You are confusing PUBLIC with PRIVATE.
What you do in your home, is private. You can exclude anyone you want, for any reason; or no reason at all. You may opt to not even answer the door for any person, at any time, without warning, without excuse and without cause.
When you run a business, be it a resturant, apartment, or service based company - you are now part of the PUBLIC domain. Now the laws that govern the public, govern you.
If you apartment accomodates 12 people, and the fire-marshal has signed off on 12 people living there - who lives there is NOT your business. All that you are ‘legally’ entitled to worry about is the upkeep of your property, and that you are paid your rent on the date promised. If it’s 5 men and 7 women - that is not your business. If you rent a hotel, you may not demand to see a marriage certificate before renting a room to a man and a women; as their sex life is none of your business.
The fear of having to hire cross-dressing employees is over-stated. If I run a store, part of the job description is that my employees must present an image that is in line with my business goals. If I run an upscale retail store (Dillards, Macy’s, Foleys, ect) I have every right to demand that my employees are clean, their hair is cut to a presribed length, and that they dress in accordance to the image I wish present to my customer base. For this reason, you will not likely encounter a cross-dressing degenerate working in the women’s section. No manager would tolerate this; and for good cause. By the same token, you will not see a hippy wearing Birkenstocks and Osh-Kosh B’gosh overalls working in the suit department.
Now, if I am running a factory; where the public does not see my employees, then there are different sets of expectations and behaviors that come to bear.
So of course you do not believe in the right to association at all. In your view of America no one really owns their business and they have to allow people who openly display any type of behavior at all to come in and take it over.
Your view is tyrannical.
Ok so after reading your bio I can see that you are anti-freedom and want all religion driven behind closed doors as if it is shameful to be used in public discourse.
Yet of course here you are defending open homosexuality, transexuality, etc... being a right to display openly in public.
As I said you have tyrannical views and you are no conservative.
Boy, how long did it take you think of this "Captain Obvious" statement? That's like saying that Chinese government mandating one-child-per-family governs you -- because they deem the number of people is a "public domain" issue...IOW, your argument of "public domain" vs. Private in this case doesn't address the arbitrariness of what's deemed "public" & what's remains "private." We all know whatever intrusive aspect that any govt wants to take on, it suddenly becomes "public domain" -- at least to them! (See examples below to see how "arbitrary" this all becomes -- because these SLC laws apply to businesses with 15 employees -- but not businesses with 14 employees -- yet both businesses at bare face would seem to fit your "public domain" argument...which shows you've failed to consider the details of it as any kind of consistent standard!)
You are confusing PUBLIC with PRIVATE. What you do in your home, is private. You can exclude anyone you want, for any reason; or no reason at all. You may opt to not even answer the door for any person, at any time, without warning, without excuse and without cause. When you run a business, be it a resturant, apartment, or service based company - you are now part of the PUBLIC domain.
Well, as I said. I can' believe you're so confused about relying upon boundaries & standards that are so inconsistent & carries with them no inherent absolute standards -- other than "well, whatever the government says, goes" -- which is your bottom line.
Let's review the inconsistent arbitrariness of these laws:
Example A: If you rent out 4 dwellings, this law applies to you; if you rent out 3 dwellings, this law doesn't apply to you. Yet both landlords in this case are people "dealing with public domain." (So much for your "public domain" argument)
Example B: As mentioned, if you employ 15 employees and don't have a religious exemption, this law applies to you; if you employ 14 employees, this law doesn't apply to you.
In addition, you seemingly gloss over other obvious realities: If this was such a clear easily acknowledged "public domain" vs. privacy issue, then why don't 85-90% of cities have these kinds of laws on the books? You somehow seem to think that just because perhaps 10% of the communities think this is a "public domain" issue, "Well, gee, golly-whiz that locks up this argument right there!" But you somehow neglect the 85-90 of cities who think this remains a freedom of association privacy issue! What about their standards about governments infringing upon private domain? (Why do you ignore them?)
Likewise, even these other 10-15% of the cities believed the same way the other cities did for 50 to 100 to 200+ years of their existence. Were these cities "governing the public domain" all that time? (Yup. Ya sure betcha). Yet, "sexual orientation" and "gender affinity" was NEVER a "public domain" issue then, now was it?
(Which leaves, really, you're only comeback to that argument as trying to make "sexual orientation" protected class status the same as race or sex -- which is the real bottom-line issue...that people want to politicize was goes on in the private bedroom and impose it in the "public domain" among the rest of us)
...I have every right to demand that my employees are clean, their hair is cut to a presribed length, and that they dress in accordance to the image I wish present to my customer base.
So what? If a gender-bender or cross-dresser is clean cut, & their hair is the prescribed length of what they perceive themselves as, are you as a business owner going to risk a fine & the publicity to try to make that employee "realize" what gender they really are? (Boy, have you not kept up with the times)
Re: the cross-dressing issue...what you don't understand is there's legal organizations which exist who've already gone on record stating they're available to take on cross-dressing employees & bathroom issues. Usually, since corporations want to avoid both lawsuits & publicity that could lead them being hounded by gay activists, they've often been able to work out "uni-sex" bathrooms -- which are usually solo-seat bathrooms.
But not every business is structured to accommodate this -- and nor can we anticipate every cross-dresser who's willing to "settle" for a uni-sex bathroom. Some of these cases are not in the public eye simply because they are confidential personnel issues.
What we do know is that thousands of corporate HR reps for the last several years have been subjected to workshops that cover the bathroom issue & homosexual activists' demands that someone who "feels" they are a woman cannot be denied access to the bathroom.
My point is here that's not ONLY a "how we dress standard" issue -- it goes to the core of when the homosexuals push us on a formerly readily-agreed upon standard of the sexes, are business owners going to push back? (And noting the governmental climate, the gay activist climate, the corporate HR climate, the legal climate, the answer to that question is a likely "No!")