Agreed. It's the natural consequence of wrong action. And I hope that every business that does discriminate goes down in flames or changes their stance due to public pressure, not from the violation of rights by a law.
You're still not getting it and your wording is only hurting the argument. I can execute each and every one of my executable rights on your property, if I am on the property with your permission. You're only recourse at that point where I execute a right that you didn't want me to is to have me leave your property, i.e. revoke my privilege to be on there. However, unless I refuse to leave (thus violating your property rights) if at any point during my egress you attempt to forcibly stop my executing my right (such as my continuing to engage in my free speech rights) then it will be you who are in violation of the law. I cannot execute my executable rights without running the risk of losing my privilege to be on your property, but I can execute them nonetheless. When I do so I am NOT in violation of your property rights. Your property rights only give you the ability to make the decision as to whether or not I am allowed upon said property. They do not cover my actions. That decision as to whether or not I am allowed on the property
can be used as a
consequence to my actions.
Mind you I am only referring to those parts of your property rights as they apply to our interactions. Your right to put whatever bloody tree you want on your property has nothing to do with me being or not being on your land. Nor am I allowed to do any damage on your property simply be cause that is not within my rights. Free speech, yeah. Freedom of religion, you betcha. Damage...not a right and in violation of yours. Now I know that you think that this is nitpicking or something along that line, but this is a very important distinction. Especially in this conversation where we are talking about what rights are where and when they can be countered.
So wait a minute? Are you telling me that I can't say that no oriental (had to change it up a bit) person is ever allowed to step foot on my land or in my house, purely on the reason that they are oriental?
Oh now you are changing things. The bold part in the previous quote is not so limited and now you are putting up limiters. This flip flopping is not helping your argument any.
You mean that same power that the customer has to not do business with the owner and thus denying the owner business and resource? Seems to work both ways quite nicely.
The ACA seems to disagree with you.
We have laws that protect against sexual harassment in
and outside the workplace. Thus it is an issue that is separate from personal property rights.
Nor does the customer.