I think that we have reached a point as a people and as a nation where we no longer need laws that outlaw discrimination. I say this because I believe that discrimination in this country really is no longer much of problem, at least not on the level as when the laws were first passed.
I am not saying that I agree with people discriminating against others, but United States citizens have the constitutional right to freedom of speech. Our founding fathers created the Constitution to give us certain freedoms that our government is now trying to take away from us. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and should have the right to be able to vocalize those opinions without fear of being thrown in jail.
A businesses have a right to not serve somone based on sexuality or gender as much as not serving a rapist or neo-nazis. In interviews is the employers right to hire the best candidate for the job. If an employer doesnt want to hire a homosexual that as much his choice as not hiring someone with poor leadership skills. Not discrimination but choice.
Ultimately, anti-discrimination laws take away some of the freedom of one individual and give it to another, favored individual. Obviously no one should be discriminated against for their race or gender or anything, but forcing someone to perform a service they aren't willing to perform is about as unconstitutional as you can get. If someone wants to be a jerk and not serve an individual based on skin color or gender, then it's absolutely within their constitutional rights to do so.
When applied to private entities where no contract exists, they make a person's belief system / reasoning process legally relevant, even if it doesn't alter his intent to break the law. As a comparison, in self-defense, a person's belief that he's in danger is legally relevant because it's evidence that his intention was to protect himself, and not break the law.
If anybody is forced to alter their life in order to cater to anybody else's life then isn't that the basis of discrimination? So if an independent business owner decide he doesn't want to serve homosexual then it would be discrimination to force him to serve them, you're discriminating against his freedom to govern his own life and business the way he sees fit.
If he wants to make less money by not selling to certain people that's on him, you can go somewhere else and you choose to be offended or not.
As an American, I have the God-given right to do as I please with my own private business. It is the income of my own business that would suffer, and if I consciously make that choice, no one should be able to tell me I have to serve someone. That's forcing me to do something against my will, which is not freedom by any sense of the word.
Our Constitutions first amendment gives us freedoms and among those is freedom of speech. I do not discriminate against others but people have the right to no matter the reason and just because we disagree with them doesn't mean we can arrest them for it now If they hurt or killed someone then they would be charged and condemned to either death or many years to life in prison. But everyone has the right too and not too discriminate against others so anti-discrimination laws are therefor unconstitutional.
The Constitution was intended to leave this up to the states. The civil rights movements did everything they could to focus power on the federal level to force a single set of rules for every state. This is unconstitutional. Property right as describe in the founding documents give owners the right to regulate their business without this type of government enforcement. Only reason these haven't been over turned is because no modern supreme court judge wants to be remembered for it.
They should only apply to the government and courts. Not to the public or business. If a business says no gays or blacks that's there Choice and money they will loose. If Your straight and Chinese and don't like it don't go there. They loose more money. But maybe they have a group of ppl who feel the same so they go there and the store makes money and has the clients it wants. That's freedom.
OK internet constitutional scholars; if anti-discrimination laws are unconstitutional, why haven't they been struck down by the US Supreme Court? It's because the constitution was meant, among other things, to protect the rights of the minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Eight more words needed. Now only four. Done.
There was a time in America when systemic discrimination significantly detracted from the ability of minorities to participate equally and freely in American commerce.
It's very easy for people growing up in the last couple generations to suggest that minorities simply "take their business someplace else", but the only reason this suggestion even seems plausible is because we've they've grown up in a society protected by anti-discrimination laws.
No, they absolutely are not unconstitutional. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but not to treat others differently or favor a certain group. These laws remind people to not use race, religion, culture, disability, sex, etc. as an excuse to discriminate against others. People should be given or denied opportunity based on merit and nothing more or less.
I don't think anyone can seriously argue that a law meant to outlaw discrimination is not within the confines of the United States constitution. Discrimination in general is something that we as a nation should never tolerate, and these laws ensure that we stay within the bounds of what is right.
Discrimination runs rampant in our time. Laws are made to make lives more agreeable, and pleasant to live. If you took away laws, we would live in a bigoted and angry world. There is not a single person whom deserves to be discriminated against, whether it is in the workplace or the grocery store, or even school.
When discrimination against any person(s) or a class of people is evident and so consistent. The as a society we need to make sure that every one understands that discrimination is not tolerated or welcomed in public and professional life.
This is consistent with the Constitution. As it not protects groups as well as the individual. Rights