>>Furthermore, I certainly *CAN* go onto your property [let’s assume invited] and spew off radically offensive crap —it wouldn’t be polite or proper, true— and that would not be violating ANY of your rights at all.
>
>Want to give it a try??? We’ll see how that works out for you. Indeed, coming onto or staying on someone’s property when they want you to leave is a violation of their rights. So much so that it is illegal, aka, criminal trespass.
You’re violating the assumption that I am invited.
>They teach this stuff in kindergarten.
Unlike Reading, or Logic, apparently...
No one has the right to become your master because you set foot on their property, because you always have the right to leave, thus denying them that ability.
However, everyone has the right to set conditions concerning their person and their property, with regard to others.
The only thing that someone can make you do concerning their property is leave. However, there is no requirement that they be logical or reasonable concerning why you must leave. If they say you may not enter based on a condition or that you must leave, then that's that.
You get to choose what conditions are unreasonable and act accordingly. If you boss says that you can't open carry while working at Chucky Cheese, then you must decide whether to take off the shootin irons when serving the wee ones, or find employment elsewhere. 100% your decision.
Rights do not involve forcing other people to abide by your decisions. You are not forced to continue working unarmed at Chucky Cheese. You are free to go elsewhere. Free=Freedom.
Now, most people in your position generally bring up the federal laws against discrimination to bolster their point, I assume that you would eventually get there so let me answer that now. Those laws are unconstitutional in that they force private individuals to operate as if they were a government entity. If a man wants to be a bigot, that is his right, and mine not to enter his business. A city bus is a whole different issue.
Interestingly as well, you have gotten hung up about forcing people to hand over their property rights to you, but you haven't said a peep about truly public (government owned) spaces. Government owned spaces have far fewer justifications for limiting the practice of rights than privately owned spaces, yet most government owned spaces are far more restricted than private. Does that not concern you?
It is restrictions in public places, not private, that I have a problem with, because unlike an individual, they do have to be logical and reasonable if they are to be just (there is no Constitutional requirement that an individual’s conditional entry rules be reasonable).