Areas of the country where black people couldn’t rent a room for the night when traveling.
Areas of the country where black people traveling couldn’t buy gas from white station owners.
Areas of the country where blacks couldn’t eat unless they could find a black’s only food establishment.
And we had systematic discrimination against minorities in terms of how government functioned, such as segregated mass transit (buses, trains, etc.), schools, law enforcement, etc.
Even segregation in the military.
In those days such things were commonplace, but society has changed in the last 60 years and changed a lot. There has been a “corporatisation”; where you can’t spit without finding a company gas station, movie theater, restaurateur, motel/hotel, etc. Just because we repeal Public Accommodation laws, doesn’t mean that things are going to go back to the way they were 3-generations ago. And there are a number of factors that impact this:
We are much more mobile society. People routinely travel in a manner unprecedented then both temporary and “permanent” relocation’s out of the area they grew up in.
We are more informed society and information is much more available today about how a business conducts itself in terms of taking care of customers we have Criag’s list, Angie’s list, Yelp, and a plethora of hotel, restaurant, and review sites for any type of business and it’s not just the discriminated against who would choose not to associate with such a business. In addition I fully support the ability of a community having access to information about businesses and their discriminatory practices. News media (TV, Radio, Newspapers) and social media (email, texting, Facebook, etc.), and complaints filed with business licensing entities. People should all be free to report and have customers report on discriminatory business practices so that the public can make an informed choice.
The “corporatisation” of businesses in America watches the bottom line and having your 'brand name" associated with and appearing to condone discrimination has a negative impact on the bottom line. With corporate owned “shops” and franchises who still fall under policies of the home office means that these businesses will not allow or condone what was going on prior to the 60’s.
So the question becomes the balance of the rights of the private business owner to manage their private property according to their desires as compared to the desires of others to have access to that private business. With the widespread discrimination 3-generations ago there may have been justification to say the rights of the property owner needed to be usurped - on a temporary basis - but those times are pretty much gone. The balance was greatly tilted toward discrimination. I find my position aligned with what were called Goldwater Conservatives quite a bit because Goldwater had the testicular fortitude to stand up against Federal Public Accommodation laws, not because he was a bigot or a racist - but because he believed in limited government.
But in general the widespread issues from 60 years ago have been resolved by fundamental shifts in society. Sure there will be isolated instances, that’s the price of liberty and dealing with your own issues. A burger joint says - I won’t serve a black? OK, walk across the street to Applebee’s. A photographer doesn’t want to shoot a same-sex wedding? OK, Google or Angie’s List another photographer in the area.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all FOR keeping Public Accommodation laws in force in terms of the functioning of government and who the government can do business with, but that is because citizens have an inherent right to equal treatment by the government. There is no such right to equal treatment by other private individuals.
.^
.
.
I also disagree with the status that a gay or lesbian is barred under Federal and State law from discriminating against a customer because of the customers religion and yet in most States (and there is no Federal law) that prevents a religious business owner from discriminating against gays and lesbians.
Inherent unequal treatment under the law.
.
.
.^^^^
I agree. If a homosexual business owner wants to refuse service to a Muslim because of the way homsexuals are treated in Saudi Arabia, they have every right to do so.
Yes, the privately owned business that is being administratively governed because less than 3% of the population feeeels they have a right to not be offended by people exercising their 1st Amendment rights.
The tax perparer was not an employee, they were the owner of their own shop. (Whether the shop is under franchise to a national chain is not indicated.)
.
.
.
.^^^^
.^.
.
.
Agreed there are a lot of businesses, however…
Most of the cases that have come to the national forefront are small mom & pop businesses not under corporate control and or franchised from a major corporation where even though they might be the owner they are still bound by the home office.
.
.
.
.^^^^^
Well I just came from a thread where sheriffs are refusing to do their jobs. And shouldn’t we, as a society, be beyond these simple prejudices in the 21st century.
The kind of discrimination you are referencing is against the person, and it was systemic, ubiquitous, and cultural, as you pointed out.
Today’s issue is rooted in people not wanting to be in any way associated with what someone DOES, not who the person is. And I think we can all agree that the extent to which this occurs is rare, and even more rare the more removed from the actual MARRIAGE issue the conflict occurs. Few people hold such strong convictions about being associated with what someone else does that they’ll stand up and take the slings and arrows from the blowback. But in those cases where someone sees a particular behavior as sinful, why are we as a society so bent on forcing them to act against their conscience? Even if we don’t see what we’re calling them to do as participation in the behavior, why must we force them to accommodate when they DO see it as participation?
In my opinion, it’s because those who partake of the behavior cannot stand that someone else sees it as sinful.
Personally I think the language of business should be cash, check or charge. When it comes to color, sexual preferences, parenting status, etc., just hold your nose & take the payment for services rendered.
However I do understand those states like Arizona & Indiana that have religious objections as a legitimate opt out of transactions the merchant doesn’t want. In spite of public accommodation laws, merchants’ contempt for certain customers is easy to spot when you’re one of those customers.
