Republic of the Cristo wrote:Republic of the Cristo wrote:Yes, yes they do. I sent a source up above, but that is not what this thread is about.
A source that did not say what you believed it did.
No, it is not perfectly acceptable to prohibit them from discriminating. If a business refuses to provide a service, then people can go to another business. Pretty simple here. Where one business will not accept your kind, another certainly will. Problem solved!
Except that's not certain. Moreover, being thrown out of an establishment because of your race or sex or whatever itself constitutes harm.
Also, Public accommodations can mean publicly owned or privately owned or both. This all depending the circumstances. Here is a more official definition. " Within U.S. law, public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private, that are used by the public."
Although they can be used to mean both Private and Public, the 1964 civil rights act ( as mentioned in the first paragraph of the general summary) outlines publically owned facilities.
Don't lie.
An act to...confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States of America to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations
THIS IS NOT THE INTENDED QUESTION. WE ARE THREAD JACKING, THE QUESTION WAS SHOULD THEY. BACK ON TOPIC!
Don't shout either.
You are not listening to the points I am making, disregarding the evidence I provide, and you are calling me a liar on baseless claims. I am not going to enter into a fist fight with you.
Also, you should look up the effects of the Religious freedom act, as you do not seem to know much about it.
I am done with responding to you now.