[codexon]

You are wrong. It matters if you do something warranting eviction.

The supreme court ruled in Brown v. Board of Eduction of Topeka that racial segregation is a violation of the 14th amendment. This means you cannot evict people even from your privately owned businesses because of their race due to the commerce clause: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

So if the people with the bumper stickers were black and asked to leave because they were black, it would be a slam dunk case against them.

Now we may see if this reaches the supreme court and whether they protect people from being discriminated for their political views.

[nathanieljones]

Race is the one exception the Supreme Court has made among an infinite list of possible exceptions. Their decision, I believe, has very little to do with the principles of common law and a great deal to do with our own history as a country.

Regardless of their reasoning, racial issues are a bit off point. You said it does matter if you do something warranting eviction, but that's not entirely true. The rule stands, just with a clause added: The owner of a piece of property may evict anyone for any reason or no reason at all, unless his actions are proven to be racially motivated.

Again, this rule has existed since man has formed social structures. It's a rather important issue, and the Founding Fathers took it very seriously, which is why the third amendment prohibits the quartering of troops on private property. I understand the Supreme Court has upheld one exception, but that does not destroy the rule. I would be very surprised if the Supreme Court considered a man's opinions -- political or religious beliefs -- as worthy of as much protection as facts about himself that he cannot change, such as the color of his skin.

[codexon]

I am merely enlightening you to the fact that "private property" is not a catch-all excuse to discriminate and revoke "invitations" to people, which you seem to believe.

What's next? Maybe you'd like to include homosexuals and Muslims next because you can change your religion and sexual practices?

It's quite a dangerous precedent you are setting, and this has absolutely nothing to do with the 3rd amendment. The 3rd amendment deals with government troops and the right for troops to trespass on private property during war.

[nathanieljones]

It appears we must agree to disagree. If I cannot choose who visits my property, I would hardly call it private.

[codexon]

Private property does not automatically make an event private.

In this case, this was a US government funded event (taxpayer money), with tickets handed out to the __public__. The only thing private about this was that the area was rented from a private owner.

http://www.ck10.uscourts.gov/opinions/09/09-1085.pdf

If you think this is private, I don't know what to tell you. I guess you support restaurants, supermarkets, and businesses being able to discriminate based on whether someone wasn't Christian or white.

[nathanieljones]

No, I would not label this event private. Yet you would apparently label no event as private, with your continued references to supermarkets, resteraunts, and the like. You can't frame the debate as bring about publicly-funded events and then use examples of privately-run ones for your arguments.

Anyway, in most areas, I actually am ok with "discrimination." What is morally reprehensible about running an event designed to disciple someone in their religion, then asking people of another religion to stay away? I can't imagine a Muslim would be too happy about an atheist showing up at a Muslim retreat and yelling obscenities to Allah. Nor would I be terribly thrilled if I was on a men's campout and we were forced to bring women along. Like it or not, we aren't all the same, and sometimes we need to hang out with people like us in a certain area. As long as you aren't terrorizing a certain group of people out of hatred, private property laws should allow you to decide who comes on your property.

If the government pays for an event, that's another matter entirely, but please choose which debate we are having and use relevant examples so I can be clear going forward.

[codexon]

It's the same concept.You cannot use the excuse of "private property" to allow arbitrary discrimination when you are selectively serving the public.

This opens the flood gates for supermarkets, restaurants, and businesses that serve the public to discriminate based on race, religion etc. This is not a world you want to live in.

How would you feel if all the banks in your area refused to lend or deposit for you because your political views? How would you feel if you could not find a place to live or rent because the "private" housing and apartment communities decide that they don't like your race?

> I can't imagine a Muslim would be too happy about an atheist showing up at a Muslim retreat and yelling obscenities to Allah.

Why do you keep arguing about this when the people in the article weren't even picketing at the event? They were merely attending it. Please try to stay on topic.

[pbhjpbhj]

Why did you say "Christian or white" and not "[on someone's] religion or skin colour"?

[codexon]

Why not?

It is the dominant category in the US and has been often been used as a reason for discrimination in the past especially among supporters for segregation.

By using a concrete example, I hope I can help him or others realize absurdity of his views.