Using what factors SHOULD a private business be able to pick and choose its clientele? Race, sex, sexual orientation, something else?

GySgt (Join to see), I understand your argument. A central property right is the right to exclude others from your property.

I think there are critical differences when that property is a business: the excluded person wants to compensate the business for goods provided and services rendered; the business holds itself out to be open to the general public, except for those evil/unclean/lesser people; businesses operate under heavy and necessary government regulation (health, employment, etc.) meaning there is no inherent right to operate such a business.

The thing that truly turns me off to the property rights view of business is the social fracture risked. There could be entire enclaves, cities, or counties where people cannot live because businesses (groceries, gas stations, department stores, etc.) refuse to provide goods or services to them. Those unfortunate people could not live or work there, or even travel through there which denies them the central privilege of interstate travel. There is the slippery slope the law keeps us from. Being paid to relax the right to exclude is a property right infringement most Americans, I think, are OK with.

The Civil Rights Acts are fundamentally about property: the freedom of any class to obtain and hold property. In other words, the Acts allow any person to hold their property for any reason. The only main exclusions are for housing, education, and employment. Even those are limited to corporations that truly put themselves out as "public places" such as apartment complexes and co-ops, universities, and large (more than 20 lives) business. Employment is the only exception for small business - everyone must comply and for good reason. Even then, employment is not a right; but fair consideration of one's talent and capabilities in regard to a job offered to the general public is. But by suing someone who refuses to sell you something, you erode your own rights to exclusive ownership of your own property. The only way to ensure absolute freedom of purchase is to federalize commerce, and we all know how that worked out for the Soviets. We have to be careful about the term "serve the public". Businesses do not and should not be required to serve the public under the same definition as the government.

There have been instances of the enclave effect in our history, but they ended up being fairly short-lived with the exception of the Amish. Even they have relaxed due to the need to compete for resources. The South was another, but anyone who lived there could tell you that it was not as broadly exclusive as it has been portrayed, particularly in lean times. On the other hand, our country is full of the stories of businesses that have opened and thrived because someone couldn't buy something they wanted. There are many more instances of property taken because someone else was deemed to have needed it more, or because it wasn't being put to "proper" use.

In these recent cases, the item wanted could easily be obtained from a large number of other suppliers nearby. I haven't seen one where someone couldn't buy a bag of potatoes or a can of baby formula because they were gay. This leads me, in my humble opinion, to believe that the suits were brought for reasons other than really needing that wedding cake or those pizzas.

From my own perspective, I needed a blower cage for my AC. I live in the Phoenix area, so yes, I really needed it. I knew how to fix it, but fourteen different parts outlets would not sell me one. I didn't sue them to get it, I just found that fifteenth supplier who would sell me one. They are now $175 richer, and my family has a way to avoid the 110 degree heat for $500 less than if I'd had a contractor do it. I doubt if the plaintiffs talked to fifteen different bakers for their wedding cake and were refused.

SSG (Join to see), why didn't the other vendors sell you the parts you needed? Did people donate a million dollars to them *because* they refused to serve you?

Theory is a great starting point, but the economics just do not support the free market solution.

Nobody needed to donate anything because I didn't sue them. I didn't need the attention craved by those who's only real purpose in filing legal actions against a small business is to elevate their cause to a public stage. Those vendors lost my business. That's all it takes. In the real world - not the theoretical - the free market is the only economy. Anything else is artificial and doomed to failure as we can see throughout history.

SFC Jeremy Stocker - The Constitution gave the South the right to secede. The Federal Government stopped them. Was it Constitutional for them to do so? Did the government have any business telling southern businesses how to run their plantations?

I believe that the government has a responsibility to ensure that the people being treated unconstitutionally by the southern plantations be set free. Whether or not they were born in America they were here against their will in the phrase all men are created equal does not mention where they're from..

SFC Jeremy Stocker , I would hold contention with your statement that the Confederates did "rise against" the Union. Instead they sought to peaceably secede from the Union. They did NOT want to go to war with the North, they simply wished to leave, the Union Peacefully.

SSG Gerhard S., I'm sorry, but that is revisionist history. The first shots of the Civil War were fired by South Carolina on a federal installation, Fort Sumter. That isn't peaceful secession.

Even if I didn't agree with you, you would have gotten an up-vote just on the correct usage of star-bellied Sneetches. :-)

COL Vincent Stoneking Dr. Seuss got it right in 1961.

Additionally sir I would respectfully ask you what section of the Constitution gives the Federal government the power to regulate businesses as you stated above?

SSG Gerhard S. - Is the business regulated by the government? They they can't discriminate.

I agree that there is no section in the Constitution that gives the Federal government 90% of the powers that it currently acts on. Can you imagine what kind of country this would be if we just went by the Constitution?

It would be wonderful, wouldn't it? :-). I would contend that we should either abide by the Constitution we, and EVERY politician swears an oath to support and defend, or we should end the farce and let politicians swear an oath to their own ideology, to their constituents, or to their campaign contributors. I vote for the former.

I would suggest that this comes down to the simple principle of Freedom of Association. Walter Williams does a great job of putting this concept into perspective. I hope you'll take a few minutes to read his perspective. Regards Sir.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/walter-e-williams/2013/09/03/walter-e-williams-column-freedom-association-and-jim-crow

Then, perhaps, one should start a church.
“the chief business of the American people is business.”
- Calvin Coolidge

Frankly I think a private business should be free to do business with whom ever they see fit. If they don't want to serve someone for any reason be it skin color, religious beliefs, gender, or any other reason they should be free to do so. That said, I am also free not to do business with them as is every other person that might hold that such discriminatory practices are immoral. Being discriminatory in business is down right foolish from a purely capitalist perspective, however, are we should be free in this country to conduct commerce with anyone we see fit or just the opposite. 

SSG (Join to see) Perhaps we can come up with something like "Don't Tell, Don't Discriminate" with a standard sign the shows what types of individuals with whom the shop owner does not want to do business? Simple "check off" type thing with an "other" space. And then let the market sort it out.

Having a little faith in the majority of my fellow Americans, I do think the market would "sort it out". A shop owner by being discriminatory would necessarily loose revenues by that fact they are turning away certain people. If they were honest enough to put up a sign, all the better. If the actions of the shop owner spread word of mouth, then it might take a little longer to see the impact but it would happen. Many would choose to vote with their own wallets and deny that owner of the revenues and wealth he/she seeks. The point is freedom. That freedom belongs to those that would refuse a customer as well as that potential customer that says, I won't shop in a store that discriminates against group X or Y. I believe we own our home and we should own our business. We choose who we let in our home and we should be able to choose who we let in our business as well. Making my point one more time, there will be those that don't like us and won't come in a home even if invited. There will also be those customers that are sought after that won't come in a business if that business offends them because of the chosen business practices. Truly I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to define true freedom as I believe it and as I think it should be. Would I shop at a store that wouldn't serve a Baptist, no I wouldn't, even though it might make the table wait a little shorter for lunch on Sunday after church. You know those darn Baptist always get out before us Presbyterians.