same original Constitution that deemed blacks 3/5th of a person and referred to them as property? That's the original Originalists view.
Yeah, that Constitution. You know the one that was amended the correct way rather than simply re-interpretted by a few.
Not to mention, I don't think you understand what that 3/5s thing was all about.
Let me guess. You think the Civil Rights Act and the various states' versions of Civil Rights Acts are not valid.
Originalists view? The same original Constitution that deemed blacks 3/5th of a person and referred to them as property? That's the original Originalists view.
Should business be allowed to refuse to provide services because of race?
Should you be able to boycott Chick-fil-A?
Yeah, that Constitution. You know the one that was amended the correct way rather than simply re-interpretted by a few.
Not to mention, I don't think you understand what that 3/5s thing was all about.
I'm pretty sure I do.
Also not mentioning that he clearly has no idea the actions that were taken on slavery before the Constitution was even ratified.
G'head...tell us about it.
Did you ever hear about the Pennsylvania Abolition Society? It was started by Anthony Benezet in 1775 and such men as Thomas Paine and Benjamin Franklin were members and leaders of the group at certain points in it's history. It was the first anti-slavery society in the US.
Then of course, there is all the actions against slavery that took place. Slavery was abolished in the Providence Plantation in 1652. Then in 1777, the Constitution of the Vermont Republic partially bans slavery. In 1780, Pennsylvania passes a law that will gradually ban slavery. In 1783, it was ruled in Massachusetts that slavery was unconstitutional. Also, in 1783, New Hampshire passes a law that started to gradually lead to the end of slavery. In 1784, Connecticut and Rhode Island pass laws to gradually abolish slavery. In 1787, the Northwest Ordinance outlawed any new slavery in the Northwest Territories.
Should you be able to boycott Chick-fil-A?
OMG no wonder we have such ridiculous flaming comments about this whole bill being anti-gay to people with religious convictions are hateful bigots. Geesh.
For your information- the “three-fifths clause” found in Article I, section 2, clause 3. Contrary to what you and some revisionist historians claim, the “three-fifths clause” is a clear indication that a number of our constitutional founders wanted to end slavery; it is not a statement about personhood. The Northern states did not want to count slaves. The Southern states hoped to include slaves in the population statistics in order to acquire additional representation in Congress to advance their political position. If you knew your history this would be obvious. The issue of slavery was a major concern at the Constitutional Convention and was discussed at length in the debates. A significant minority of the delegates to the Federal Convention were staunch opponents of slavery, primarily those who adhered to the Federalist philosophy. Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton opposed slavery. John Jay, who would become the first Chief Justice of the United States, was president of the New York anti-slavery society. Northern Federalist leaders Rufus King and governor Morris were outspoken opponents of slavery and the slave trade.
I went into it a week or so ago, so I will just quote myself here..
Now, do you know the two major actions that were taken on slavery from the ratification of the Constitution to about lets say 1809?
Hint: Think trade.
That's not the same as withholding service from someone based on an innate trait they cannot control.
Yes, customers should be able to go somewhere else to eat if they don't like a business for any reason.
Yes, customers should be able to go somewhere else to eat if they don't like a business for any reason.
I'm pretty sure you didn't. See post #335 for an education.
There's no education there. It's David Barton-style clap-trap.
It did not reduce the slave power, nor give "clear indication the Founders wanted to end slavery."
It provided the South with representation in Congress with a huge swath of people who were literally property.
To many Northerners, it was like giving the cattle on their farms, or their horses a portion of representation.
It gave the south a huge advantage in the HoR which lasted for generations.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?