You're the only one here talking about discrimination the word. Who the heck cares if the word "discrimination" has neutral meanings, when what we're talking about is unjust, persecutory discrimination.

We're using the word discrimination to refer to a very real and very unjust phenomenon in the real world. No one is saying that the word is inherently bad or has no neutral meanings.

You are wrong again, John. If the "four star hotel" implemented such a policy, I guarantee you a legal action will be filed against that public accommodation. And guess what, the courts would rule against the owner of the hotel!

That is precisely why the Boy Scouts of America are forced to vacate their city owned premisis here in Philadelphia after years of lawsuits and appeals.

__________________
"Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes." -- Walt Whitman, Leaves Of Grass

By the way, I have the utmost admiration for the Founding Fathers and the Framers of the Constitution. I just want to point out that since 1776, laws have changed and society has evolved.

__________________
"Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes." -- Walt Whitman, Leaves Of Grass

Please don't argue in circles. You were asserting that that right existed without government, and I corrected you. Presumably you were asserting that because all three branches of the government disagree with you about the legality of the laws we're talking about.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

You're absolutely right, that language clearly describes a fundamental inalienable right to reject unwanted business contracts and associations.

Lets not beat that dead horse. But yes, as I said before, I place more trust in THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT than some random highly-opinionated dude on the internet. Even the judges I seriously dislike and disagree with are still United States Supreme Court Justices, and they're far more qualified to make these decisions than you or I.

Virtually none of the cases about people being fired for being gay have anything to do with "flaunting their sexual proclivities." Unless you define "flaunting their sexual proclivities" as being open about being gay and not pretending to be straight. Do straight people "flaunt their sexual proclivities" if they talk about their girlfriends or boyfriends? Do straight people "flaunt their sexual proclivities" if they hold hands with their mate while shopping?

I wasn't talking about your feelings. I was talking about your opinion of what the law should be.

That does sum it up, in a somewhat loaded way. You think it's fine for people to be able to arbitrarily discriminate against gays, jews, christians, blacks, asians, etc.. You think that because you believe that the people being persecuted have no liberty right to live free from discrimination. We disagree.

I wonder how you would feel if suddenly people started discriminating against people named John. Suddenly, whenenever you tried to get a hotel room the manager would reject you, and the only place you could find was some s***hole in the edge of town. Suddenly, you're fired from your lucrative job because your name is John, and you lose your livelihood and all your benefits. And you can't find a new job, because many other places also won't hire people whose name is John. Would you just as venehemntly come on message boards and argue that you have no liberty rights? That being denied your livelihood for arbitrary persecutory reasons doesn't impinge on your life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness? That you would be perfectly fine with waiting for "the market" to correct it, if it ever did?

Decades of history with "whites only" hotels and restaurants prove you wrong.

The simple fact is that most people discriminated against are minorities, small in number and/or relatively powerless. While public boycott may do a little bit of damage, it's very limited. Many people hate Walmart for its business practices, or Nike for using child labor, both both companies are still thriving.

Then learn to be specific and identify a specific act, or acts, in which discrimination is unacceptable and then we can move forward. What is an unjust phenomenon in your mind may very well not be unjust in another person's mind. To say that "discrimination" is evil is a very thouthless way to express what really may be on one's mind.

JWK

And you're proud of that?

In addition, I'm not wrong in the context in which I made the statement which assumed that the market place would be left to correct the evil.

But your kind does not believe in people being free to exercise their inalienable rights so long as they do not impinge upon another’s inalienable rights. Your kind is the same kind that once wrote Black Code Laws, designed then to give an identifiable group and advantage over Blacks.

You bet society has evolved and the very reason K-Mart would go belly up if they hung a sign outside “No Blacks need apply“. Likewise, KFC would go belly up if they refused to serve Blacks. But your kind wants to allow folks in government to write laws which interfere with a business/property owner from making business decisions which he/she may believe is in his/her best interests. Your kind wants laws which are designed to create a privileged class and may use such laws as a threat to create an advantage in negotiating business contracts and associations.


JWK

Well of course. Many people though that black codes were perfectly just too. Hell, many of the founders thought slavery wasn't unjust.

But we're not talking about what I personally believe. We're talking about the law's protection of the rights of all people, which the U.S. Congress passed, the President signed, and the U.S. Supreme Court upheld.

Do you honestly think that "protection against being arbitrarily fired because of your skin color, religion, or what sex you're attracted to" is "an advantage in negotiating business contacts and associations?" You have a weird definition of 'advantage.'

The decades of "whites only" public accommodations prove you wrong.

"Your kind?" "YOUR KIND?" Equating civil rights advocates with the people who wrote Black Code Laws?

Wow.

And, yet again, you seem to find it difficult to comprehend that what you're advocating for DOES impinge upon another’s inalienable rights. It may not be a right that you personally recognize, but Congress and the Supreme Court do.