OK. I'll do my own back-and-forth on this.
The SCOTUS in the Age of British Intellectualism (roughly 1890-2020, say) has pursued a line of thought that defies the clear intent of the US Constitution as discussed and drafted by the original disputants. The ideas at the root of the US Constitution's design included very little reduction of States' prerogatives, and pointedly insisted on clearly stated declarations of citizen rights with regard to the Federal governments' proclivities for power grabs of various kinds.
In a Socialist society, as envisioned by British intellectuals, the government must become the caretaker, and the power of the government must derive from a sort of interested set of moneyed folks and their intellectual shills. We have gone far, far down the primrose path with these charlatans, and it is almost beyond our reach to recover the concept of actual human rights.
The SCOTUS, in taking upon itself the mantle of Supreme Constitutional Obliterator and Totalitarian Undertaker of Society, which is the actual philosophical underpinning of the SCOTUS label in progressive usage, has walked us away from private property rights, freedom of association, and the privileges of doing our own thinking and doing what we think is best in our personal business.
So, yeah, the thinker in me agrees with Bullet in his above statement that a person should have the choice in doing business. The nice little sign over the counter "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" means the proprietor is claiming an inherent God-given right to be a fussy little old biddy or an outright bigot in this business. No reason need be resorted to as any excuse.
So anyway, Bullet says this site is Jason's and Bullet upholds the human liberties all proprietors should have. It's their business.
So Jason can post a sign at the door and say "We reserve the rights of personal liberties derived from ownership of this site, and have the perfect right to refuse admittance to anyone, or to remove anyone's account." Most of us have paid no price for admittance, we have no entitlement to service.
But do we want, as a society at large, to do business this way? Do we want to insist that others treat us with some specific standard of respect and equality?
The "Bake My Cake" ruling says we do, and it is in effect a rule of law that imposes a duty of civility in doing business. I run into such rules in managing my rentals. Abiding by those rules has cost me nothing, and in fact I have found that people who are in the GLBT community make very good renters. They rarely push the limits of the rental agreement, and take very good care of the rented property.... pay the rent on time. Never have had a GLBT renter skip out on rent.
The SCOTUS in the Age of British Intellectualism (roughly 1890-2020, say) has pursued a line of thought that defies the clear intent of the US Constitution as discussed and drafted by the original disputants. The ideas at the root of the US Constitution's design included very little reduction of States' prerogatives, and pointedly insisted on clearly stated declarations of citizen rights with regard to the Federal governments' proclivities for power grabs of various kinds.
In a Socialist society, as envisioned by British intellectuals, the government must become the caretaker, and the power of the government must derive from a sort of interested set of moneyed folks and their intellectual shills. We have gone far, far down the primrose path with these charlatans, and it is almost beyond our reach to recover the concept of actual human rights.
The SCOTUS, in taking upon itself the mantle of Supreme Constitutional Obliterator and Totalitarian Undertaker of Society, which is the actual philosophical underpinning of the SCOTUS label in progressive usage, has walked us away from private property rights, freedom of association, and the privileges of doing our own thinking and doing what we think is best in our personal business.
So, yeah, the thinker in me agrees with Bullet in his above statement that a person should have the choice in doing business. The nice little sign over the counter "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" means the proprietor is claiming an inherent God-given right to be a fussy little old biddy or an outright bigot in this business. No reason need be resorted to as any excuse.
So anyway, Bullet says this site is Jason's and Bullet upholds the human liberties all proprietors should have. It's their business.
So Jason can post a sign at the door and say "We reserve the rights of personal liberties derived from ownership of this site, and have the perfect right to refuse admittance to anyone, or to remove anyone's account." Most of us have paid no price for admittance, we have no entitlement to service.
But do we want, as a society at large, to do business this way? Do we want to insist that others treat us with some specific standard of respect and equality?
The "Bake My Cake" ruling says we do, and it is in effect a rule of law that imposes a duty of civility in doing business. I run into such rules in managing my rentals. Abiding by those rules has cost me nothing, and in fact I have found that people who are in the GLBT community make very good renters. They rarely push the limits of the rental agreement, and take very good care of the rented property.... pay the rent on time. Never have had a GLBT renter skip out on rent.