[Analemma_]

I remember the days on forums when people screaming "YOU'RE VIOLATING THE FIRST AMENDMENT!!!11" after the admin banned them were treated as the laughable jokes they were. Now there are supposedly serious political thinkers subscribing to this same idea: that the Constitution forces private parties to do business with you against their will. It's a serious lack of civic knowledge.

[d1zzy]

I would argue that the right of business to not do business with anyone they don't want to is very much American (regardless if it's right or wrong).

[bird_monster]

I posted below, but yes, agreed, a private business managing itself however it deems appropriate is one of the most american things it can do.

[8note]

Pretty American,though now it's illegal to keep black people our of your store

[lukifer]

It's worth reading Barry Goldwater's opposition [0] to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, despite him claiming to be "unalterably opposed to discrimination or segregation on the basis of race, color, or creed, or on any other basis". His stance was exactly what you describe: that government did not have a right to force private parties to conduct business against their will.

There's a good-faith debate to be had about positive rights vs. negative rights; or the potential backlash from forcing individuals to do the right thing; or the usual right-libertarian arguments about the sanctity of property rights. But I'll bet dollars to donuts, that the vast majority of those cheering for tech media giants booting out those with verboten views, based on private property rights, would also be horrified at the idea of even questioning the CRA under the same logic.

[0] https://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2014/06/barry-goldwater-decla...

[triceratops]

You are aware of the difference between "what you are" and "what you say" are you not? CRA prohibits discrimination on the basis of "what you are". So it's not really the same thing at all.

[lukifer]

I'm not claiming it's a fully apt comparison; rather, that if one supports a principle of "it is entirely out of scope for government to force private businesses to transact against their will", with no other qualifiers, that would necessarily preclude the CRA as well.

It's a different stance to say "the government is allowed to force transactions where one party is unwilling, but only where the unwillingness is related to identity rather than actions". (Though even that distinction can blur: a religious person banned for sharing "my faith teaches that life begins at conception" could hardly be blamed for interpreting the act as being based on their protected-class religious identity, rather than their speech as such.)