And after reading the review you linked it is clear to me that the First Amendment is dead in many ways.
To tell me that there is a government-approved list of reaons for refusing a purchaser for my home is not what the Founders envisioned when they penned the Constitution...
Shelley v Kraemer?
"Whether the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment inhibits judicial enforcement by state courts of restrictive covenants based on race or color is a question which this Court has not heretofore been called upon to consider."
To tell me that there is a government-approved list of reaons for refusing a purchaser for my home is not what the Founders envisioned when they penned the Constitution...
The federal government says that you cannot refuse to sell your home to someone, if the basis of your decision is race, family size, religion, or age... interestingly enough, sexual orientation isn't on the list... yet. (Keep in mind that this is a first semster Property Law class... I'm quite sure that many of the finer details are missing, and there should be plenty of FR experts to correct me wherever I go wrong.) Our class discussions also ranged around to include Lester Maddox, which is why I added in all other types of property. That's also why I brought up the idea that the Lester Maddoxes of the world are being forced to involuntarily serve those that they do not wish to, in direct violation of the 13th Amendment. If some idiot wants to lose business, that's his concern. There are plenty of other stores out there that will be DELIGHTED to take up the slack. (I also wonder why someone would want to frequent a shop, most especially an eatery, where the owner does not want their business. There are enough fast food horror stories to make me inspect my lunch twice before eating it!)