Replies

I disagree that any of this is as simple as you seem to think it is.

It is simple in that the foundational principle is simple. Remarkably so. When you try to do something illegal on your property with someone else on your property, they have the right to say, “I’m leaving”, and then leave. If you don’t give them the right to leave (other than stuff like catching them robbing you so you hold them for police), you have not violated their rights.

The only other exception I can think of would be if you violate their rights before they even have a chance to leave. e.g. cold cocking them and knocking them out.

But that’s really outside the scope of the principles being discussed. The key thing is that they can’t make you do anything on your property, and they can’t force you to allow them to stay. That’s it. This means you don’t have to bake the cake. You don’t have to let same sex couples stay in your hotel, Heck, you can even refuse to allow Asian people to shop in your store. Or white people or black people. The only exception would be if you have a monopoly on a particular product or service.

“But that’s really outside the scope of the principles being discussed.”

Not as far as I was concerned.

“The only exception would be if you have a monopoly on a particular product or service.”

That would be another case where property rights do not always trump other rights, which again is my basic position.

You may disagree, but details aside it seems to me we are in “violent agreement”, so I’m going to let this go.

I do appreciate that you didn’t stoop to calling me names:)