Talk:Public accommodations in the United States

Governmental slavery?

Is this not slavery?

How is the doctrine of "Public Accommodations" different from slavery? People (business owners) are forced, by threats of government violence, to serve clients they do not wish to work for. By the same "logic" doctors will end up being forced to treat people paid for by the government - even if they are philosophically opposed to Medicare and Medicaid (as they will be declared guilty of "discrimination" if they do not), and medical staff will be forced to engage in abortions - even if they believe such practices to be murder. Once the doctrine of "anti discrimination" is allowed to trump private property rights (i.e. freedom of association - which must logically include the freedom to NOT associate) it will not remain limited to "race", it will spread to "gender", "sexual orientation" and government sponsored groups - including practices the government happens to support (such as abortion) and people the government pays for in its schemes.

Both religious freedom and general freedom (the freedom to live out one's opinions in one's ordinary life - as long as one does not attack anyone else) are destroyed by this legal doctrine.

There should at least be a critical section in the article.90.217.112.53 (talk) 09:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Please refer to the article slavery for a more detailed explanation of what slavery is, so that you might better understand why this is nothing like slavery. When a person voluntarily chooses to open a business for the public, they agree to follow the applicable laws. If they don't want to follow the laws, they can feel free to enter a profession that wouldn't require them to follow those laws. That is the major difference between this and slavery, but there are numerous other ones; again, please read the article for more details about slavery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.23.40.34 (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

LGBT discrimination

There has been an edit war over including the long list of LGBT anti-disrimination laws in the US states that relate to public accommodation. Putting the whole list in the article indeed does distort the overall coverage in the article, but that is no a reason for complete elimination of the topic. Since there is a List of cities and counties in the United States offering an LGBT non-discrimination ordinance, there is no need to duplicate the information available there, even though it does not specifically relate to just public accommodation, it covers it. I have placed a single sentence in the state's section relatng to LGBT anti-disrimination laws that relate to public accommodation with a citation to a 2012 law review article that covers this topic, albeit from a particular perspective. Additional citations to reliable secondary sources are welcome. --Bejnar (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Case law

The article could well do with a review of case law. --Bejnar (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Gender?

The first section of the article lists race, color, religion, and national origin. But the example given in the first section of Junior Chamber International deals with gender. Is that list correct? And is color really a separate category from race and national origin? FishDawg1 (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Like it or not ground of race, color, religion, or national origin are the words in the federal statutue, which is what that section is reporting upon. The JC case you mention was the Supreme Court interpreting a Minnesota statute that prohibited discrimination in places of public accommodation. And yes, "color" is not co-extensive with "race" or "national origin". --Bejnar (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

"Prohibition against gender, and like, discrimination is provided by some state laws, and some state constitutions (e.g. New Mexico's). Federal law does not provide that protection either in general (the Equal Rights Amendment to the US Constitution failed), nor specifically with regard to public accomodations. See the text of The Civil Rights Act of 1964: Title II - Public Accommodation. --Bejnar (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Definition of Public Accomodation is Misleading

This article promotes the idea that any business open to the public is now claimed to be a "public accomodation". However, a study of the history reveals a paper, which clearly shows that historically, only a very limited number of businesses were called "public accomodations": See "What is a Place of "Public" Accommodation?" http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2418&context=mulr Public utilities, common carriers, railroads, ferries, innkeepers, That is very far from every open-to-the-public business. Does the 1964 Civil Rights Act refer to "every business open to the public" or, instead, "public accomodations"? 174.25.21.83 (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I am reverting the reversion by "Vary"; he didn't engage in the discussion required by WP:BRD. He did not state why the previous version of the article was somehow inaccurate or unacceptable. "Vary" claimed that the Federal 1964 Civil Rights Act is not the only law applicable; true, but does he propose discussing all of the various Civil Rights laws in each of 50 states and 7 territories? The problem is that there are currently 1 (Federal) + 50 (state) + 7 (territory) definitions of "public accommodations" IN AMERICA ALONE. This article is not identified as being applicable ONLY to America, although it probably should be labelled that way. But even if so labelled, it should not contain a general blanket assertion as to what the definition of "public accommodations" are, without identifying the source(s) of that. There may very well be some state laws which contain an extremely broad definition of "public accommodation" similar to the one "Vary" wants to revert to, but if so, the article should identify that. 75.175.97.124 (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Federal LGBTQ Protections Update Needed

Currently, the article says, "Because a right to public accommodation for gay and transgender people does not exist in federal law, in more than half the states in the U.S., discrimination in public accommodation against LGBT people remains legal."

This needs to be updated to reflect the SCOTUS decisions in such cases as Bostock v Clayton County. Anna Kissed 'em (talk) 05:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)