“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.
“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.”
Of course but again, I am not speaking of legality.
“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.”
You are correct. Mea Culpa. I have always understood it as something else.
“In fact, both recognition of a right to association and the anti-discrimination laws were products of the same civil rights movement.”
From what I understand, the Freedom of Association is implied in the First Amendment because of the right to assemble and petition the government. Although I guess you are correct in the fact that the SCOTUS defined freedom of association as related to Freedom of Speech in 1958.
I do understand what you’re saying. I obviously miscommunicated my opinion. I wasn’t arguing the legal issues, just what I believe the government should not have the ability to do.