5 ms·

In fact the Constitution insists on allowing exactly this kind of discrimination in the assembly clause of the first amendment.

shadowgovt 5y ago
The freedom of assembly is specifically the freedom that was curtailed by the Civil Rights Act. Legally, it should be added... The freedom protected in the first amendment is the freedom of political assembly. The Civil Rights Act has been argued repeatedly in the Supreme Court, and the court has ruled repeatedly that the constitutionally protected freedom of assembly is not curtailed by requiring corporations, incorporated under the rules of the state, to be required to serve everyone in the protected classes.
- someguydave 5y ago
  Amazing that the first part of the first amendment does not only apply to political speech. The court was wrong and will be wrong again. I would ask how progressives square two contradictory interpretations of the first amendment but then I realized they don’t really support the freedom of non-progressive speech anymore.
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    Sorry, that was an error on my part: freedom of association (in the context of providing public accomodation) was curtailed by the Civil Rights Act, not assembly. And your beef isn't with progressives if that's something you're taking issue with; it's with a couple generations of the Supreme Court, which is considered a relatively conservative branch of the government. (IANAL disclaimer) The freedom of association has been implied by analogy to be protected by the explicitly-enumerated freedom to peaceably assemble in the First Amendment, in some specific cases. But it's a loose protection by analogy; the letter of the First Amendment doesn't even mention a freedom of association. The SCOTUS has not ruled that the freedom of association extends to a freedom to exclude in public accommodation; in layman's terms, the reasoning is "You have the freedom to serve as many people as you want, but that does not imply a freedom to not serve other people if you want to operate under the corporate charter that the government grants." This overview describes things much better than I can. https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/first-amendment-freedom-of-association.html https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/first-amendment-... > The court was wrong and will be wrong again. No doubt, but I don't think you'll find a receptive ear (in the public or in legal circles) to the notion that the Court has been wrong regarding upholding the Civil Rights Act.
    - someguydave 5y ago
      > I don't think you'll find a receptive ear Yes, anyone neutral or right of center knows all about that unreceptive ear.
      - shadowgovt 5y ago
        I'd have to know what arguments you're thinking of in particular to have any opinion on why they don't find a receptive ear. Without knowing that, broadly speaking: freedom of speech has never implied freedom to have people agree with you. And freedom of the press implies a lack of obligation to publicize information the owner of the press doesn't want to promulgate. It also implies an editorial right to modify published information, ideally with explanation but that explanation is not required (the back-stop on that right being if the public thinks the press's output is trash, they don't have to care what it has to say). Some positions, you can argue until you're out of breath. If the position is bad, the argument won't win support no matter how much breath is put into it.
        someguydave 5y ago
        I appreciate your willingness to engage in good faith. The argument is simple: people should be free to include or exclude others in their private business/university/home/club as they see fit, and suffer free market consequences for doing so. This freedom was taken away by the civil rights act and the supreme court.
        shadowgovt 5y ago
        It turned out, there weren't many market consequences for excluding black people in the American South because they lacked purchasing power (on account of the years of oppression leading to wildly-unequal amounts of resource ownership). There was just suffering and exclusion. History suggests the market can't solve everything. History also suggests the majority is not always right, which is why the US government is structured as a system of checks and balances and not a simpler-to-implement mobocracy.

shadowgovt 5y ago

The freedom of assembly is specifically the freedom that was curtailed by the Civil Rights Act. Legally, it should be added... The freedom protected in the first amendment is the freedom of political assembly. The Civil Rights Act has been argued repeatedly in the Supreme Court, and the court has ruled repeatedly that the constitutionally protected freedom of assembly is not curtailed by requiring corporations, incorporated under the rules of the state, to be required to serve everyone in the protected classes.

someguydave 5y ago
Amazing that the first part of the first amendment does not only apply to political speech. The court was wrong and will be wrong again. I would ask how progressives square two contradictory interpretations of the first amendment but then I realized they don’t really support the freedom of non-progressive speech anymore.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  Sorry, that was an error on my part: freedom of association (in the context of providing public accomodation) was curtailed by the Civil Rights Act, not assembly. And your beef isn't with progressives if that's something you're taking issue with; it's with a couple generations of the Supreme Court, which is considered a relatively conservative branch of the government. (IANAL disclaimer) The freedom of association has been implied by analogy to be protected by the explicitly-enumerated freedom to peaceably assemble in the First Amendment, in some specific cases. But it's a loose protection by analogy; the letter of the First Amendment doesn't even mention a freedom of association. The SCOTUS has not ruled that the freedom of association extends to a freedom to exclude in public accommodation; in layman's terms, the reasoning is "You have the freedom to serve as many people as you want, but that does not imply a freedom to not serve other people if you want to operate under the corporate charter that the government grants." This overview describes things much better than I can. https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/first-amendment-freedom-of-association.html https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/first-amendment-... > The court was wrong and will be wrong again. No doubt, but I don't think you'll find a receptive ear (in the public or in legal circles) to the notion that the Court has been wrong regarding upholding the Civil Rights Act.
  - someguydave 5y ago
    > I don't think you'll find a receptive ear Yes, anyone neutral or right of center knows all about that unreceptive ear.
    - shadowgovt 5y ago
      I'd have to know what arguments you're thinking of in particular to have any opinion on why they don't find a receptive ear. Without knowing that, broadly speaking: freedom of speech has never implied freedom to have people agree with you. And freedom of the press implies a lack of obligation to publicize information the owner of the press doesn't want to promulgate. It also implies an editorial right to modify published information, ideally with explanation but that explanation is not required (the back-stop on that right being if the public thinks the press's output is trash, they don't have to care what it has to say). Some positions, you can argue until you're out of breath. If the position is bad, the argument won't win support no matter how much breath is put into it.
      - someguydave 5y ago
        I appreciate your willingness to engage in good faith. The argument is simple: people should be free to include or exclude others in their private business/university/home/club as they see fit, and suffer free market consequences for doing so. This freedom was taken away by the civil rights act and the supreme court.
        shadowgovt 5y ago
        It turned out, there weren't many market consequences for excluding black people in the American South because they lacked purchasing power (on account of the years of oppression leading to wildly-unequal amounts of resource ownership). There was just suffering and exclusion. History suggests the market can't solve everything. History also suggests the majority is not always right, which is why the US government is structured as a system of checks and balances and not a simpler-to-implement mobocracy.