Says who? Which provision of the Constitution grants this authority?

Who determines which classes are protected? It's completely arbitrary.

If a person is denied service, what's their injury? The common law system (not to mention the US Constitution) requires an injured party to bring up a civil lawsuit. If they were extended a written offer to purchase a product, that might be an injury. But if not?

E.g. You want to force a photographer to to work an event they don't want to be at? And then I'm guessing the government will have to investigate if they did a 'good enough' job photographing the event they didn't want to be at.

Or prosecutors have to introspect the inner machinations of the professional to make sure their rationale for accepting a different event was 'good enough' for them to legally decline the one they didn't want to be at. It's absurd, but this stuff has actually happened.

Let's ask Google: a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them."

If there was ever a modern day, legalized slavery, forcing someone to bake a cake for you sounds otherwise be imprisoned by the government sounds awfully darn like just like that.

Do you file a 1040? That's sole proprietor income. You're probably working for an employer, no different than the kid next door if I hired them to do my lawn, no different than if I sold baked goods from my own house. Still a sole proprietorship, it's all taxed the same.

Are you trying to start a UID pissing match? And you call me a high schooler? (Well, maybe if I registered when I was in kindergarten... I wish...).

(But if you insist, mine's prime.)

In any event, I practice the Constitution as written by the Framers. Blatant attempts to ignore it is not my fault, but nice try on the victim blaming.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 placed restrictions and additional requirements on the behavior of government, who is already bound by the Constitution to provide "equal protection of the laws".

Discrimination is bad, but it's nothing compared to slavery.

If I say no to my boss, I get fired. That's not slavery.

If saying "no" pits me against the government, I get fined or jailed, and anyone who resists is thrown in prison. That is slavery.

Any purchase or sale of goods or labor by an individual is a sole proprietorship. Purchasing food from my grocery store, hiring lawn care, and selling baked goods are all the same kind of business conduct.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

You might be able to make that argument... once.

If you know before you walk in that they're going to ask on the way out, then you don't really have an excuse.

It's the same deal in Western societies where you pay for your meal after you eat it: It's just understood that's how it works, and you can be legally liable if you don't.

Even worse: Why would they walk away from very people who they say would be harmed by the law?

Unless, of course, they're just grandstanding.

If you do not have the right to say "yes" or "no" that is not freedom, that is slavery. It is the threat of someone going to a court, ordering me to serve them, under threat of police action. That is wrong, we abolished that over a century ago.

The legal right to do something does not condone exercise of said right.

Not to mention your assertion is very dangerous; a sole proprietorship is a type of business. If a "business" can be required to serve a person, any individual can be required to serve a person.

Now, if I have a written offer of service, say, a price at a supermarket, you can't rescind that offer any faster than you can take the price down. But you can't walk into a bakery and say "I want you to quote me a price on a cake! And it needs to be a similar price to $member_of_some_other_group! And..." etc.

I don't think anyone is saying we need to start banning people who want to get educated, of course education is a right.

But it's not an entitlement either.

Just don't lie about your offering, that's fraud. Fraud is not a right.

It's the status quo because of existing contract law. If that's violated, that's what the court system is for. Using the executive branch for judicial matters is blatantly unconstitutional.

If the courts fail, then you go to the legislative branch, and pass a law.

This is Civics 101 checks and balances. And you're allowing it to be steamrolled over just because you like the ends.

If the FCC can do this, what can't they do? Broadcast Flag? Censorship of cable TV, phone lines? Those have been struck down for the same reason Title II is going to get struck down. You can't have it both ways.

Title II was written specifically to apply to the PSTN, nothing else.

Congress identified one area of activity (Telephony) and granted certain authority to the FCC;
Congress identified another area of activity (Internet) and granted a different, significantly lower level of of authority to the FCC.

The FCC is trying to claim that residential Internet service is the same as the PSTN, for no other reason than to gain more authority. It's an insult to our intelligence.

If they get away with this, they would have gotten away with Broadcast Flag.

I don't like those terms, the distinction between "negative" and "positive" freedoms tends to be a way of explaining people's mis-use of the terms.

They're properly called liberty and entitlement, respectively. And they're mutually exclusive.

e.g. Crusoe can't be forced to stop reading, nor can he force others to provide him something to read (especially hard to do when those people don't exist, as you point out).

I can't speak for Republicans, but for the last decade the FCC has been enemy of technology numero uno. When and how the hell did they become the solution?

Not only that, but there's NO problem that they're claiming to solve with the new rules. The entire ruling and rationale is purely speculative. In particular, they explicitly declined to apply their 'finding' to peering agreements, e.g. Netflix-Cogent-Comcast.

And if the Internet isn't an "information service", what is? They're deploying a massive, unconstitutional power grab, that was unnecessary to begin with: New Neutrality has never failed in court. The ends don't justify the means.

The FCC's rules, in their own publication, do not attempt to solve #2. There is no action an ISP has taken so far, that the FCC has said it could have regulated: they are purely speculative as to what an ISP might be able to do sometime in the future.

In particular, the FCC declined to regulate peering agreements, though it appears to be claiming the authority to (with another vote.

The FCC is claiming it has power it doesn't actually have, what's new?

It's an analogy. Come on now.

It's the same thing when physicists think about cats in boxes with poison, or spherical cows. It settles fundamental questions.

I can get sufficiently close to flying to satisfy my desires, thank you very much.

No one was ever talking about omnipotence. We mean liberty.

Out of all the choices a person could make, what is the subset of things that are right to do? One person on an island, everything. Two people on an island, less than everything, but still well-defined. Person A can't physically attack person B, or steal their stash of coconuts, and so on.

On the contrary, freedom is pretty well defined even in contexts of two or more people, it's just a whole lot more difficult to enforce (and study) than a "Crusoe" economy since there's literally nothing that one person can do by themselves to violate one's rights.

The addition of another person to the Crusoe economy is how economists study the origin of natural rights. Crusoe's welfare could improve because of comparative advantage; or it could fail, say, if he were attacked.

Society is basically adding a bunch more people to a much bigger island and studying the limit as n approaches infinity.

Just because it's difficult to study, doesn't mean 'absolute freedom' doesn't/can't exist.