And when it's private property without public square implications, you don't need a reason.
With public square implications, there is a social contract in place: If you wish to participate in the public square, you must abide by its rules.
And the problem is that the state occupies a lot of things which happens on private property, using that "public square" as an excuse, even if not some general public is invited, but only a small part of it - namely a particular religious or ideological community.
You do realize you're arguing about make-believe?
I reject make-believe liberalism which is in its essence anti-liberal. I doubt you have this in mind. A make-believe "Christian" who is in reality a satanist is not really a problem for a Christian church - it is despicable behavior but without harmful consequences, so nothing worth to argue a lot about it.
I defend full freedom of contract, which would include the legal right to discriminate for whatever reasons, openly, on private property.
I recognize that make-believe is a natural and reasonable strategy of defense against anti-liberal restrictions of liberal property rights. And there are, of course, also counter-measures against that strategy. And these counter-measures appear to be even more anti-liberal and rights-violating than the initial ones.
It's not a triviality, and quite clearly you do need reminding, since you tried comparing being black to a
sex crime↑, and then to general
willful disrespect↑. Being black and asking to participate in the public square is not the same as going to a church or
mosque↑ just to start trouble.
Again, learn the difference between comparing and equating.
Start making sense. You asked the question what makes the principal, conceptual difference between willful behavior and being black.
Yes. And the very question already presupposes that there are a lot of differences. Some of them are secondary, some have a relation to some liberal principles, others not.
For billvon the problem to find such a conceptual difference, and then to justify the law, was too difficult, and he had finally admitted that bureaucratic chicanery of the owners with requirements of explicit lists, which effectively destroy important liberal property rights, is fine with him. Means, he is not a classical liberal. (He may be nonetheless an American liberal, which is irrelevant for me.) So the question has served its purpose, we have clarified that billvon rejects classical liberalism.
To show that you also reject classical liberalism would be another exercise, and I would use another example. So, you think that the owner of the mosque can tell the visitor "undress your shoes or leave", without any further explanation why? But to tell the visitor "leave", without any further explanation, would violate some rights of the visitor?
There is a liberal principle of equality before the law - that means, the law should not make a difference between people based on their race, gender and so on. This is an obligation for law. It is not an obligation for the people, how to behave on their private property. It restricts only state employees, who, by signing their job contract with a liberal government, oblige themselves to follow these principles during their work. According to liberal principles.
Again, start making sense. Supremacy is not equality. Nobody is being denied their equal rights if they are forbidden from denying other people's equal rights.
If I'm forbidden to deny other people's "equal rights", I'm probably a slave. Why? If I'm not a slave, I have freedom of contract. So I have the right to reject a wish to have a contract with me from one person and accept this wish from another person. So I have a right to make a difference, to discriminate between other people. So that they have no equal rights in relation of obtaining a contract with me. (why only probably? Because the meaning of the phrase "equal rights" remains unclear. No rights for all would be a case of equal rights too, so I would be forbidden nothing by this "forbidden from denying other people's equal rights", therefore I cannot mathematically prove that I would be a slave.)
And, if you have not got this point: Liberal equality before the law means inequality in reality. Because people are different in reality, behave differently, own different property. And the state is forbidden, by the "equality before the law", to correct for these natural inequalities by making some advantages for the poor and so on.
You appear to be making what American jurisprudence regards as a suicide pact argument. Neither our Constitution in particular, nor civilized society in general, is a suicide pact. That is to say, civilized society does not owe its own destruction to the liberty of the people.
The argument that a classical liberal government would not be able to defend itself against destruction is indeed well-known and old. If you want to support it to reject classical liberalism, fine. In this case, you are also not a classical liberal. But, I would guess, an American liberal. And in this case, it would be clarified that there are really big and important differences between classical liberalism and American liberalism.
In fact, I see in the particular question discussed with iceaura, namely the right to have white racist gated communities, no danger to a liberal state at all. Instead, my argument was that this reduces the conflicts between the races, because the most rabid racists (from above sides, btw) would tend to live in those separated gated communities, without conflict, instead of having conflicts all the time because they are forced to live together with people they hate. Less conflict means a more stable society.
And, yes, a lot of white supremacists, and Christian supremacists, and male supremacists ... okay, a lot of supremacists in general around these United States are really, really pissed off about that.
People around the US are not pissed of by what the US does at home. Who cares. They are pissed of because of the wars and regime changes and all the other criminal and terrorist things the US is doing around the world.
