Do public accommodation laws violate the 13th Amendment?

[Samson_Corwell]

@WildRose

Of course we are and have been for decades. There are no longer vast stretches of roadways where you might only come upon a single source of food, fuel, lodging etc for fifty or a hundred miles or more.

If they are no longer necessary, then why repeal them?

[WildRose]

That would be a nonsensical question.

There is no longer a justification for same which is exactly why they should be repealed. The harm they sought to correct or prevent no longer exists.

[dantes]

Yes, it was. Things change. Public accommodation laws have no small part in making that change.

[WildRose]

You cannot in any way demonstrate that to be true.

The simple fact is we have many times the number of places to buy those necessities than we did fifty years ago and a public that largely supports commerce without discrimination.

Those laws didn’t increase the number of stores or change people’s attitudes about race.

[dantes]

You think it was a coincidence? I don’t.

[Forcefield]

I guess we shoulda thought of that before dragging slaves over here.

[WildRose]

Think what you want, but you can’t possibly show that those laws had anything to do with changing people’s attitudes much less increasing the number of businesses catering to travelers.

As we’ve become a more mobile and motorized society people travel more, and there is an ever increasing demand for the supporting services.

[dantes]

I think I’m right. 80 years of increasing segregation magically started to turn around right around the time of the CRA. And that was not a coincidence.

The idea is that racism is harder to justify for an individual when you have close regular contact with people of another race.

[mobulis]

@WildRose

That would be a nonsensical question.

There is no longer a justification for same which is exactly why they should be repealed. The harm they sought to correct or prevent no longer exists.

Except if they are repealed then that harm will come back.

[CanadianJudo]

What your saying super religious South America, Middle East, Africa, India, South East Asia, Asia don’t approve of homosexuality?

[WildRose]

Not even a possibility much less anything you could prove.

[CanadianJudo]

Supreme Court disagree with you.

[WuWei]

You think it’s possible to protect all values in the land of the consent of the governed?

[WuWei]

They are being used as weapons.

[WuWei]

@WildRose

Those laws didn’t increase the number of stores or change people’s attitudes about race.

They would have been a detriment.

[WildRose]

A detriment to???

[WuWei]

You think the US is desegregated?

[WildRose]

No they don’t, they found such laws to be necessary to correct a harm.

[CanadianJudo]

They ruled CSA constitutional.
They ruled State PA laws constitutional.

[WuWei]

The last refugee of subjects.