The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[Epic B]

It's been discussed just a few posts above yours.



How many people do you think would sign on to see it get to the ballot box?

Oh. I haven't been following this thread, so I wasn't sure. I'm just not sure how many people would actually make it get to the ballot box. Hopefully, not enough people will sign to get it to ballot.

 

[squadops]

From the article you linked.

The good news is that it is simply unthinkable that a ballot initiative like would collect 365,000 signatures. In California. In 2015. It is even more unthinkable that, if by some craziness it did make it to the 2016 election ballot, California voters would pass it. And lastly it would be simply impossible for a court to ignore the blatant state and federal constitutional violations this bill proposes.

That would be quite a few, and extremely unlikely.

 

[Rich S]

From the article you linked.



That would be quite a few, and extremely unlikely.

During the de-nazification of Germany it became apparent that the majority of Germans did not approve of violence against Jews, even during the Kristallnacht the NAZI party had to really make a serious PR recovery as the crazy violence only had 5% support amongst Germans. This is partly why they developed such covert methods to kill minorities as at best they would likely have only gotten 35% support for killing without property damage. The methods of the SA quickly became apparent as destroying German land, property, infrastructure just to get Jews was highly unpopular.

I think you can break anti gay rhetoric into two groups. One group is so angry and morally outraged you could define them as wanting to attack all those who look gay. Such as heterosexual but effeminate men.

Then you have a reasoned group such as for example, the republican conservative baptists. They are much more reserved, but the methods are more refined. Thus danger comes not from the crazies but from the moderates.

In NAZI germany, if the SA had kept power many Euro jews likely would have survived the war even though those storm troopers were all anger; its a bit like the high school swimmer who splashes all the water out of the pool but looses the race with no technique. AS the moderate SS took control no Jews ever survived as the SS operated with a cool, logical reason that enabled the final solution.

 

[squadops]

California has not recently lost a world war, the citizens don't feel dejected, are not suffering financial hardship, and are not in need of a scapegoat. There may be a small faction who feel homosexuality is having ill social effects and an even smaller faction who fear a Godless nation, but there is no devastation in California requiring such brash actions.

There is nothing to fear from Matt McLaughlin or his silly proposal, and he is no Hitler, it's a nice filler story on the evening news is about all

 

[Mike_grpA]

Wow I wish I had the time to read this thread. This topic always brings out some interesting characters lol.

IMO there's nothing wrong with someone being a homosexual. Some people are born that way, simple as that. To hate homosexuals is no different than being racist. It's stupid and makes no sense at all. It's none of anyone's business who loves who, or who wants to be with who.

I'll just leave this here: (Warning: contains language that may offend)

 

[TenEightyOne]

He's cute when he's mad, tee hee.

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovemen...execute_all_gay_people_by_bullets_to_the_head

His misunderstanding of sodomy, its nature in human sexual relationships and, apparently, the reason for the original Catholic suppression of the act is telling to the extent of his intelligence.

The fact that in 2004 he tried to have the King James Bible admitted to the curriculum as a "literary text" goes even further to that end, so to speak.

 

[Dennisch]

Indiana governor signs religious freedom bill that could affect gays

By Mary Wisniewski
Thu Mar 26, 2015 4:17pm EDT

(Reuters) - Indiana Governor Mike Pence on Thursday signed into law a controversial religious freedom bill that could allow businesses and individuals to deny services to gays on religious grounds.

Supporters of the bill, which was passed overwhelmingly by both chambers of the Republican-controlled state legislature, say it will keep the government from forcing business owners to act in ways contrary to strongly held religious beliefs. Opponents say it is discriminatory and broader in scope than other state religious freedom laws.

Social conservatives have pushed for such laws following court rulings legalizing same-sex marriage and anticipating a U.S. Supreme Court ruling this year on whether states can ban same-sex marriage.

“The Constitution of the United States and the Indiana Constitution both provide strong recognition of the freedom of religion but today, many people of faith feel their religious liberty is under attack by government action," Pence said in a statement after signing the bill.

Legal experts say the Religious Freedom Restoration Act sets a legal standard that will allow people of all faiths to bring religious freedom claims, but opinions differ over its impact. Those expressing concern over the law include the Indianapolis-based National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA).

Gay rights groups worry it will be used by businesses that do not want to provide services for gay weddings. Gay marriage became legal in Indiana last year following an appeals court ruling.

Pence said that the bill is "not about discrimination" and that 19 states have similar statutes.

Jennifer Pizer, senior counsel for Lambda Legal, a New York-based national gay rights legal group, said Indiana's law is broader than other state religious freedom laws in giving businesses religious rights. She compared it to a bill Republican Arizona Governor Jan Brewer vetoed earlier this year due to concerns it could harm the economy.

"It is a signal to those who want to discriminate that they have greater leeway to do so," Pizer said.

But Indiana University Maurer School of Law professor Daniel Conkle, who supports gay rights, compared the law to a Pennsylvania statute that prevented the city of Philadelphia from barring a group of churches from feeding homeless people in parks, Conkle said.

Conkle said an Indiana caterer who objects to serving a gay wedding could use the law to have his day in court but would be unlikely to prevail.

Whatever the legal intricacies, opponents say the law sends the wrong message, and some big Indiana employers have argued that it could be economically damaging.

The Republican mayor of Indianapolis criticized the act.

"We are a diverse city and I want everyone who visits and lives in Indy to feel comfortable here," said Mayor Greg Ballard.

NCAA President Mark Emmert expressed concern over how the law could impact athletes and visitors attending next week's Men's Final Four basketball tournament.

"Moving forward, we intend to closely examine the implications of this bill and how it might affect future events as well as our workforce," said Emmert in a statement.

Gen Con, a gamers convention that draws tens of thousands of people, said it would consider not holding future events in Indiana because of the law. Gen Con is under contract with the Indiana Convention Center until 2020.

Another Yeey! for religion!

 

[Jet Badger]

I wonder why they went particularly with "religious freedom" instead of a broader definition. Honestly, it doesn't seem unfair that businesses could deny services to people on pretty much whatever grounds they please. It's their business but also their interest to weigh whether their principles are worth more than their potential profits and image as, like the game convention, other customers that are not directly affected by the policy would turn away due to that.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Whatever happened to simply putting a sign in your front window that says "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"?

 

[Denur]

Whatever happened to simply putting a sign in your front window that says "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"?

Indeed, and it would also help potential customers in recognizing businesses they'd rather avoid because of these discriminatory policies. It would be interesting to see what's going to happen in smaller communities, when privately owned companies with a public function start making use of this bill. Companies like fire stations, pharmacies, health clinics, banks, or the only food market for miles.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Whatever happened to simply putting a sign in your front window that says "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"?

In the context you suggest it's rather like "Dance Hall - No Negroes".

 

[Liquid]

"Religious Freedom Restoration Act"

Anything which incorporates religion and "restoration" makes me feel sick.

 

[Famine]

Gay rights groups worry it will be used by businesses that do not want to provide services for gay weddings.

One certainly hopes so.

I'd like you to imagine I'm gay and getting married. I hire a business that doesn't want to provide its services to my gay wedding for... whatever reason they want, but, due to anti-discrimination laws, I don't know that it doesn't want to provide its services to me and they can't discriminate.

Given the bespoke nature of wedding services and the fact that I'm unlikely to purchase another wedding ever, does anyone think that I'll be getting the best value and best service this company that objects to my wedding can provide, or a slightly more expensive and slightly shoddier job because it thinks it may as well get some extra money out of it and adopts a "🤬 it, that'll do" attitude to what it doesn't think is a real wedding anyway?


It is absolutely vital that we allow small-minded, ignorant bigots to speak their mind so that we know not to do business with them. You don't cure wrong-thinking by making it illegal - that just cements the ideas and gives them an edgy and cool quality as stickin' it to the man (something homophobes should be against anyway, but never mind). You cure it by showing how moronic it is.

 

[squadops]

Besides, it might create a niche for a savvy businessman. I don't see much coming from the law one way or the other tbh.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

They have tried to introduce a similar thing in our Assembly here - a "conscience clause", they called it. It hasn't made much headway yet though.

What was interesting about it is it came off the back of an incident that happened last year (don't think it's been mentioned here): a local baking company refused to bake a cake for a gay-rights activist with a pro-gay message on it, on the basis of their Christian beliefs. The guy has taken them to court over it and it's currently in session now. Links if you want more details: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-28206581 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32063006

Discussed this a bit with family and we're not sure they have that much standing; now whilst it's pretty obvious the bakers are a bunch of bigots, they claim that they refused service not because the man was gay, but because of the message on the cake, and that they would have refused to bake it no matter who had asked for it. I think this means legally it isn't discrimination, and some have argued if the court were to rule otherwise it would mean people could not refuse to make anything which contained hate speech or suchlike. To muddy the waters further the man is receiving support from our Equality Commission (an arms-length public body which does as its name suggests), which has probably given his case more weight, as well as giving it a bigger profile.

Thoughts?

 

[FoolKiller]

My only issues here is that this law is only doing it on religious grounds. I'm a big fan of refusing to serve anyone for whatever reason. A black business owner shouldn't be forced to serve a racist. A religious person with views opposed to homosexuality shouldn't be forced to serve homosexuals. A feminist shouldn't be forced to serve a misogynist. So on and so forth.

To be honest, I have never understood why someone would want to work for or accept services from a person who prejudges them due to bigotry. Let's take the Chick-Fil-A case. People reacted to their views, but they were happy to know their views because now they can factor that in when choosing a place to eat. Same for Hobby Lobby now.



And for some reason I now have an urge to sing the first verse to Signs, by the Five Man Electrical Band.

 

[Johnnypenso]

In the context you suggest it's rather like "Dance Hall - No Negroes".

Should a business not have the right to not deal with certain customers for their own reasons? Should we as customers not then evaluate our desire to give our money to that business based on who they serve? I run a small service business and I probably turn away at least 5-10% of my customers for various reasons. Should I be forced to go into neighbourhoods I don't feel safe in after dark? Should I be forced to deal with customers that I know from experience are going to be far more trouble than they are worth?

 

[McLaren]

I wonder why they went particularly with "religious freedom" instead of a broader definition. Honestly, it doesn't seem unfair that businesses could deny services to people on pretty much whatever grounds they please. It's their business but also their interest to weigh whether their principles are worth more than their potential profits and image as, like the game convention, other customers that are not directly affected by the policy would turn away due to that.

Because then business owners can claim that due to their religious beliefs (that could possibly claim gays/gay marriage is not right) they have a right to refuse service to gays. Except, local laws say you can't do that based on sexual orientation.

The NCAA had hinted for days that the bill -- which has the effect of allowing businesses to challenge local laws that forbid discriminating against customers based on sexual orientation in court -- could damage the city's reputation as a host of major sporting events.

Pence claims it's not targeted towards gays at all, but with the choice of the word, "religious" (which has been the biggest opponent to gays because some religions deem homosexuality immoral) & his past record of being against same-sex marriage says otherwise. He claims, "many people of faith feel their religious liberty is under attack by government action". That's a nice subtle way of saying legalizing gay marriage goes against the religious beliefs of many, imo.

But, this could go beyond just homosexuality according to some.

Indiana has the distinction of becoming the first state this year to enact a "right to discriminate" law, otherwise known as a religious "freedom" law, after Republican Gov. Mike Pence signed the legislation in a private ceremony Thursday.

It's only fitting that a chosen few people got to witness the signing because that's exactly who the law will benefit—a chosen few. Anyone who is a minority of any kind (e.g. religious, person of color, etc.) or marginalized in any way (e.g. poor, female, etc.) could be negatively impacted by this law, which seeks to elevate the rights of "religious" folks above all others.

As we noted before, this law will allow private businesses, individuals and organizations to discriminate anywhere at any time against any person they so choose based on religious grounds, so long as that discrimination is not prohibited by federal law. To be clear, state law cannot supersede protections provided by federal law, but any discrimination that remains uncovered (which certainly includes, but is not limited to, sexual orientation and gender identity) will be legal in Indiana.

I can see the appeal of letting this pass so we can see who the stupid people are, but imo, so long as the stupid people face the karma of their actions.

 

[Imari]

Because then business owners can claim that due to their religious beliefs (that could possibly claim gays/gay marriage is not right) they have a right to refuse service to gays. Except, local laws say you can't do that based on sexual orientation.

But you can do it for any other reason you like, right? Or no reason at all.

It just means that instead of refusing to serve people for being gay, businesses will just refuse to serve gay people because they can.

Are you gay?

Oh dear, we're very busy sir, I'm not sure we'll be able to fit you in. No, we have nobody booked on that date but I was thinking about going fishing up north. Yes sir, I am a bit of a douchebag. No sir, I'm not sure I would be right for your wedding. Good day to you sir, best of luck with the marriage. I'll catch a ten-pounder just for you.

You can't stop people from discriminating, you can only punish the ones stupid enough to admit loudly that they're violating some law. As long as they just say "no, we do not wish to serve you" then as far as I know they can't be touched. Bar some exceptional cases like hospitals and such, it's not a crime to refuse service.

 

[FoolKiller]

The only issue I see is the fact that this is for religious reasons only. However, they made it so broad, in order to avoid specific discrimination language, that this will start to backfire very shortly. There are far more groups who would be opposed to Christians than the other way around.

I give it less than a week before a homosexual atheist refuses to serve a Christian.

 

[McLaren]

But you can do it for any other reason you like, right? Or no reason at all.

It just means that instead of refusing to serve people for being gay, businesses will just refuse to serve gay people because they can.

Not for reasons based on sexual orientation, race, or anything of that nature; I don't believe that should be allowed.

There are other states that have a law similar to the one Pence has passed, however, there are actual rules within' them so you can't openly discriminate.

Edit* As I read someone else describe Indiana's RFRA to the rest.

The Indiana legislation differs from other states and the federal one, in that Indiana's specifically states that individuals who feel their religion has been burdened can find legal protection in the bill “regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” All previous RFRA's require the state to be a party, which limits the legislation and doesn't allow businesses to discriminate against LGBT community.

You can't stop people from discriminating, you can only punish the ones stupid enough to admit loudly that they're violating some law.

Except now that law no longer holds any bearing thanks to the bill as quoted above. You can't stop people from discriminating, but that doesn't mean you should make it legal for them to do so. This bill allows businesses to go from saying, "no, we do not wish to serve you" to "no, we do not wish to serve you because our religion doesn't permit the fact you're gay/black/midget/short/etc".

I was under the impression that the First Amendment stated, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? Maybe my head is loose, isn't passing a law that allows you to discriminate based on your religious beliefs an awful lot like making a law respecting an establishment of religion?

 

[Jet Badger]

I was under the impression that the First Amendment stated, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? Maybe my head is loose, isn't passing a law that allows you to discriminate based on your religious beliefs an awful lot like making a law respecting an establishment of religion?

But that doesn't pick a particular religion or prohibit the exercise of any. It's probably just a matter of very short time until members of the Church of Flying Spaghetti Monster and the like will start refusing service to Christians or other religious groups on the very same bill if mass discrimination becomes an issue. Which, honestly, doesn't seem likely in my eyes as businesses are there to make money and a paying baby eating gay satanist customer is still a paying customer for the majority of them.

 

[Imari]

Not for reasons based on sexual orientation, race, or anything of that nature; I don't believe that should be allowed.

Why not?

If someone wants to have a nightclub for white people, why shouldn't they be allowed to do that? If someone doesn't want to organise a wedding for two men, why should they have to?

You can't stop people from discriminating, but that doesn't mean you should make it legal for them to do so.

Why not?

Why is it preferable to have it be legal to refuse business for no stated reason, but illegal if you state your reason as one of a list of bad reasons?

This bill allows businesses to go from saying, "no, we do not wish to serve you" to "no, we do not wish to serve you because our religion doesn't permit the fact you're gay/black/midget/short/etc".

Why is this a bad thing?

Same end result, same primary motivations, but in the second case the person getting shafted gets actual information about what's happening to them and why. I don't see why removing that is a preferable state of affairs.

You need to explain exactly why it is preferable that people don't know why they're being discriminated against. Because as many people before me have explained, there's a pretty clear feedback mechanism that actually minimises the discrimination if it's made public which businesses are discriminating against who, provided that the society as a whole generally disapproves of that type of discrimination. A wedding caterer who doesn't do homosexual weddings will find limited success in a market with substantial amounts of homosexual weddings, notwithstanding the heteros who simply won't use them because they disagree with their treatment of homosexual couples.

I don't see the need to regulate something that a free market and societal pressure will sort out for itself. And if societal pressure doesn't sort it out, then it's probably not something that should be regulated anyway.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Not for reasons based on sexual orientation, race, or anything of that nature; I don't believe that should be allowed.

There are other states that have a law similar to the one Pence has passed, however, there are actual rules within' them so you can't openly discriminate.

Edit* As I read someone else describe Indiana's RFRA to the rest.

Assuming you're male...ever try to join the girls scouts? Ever try to gain membership to a "women's only" gym? Ever try to take up residence in a seniors apartment building or home? Ever try to avoid paying cover on "ladies get in free" night? What do you think a white person's odds are of making it into the executive committee or senior leadership of the Detroit branch of the NAACP? Ever try to get a seniors discount at 35?

Isn't that open discrimination too?

 

[McLaren]

Why not?

If someone wants to have a nightclub for white people, why shouldn't they be allowed to do that? If someone doesn't want to organise a wedding for two men, why should they have to?

Probably because it'd be considered incredibly racist.

You're trying to use Famines example, but what if 2 gays go into restaurant or a store and the owner refuses them based on sexuality? What if someone doesn't want to organize a wedding for two black people, why should they have to? That's not right. We went through this during the Civil Rights era.

Why not?

Why is it preferable to have it be legal to refuse business for no stated reason, but illegal if you state your reason as one of a list of bad reasons?

I didn't say it was preferable to begin with. You shouldn't discriminate against race or sex whether you can or can't disclose it.

Why is this a bad thing?

Same end result, same primary motivations, but in the second case the person getting shafted gets actual information about what's happening to them and why. I don't see why removing that is a preferable state of affairs.

It shouldn't really matter, imo. You should help them regardless unless you actually have a valid reason. "You're gay" isn't really valid.

You need to explain exactly why it is preferable that people don't know why they're being discriminated against. Because as many people before me have explained, there's a pretty clear feedback mechanism that actually minimises the discrimination if it's made public which businesses are discriminating against who, provided that the society as a whole generally disapproves of that type of discrimination. A wedding caterer who doesn't do homosexual weddings will find limited success in a market with substantial amounts of homosexual weddings, notwithstanding the heteros who simply won't use them because they disagree with their treatment of homosexual couples.

You need to understand that I specifically said you shouldn't discriminate for reasons based on race or sex. For the third time, I don't care if the law says you can or can't disclose that information bc in Indiana's case, there already laws forbidding that very thing.

I don't see the need to regulate something that a free market and societal pressure will sort out for itself. And if societal pressure doesn't sort it out, then it's probably not something that should be regulated anyway.

And again, I've said I can see the appeal in letting stupid people out themselves and let society deal justice. But that's asking a lot of today's society.

Legaling telling gays you can't do business here is no different than when they told blacks the same thing.

Assuming you're male...ever try to join the girls scouts? Ever try to gain membership to a "women's only" gym? Ever try to take up residence in a seniors apartment building or home? Ever try to avoid paying cover on "ladies get in free" night? What do you think a white person's odds are of making it into the executive committee or senior leadership of the Detroit branch of the NAACP? Ever try to get a seniors discount at 35?

Isn't that open discrimination too?

If a guy wants to get into a girls' only subject, they do have operations for that. In fact, see the recent case against Planet Fitness for allowing a man into the women's locker room. Everyone also has a chance at getting into a senior home just as everyone has a chance at a senior discount; you'll get it when you're old.

I think it's a huge stretch to compare such things to sexual discrimination.

On that, yall are free to reply but I dont think the discussion warrants my input anymore. Whether the law says you have to or don't have to tell people why you refuse to serve them, your reasoning shouldn't be based on whether they're gay or not.

 

[Famine]

but what if 2 gays go into restaurant or a store and the owner refuses them based on sexuality. That's not right.

No it's not - but they should face no legal sanctions whatsoever for it.

They should, however, be absolutely pilloried in the local media, national media, social media and anywhere that anyone wants (so long as they don't straddle the libel line).

People should be free under law to be the most unpleasant assholes they want to be, while everyone else who isn't a colossal moron should be free to register their disgust.

 

[McLaren]

No it's not - but they should face no legal sanctions whatsoever for it.

Perhaps I've missed it, but are there such laws that punish those who tell gays you can't shop here? Honest question as I know current anti-discrimination laws are usually based on race, not sexual preference.

 

[Famine]

Perhaps I've missed it, but are there such laws that punish those who tell gays you can't shop here? Honest question as I know current anti-discrimination laws are usually based on race, not sexual preference.

Yep - at least here in Europe. The UK has an equality act which guarantees access to employment and public and private services regardless of their status in a number of 'protected characteristics'. These are: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation. There are some special provisions regarding gender-specific services but otherwise that covers it.

 

[Imari]

Probably because it'd be considered incredibly racist.

You're trying to use Famines example, but what if 2 gays go into restaurant or a store and the owner refuses them based on sexuality? What if someone doesn't want to organize a wedding for two black people, why should they have to?

You're right, I agree with Famine. They should absolutely be able to do this if they wanted.

That's not right. We went through this during the Civil Rights era.

You're appealing to authority. Why isn't it right?

I didn't say it was preferable to begin with. You shouldn't discriminate against race or sex whether you can or can't disclose it.

Why not? "Just because" isn't an answer.

It shouldn't really matter, imo. You should help them regardless unless you actually have a valid reason. "You're gay" isn't really valid.

You should help them regardless. But some people are :censored:heads.

I don't think being a :censored:head should be illegal, as long as it's not causing damage or injury to someone.

You need to understand that I specifically said you shouldn't discriminate for reasons based on race or sex. For the third time, I don't care if the law says you can or can't disclose that information bc in Indiana's case, there already laws forbidding that very thing.

But we're talking about what should or shouldn't be, not necessarily about the laws that are. The laws that are were simply the provocation for the discussion.

How about this thought.

We've established that you think that there are some things that should not be discriminated against, like race and sex.
We know that there are some things that are discriminated against, like girls in Girl Scouts or children in bars. There are good reasons to allow people to discriminate in these situations.

How do you determine which things should and should not be discriminated against? It doesn't have to be a foolproof method, I'm not trying to catch you out. I want to know what criteria you would apply to attempt to decide whether or not you would allow something to discriminated against.

And again, I've said I can see the appeal in letting stupid people out themselves and let society deal justice. But that's asking a lot of today's society.

If society can't do it, then it shouldn't be forced to.

Legaling telling gays you can't do business here is no different than when they told blacks the same thing.

Not really.

The problem when it was blacks is that the discrimination was so widespread that there were no alternative options to them in many cases.

I have no problem with one wedding caterer refusing to serve blacks. When the entire wedding catering industry refuses to serve blacks and strongarms any new businesses who might spring up to also refuse blacks I think that's pretty messed up. That's where the government and law steps in if necessary, to ensure that all people have at least some access to services and that society is able to mould itself to fit the will of the people without the beliefs of a few stifling it.

One should not make laws because you want society to be a certain way. One should make laws only when necessary, and only to allow society itself to express itself properly.

If you were in a society that is vehemently anti-gay, passing a gay equality law would be stupid. This just creates tension and dishonesty. However if you're in a society that was vehemently anti-gay but is having a strong upwelling of gay support, then loosening restrictions on homosexuality can help make sure that society is able to make itself into something that supports gays if that what it wants to do, without being bound by the laws and morals of past generations.

Legislating the zeitgeist is a dumb idea. Creating freedom for a society to manage itself is a long term solution.

Whether the law says you have to or don't have to tell people why you refuse to serve them, your reasoning shouldn't be based on whether they're gay or not.

It shouldn't be, but for some people it is. The discussion is about how we treat those people for whom their reasoning is based on sexuality.

I think you're bailing because you can't enunciate your opinion beyond "but discrimination is bad". You feel very strongly about this, but you can't explain why.

I think that's a good enough reason that you should think some more about why it is exactly that you feel the way you do.

 

[FoolKiller]

We went through this during the Civil Rights era.

That was legally mandated discrimination. A black man could be arrested for using the wrong water fountain or sitting in the wrong section of the restaurant. No one is forcing businesses to discriminate here.

People often reference the Jim Crow period in these discussions, but forget that they were laws, not just societal ideals. The difference between then and this is integral to the discussion of property rights.