Maggie's Farm

archer2010: Trump is Finished........, Where have I heard that before?

AAUGH!


You noticed.

feeblemind: Merrick Garland is going after Trump. Why bother if Trump is "finished?"
Because Trump broke the law . . . allegedly.

Jan Peter Blickenstaff: My opinion, There is a difference between "Public Accommodations" and "creative product".

That's exactly the crux of the matter. When is a business a public accommodation under the law? When is it free expression? A painter is not typically a public accommodation, but what if the painter sets up a booth and offers to make portraits for all comers (except Blacks)? The problem is devising a workable rule.

Jan Peter Blickenstaff: Why is a business compelled to sell but the customer is not compelled to buy?

Not sure what that would accomplish. The Civil Rights Act was a response to historical oppression.

Jan Peter Blickenstaff: No more "just looking"

That makes no sense. Someone may want to check prices. Or a Jewish person may accidentally wander into a pork butcher.

Jan Peter Blickenstaff: each side is free to enter into the transaction or not?

All rights have limitations, especially in the commercial realm. You need a business license. You have to pay taxes. You can't dump your pollution in the river.

It took nearly two centuries for the United States to end the racial oppression of Blacks. After a great, multi-generational struggle, the crowning achievement of the Civil Rights Movement was the Civil Rights Act, which outlawed discrimination in public accommodations.


Politics is not a protected class under federal and most state laws.


Yup. The Civil Rights Movement was about power.
 

mudbug: It took nearly two centuries for Democrats to end their racial oppression of blacks.

It was the institutions of the United States and the individual states that legally countenanced slavery and segregation. You are correct, though, that the Democratic Party was the longtime political home of racial oppression. The Democratic Party of the twentieth century was a coalition of Southern segregationist whites, liberals, and labor -- until the aftermath of the Civil Rights Movement. The battle for Civil Rights largely occurred within the Democratic Party.

mudbug: Are you saying that a member of a "protected class" (and presumably only a member of a protected class) can compel someone to produce something expressing support for something that would go against their religious beliefs?

If your religion or moral belief is that Blacks should not be a patron or employee in your store open to the public, then the Civil Rights Act would go against your religious belief. Protected classes under federal law include race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.

However, the original topic was should businesses be able to refuse to service Blacks?

mudbug: The battle about civil right largely occurred within the Democratic party.

Republicans didn't constitute sufficient numbers on their own to end segregation. Civil rights legislation required Democratic votes. The Democratic Party, as noted, was split on the issue. For instance, when Truman integrated the military, southern Democrats walked out as Dixiecrats, almost costing Truman the election. Johnson irrevocably moved to end segregation, knowing that it meant losing support of southern whites. While Republicans adopted the Southern strategy, because of the political courage of liberal Democrats, Blacks almost universally moved to the Democratic Party.

mudbug: Actually, the original topic was the ACLU's support for Colorado's requiting people to produce expressive or artistic products that are contrary to their values.

Also as noted above, the question is where to draw the line between public accommodations and artistic expression.

mudbug: Are you saying that a member of a "protected class" (and presumably only a member of a protected class) can compel someone to produce something expressing support for something that would go against their religious beliefs?

Under federal law, everyone is a member of a protected class.

We already answered your question. If your religious or moral belief entails not having Blacks as patrons or workers in your public accommmodation, then civil rights law would required you to go against your religious or moral belief or stop being a public accommodation. If to "produce something" includes a butcher shop selling meat to the public, then civil rights law clearly applies. The question, then, is whether offering websites to the public for money is a public accommodation or artistic expression.

indyjonesouthere: The freedom of religion is a Constitutional protection.

Yes, but no rights are without limits. Religious liberty does not mean you can sacrifice virgins contrary to civil law. In this case, anti-discrimination law covers commercial activity. You remain free to be a racist at home or in your church.

mudbug: Are you saying that a member of a "protected class" (and presumably only a member of a protected class) can compel someone to produce something expressing support for something that would go against their religious beliefs?

It depends on what "produce something" refers to. Artistic expression is not covered by discrimination law. Public accommodations are. There are gray zones, but we would suggest that people who don't approve of interracial marriages shouldn't be in the marriage business. Consider what you mean by "something expressing support." Someone could claim that allowing Blacks in their business expresses support for racial mingling, which is against their sincere religious beliefs.

The Supreme Court seems inclined to side with the religious liberty position, meaning businesses would be able to discriminate against Blacks or other minorities.

indyjonesouthere: Especially legislated rights.

No rights are without limitations. Religious liberty does not mean you can sacrifice virgins contrary to civil law.