No, actually its not. If it was a Constitutional right then it would be in the Constitution in some form or another. It's not.
It's logical to not impede another's choices. I don't enforce morality on others.
Really, so any federal law not specifically listed in the constitution automatically means it's unconstitutional?
Well the consumer's choice is impeded.
Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Any law (federal or not) that goes outside of the powers that the constitution grants to the government is indeed unconstitutional. As such if you can point out to me where in Article 1 Section 8 it gives the government the power to force business owners to sell to anyone and everyone you might have a case.
Consumer choice is not a right.
I already said that in another post. Consumers really have no choice. Their choices are impeded. It is not free market to them. Free market only applies to the property owner. All other people have no real rights.
Edit to add: isn't that freedom at its best-
You can't yell "fire" in a crowded building. We don't have free speech.
Yes, I know.
You can't stop people from praying around you in public. We have no freedom of (or from) religion.
I'm not sure of your point.
I was counting on that.
How is a person's right NOT being violated because someone refuses services due to the color of his skin or his heritage?
So, free market really is selective market based on the property owners discretion. Basically, using your premise, we can never have a truly free market because people who don't own property are at the will of property owners. Now that is liberty at its best
If the transaction itself is the privilege, that holds true for both parties.
And what you're not getting is that YES, those cops beat him in violation of his rights...yet here you are advocating taking away their RIGHT to freedom FROM discrimination...which took minorities in general and blacks in particular centuries to win. Do you really think they wouldn't riot about losing that right, that freedom?
If you do, you really don't know people half so well as you seem to think.
One's making a transaction with that property. Selling= transaction.
Civil Right's Act.
Okay, so prices and discounts can be decided freely, how about selling to certain people while limiting certain people from making a transaction due to race?
Really, so any federal law not specifically listed in the constitution automatically means it's unconstitutional?
Well the consumer's choice is impeded.
Except that the government cannot discriminate. It does not have the power to do so. Private individuals that own privately owned companies however do have that power and right. So it doesn't really work. I fully believe that the government should not discriminate in any way shape or form against the people that it serves. IE: Citizens of the US. But I do support private individuals in their right to discriminate. The right to freedom of speech allows them their right to speak out against someone that they dislike...for whatever reason. Freedom to dictate what you do with your own property is essential to a free society. Freedom of association allows people to discriminate against others for any reason. All of those come with benefits and negatives. So long as no one violates another persons rights then they have no right to dictate that another must be punished for simply exercising their right. And since no one has the right to force themselves upon another, and no one has the right to dictate what a person does with thier property, and no one has the right to disregard someone elses free speech....people have a right to discriminate.
So, free market really is selective market based on the property owners discretion. Basically, using your premise, we can never have a truly free market because people who don't own property are at the will of property owners. Now that is liberty at its best
an exercisable right is a right you chose to exercise.
exercisable rights:
speech
worship
assembly or association
bear a firearm
petition the government
right to commerce
to name a few
non-exercisable rights:
life
liberty
an exercisable right, is when a person chooses to exercise his or her right to engage in one of the activities listed.
example-- i can chose to bear a firearm, or chosen not to bear one, i can chose to pray, or not to pray, or protest or not protest.
a non exercisable right you don't exercise.
you dont chose to be dead today, and live tomorrow
you dont chose to be a slave today and free the next.
when you are on another persons property, you have no exercisable rights.....you cannot pray, bear a firearm, have free speech, protest, or force me to engage in commerce with you.
Yep, I get it. When things are privatized, no one has any rights except for the property owner. A very compelling case we need to be wise when privatizing resources. In the meantime, anyone with a rational mind should fight to keep the Civil Rights Laws into place.
are you saying THAT you should be able to come on my property and exercise every right you have?
in other words...you can enter my store.....PACKING A FIREARM, ..AGAINST MY WISHES?
No, but if you are open for business and I am acting ethical, I should not be denied the right to a business transaction based on my skin color.
Ok. On one hand, a person should be able to run their business any way they want and let the free market sort it out, which is the usual argument.
On the other hand, if say a gay person lives in a predominantly religiously zealous community and they are refused service at a restaurant, the likelihood that all the restaurants in the area are holding the same discriminant mindsets are pretty high and well, quite frankly, a person shouldn't have to leave their hometown to receive any kind of service.
DOES NOT MATTER.
you cannot come into my store, and do what you want.
you cannot come in and BY FORCE......hold a prayer service, protest me, call me nasty names, have a firearm, force me to do anything for you....your are on my property.
Only I'm not there for any of those proposes. I'm there for the same reason 100% of your consumers are there doing. Only you have the power to discriminate and refuse my service. There is most definitely a structure of power that does not exist at all with government services since the government cannot discriminate. As of now, neither can a private owner. If groups like Cato succeed in their zeal to overthrow Civil Rights Law they may find themselves in a situation that may make it harder to privatize all things that exist in the name of freedom of choice. They will have to be called out on their blatant lies.
you dont seem to understand, each one is an exercisable right.......the right to commerce is exercisable.
you cannot exercise a right to commerce on my property.
If groups like Cato succeed in their zeal to overthrow Civil Rights Law they may find themselves in a situation that may make it harder to privatize all things that exist in the name of freedom of choice. They will have to be called out on their blatant lies.
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?