9 ms·
You are leaving out the very important fact that we're talking about commerce here, not just general freedom of association. The law has always made substantial
by adevine 12y ago
You are leaving out the very important fact that we're talking about commerce here, not just general freedom of association. The law has always made substantial demands on people engaging in commerce that often override other freedoms. I'm pretty sure the KKK doesn't let black people in, and that's legal, but that doesn't mean the KKK can open up a whites-only hotel.
- MCRed 12y agoI'm not leaving that out at all. I addressed it with the fire-in-a-crowded theater analogy. But the fact that commerce is involved doesn't magically eliminate the right. Commerce only creates a few edge cases, but is effectively irrelevant (from a rights and logic point of view.) The fact that government has used the existence of commerce to violate people's rights (and it has done this extensively- you are correct) shows that government is not interested in protecting people's rights as much as it is in benefiting politicians and itself. It doesn't change the nature of human rights. Further, understand that this law does NOT give religious people the right to open a "straights only" hotel. They always had that right, and the law doesn't change it. Only certainly classes are protected at a federal and state level. Religions are, sexualities aren't. This law doesn't change that.
- DonHopkins 12y agoPeople patronize commercial establishments a lot more often than crowded theaters burn down.