This is Commodore's dream world, and how it was in the 50's and 60's. It didn't play out the way you suggest would happen. The "market" doesn't fix all.
That didn't work in the 50's because there are enough racists people that can keep those businesses running.
you're conflating private discrimination by citizens with government-imposed segregation (by racist progressive Democrats)
As I said before I don't see how these laws can survive a court challenge as they clearly go against the language of the Civil Rights Act. Except after the Hobby Lobby ruling who knows.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 was primarily for allowing Native Americans to protect sacred lands and also to use things like peyote for religious purposes not for businesses to discriminate in who they serve.
That's not what the Indiana law is primarily for either. It's to protect religious institutions from having to fund abortions, as HHS would like to do if they could get away with it.
Unfortunately, due to your lack of reading comprehension skills, I need to explain. 1. The word "gulp" in this sentence does not modify services; therefore, your statement is incorrect. I am not culpable, or should I say, gulpable, for your cognitive shortcomings. 2. The word "gulp" in this sentence is an example of what is called onomatopoeia- a word formed from a sound associated with said word- and is meant purely as a rhetorical device as it is typically used when expressing apprehension. 3. If I offered gulping services, I would have clearly stated this by using the phrase (drum roll- this, BTW, is a slant form of onomatopoeia)............. Gulping Services, which I clearly did not. You would also be able to research my Gulp on Yelp, which you clearly cannot. 4. Nor did I say "Gulp Services," "To Gulp.." "Gulpification," "The Forrest Gulp Special," "The Real Big Gulp," "Gulp Friction," or any other variation relating to the gerund (-ing) form of the word used as an adjective to describe a service offered, but instead used the onomatopoeiac form "gulp." 5. I would be more than happy to explain the various examples of adjective use, but that will be for another time.
These are private businesses making their own decisions, not government-imposed anything. As noted earlier, your understanding of history seems limited, at best.
I was referring to Jim Crow (forcible public segregation). I never said private discrimination did not exist, quite the opposite.
The post I was responding to said this: I think these businesses should be free to discriminate against blacks, Jews, gays, and whomever they want. And those who are discriminated against should be able to put signs up and let the world know what bigots these people are so the can go out of business. That IS your dream world, no? Where anyone can discriminate against whomever they want and let the free market take care of it?
Am I crazy to think that this law is going to backfire completely on the religious right? It wouldn't really affect the cities and counties of Indiana that already have non-discrimination laws on the books, since any person claiming a religious exemption to discriminating against LGBT individuals would first get investigated and likely shut down by the state. They could then appeal the decision with the justification of a religious exemption, but that means fighting a constitutional law case with your own funds, while dragging the name of your business through the mud. Furthermore, I would think that if the supreme court took the case, prevention of discrimination would be a "compelling government interest". A Clinton win coupled with an act of God to strike down Scalia might even produce a liberal majority that could easily define LGBT individuals as a protected class; completely invalidating almost all of these types of religious freedom laws. Really just seems like a tone-deaf law to pass; if the Republicans are going to win in 2016, they're going to need some significant dirt on Hilary, to stay away from abortion, immigration and gay rights, and hope for or cause the economy to tank in the next 6 months. They really haven't had a good couple of months, but all of this is just window dressing.
After all these year's ranting on the Houston Chronicle comments section don't tell me I didn't warn you that Sharia Law is taking over in the USA.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was blatantly unconstitutional. It is only through the tortured reading of the Commerce Clause that began in the late 1930s and has persisted (with a couple of notable exceptions) through the present that it was allowed to stand. Congress passed similar non-discrimination laws in 1875 which were rightly struck down as being well beyond the scope of the 13th and 14th amendments. Of course people should be free to associate or not associate with whomever they choose. If someone wants to run a white only coffee shop, or a black only haberdashery or a Latino only car dealership, that should be their right. This would require that we care about the constitution and the notion of limited, enumerated powers though. Instead we (and I am using the term we rather liberally here) prefer to ignore those concepts and instead pass laws to make us all feel better. The states, on the other hand, have a better argument for being able to pass laws against discrimination. I personally think that runs afoul of the first amendment right of free association, but the argument is better that anti-discrimination laws are not specifically forbidden by the constitution than that they are provided for therein.
Yes, indeed, if you took a caveman like 1930s view of jurisprudence you could certainly make that argument (preferably anonymously, as Rand Paul found out ) Or you could get with the program and realize that the South lost.
So what about in situations where a private business owns a monopoly on a utility in a certain area? What if a Black couple wants to do a road trip to the Grand Canyon where gas stations are scarcely populated? Does the Black couple have to risk being stranded because one of these scarcely populated privately owned gas stations should have the freedom to discriminate? Does the Black couple have to buy an app on their smartphone that gives them a list of gas stations they can be served at?
If it was that narrow, not many would really care. The Indiana law is way more than that. It's not just any religious institutions. It covers everything from 1 individual person to a huge corporation and in between. The "freedom" to discriminate and hate is also left wide open to interpretation that's simply based on any religious belief. Primary reason for the law is for anything (from small to huge) to discriminate and hate based on their religious belief.
