This is a public discussion, i.e. a discussion in the public. For the benefit of me and everyone, I shouldn't need to dig up old conversations on other threads.

In any event, I don't recall any very convincing sources.

"public accommodation" is very narrowly defined. It does not imply that business is anything but private. Business is by definition only conducted between two parties. No other party is involved.

define:business: noun
1. a person's regular occupation, profession, or trade.
2. the practice of making one's living by engaging in commerce.

People do not lose their rights just because they get into business. Saying "you didn't have to go into business, you asked for it" is called victim blaming. That is not OK.

No person ever, in the formation of capital, in their employment, or otherwise, agreed that they could be compelled to serve another person. When the Constitution protect's someone's rights, it doesn't say "People shall have the right to..." no, it says "Congress shall make no law." Not no laws about people, or corporations, or certain races. No law.

A sole proprietor is a private citizen acting in a private manner.

If you do yard work for pay, sell cookies from your own kitchen, or are hired by an employer, that's all sole proprietor business: It goes on your form 1040.

Pray tell, how am I supposed to prove said "reason" that another business declined me service? They don't have to tell the truth.

You're criminalizing the act of having a bad reason for declining someone's service. Deciding different punishments for the same action, based on a person's purported beliefs, is a violation of due process. The court decided "separate but equal" was unconstitutional a long time ago, catch up to modern times please.

Note the distinct lack of sexual orientation.

So it would be illegal for a Jewish bakery to decline catering for neo-nazis. Just the sort of thing I want the state doing in my name. ...that last sentence there was sarcasm.

First, you have to be engaging in interstate exchange, as opposed to intrastate exchange.

Second, and more importantly, contracts made under duress are null and void. Even when it's the state that is forcing agreement.

e.g. You can't order a photographer to show up at an arbitrary wedding, and dictate what you'll pay them when they refuse to quote a price.

Are you going to answer that question or not? (I'm looking for a "Yes, I'll answer with this: I concur/dissent because...")

[Citation Needed]

People don't lose their rights just because they get into business.

No one is obligated to provide any reason for denying service. So what you're really proposing is criminalizing certain reasons for saying "no". We have another name for that: thought crime.

Also: I never mentioned any particular "value", you're the one who read "homesexuality" into that.

First, no such implication was made. I might have an objection to making any arbitrary product. It has nothing to do with the person looking to buy. I don't generally have a way of knowing which sexual orientation or national origin someone is, or a way to verify even if they told me.

Second, you're implicitly assuming that there's some acceptable reason to force someone to do something (at least without any prior agreement/contract). There is not.

There's no reason to need to know the reason for declining business, unless you're actively looking to be intolerant of other's opinions. I don't generally deny or force someone's business for any reason.

The logical consequence is if you start discriminating against said religion, you lose your legal ability to compel people to serve you against their will.

Which means in the end, no one can force anyone to do anything. Which I'm sort of down for.

Google "define:bigot": "a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions."

If you're intolerant of another person's beliefs, so much that you have to get the law to force them to obey you... doesn't that make you a bigot?

Hitler supported it, therefore it must be wrong!

No, not really. Every time a customer walks in is a chance to proselytize. And they don't.

Some do: What do you think the Salvation Army is doing around holiday season?

"The Jim Crow laws were racial segregation state and local laws enacted after the Reconstruction period in Southern United States that continued in force until 1965 mandating de jure racial segregation in all public facilities in Southern U.S. states (of the former Confederacy), starting in 1890 with a "separate but equal" status for African Americans. " via Wikipedia

In what world is legally mandating discrimination a "free market"?!?

The bill isn't banning "all products". It's saying you can't be compelled to do something you don't personally agree with.

If I walked into a bakery and legally compelled them to bake a cake depicting a same-sex couple that they don't want to bake... aren't I the one imposing my values?

The provision is unconstitutional, as it violates the right to free association and the court's requirements to uphold contracts, which the courts have found also includes duress. That's assuming any jurisdiction at all, most day to day business is intrastate, not interstate.

If a person walks into a bakery, demands an order, demanding a certain price, that's called... a null and void contract. No court in the US upholds agreements made under duress.

I don't hold it against you though, not very many high schoolers are taught about common law these days. (See, I can be condescending too.)

How many sex trafficking victims, pretty much also slaves, were ever offered for sale?

Oh that's right, you have no clue what you're talking about.

Two words: "Sole proprietorship"

Even corporations, being owned by multiple individuals, have rights, as this is what allows them to make contracts, and be held accountable to agreements they make. No rights = steamroll over you like a natural disaster, no accountability, no justice.

Next myth?

Twitch.tv was rebranded from Justin.tv, which started in 2007.

Now they're owned by Amazon.

By contrast, Amazon Web Services was started in 2006.

Hardly a start up.

Many of the state constitutions, like Indiana, further restrict the allowed behavior of the state.

Strictly speaking, states don't issue marriages, they issue marriage licenses, and only has effect for legal or statutory reasons (like taxes, inheritance), as well as anyone who asks for such a marriage license when doing so is lawful. So I'm not sure what point you're getting at.

I'll repeat my question: You're comfortable with compelling a Jewish bakery to cater food for neo-nazis, under threat of fine and/or prison?

If the Constitution hasn't granted Congress the power to pass those respective laws, then they're unconstitutional and will be unenforceable in court. (In practice, the President appoints judges, so over time they usually get their way regardless of what it says.)

The point is, I never signed any contract as a business owner compelling me to serve anyone.

If I sit down at a restaurant and the waiter delivers my order, that's an implicit contract.

If I walk into a supermarket and see a cake "on sale until Tuesday, $19.99 while supplies last", that's an contract.

If I walk into a bakery and ask for a quote for catering, they're under no obligation to serve me (until I accept the quote, that's an explicit contract.) They can turn me down for whatever reason strikes their fancy.

But if you really think businesses should serve "everyone", how do you feel about forcing a Jewish bakery to cater for neo-nazis?

Forcing someone to give you something is a much different beast than not stopping someone from getting something.

I can't force another person to educate me.

Nor can they stop me from seeking out education.

Got it?

It's been the law of the land since the beginning, though. Sexual orientation isn't a protected class in Indiana, and the same law already exists in Federal statute, and has been upheld by SCOTUS.

A cake depicting a heterosexual couple is a different product than a cake depicting a homosexual couple. In other states, business owners have found themselves in trouble for refusing to sell the latter. Likewise for wedding photography.

I'm aware of no case where people would be turned away because they're known to be a certain sexual orientation. That just doesn't happen (though it could, that is within their right).