“No, it’s not. We have had both federal and state anti-discrimination laws on the books for decades that make that kind of stuff illegal.”
Just because the government claims a person doesn’t have the right to so doesn’t mean that a person doesn’t have that right. What happened to freedom of association? A person should be free to serve or not serve whomever they wish without government intervention. Of course the government made it illegal, but the government makes many things illegal that probably should not be made illegal. My comment was not on the legality of such actions, but on a person’s freedom. Stuff like this just gives the government more and more power over our lives.
“Just because the government claims a person doesn’t have the right to so doesn’t mean that a person doesn’t have that right.”
Sure, I can agree with that, but if the government doesn’t recognize your supposed right, then you are going to have quite a hard time asserting it in a court of law.
“What happened to freedom of association?”
Freedom of association never referred to the right not to serve customers in a business setting. It’s a relatively recent right, asserted only since about the 1950s, as a derivative of the right to assembly, and it has always been strictly about association for the purposes of advancing ideas, such as in political, religious, or cultural groups.
“Of course the government made it illegal...”
No, as I said, this is a recent right that was only recognized around the same time as the anti-discrimination laws. They were never in conflict. In fact, both recognition of a right to association and the anti-discrimination laws were products of the same civil rights movement.