-
Why should a citizen be required to provide what you call “public accommodations” when perhaps he prefers to provide a service to only a limited and select group of people? Do you think Women’s Workout World and Curves should be required by law to accommodate men? A citizen should not be forced into making his property any more “public”
-
<< "Serves the public" in Title II seems to mean the same thing as "is open to the public" in my post. Although there are qualifications to this in Title II, that of "affecting commerce" seems to provide no distinction at all - as far as I can tell, any establishment that serves the public can be said to "affect
-
<< It's actually easier for me to envision a working private system of roads with civil rights than it is without them. For example, in a racist area in a system of private roads, it could well be impossible for a black person to get from one place to another, whereas where civil rights are enforced for the public accommodation of roads this
-
I'm also thinking the feds should investigate American citizens who turn down job offers from (or fail to apply at) minority-owned businesses. Imagine you're of Chinese extraction, live in San Francisco, and own a laundry. Your business is booming, you need additional personnel, So you place an ad in the newspaper. Don't you deserve to receive
-
Don't you agree that at least 95% of "discrimination" is perpetrated by the buyers of products and services, rather than the sellers? People do it all the time. They patronise one business instead of another, and the feds give them a pass. Maybe the cashier wears a piercing in her nose, so you don't buy gas or cigarettes at that place
-
Why is discrimination illegal for SELLERS of a product or service but not for BUYERS of the very same product or service? If I’m a white barber, should a black man who clearly needs a trim be allowed to go down the street to a black barber, without being questioned by the government? I think not. He’s probably discriminating against me because