That depends on the physical reality surrounding the hotel and the encounter.
Not in liberal theory. In liberal theory it depends on the ownership. Once the owner owns the motel, he can decide who is allowed to enter it. Without any obligation to give reasons.
Allowing the hotel owner to refuse on that one specific ground - race - would in fact deny the black person in the United States their equal freedoms and liberties. Your principles either account for that fact or they don't.
Given that the owner is not obliged to justify his decisions about his property, he may refuse without having any ground at all. For 0 reasons. If you add yet another reason, namely the race, this does not matter at all, once 0 grounds are sufficient for rejection, one more ground would be sufficient too. This holds, of course, only in a liberal society, not in a racist one, where, say, a member of the white race has to submit his property to all blacks.
Forbidding one reason means forbidding the free decision about the own property, and extracts a very important part of usual property rights from the owner. It is incompatible with liberal principles.
Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. It depends on what they are, of course, and the rest of the physical situation as well as the theoretical setup. When they do, liberal government is bound to restrict them in defense of the civil liberties involved. When they don't, liberal government ignores them.
That's the sixth repetition of the answer.
In other words, there are no principles at all, all depends on "reality", which is, of course, only an euphemism for your personal prejudices. But, whatever "reality", it is clear that "reality" does not have any principles, because principles are human inventions, and reality is not.
In fact, you are wrong. It turns out to be fairly difficult, and so the civil rights and liberties involved are in fact protected. That turns out not to work. In fact.
Which means that "I don't like you" is not sufficient as a legally accepted reason. Else, it would be simple. Feel free to confront me with the reality, and explain, what makes the things so difficult for the racist who uses the simply "don't tell why, except 'I don't like you'" policy to reject black customers. And this explanation will show us that your
By the way, if "I don't like you" would be sufficient for rejection, the law would be useless.
It is, ...
(emphasis mine) is simply wrong.
I simply agreed with your meaning, pointing out only that your naive employment of it leads to problems for you.
No. In my meaning of "civil rights and liberties" they would not be violated at all even if all motel owners not only racist ones, would refuse somebody as a customer, for whatever reason.
With the single exception of motels in public ownership. And even in this case the public which owns it matters: Federal property should be open for all citizens of the United States, state property only to citizens of the state, communal property only to citizens of the commune, everything else is already a free decision of the instance which decides about that property.
This follows from the very idea of ownership, which is presupposed in my meaning of "civil rights and liberties". And I have always and consistently explained this. So, to claim that you somehow use my meaning of "civil rights and liberties" is clearly false.
So, you use a completely unspecified notion of "civil rights and liberties" to construct some contradictions with my notion of "civil rights and liberties".
In addition, I have specified a half dozen such rights and liberties, repeatedly, throughout this thread, useful as specific examples of this problem you have: freedom of contract, for example - you clearly regard it as important in liberal principle, I agreed, and it made a good illustration of a freedom black people lose when white racists too strongly influence the economy of a large region via voluntary cooperation.
Except that we have a very different understanding of the meaning of "freedom of contract". I have repeatedly clarified that
freedom of contract gives you nothing without the voluntary agreement of the owner. Once this freedom gives you nothing, you cannot lose anything if you do not have any voluntary agreement of the owner.
There is no right to get any contract simply because a contract presupposed voluntary agreement of all participants.
Specifically (since your imagination is notably impoverished in this arena, I have found specifics necessary), black people (and white non-racists) cannot in fact contract for employment as truck drivers as white people (including white racists) can, under such circumstances.
They can, if somebody agrees to contract them as truck drivers. If this is probably or not, is nothing which matters. Because freedom of contract is not a right to work as a truck driver. It becomes the freedom to work as a truck driver only if there is a
voluntary agreement of a truck company to hire you. As long as there is no such agreement, you have no right to work as a truck driver which could be violated.
Once I have clearly stated that
freedom of contract does not give you any rights to have contracts, all your examples of situations where blacks have no real chance to make contracts are simply irrelevant. And once there is no right to have some contracts at all, for all people, including white racists, the fact that there is no such right for blacks in no way violates equal rights before the law. No rights for all before the law for some things are also in agreement with equal rights before the law.
If you want a society where blacks have a
right for some services, you have to
enslave those who are obliged to serve those who have these rights. Not? This is a simple conclusion, which need almost nothing but simple common sense meaning of words and elementary logic. Let's see:
1.) A right for some services is not such a right, except in newspeak, if it is possible that you want that service, but the state says "so what" and leaves you without that service. So, if there is a right, and you want the service, the state has to provide it.
2.) To provide a service without any use of enslavement, the state has to find somebody who voluntary provides this service. But this is nothing the state can enforce. Again, except in newspeak. So, the state is unable to provide the service without using some sort of enslavement.