[tahiti]

"public accomodation" and "compelling state interest" the two phrases that have grossly undermined property rights, individual rights, and have destroyed the presumption of liberty promised by our constituion, to be replaced with socialism and communism that renegade, corrupt, and intellectually deficient judges have used in the past in their non-sensical rulings.

Yes, it is a 9th amendment protected right, as an owner of private property, to refuse to sell or allow anyone for any reason onto my property.(skin color, hair color, gender, sexual orientation, religious orientation, lack of money, not dressed properly, not educated enough -- granted such discrimination may be bad for business, but that is up to the property owner to decide - free to choose, the essence of liberty)

Any compromise of this position is anti-liberty and muddles the important demarcation line between public and private property.

Government jurisdiction only exists on public property. Public property is taxpayer funded property: parks, schools, court houses, roads, firehouses, etc.

Not malls, restaurants, gas stations, homes, airplanes, country clubs, etc.

[Freedom4US]

You're absolutely correct, but there probably aren't 1 in 100 americans who grasp that simple concept. The statists and incrementalists have done their indoctrination well. Private property is de facto extinct in many jurisdictions.