Is this not slavery?
How is the doctrine of "Public Accommodations" different from slavery? People (business owners) are forced, by threats of government violence, to serve clients they do not wish to work for. By the same "logic" doctors will end up being forced to treat people paid for by the government - even if they are philosophically opposed to Medicare and Medicaid (as they will be declared guilty of "discrimination" if they do not), and medical staff will be forced to engage in abortions - even if they believe such practices to be murder. Once the doctrine of "anti discrimination" is allowed to trump private property rights (i.e. freedom of association - which must logically include the freedom to NOT associate) it will not remain limited to "race", it will spread to "gender", "sexual orientation" and government sponsored groups - including practices the government happens to support (such as abortion) and people the government pays for in its schemes.
Both religious freedom and general freedom (the freedom to live out one's opinions in one's ordinary life - as long as one does not attack anyone else) are destroyed by this legal doctrine.
There should at least be a critical section in the article. 90.217.112.53 ( talk) 09:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
There has been an edit war over including the long list of LGBT anti-disrimination laws in the US states that relate to public accommodation. Putting the whole list in the article indeed does distort the overall coverage in the article, but that is no a reason for complete elimination of the topic. Since there is a List of cities and counties in the United States offering an LGBT non-discrimination ordinance, there is no need to duplicate the information available there, even though it does not specifically relate to just public accommodation, it covers it. I have placed a single sentence in the state's section relatng to LGBT anti-disrimination laws that relate to public accommodation with a citation to a 2012 law review article that covers this topic, albeit from a particular perspective. Additional citations to reliable secondary sources are welcome. -- Bejnar ( talk) 18:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
The article could well do with a review of case law. -- Bejnar ( talk) 18:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
The first section of the article lists race, color, religion, and national origin. But the example given in the first section of Junior Chamber International deals with gender. Is that list correct? And is color really a separate category from race and national origin? FishDawg1 ( talk) 22:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
"Prohibition against gender, and like, discrimination is provided by some state laws, and some state constitutions (e.g. New Mexico's). Federal law does not provide that protection either in general (the Equal Rights Amendment to the US Constitution failed), nor specifically with regard to public accomodations. See the text of The Civil Rights Act of 1964: Title II - Public Accommodation. -- Bejnar ( talk) 17:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
This article promotes the idea that any business open to the public is now claimed to be a "public accomodation". However, a study of the history reveals a paper, which clearly shows that historically, only a very limited number of businesses were called "public accomodations": See "What is a Place of "Public" Accommodation?" http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2418&context=mulr Public utilities, common carriers, railroads, ferries, innkeepers, That is very far from every open-to-the-public business. Does the 1964 Civil Rights Act refer to "every business open to the public" or, instead, "public accomodations"? 174.25.21.83 ( talk) 00:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Currently, the article says, "Because a right to public accommodation for gay and transgender people does not exist in federal law, in more than half the states in the U.S., discrimination in public accommodation against LGBT people remains legal."
This needs to be updated to reflect the SCOTUS decisions in such cases as Bostock v Clayton County. Anna Kissed 'em ( talk) 05:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is this not slavery?
How is the doctrine of "Public Accommodations" different from slavery? People (business owners) are forced, by threats of government violence, to serve clients they do not wish to work for. By the same "logic" doctors will end up being forced to treat people paid for by the government - even if they are philosophically opposed to Medicare and Medicaid (as they will be declared guilty of "discrimination" if they do not), and medical staff will be forced to engage in abortions - even if they believe such practices to be murder. Once the doctrine of "anti discrimination" is allowed to trump private property rights (i.e. freedom of association - which must logically include the freedom to NOT associate) it will not remain limited to "race", it will spread to "gender", "sexual orientation" and government sponsored groups - including practices the government happens to support (such as abortion) and people the government pays for in its schemes.
Both religious freedom and general freedom (the freedom to live out one's opinions in one's ordinary life - as long as one does not attack anyone else) are destroyed by this legal doctrine.
There should at least be a critical section in the article. 90.217.112.53 ( talk) 09:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
There has been an edit war over including the long list of LGBT anti-disrimination laws in the US states that relate to public accommodation. Putting the whole list in the article indeed does distort the overall coverage in the article, but that is no a reason for complete elimination of the topic. Since there is a List of cities and counties in the United States offering an LGBT non-discrimination ordinance, there is no need to duplicate the information available there, even though it does not specifically relate to just public accommodation, it covers it. I have placed a single sentence in the state's section relatng to LGBT anti-disrimination laws that relate to public accommodation with a citation to a 2012 law review article that covers this topic, albeit from a particular perspective. Additional citations to reliable secondary sources are welcome. -- Bejnar ( talk) 18:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
The article could well do with a review of case law. -- Bejnar ( talk) 18:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
The first section of the article lists race, color, religion, and national origin. But the example given in the first section of Junior Chamber International deals with gender. Is that list correct? And is color really a separate category from race and national origin? FishDawg1 ( talk) 22:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
"Prohibition against gender, and like, discrimination is provided by some state laws, and some state constitutions (e.g. New Mexico's). Federal law does not provide that protection either in general (the Equal Rights Amendment to the US Constitution failed), nor specifically with regard to public accomodations. See the text of The Civil Rights Act of 1964: Title II - Public Accommodation. -- Bejnar ( talk) 17:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
This article promotes the idea that any business open to the public is now claimed to be a "public accomodation". However, a study of the history reveals a paper, which clearly shows that historically, only a very limited number of businesses were called "public accomodations": See "What is a Place of "Public" Accommodation?" http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2418&context=mulr Public utilities, common carriers, railroads, ferries, innkeepers, That is very far from every open-to-the-public business. Does the 1964 Civil Rights Act refer to "every business open to the public" or, instead, "public accomodations"? 174.25.21.83 ( talk) 00:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Currently, the article says, "Because a right to public accommodation for gay and transgender people does not exist in federal law, in more than half the states in the U.S., discrimination in public accommodation against LGBT people remains legal."
This needs to be updated to reflect the SCOTUS decisions in such cases as Bostock v Clayton County. Anna Kissed 'em ( talk) 05:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)