4 ms·

That was the excuse private business owners used to refuse service to people based on their race or sexual orientation

ashtonkem 5y ago
Ah, this argument. Generally speaking, we’ve held as a society that the rights of free association are very strong, but not absolute. We only allow the government to abridge these rights when the state has a compelling interest in doing so. Obviously you’re aware that we have decided as a society that there are certain “protected characteristics” that cannot be the deciding factor for free association, including race, religion, sex, among other things. These are selected due to their immutable nature (religion is a special case I’m not going to explain here), and we’ve decided that it’s worse for society that people be excluded from economic or social participation based on who they are than it is for the government to override the free association rights of those who wish to discriminate. Political affiliation and speech is not a protected characteristic, because it is a choice. You can choose to not only change parties, but also change how you communicate such things. In fact, many institutions fundamentally demand the ability to exclude people based on their political affiliation, including primaries and political groups. We literally could not run a primary, caucus, or PAC without the ability to discriminate based on political affiliation. To continue the metaphor, this is less like someone getting kicked out of a shop because of their race or gender, and more like getting kicked out for refusing to wear pants.
- jjcon 5y ago
  I know more people that have changed religions than I do those that have changed their overall political affiliations…
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    Irrelevant to the legal argument. Religion is specifically called out in the first amendment as something that the government cannot mess with. The courts have consistently held that attempting to favor one religion or determine whether or not someone’s religious beliefs are sincere (and therefore worthy of protection) are a bright red line that must never be crossed. The fact that people do convert religions is irrelevant to the reasons why the religion is specifically protected.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- loveistheanswer 5y ago
  >These are selected due to their immutable nature (religion is a special case I’m not going to explain here) Why did you choose to leave that out? Is it perhaps because it invalidates your entire argument? Freedom of religion and expression are coded in the same amendment for a reason, and come from the same historically progressive ideals. >To continue the metaphor, this is less like someone getting kicked out of a shop because of their race or gender, and more like getting kicked out for refusing to wear pants. Do you think freedom of expression is as important and historically significant to human rights (i.e. the right to not be refused service based on your skin color) as freedom to not wear pants?
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    > Why did you choose to leave that out? Is it perhaps because it invalidates your entire argument? Sigh. I'll remind you that it's a rule around here to presume good faith. Dealing with such comments is noxious and tiresome. I left it out because my post was already too long. If I left it out because it invalidated my point, I wouldn't have mentioned it. > Freedom of religion and expression are coded in the same amendment for a reason, and come from the same historically progressive ideals. Yes they are, but the amendment you're referencing limits only what the government can do, not private parties. We as a society have placed some restrictions on the right of free association via legislation, not amendment, but the overlap with the first amendment is much less clear than you imply. Some aspects of the first amendment have been turned into protected characteristics (religion), others have not (speech). > Do you think freedom of expression is as important and historically significant to human rights (i.e. the right to not be refused service based on your skin color) as freedom to not wear pants? I believe that freedom of expression is important, but I also believe that freedom of association is important. When the two come into conflict on private property, I generally hold that the right of free association is more important than free expression. This is because free expression is only temporarily inconvenienced if one is told to express elsewhere, while free association is inalterably destroyed if one cannot ask someone to leave your private property based on their behavior.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

Ah, this argument. Generally speaking, we’ve held as a society that the rights of free association are very strong, but not absolute. We only allow the government to abridge these rights when the state has a compelling interest in doing so. Obviously you’re aware that we have decided as a society that there are certain “protected characteristics” that cannot be the deciding factor for free association, including race, religion, sex, among other things. These are selected due to their immutable nature (religion is a special case I’m not going to explain here), and we’ve decided that it’s worse for society that people be excluded from economic or social participation based on who they are than it is for the government to override the free association rights of those who wish to discriminate. Political affiliation and speech is not a protected characteristic, because it is a choice. You can choose to not only change parties, but also change how you communicate such things. In fact, many institutions fundamentally demand the ability to exclude people based on their political affiliation, including primaries and political groups. We literally could not run a primary, caucus, or PAC without the ability to discriminate based on political affiliation. To continue the metaphor, this is less like someone getting kicked out of a shop because of their race or gender, and more like getting kicked out for refusing to wear pants.

jjcon 5y ago
I know more people that have changed religions than I do those that have changed their overall political affiliations…
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  Irrelevant to the legal argument. Religion is specifically called out in the first amendment as something that the government cannot mess with. The courts have consistently held that attempting to favor one religion or determine whether or not someone’s religious beliefs are sincere (and therefore worthy of protection) are a bright red line that must never be crossed. The fact that people do convert religions is irrelevant to the reasons why the religion is specifically protected.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
loveistheanswer 5y ago
>These are selected due to their immutable nature (religion is a special case I’m not going to explain here) Why did you choose to leave that out? Is it perhaps because it invalidates your entire argument? Freedom of religion and expression are coded in the same amendment for a reason, and come from the same historically progressive ideals. >To continue the metaphor, this is less like someone getting kicked out of a shop because of their race or gender, and more like getting kicked out for refusing to wear pants. Do you think freedom of expression is as important and historically significant to human rights (i.e. the right to not be refused service based on your skin color) as freedom to not wear pants?
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  > Why did you choose to leave that out? Is it perhaps because it invalidates your entire argument? Sigh. I'll remind you that it's a rule around here to presume good faith. Dealing with such comments is noxious and tiresome. I left it out because my post was already too long. If I left it out because it invalidated my point, I wouldn't have mentioned it. > Freedom of religion and expression are coded in the same amendment for a reason, and come from the same historically progressive ideals. Yes they are, but the amendment you're referencing limits only what the government can do, not private parties. We as a society have placed some restrictions on the right of free association via legislation, not amendment, but the overlap with the first amendment is much less clear than you imply. Some aspects of the first amendment have been turned into protected characteristics (religion), others have not (speech). > Do you think freedom of expression is as important and historically significant to human rights (i.e. the right to not be refused service based on your skin color) as freedom to not wear pants? I believe that freedom of expression is important, but I also believe that freedom of association is important. When the two come into conflict on private property, I generally hold that the right of free association is more important than free expression. This is because free expression is only temporarily inconvenienced if one is told to express elsewhere, while free association is inalterably destroyed if one cannot ask someone to leave your private property based on their behavior.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]