You really need to learn some definitions and concepts.

City buses are called "public transportation" because they are typically operated by the local government, ie, public. not because the public at large may use them.
as an extension of government, city buses cannot discriminate under Title III (3) of the CRA of 1964, which "Prohibited state and municipal governments from denying access to public facilities on grounds of race, color, religion or national origin.", this really though is just an extension of the already extent Equal Protection Clause, simply being spelled out specifically.

A cab company may be privately owned, but it is still considered a "public accommodation" because it is a entity that does business with the public in exchange for money. And such public accommodations ARE ALSO prohibited from discrimination, but under a different section of the law, Title II (2). this was hte game changed, this was new. This prohibited private business from hiding behind the cloak of being a private entity in order to enable discrimination. This is the part of hte law that says "if you do business with the public, you do business with ALL of it, and cannot discriminate".

Seriously, read about the fucking law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

at what point during the purchases of the cake was the person also offered for sale?
Oh thats right, you dont know what youre talking about.

you speak in hyperbole and irrational stupidity, instead logic and fact.
and you have roughly the intelligence of a high schooler, which explains the insistence on using stupid libertarian logic.

Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title II: Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".

Like the man said: you don't know what you're talking about.

business's dont have freedom.
next question.

most businesses CAN refuse service to someone for almost any reason.
ALMOST... being the key word.
The exceptions being various classes protected against discrimination.

No shoes? Acceptable reason.
Skin color? Unacceptable reason.
Loud agressive posturing? Acceptable reason.
Sexual orientation or gender identity? unacceptable reason.

and since you overhead planning that is criminal in intent, you definitely arent required to enable that either. that's a pretty bad hypothetical.

you cannot be forced to engage in someone else's discrimination.
you cannot force your own discrimination on others.
it's not fucking difficult.

Ya....no.
Not how it works.

Freedom of Association applies to private persons and groups, not to a business operating in the public market.

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.