I am for the Coffee Shop, because (a) they are not the government, (b) they have Liberty of their beliefs just like anyone else, (c) they have Liberty over who and why they associate with anyone and (d) they should be legally able to determine who they will do business with.
My only complaint, and wish, is that they were not such hypocrites and would respect those same rights when it comes to businesses that are run by folks of different beliefs than theirs.
Goldwater was not opposed to some of the last “civil rights” legislation out of a moral desire to be racially prejudiced. He opposed that legislation when it morphed from preventing racist segregationist GOVERNMENT LAW AND POLICY acting in a “discriminatory manner”, to interjecting the law into the private field of “public accommodation”, which in effect turned EVERY PRIVATE business practice into an arm of the government, and destroyed a good part of the right to free association in true Liberty is all about. Once that was “settled” for “race”, it was not long before it slid down the slippery slope of “mandating” all sorts of “protected” classes.
“Public accommodation” should have never been breached, in terms of “civil rights”. All society really needed on that score was time.
Your point is well-taken and well-stated.
Good one.
I would prefer that public accommodations laws only apply when discrimination might result in serious physical harm. The coffee shop owner should be able to refuse to serve Christians, and a Christian baker should be able to refuse to bake a gay wedding cake, but a hotel owner should not be able to legally deny lodging to Christians during a hurricane, simply because they are Christians.
Since that is not the current law, the question is: Should existing public accommodations laws be enforced against leftists as well as against conservatives?
I think the answer is yes, so I am NOT "for the Coffee Shop."
Sue the bastard.