The answer, of course, is getting rid of all the gray areas by getting the government out of areas it has no business in, such as taxi licensing. Free association is free association, private enterprise is private enterprise, and the government is the government. Mixing the last two is bound to complicate the first.

Thanks for bringing this up. This is one of my pet peeves.

The government has no business telling us who our friends should be or what criteria we can (or cannot) use in going about our daily affairs.

The only time the government can intrude is if public funds are intermingled, such is the (lame) excuse with respect to Pell Grants.

Hillsdale College, for example, the FIRST college in America to allow women/minorities was told it had to demonstrate to the government how it was complying with anti-discrimination laws. This blessed institution, the one championing the abolitionist movement, was asked to demonstrate its anti-discrimination creds?

They were appalled, and rightly so. If they had to do that in order to for students to get Pell Grants (or other government loans) they'd stop the grants and look to their alums (and other benefactors) to make up the difference.

Hillsdale College stands as a beacon of tolerance and acceptance, and a great example of how you can get around these asinine and unConstitutional laws, by refusing to accept government money.

The Black community creates "buy local" and "buy Black" campaigns. Where are the charges of discrimination?

You can't have it both ways! We either have the right to discriminate or we don't. You don't get to decide which criteria the individual may use.

Businesses have been hamstrung by these stupid regulations. They're terrified to hire. They've come up with all sorts of ways around these regulations, such as only hiring from temp pools or creating job descriptions so detailed and so pie-in-the-sky that only Jesus could meet the requirements. They do this so they have a legal out and a way of disqualifying a candidate in a way that they can't later make them vulnerable to accusations of racism.

A friend of ours had a small manufacturing business. The discrimination Gestapo paid him a visit to "verify that he was in compliance" in their hiring practices. They told him the percentages of races he had to have represented on his payroll or he would be fined. So, with the guy standing there he called down to his shop floor on his speaker phone, "Joey, how many blacks do we have on the payroll?" "Uhh... hang on a sec...[coming back after a few minutes] we have 57, Sam, why?" "That's more than we're allowed. Fire 15 of them." And he hung up the phone.

"You can't do THAT!" screamed discrimination guy. "Well, what do you want me to do? Is there a quota or not?" our friend asked.

The guy left his office and never visited him again.

Can the Catholic church demand that their priests be Catholic? Can a privately funded women's shelter only serve women? Can the Congressional Black caucus exclude non-Blacks?

I like the point you are driving at but am not sure what you mean by "group rights." Why are groups rights--if such a thing exists--any greater than the rights of the individuals within the group? Your broader point about stray penumbras is most apt, however: surely the First Amendment has the occasional penumbra, does it not?

A Penumbra? You mean like an asterisk?

*Except race
*Except if the religion is Islam
*Except if the words hurt feelings
*Except if the words are offensive
*Except if it is your sacred cow

?

Remember that no where in the First Amendment is there any suggestion that you MUST exercise the right, nor is there any suggestion that there will be no consequences for your actions.

If a private business says, "We do not serve Jews," that is within their right. You don't have to shop there. The same right which articulates their right to do it, is the one that allows you the discretion to take your money elsewhere, or walk with a picket sign in front of their shop.

Otherwise we're no better than the Taliban who ban TVs, radios, and dissenting opinions, force people to practice a particular religion, and keep women veiled and uneducated. That society will look moral and proper, too, and not a single shred of evidence that bigotry, racism, or conflict exists within their culture. As ours would, if we denied people the right to reveal themselves as idiots.

I like the doctrine of common carrier if you are providing specified goods and services.

It is good to know that if you are in a gas station in a strange state they will serve you. It makes the economy more efficient. Also it is the right thing to do.

I used to be doctrinaire about all this at one time. Any more, not so much.

I think I can offer some lawyer perspective.

I'm confused when you say a single person may let a room on the basis of his determination and contrast it with a large public housing project. Did you not just say that government must deal with all on an equal basis? When you siad "public housing" it falls in the government area and must be on an equal basis regardless of individual preference.

Cab drivers are a totally public infused product. The city or town limits severly who may take on a customer (and it is not a safty regulation-you can prove your self bonded and safe to no end) and if any single jitnety van operator stopped at the arrivals lane to take on a couple willing passangers the state would come down hard on that driver. If the state is going to prevent me from associating with my potential passangers then the state better mandate equal access to those few allowed to driive. They create the medallion,others buy the it,they hire the labor,then the labor trys to impose their preference on passangers=state action. Go back the steps and you will see.

You'd be better off jettisoning the whole bad idea of 'group rights' rather than trying to rationalize a justification for them.

There are no group rights. 'Freedom of association' is an interpetation of the constitution, not part of the constitution itself.

The right to peaceably assemble is a individual right not to be prevented by government to form or join a group. That's all. What that group then does in matters of association is not a matter for constitutional law - but local and state laws may instead apply, as long as those laws do not amount to preventing people from forming a group.

Hence no law may be passed preventing the formation of a gay or anti-gay group, but the question of who either group must allow to join is not a constitutional question.

Freedom of speech does not mean that people must provide you a soapbox... or membership in a group that doesn't want you... to disseminate your views.