They would be free to do so... if they weren’t running afoul of Article 1 Section 10 by infringing on people’s ability to freely contract in the process. I think Heart of Atlanta is relevant, because it shows that the Supreme Court was only willing to burden a very narrow slice of businesses, not all people engaged in…

I disagree that this is about whether sexual orientation is a protected class. It’s pretty much already there (and several states recognize it as one), and if it isn’t yet for the Supreme Court, it soon will be. I think the issue is more about whether states can expand the definition of “public accommodation” to…

Yeah, well, my point kind of is that I don’t think there is a line of cases saying that bakers can’t deny cakes to black people. I see that a couple states have expanded “public accommodation” to include all businesses of all types, but I don’t think that expansion is actually constitutionally permitted, and goes way…

I understand the distinction you’re getting at, and I agree they’re different things. But I still feel like the underlying Supreme Court precedent in Heart of Atlanta and federal law in 42 USC 2000a only go so far as to carve out a very narrow subset of businesses that aren’t allowed to discriminate, out of a…

Someone else pointed out in the replies that Colorado does too, so there’s a few. But I’m concerned that Article 1 Section 10 stops states from going so far as to tell all businesses of all sorts how to do business. We’ll see.

Well, I didn’t realize Colorado had that expansive of a law. Huh, good for them. I’m not sure it’s constitutional for them to expand it that far beyond the federal definition (the Supreme Court in Heart of Atlanta v US leaned kind of heavy on the fact that the Civil Rights Act wasn’t trying to apply itself to all busin…

1. “Protected class” is not a magic word that protects that class from all unequal treatment from everyone. All it does is stop the government from making laws that disadvantage that class without a compelling government interest. Protected classes can be discriminated against by private persons the same as anyone…

dude, quit trying to find ways to phrase it so that I’m “ok with it happening.” I’m not ok with it happening. But the government does not have the power to stop everything that I am not ok with.

The right to do business with other people isn’t something you’ll find super explicit in the constituion, but somewhere between the first amendment (protecting the freedom of speech and assembly) and Article 1 Section 10 of the constitution (preventing States from impairing obligations of contract) it’s pretty heavily…

So, bake out of your home with no business licence or health inspection certification, and don’t advertise? That’s not really a realistic (or legal) option, and I think you know that. Owning a shop and doing business in public is not using a government service (unless you’re like leasing space on government land I…

I’m not trolling, I’m pointing out to you that a protected class does not do what you think it does.

I’m not cool if it happens. Dude should be heckled, picketed, run out of town. But the government should not be in the business of selling cakes.

Protected classes aren’t protected from EVERYTHING. They are protected against laws that unnecessarily discriminate against that class without a compelling government interest. An individual baker not wanting to sell a cake to a woman, or a black person, or a gay person is not the same as a law that prohibits such…

There are huge swaths of society that don’t want to associate with other huge swaths. That’s not something that the government can fix by flexing its muscle, and it’s not the same thing as the government enforcing “separate but equal” spaces in government and essential services. A baker not wanting to do business with…

I’m not trying to defend anything. It’s morally reprehensible.

No, I assure you I’m as liberal as you are. But I don’t want to be told that I have to do business with nazis or MRA hooligans. But the flip side of that is, they don’t want to be told that they have to do business with me either. Free speech cuts both ways.

I’m certainly not advocating for “whites only” anything. But I think it’s dangerous for the government to get involved in telling people that they have to do anything.

The right to travel freely is something the Supreme Court has specifically identified as a constitutional right contained within liberty.

That would be awful and bigoted. It also would be (or should be) entirely within the shopkeeper’s discretion what products he offers to what customers, for any and all reasons. Imagine a snooty chef, who refuses to offer his best dishes to uncultured customers, reserving a “VIP menu” for friends and critics...…

When the Supreme Court tackled this before, it was restaurants and hotels and buses at issue. “Common carriers,” the types of business that one cannot avoid doing business with when traveling. Allowing hotels and restaurants to refuse to do business with people was essentially the same as refusing those people the…