The law is that any shop open to the public must accommodate the entire public, and cannot refuse service for any discriminatory reason.
The law is that the right to do business with someone is established from the customers point of view.
The law is that shops don't get to choose their customers.

And you should read up on how Christianity was indeed used as an excuse to discriminate against blacks.
Bills EXACTLY like this one were used to try and get around the Civil Rights Act's prohibition on discrimination in the marketplace.

Bingo.

I can't believe people need this stuff spelled out for them.
It's like they weren't taught it in history class.

But then...a lot of people weren't, because the right has been successful at raising a hue and cry when people try to teach it or talk about it.
They say "people would stop being sexist/racist/anyotherist if you just stopped talking about it".

But what really happens when you stop talking about it?
They forget the lessons of the past.
Or never learn them in the place.

And that's how we get stupid laws like these and end up having the same arguments all over again!

1 - Private entities have the right of freedom of association.
2 - Businesses are not private entities.
3 - Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
4 - Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States
5 - Katzenbach v. McClung

It's the same arguments all over again, ignoring past and already settled legal precedent/authority.

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...

and

Katzenbach v. McClung
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K...

No it is not.

If a person or business wishes to participate in the market it must participate in the entire market, meaning anyone willing to do business with them, customers included. the only permissible reasons for not doing so must be business related decisions, like being unable to take on any further work, unable to agree on a transaction, or so forth.

But denial of service rooted in discrimination ("I don't like your skin color" or "I don't like your sexual orientation") is not allowed, and not a right.

Our country has been through all this before.
It's not new and neither are the concepts.

Title II of the CRA of 1964 spells it out quite clearly when it "outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... )

Things like redlining, segregated lunch counters (or just straight up whites only establishments) all serve to produce only one thing: the inability of an entire class of people to participate fairly and equally in the same markets.

What you propose is not a tenet of freedom, but a restriction and deprivation of freedom.

Except for the fact that a robust national highway system is a key factor in fostering and supporting economic growth.
People also used to question why we needed links between LA and NY.

It's not about people wanting to drive their families.
It's about the economic support and stimulus that such infrastructure provides.

China has already learned this lesson, having observed how it benefited our country and helped fuel our greatest period of prosperity and growth. China began its massive interstate (interprovince i guess is more accurate) highway project a little more than a decade or two ago, and in the space of 7 years had more highway miles than the US. and the results have been dramatic, spurring economic activity far inland where prior to the highways there used to be little or none. the majority of economic activity was clustered around the seaports and only as far inland as the roads reached. with a modern highway system constructed the potential reach of freight, and the volume of freight the roads had the capacity to handle, was increased by several orders of magnitude, and it's been pivotal in the expansion of their economy.

As for Russia, there is economic activity on the east (largely based around exporting oil and other resources), and economic activity on the west, but there is little in between and the two areas of activity are currently tenuously linked at best, mostly by rail. More capacity and capability to move people and goods between them would be very beneficial to the country.

and if not broken up, at the very least ISP's like Comcast should be forced to divest themselves from their content creators (NBC and such) and delivery services (Hulu).

I watched it, and they may have spent 100k on legos, but they didn't film 100k worth of legos.

government's stance is that material can be innocuous separately, but become sensitive (and require classification) if collected together.
it's the idea that individual puzzle pieces are worthless, but if you collect all the pieces you now have a complete picture.

well of course, but that was beyond the scope of the piece.

(why share? because biscuits are a delicious and simple recipe everyone should know, even if you're just feeding yourself)

Especially if the food is delicious....

pastrami on rye with sauerkraut, mustard, and swiss.....mmmm
fettuccini alfredo...
fresh peaches...

or my favorite: homemade biscuits
-Oven at 425
-2 cups flour
-1/2 cup butter (stick, chilled/frozen, and cut into small pieces; I actually a cheese grater on the frozen stick, and then re-chill it a few minutes after grating it)
-1/2 cup Crisco (I use both fats to get the best of both worlds)
-1 cup milk
-1 tablespoon sugar
-1 tablespoon baking powder
-1 teaspoon salt
-Mix the dry ingredients (flour, salt, powder, and sugar) together. Add the remaining ingredients (Crisco butter and milk), but mix gently and not too much (work it too hard or long and the butter melts during mixing instead of during baking; you want it to melt during baking as it gives off steam and helps make the biscuits more flaky/airy).
-Put in oven until tops start browning (the traditional toothpick test works too), which is about 15 minutes in my oven.
-Higher yields are gotten from straight linear increase of all materials.

Personally I prefer them in muffin tin format (as opposed to Drop (drop globs of dough on coking tin), or Cut (the traditional round cylinder made by rolling and cutting dough)), and so use a greased muffin tin (brushed Crisco instead of cooking spray), and I gently smoosh dough into each cup almost to the top. Makes 7-8 biscuits this way. I also get a little extra texture/flavor from keeping my fingers covered in flour as I do the smooshing, so the tops get a little extra flakiness from the flour on my fingers.

Gonna have to make more tonight.

Well they couldn't use Comcast, because for Comcast to say that the rules are onerous would be clearly laughable as Comcast is hugely profitable even under net neutrality aka the status quo f the current internet. the argument Comcast would essentially be making is that they are less profitable than they -could be- if they were allowed to screw consumers, but that's a difficult case to make in court.

but a small company like Alamo is more able to make the claim that the rule are onerous and impairs their ability to be profitable.

you're right, it is absolutely a premade engineered case.

it is not an unconstitutional power grab.
and it is NOT unnecessary.

there's no problem right now because the internet already functions by and large under the concept of net neutrality.
they aren't fixing a problem, they are setting the current status quo in stone.

it's pre-emptive rule making done precisely because Comcast and its ilk want to violate net neutrality, and have tried to do it in the past.

you are a complete moron.

please learn how marginal tax rates work.

say there's 3 brackets:
0 to 10k is 1%
10k+ to 20k is 2%
20k+ is 3%

Now say you earn 50k dollars a year.
That doesn't mean you pay 3% on the entire 50k.
It means you pay 1% on the first 10k, 2% on the next 10k (20k-10k=10k), and 3% on the remaining 30k (50k-20k=30k).
So you pay in taxes: $100+$200+$900 = $1200 total.
$1200 in taxes on a $50k income is a total effective tax rate of 2.4%.

The more you earn in the top bracket, the closer your effective rate will get to that top rate, but it will never quite equal it.
And it will never go over it. California's top rate is 13.3. The US top rate is 39.6. Added up, that's 52.9%.
But the top rates are different brackets as well.
In California its on any earning over 1 million dollars.
But the federal top rate is on earnings over $406,750.

A person earning 950k a year has an effective rate of 45.97%.
A person earning 1million a year has an effective rate of 46.26%.
A person earning 1.05 million a year has an effective rate of 46.58%

You don't pay an effective rate of 50% until you earn 2.3 million a year.