[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_roam]Freedom to roam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
Well, according to the legislation we've been discussing, they do have that right, even if you don't like itI agree the government should not discriminate. But individual citizens have no 'right' to expect that from other individual citizens.
See above - Right to roam.If I don't want you on my property for ANY reason, I can make you leave. By pretty much any means necessary depending on the state.
It does change things if you are operating a business that has to abide by the law of the land.That shouldn't change just because I own a business. I should not LOSE rights when I own a business and every other person in the country should not gain the right to be served by me against my will.
Discrimination is more than just about causing offence. You put up a sign saying "I hate Europeans" and I will be offended, end of story. If you run a business and decide not to serve Europeans then you are causing me harm. Like the gay couple refused board and lodging who then had nowhere to stay the night. It's not mortal harm, but harm nonetheless. Had we been discussing a private hospital we might be looking at more serious harm.The reason I used the 'right not to be offended' is because that's what this is all about.
From your stand-point, had Rosa Parks been travelling on a privately-owned bus, she may have had her "wittle feelings" of hurt dismissed as "bitching" too.
Whilst I applaud consistency, being consistent to something unjust doesn't do you credit.