I don't. Private property is private property. If I own it, then I own it, no matter what it is used for.
One has the right to not invite (fill in the race, religion, sexual orientation here) people to their homes. However I believe that business should not be able to discriminate against these people at the workplace.
Sorry, the basis of a free society is freedom of association. IF someone other than me can force me to associate with someone, then I am essentially a slave.
Granted I do NOT have to accept an invite to someones home if that invitation is dependant on the host rifling thru my ladies purse and my pants pockets. BUT there generally is no financial harm in refusing an invitation to visit someone's home. However, in order to work one MUST (except those who are self employed) go to the work site. The fact that one must enter the property on threat of unemployment/poverty/hunger, IMHO puts that property under public domain as far as the BoR goes.
Oh, good Lord! How is this different than Marxism? You are claiming someone has a right to my money, my property and any job I offer, based upon some supposed right not to be unemployed, impoverished or hungry. Jeez!
Let me make an example ... lets say that the police have been privatized, since they are now under the auspicies of a private company are they now exempt from the BoR ? I certainly hope not.
The Constitution, and Natural Law, allows for "the State" to punish crimes - thus have a police force. The "police" can not be privatized. Faulty analogy.
If businesses were left without ANY control it is also my opinion we would quickly return to the days of sweatshops and child labor.
Nope. You are buying into the "without the government, evil capitalists would oppress everyone" argument. This is the basis of Marxism/socialism.
Though I am a little "l" libertarian edging on RLC I believe this is one area that needs to be controlled.
Please, stop refering to yourself as a libertarian. This position you have taken is the anti-thesis of our beliefs.
I believe that there is a difference between someones personal property at home and a business where people are employed. One has the right to not invite (fill in the race, religion, sexual orientation here) people to their homes. However I believe that business should not be able to discriminate against these people at the workplace.
Frankly, I think discrimination based on generalization of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age are to the discriminator's disadvantage. That the competitive marketplace will limit the businesses growth due to the discriminators irrational choice. That said...
Discrimination laws are political agenda laws.
Main Street's brick and mortar businesses are private property For if they were public the police wouldn't need a search warrant. Police need warrants only for private property. If a private property owner decides he wants to invite strangers in from the street he can do that and the guest must follow the property owner's rules.
What's wrong with this picture?
Read the Fourth Amendment. Sheesh, we can't even trust our "employees" -- government officials -- to let them into our homes and businesses without a search warrant if we don't want to let them in. But somehow a business is forced to trust a total stranger with an open door policy. A person/business owner can refuse to allow a government agent -- his servant -- access to his property but not a total stranger! And get this, it is the government -- the servant -- that can't be trusted that is telling property owners -- the master -- that they must trust total strangers.
Discrimination laws must be repealed. And hold accountable the members of congress that created discrimination laws at the cost of violating property owners private property rights.
Granted I do NOT have to accept an invite to someones home if that invitation is dependant on the host rifling thru my ladies purse and my pants pockets
Do you have to invite a person into your home if they are only going to sit their and breathe? No. Do you have to invite them into your home if they want to talk about your favorite hobby? No.
BUT there generally is no financial harm in refusing an invitation to visit someone's home.
That is true for both the door-to-door salesman and the homeowner/ property owner.
However, in order to work one MUST (except those who are self employed) go to the work site.
Where is the door-to door salesman's work site? Other people's property.
The fact that one must enter the property on threat of unemployment/poverty/hunger, IMHO puts that property under public domain as far as the BoR goes.
Then you'd also think that a business can't set their own rules about who they will and will not have as customers. For example, when you go to the grocery store you're under the "threat" that they will not have you as a customer. You are against free association and instead champion forced association. Personally, Ron Paul is the only member of congress I would have as a customer.
The Bill of Rights puts limits on the government, not the citizens.
Let me make an example ... lets say that the police have been privatized, since they are now under the auspicies of a private company are they now exempt from the BoR ? I certainly hope not.
They must, acting as a government agent paid by taxpayers get a search warrant if they want to enter onto a property without the property owner's permission.
If businesses were left without ANY control it is also my opinion we would quickly return to the days of sweatshops and child labor.
Technology advancements are quickly out-competing the need or desire for sweat hops. Your assumption is that the business community would move towards backwards technology.
Get government off of people and businesses' backs and out of their wallets and the economy would boom and there would be no need for children to work to provide for family necessities. Instead they'd work for the joy of being creatively productive. Nobody would need to take a job in sweatshops.
Politics and government regulation is not the solution, it's the problem.