[Khar]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Business owners serve paying customers. They do NOT serve the public and they are NOT a public accommodation like a municipal bus system.

False, both by legal definitions (as already shown several times) and by straight out logic. A mall, a place of business, and so forth must be open to the public to be able to do business. Hence, they are open to the public. Anyone can walk through the door of your business and, theoretically, anyone capable of paying while not breaching any law should be able to do so. The former is the reality of doing business and the latter is a Constitutional guarantee reinforced by the Civil Rights Act.

I have already provided you two separate legal documents demonstrating that private businesses are public accommodations. Indeed, an exhaustive list of what defines one was given to you directly on this site. There is no reason to continue the argument that they are not considered a public accommodation.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

@Khar:

I remain opposed to Sharia because it imposes a religious law on *everyone*. But I also oppose government imposing rules on private businesses that are outside the scope of regulating work conditions, pay, sanitation, and safety.

Businesses and individual entrepreneurs need to be able to choose their customers (and vice versa) without the heavy hand of government interfering.

The problem inherent in these acts of government is that they are biased in favor of populist sentiments and a social agenda - both things that should be absent in law.

Where we stand a gay Jewish man with a seeing eye dog and a case of vodka can demand a Muslim taxi driver to give him a ride. A gay couple can force a Christian to bake them a cake.

But where's the converse to balance this?

Can gun owners force Facebook and Google to carry their content? Can the NRA force CNN to carry NRA advertising?

Currently, they can't because Google, Facebook, and CNN are free to discriminate against conservatives and gun owners.

So where we are is it's bad if people who are special in the hearts of liberals are discriminated against but it's okay if people who are not special in the hearts of liberals are discriminated against.

And where I am personally is that I do not want government interfering in the preferences of business owners and individuals no matter how well intentioned that interference may be.

Meaning that I support the right of a Muslim taxi driver to pick and choose his fares as he sees fit and I reserve the right to refuse to do business with that taxi driver.

And I utterly oppose the selective anti-discrimination policies that are currently in force.

There's a number of problems with your analysis here. Up front is your describing this as a business issue; actions of discrimination against people based on creed, ethic backgrounds, sex, orientation and so forth are all examples of a civil rights issue, not economic law. Further, it's a form of discrimination with actual harm; you are blocking people from accessing potentially vital resources or services. As my examples in my last post indicating, a lack of access can be harmful.

The free market does not trump personal rights. Personal rights are infringed against significantly when one is discriminated against. Further, you've not provided any actual benefits to being able to choose your customers except that you are choosing your customers. A business is not improved when it blocks wide swaths of the population from accessing it on the basis of nothing more than skin colour, religion or whatever defining aspect that group lives with, as is happening in this case. Indeed, I doubt you will find a court who would agree that "businesses and individual entrepreneurs" are better off with a more narrow away of customers from a smaller base.

From a purely economic standpoint, it makes no sense to discriminate. From a civil rights view, discrimination is an obvious harm. I'm not seeing the benefits here. Indeed, your only response was to claim such things as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a "populist" law to this date, a law that increased personal liberty and extended the rights you all cherish to everyone there. I would consider that increase in liberty to be a pretty good thing across the board, and not just for the "socialists." Given your own cries for increased liberty, I'd have figured you'd see this as a good thing as well. Demanding we backtrack on that, reducing the rights and guarantees to something that can be dismissed on the whim of someone, doesn't seem right. Largely because it isn't.

Sharia law has also been pushed for to cover Muslims only. This was not a small discussion on CKA; the idea of a dual system, one with Sharia for Muslims, definitely got a lot of responses on here. The problem is that there is a discriminatory act occurring which has direct and obvious harms. People are deliberately being treated differently. Given this thread is about gay people, and the discrimination is being done along the lines of religious reasons, I'd figure you'd be against people forcing religious tests and beliefs on others in the public domain. You've been similarly concerned in the past.

There isn't a converse in that way. The converse is that white, evangelical Christians are provided the same protections and gay people should have. The idea is that Muslims, Asians, women and so forth don't have to worry about being Muslim, Asian or women. Literally everyone gets the same positive treatment under the law, so I don't get where gun rights come into this, unless you want to make this a right-left issue when it isn't. Anti-discrimination is an everyone thing, as I pointed out when I referenced the amendments this impacts in your constitution.

For the record, NRA stuff isn't the same, nor is commercial advertising. First of all, the NRA is not a group of people brought together by something as profound as religion, nor something they had no choice in being (race, sex, etc). They are a political group and hence the protections aren't extended to them under the law. This is true of all political groups everywhere on the political spectrum. Greenpeace or whatever doesn't get any more access than the NRA to protections under the law.

Commercials are not public access either, since they do not serve the marketplace the same way public accommodations do. Hence this entire line of questioning is largely irrelevant. Mind, however, they do have to follow the same laws regarding discriminatory content. They also require consultancy and effort to a specific individual to sign a contract with rather than being generally open for anyone to come in and demand space on the air. This space that is leased also represents that station to some degree and hence they are able to discern what views will be represented on their air-time.

In short, not a right-left issue, and the anti-discrimination policies are far from "selective." My view anyways.

[Goober911]

$1:

"Khar"]

EDIT: Sorry Goober, didn't notice you'd posted.[/quote]
No reason to be sorry. Appreciated though.

[Goober911]

Khar Khar:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Goober911 Goober911:

They are and do serve the public.

EDIT: Sorry Goober, didn't notice you'd posted.

No reason to be sorry. Appreciated though.

[Zipperfish]

Khar Khar:

False, both by legal definitions (as already shown several times) and by straight out logic. A mall, a place of business, and so forth must be open to the public to be able to do business. Hence, they are open to the public. Anyone can walk through the door of your business and, theoretically, anyone capable of paying while not breaching any law should be able to do so. The former is the reality of doing business and the latter is a Constitutional guarantee reinforced by the Civil Rights Act.

I have already provided you two separate legal documents demonstrating that private businesses are public accommodations. Indeed, an exhaustive list of what defines one was given to you directly on this site. There is no reason to continue the argument that they are not considered a public accommodation.

Luckily, this is not true.

The Vancouver Club is a private business here in Vancouver. I cannot, however, go in there and demand to be serviced based on my ability to pay, as they are a private club and I am not a member. There are competing rights here that you are not considering, and that includes freedom of association.

[Goober911]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Khar Khar:

False, both by legal definitions (as already shown several times) and by straight out logic. A mall, a place of business, and so forth must be open to the public to be able to do business. Hence, they are open to the public. Anyone can walk through the door of your business and, theoretically, anyone capable of paying while not breaching any law should be able to do so. The former is the reality of doing business and the latter is a Constitutional guarantee reinforced by the Civil Rights Act.

I have already provided you two separate legal documents demonstrating that private businesses are public accommodations. Indeed, an exhaustive list of what defines one was given to you directly on this site. There is no reason to continue the argument that they are not considered a public accommodation.

Luckily, this is not true.

The Vancouver Club is a private business here in Vancouver. I cannot, however, go in there and demand to be serviced based on my ability to pay, as they are a private club and I am not a member. There are competing rights here that you are not considering, and that includes freedom of association.

Not a cheap lace to go.
http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=194 ... 62488e8410


Where would this right to refuse stop. If Christians pulled the same stunt the uproar, if it was Canada would be substantial.

Recall when a person- appointed - licensed - not 100 % sure of the process - by the Prov to perform civil weddings, some wanted to have the right to refuse gays as it was against their religious beliefs.
Myself I am a Christian I also support Same Sex Marriage.

The question on the below is where does the line start, where does it stop?

From the article

Some taxi drivers in the Cleveland area are refusing to drive cabs with rooftop signs advertising the upcoming Gay Games, citing religious beliefs.

Each of the three taxi companies that serve the Cleveland Hopkins International Airport have been notified that cabbies don't want to drive the cabs, Cleveland's Plain Dealer reports.

Patrick Keenan, the general manager of Americab, said two of his drivers said they do not want to drive cabs with Gay Games placards because of their Muslim faith.

"We don't have any objections to the signage," Keenan told the Plain Dealer. "We're fully supportive of the games. We're not in concert with [the protesting drivers] on that. We don't share those views." The two other companies, Ace and Yellow Taxi, reported that some of their drivers have objected as well.

[Zipperfish]

Yeah, it's always going to be a fuzzy line. In Sask, if you were a marriage commissioner before 2004 (same-sex marriage) then you don't have to conduct same-sex ceremonies. However, if you became one after 2004, then you do have to. Seems like a wise approach there.

You're going to get yahoos on both sides. Best thing is to ignore them.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Khar Khar:

False, both by legal definitions (as already shown several times) and by straight out logic. A mall, a place of business, and so forth must be open to the public to be able to do business. Hence, they are open to the public. Anyone can walk through the door of your business and, theoretically, anyone capable of paying while not breaching any law should be able to do so. The former is the reality of doing business and the latter is a Constitutional guarantee reinforced by the Civil Rights Act.

I have already provided you two separate legal documents demonstrating that private businesses are public accommodations. Indeed, an exhaustive list of what defines one was given to you directly on this site. There is no reason to continue the argument that they are not considered a public accommodation.

Luckily, this is not true.

The Vancouver Club is a private business here in Vancouver. I cannot, however, go in there and demand to be serviced based on my ability to pay, as they are a private club and I am not a member. There are competing rights here that you are not considering, and that includes freedom of association.

Thank you. That was well stated.

That said, I suppose the cabbies would have the right to form a private club that only services approved members and then they'd be free to dispense memberships to those fares they approved of.

There was some state in the US that did not allow bars to be open to the public and most bars got around this by offering free memberships.

[andyt]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Khar Khar:

False, both by legal definitions (as already shown several times) and by straight out logic. A mall, a place of business, and so forth must be open to the public to be able to do business. Hence, they are open to the public. Anyone can walk through the door of your business and, theoretically, anyone capable of paying while not breaching any law should be able to do so. The former is the reality of doing business and the latter is a Constitutional guarantee reinforced by the Civil Rights Act.

I have already provided you two separate legal documents demonstrating that private businesses are public accommodations. Indeed, an exhaustive list of what defines one was given to you directly on this site. There is no reason to continue the argument that they are not considered a public accommodation.

Luckily, this is not true.

The Vancouver Club is a private business here in Vancouver. I cannot, however, go in there and demand to be serviced based on my ability to pay, as they are a private club and I am not a member. There are competing rights here that you are not considering, and that includes freedom of association.

Don't be a dumbass. Clubs are different than other businesses. If a mall wants to make everybody that wants to shop there buy a membership, well good luck to them. The model certainly works well for MEC, but I've never heard them refusing to serve particular groups of clients.

[andyt]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Khar Khar:

False, both by legal definitions (as already shown several times) and by straight out logic. A mall, a place of business, and so forth must be open to the public to be able to do business. Hence, they are open to the public. Anyone can walk through the door of your business and, theoretically, anyone capable of paying while not breaching any law should be able to do so. The former is the reality of doing business and the latter is a Constitutional guarantee reinforced by the Civil Rights Act.

I have already provided you two separate legal documents demonstrating that private businesses are public accommodations. Indeed, an exhaustive list of what defines one was given to you directly on this site. There is no reason to continue the argument that they are not considered a public accommodation.

Luckily, this is not true.

The Vancouver Club is a private business here in Vancouver. I cannot, however, go in there and demand to be serviced based on my ability to pay, as they are a private club and I am not a member. There are competing rights here that you are not considering, and that includes freedom of association.

Thank you. That was well stated.

That said, I suppose the cabbies would have the right to form a private club that only services approved members and then they'd be free to dispense memberships to those fares they approved of.

There was some state in the US that did not allow bars to be open to the public and most bars got around this by offering free memberships.

As the cabbies are employees, are they not, no, this option is not open to them unless they want to go in business for themselves, be a gypsy cab if that's allowed.

[Khar]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Khar Khar:

False, both by legal definitions (as already shown several times) and by straight out logic. A mall, a place of business, and so forth must be open to the public to be able to do business. Hence, they are open to the public. Anyone can walk through the door of your business and, theoretically, anyone capable of paying while not breaching any law should be able to do so. The former is the reality of doing business and the latter is a Constitutional guarantee reinforced by the Civil Rights Act.

I have already provided you two separate legal documents demonstrating that private businesses are public accommodations. Indeed, an exhaustive list of what defines one was given to you directly on this site. There is no reason to continue the argument that they are not considered a public accommodation.

Luckily, this is not true.

The Vancouver Club is a private business here in Vancouver. I cannot, however, go in there and demand to be serviced based on my ability to pay, as they are a private club and I am not a member. There are competing rights here that you are not considering, and that includes freedom of association.

Thank you. That was well stated.

That said, I suppose the cabbies would have the right to form a private club that only services approved members and then they'd be free to dispense memberships to those fares they approved of.

There was some state in the US that did not allow bars to be open to the public and most bars got around this by offering free memberships.

No offense to either of you, but I disagree in it being well stated, as I've already responded on both private clubs and also on whether or not other rights should be held superior to the right you described. I've even mentioned the rights "[I am] not considering." I'm all down for debating further, mind.

Cornell Law Reference. This definition is typical under US state and federal law. Exceptions must exist as "private clubs" or strict religious institutions, and was included in Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as such, so if you want to be open to the public you are a public accommodation. The full text of Title II, inclusive of the above definition of Public Accommodation, can be found here.

<snip>

Private clubs do exist, sure, but private clubs typically act outside of the market place, and face significant judicial oversight in recent years. On that front, and in a similar vein to much of the discussion above, I generally agree with JJ on this one still, and will quote him exactly from here; "the fairest fix to questions of competing rights is as it’s always been — a broad constitutional guarantee of equality of all citizens, with alleged violations weighed on a case-by-case basis by a pragmatic and independent judiciary."

From my entering post into this thread. I also respond in this older thread when Bart asked previously, in the lower section responding to Bart's post with responses citing private clubs and freedom of assembly.

Freedom of association exists insofar as a private club, sure. However, a public accommodation most certainly is not a private club and that distinction is quite clearly made and pretty obvious in my mind. It's a pretty big stretch, Zipperfish, to compare a private club containing a membership with a corner store, a bus terminal, or a retail store, all of which exist under the definition I used.

Further, as I've mentioned before, "A person does have a right to not be discriminated against. A person does have a right to liberty, life and the pursuit of happiness. A person does have a right to equal treatment in the eyes of the government and the law. A person does have a right to express a religion that does not have fundamentalist Christian [or Muslim in this case] views. A person does have a right to not have to meet a religious test so as to exist in that society." Personally, I suspect those are higher held rights than a marginal breach of "freedom to associate" meaning "right to exclude from the public domain and marketplace."

Generally, the Civil Rights Act was a result of that distinction being made; the case law for desegregation (including in private businesses) made sense then and does so today. The capacity to discriminate is a direct assault on the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, since it provides a few people the capacity to limit the liberty of other's on the basis of race, religion, sex, orientation or what have you. It's a discriminatory ax to the liberty tree; cutting down others for little societal or individual good yet tangible societal and individual harms.

So, yeah, it is part of the law (I have literally quoted it directly word for word), your example is a little irrelevant (imo anyways, sorry) in that it is both a Canadian example where I was citing American law (though I wouldn't be surprised if the precedent is similar) and the private club exception is something I've already mentioned in this thread, and I've already discussed the competing rights and how remedy should be found in my opinion (since my opinion mirrors that of JJ's).

My thoughts anyways.

[Goober911]

Have to say, a very interesting discussion.

[Zipperfish]

Khar Khar:

No offense to either of you, but I disagree in it being well stated, as I've already responded on both private clubs and also on whether or not other rights should be held superior to the right you described. I've even mentioned the rights "[I am] not considering." I'm all down for debating further, mind.

Cornell Law Reference. This definition is typical under US state and federal law. Exceptions must exist as "private clubs" or strict religious institutions, and was included in Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as such, so if you want to be open to the public you are a public accommodation. The full text of Title II, inclusive of the above definition of Public Accommodation, can be found here.

<snip>

Private clubs do exist, sure, but private clubs typically act outside of the market place, and face significant judicial oversight in recent years. On that front, and in a similar vein to much of the discussion above, I generally agree with JJ on this one still, and will quote him exactly from here; "the fairest fix to questions of competing rights is as it’s always been — a broad constitutional guarantee of equality of all citizens, with alleged violations weighed on a case-by-case basis by a pragmatic and independent judiciary."

From my entering post into this thread. I also respond in this older thread when Bart asked previously, in the lower section responding to Bart's post with responses citing private clubs and freedom of assembly.

Freedom of association exists insofar as a private club, sure. However, a public accommodation most certainly is not a private club and that distinction is quite clearly made and pretty obvious in my mind. It's a pretty big stretch, Zipperfish, to compare a private club containing a membership with a corner store, a bus terminal, or a retail store, all of which exist under the definition I used.

Well, first off, I'm primarily putting forth an ethical standpoint, as opposed to a legal one.

As a soft-libertarian type, it's my opinion that government intervention into private lives and private enterprise should be generally avoided as a default position. And my second public policy imperative is that the policy should work.

In this case you have Muslims who, for religious reasons, won't drive with certain banners on their cab. I don't see a strong argument for government intervention here. There is no discrimination against a person, and they are exercising their freedom. The boss, of course, may also exercise his freedom to get rid of these drivers.

In the case of specific not picking up fares who appeared to be gay, that, to me, is specific discrimination against a person. Actionable by law, I'm sure, if you can put a case together. But, from a public policy persepctive, it is not solveable by law, judging by the fact that a black guy still can't get a cab.

We're seeing a similar, though more serious, situation play out with the Upper Canada Law Society banning law graduates from Trinity Western University (a private Christian university in BC) from practicing in Ontario, due to a covenant students at TWU have to sign. Again, we have a private enterprise, we have an argument over freedom of religion and we have a group alleging discrimination.

Tough nut to crack. My personal feeling is that we cave in a little too much to religions. But I also think the gay lobby is a bit "in your face" right now, and the whole thing has become a tiresome, litigious mess.

$1:

Further, as I've mentioned before, "A person does have a right to not be discriminated against. A person does have a right to liberty, life and the pursuit of happiness. A person does have a right to equal treatment in the eyes of the government and the law. A person does have a right to express a religion that does not have fundamentalist Christian [or Muslim in this case] views. A person does have a right to not have to meet a religious test so as to exist in that society." Personally, I suspect those are higher held rights than a marginal breach of "freedom to associate" meaning "right to exclude from the public domain and marketplace."

Freedom of association entails a lot more than "right to exclude from the public domain." I don't think it can be considered a lesser right.

My umbrage was not the gay rights issue, it was your contention that a business must serve anyone with the ability to pay who is not breaching the law. That I fundamentally disagree with, as too broad a role for government. I can think of dozens of reasons a business may not want your custom that have nothing to do with race, religion, creed or orientation.

Cheers

[BartSimpson]

@Khar,

Seriously, if you don't want Muslims to act like Muslims then why allow them into your country if you're just going to antagonize them by trying to force them to act like secular humanists?

[desertdude]

I'm sure a lot of people won't drive cabs with ALLAH AKBAR or I LOVE ISLAM banners on it too.

[Khar]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

@Khar,

Seriously, if you don't want Muslims to act like Muslims then why allow them into your country if you're just going to antagonize them by trying to force them to act like secular humanists?

Because being Muslim and engaging in a society with a secular legal framework, backed by a strong set of rights document with general respect for fellow man is not mutually exclusive. Canada has hundreds of thousands of Muslims who are entirely capable of engaging both with the expectations of society and their religion because religion is a private thing that is not meant to impact others, and hence government largely leaves it alone so long as practices involved don't harm others or society. When the practices of Lev Tahor (an extreme Jewish sect) were harmful for children, the governments of both Quebec and Ontario intervened to remove the children from that situation; the legal system exists to provide remedy to these situations, as I've quoted JJ saying time and again.

When someone comes to the country, there is a clear expectation that they will not just follow our laws, but also conform to societal expectations in not breaching the rights and privileges of fellow Canadians. If they fail to honour that, then they will run into trouble with the Canadian legal system.

$1:

Well, first off, I'm primarily putting forth an ethical standpoint, as opposed to a legal one.

As a soft-libertarian type, it's my opinion that government intervention into private lives and private enterprise should be generally avoided as a default position. And my second public policy imperative is that the policy should work.

In this case you have Muslims who, for religious reasons, won't drive with certain banners on their cab. I don't see a strong argument for government intervention here. There is no discrimination against a person, and they are exercising their freedom. The boss, of course, may also exercise his freedom to get rid of these drivers.

In the case of specific not picking up fares who appeared to be gay, that, to me, is specific discrimination against a person. Actionable by law, I'm sure, if you can put a case together. But, from a public policy persepctive, it is not solveable by law, judging by the fact that a black guy still can't get a cab.

We're seeing a similar, though more serious, situation play out with the Upper Canada Law Society banning law graduates from Trinity Western University (a private Christian university in BC) from practicing in Ontario, due to a covenant students at TWU have to sign. Again, we have a private enterprise, we have an argument over freedom of religion and we have a group alleging discrimination.

Tough nut to crack. My personal feeling is that we cave in a little too much to religions. But I also think the gay lobby is a bit "in your face" right now, and the whole thing has become a tiresome, litigious mess.

Sorry that I misread your intent. Your response had a lot to do with private clubs, and with your responding to a legal argument and talking about legal terms, I just sort of assumed. My apologies!

As an aside, my arguments don't really change even if we move from a legal standpoint. Some rights are simply more important than others. Rights to security (like getting water) are more important than access to legal systems, and so on. It's why I'm a major supporter of what JJ said; I honestly think the courts serve best to meet both legal and libertarian needs. The use of the legal system allows a way for us to balance those rights and serves as the best mechanism to ensure rights are maximized, since there is a body not just protecting those rights, but also ensuring those rights can be accessed. Further, it provides us a good record of how to handle things, while not setting anything in stone.

This specific case I don't have much to say on, but I did have issue with how arguments used here expanded it to include the market as a whole. Most of my responses have had to do with how the arguments have expanded from the taxi case to how discrimination should be an allowed practice in the marketplace. Personally, since I support more open markets, I think that's a problem on an economic level, aside from the rights issues that I think we agree on (feel free to correct me here).

Further, I do think this is actionable in that situation. I think the easiest distinction is that it's pretty easy to figure out if a place is discriminating, and it's a lot easier to track that in stationary retail locations, inns and so forth than it is for taxis. Generally, the impacts of the Civil Rights Act on the private market has been successful; following the laws, it became an actionable offense and brought the issue of segregation directly into the public and private domain. Further, while policies have been implemented for taxi drivers, I don't think (citation needed!) there has been a law? At least, that's how I interpret that article. Even then, the article notes that nowadays it's only at night, and even then generally for certain neighbourhoods where black people continue to have issues. Policy can have a measurable impact in that situation; a legal backing might be more efficacious, since there is a greater magnitude of power protecting rights of equality then.

I agree the gay movement is a lot more in your face, but I have a feeling it's because the movement is at the cusp of being able to go for the throat of a lot of the remaining issues facing the community. The TWU... I just don't know. I have a feeling the courts will side with the TWU in that situation, because those law students have the same capacity to practice law. And the limitations it places impacts everyone for an institution with "membership" anyways (since it sounds like a no blowjob, no anal, no gay sex, no pre-marital hankypanky kind of thing, which I weep for those students over, haha).

$1:

Freedom of association entails a lot more than "right to exclude from the public domain." I don't think it can be considered a lesser right.

My umbrage was not the gay rights issue, it was your contention that a business must serve anyone with the ability to pay who is not breaching the law. That I fundamentally disagree with, as too broad a role for government. I can think of dozens of reasons a business may not want your custom that have nothing to do with race, religion, creed or orientation.

Cheers

I know it entails more, but in this situation the relevant portion seemed largely the capacity to allow less limited non-association. While that right still exists, I think it's possible this is such a minor reduction of that right for such a large one in regards to the right of equality that it should fall on the side of those being discriminated. Plus, I think the Civil Rights Act being enacted kind of demonstrates that line of thinking; allowing wide-spread discrimination on non-optional characteristics for entirely personal reasons on the part of another group seems more an individual and societal harm on the whole.

I view it largely as a sort of de facto institutionalized anti-libertarianism. When its allowed to happen, it provides the capacity for people to broach and expand their own private rights, beliefs and practices over others, which I view as a greater loss of liberty than simply telling people that, while they can practice that, they shouldn't enforce it on others. On the balance, everyone being treated equal and the results of life coming from one's own actions seems to be the greater move towards liberty. A more open and free society is better in my view.

Even if it isn't actionable, a broad guarantee of protection and equality seems a powerful tool on not just a symbolic level, but also in that it properly allows engagement rather than summary denial on personal beliefs. Further, generally, I think the aim of society should be to provide a rights framework that judges, politicians, and others can use to ensure those freedoms are protected. Being able to back up your stance on the basis of freedom for people is more powerful when it is an enshrined value.

I too can think of many reasons a business may not want to deal with someone. I simply don't think the ability for a business-owner to discriminate today is any different from the reasons why segregation ended, and I don't think it adds much freedom to society as a whole or to the individuals involved. Certainly in lesser scope but not for any different values or reasons. If business owners want something different, they should become private clubs, rather than existing on the marketplace. The expectation of being offered free competition without government interference should be met with the expectation of similar rights being given to consumers. Further, you can even cater to certain groups, its just not that you should be able to exclude wantonly for poor reasons; gay clubs, for example, while catering to the gay community, are open to all.

Smalltown USA (and even Smalltown Canada) are still hotbeds of anti-something sentiment. Being that something, and being told you now have to drive elsewhere is not only degrading and an assault on dignity, but also is a legitimate, public harm to people who have to go greater distances and lengths to do everyday things.