The Glade 4.0

No, if I put a sign on my business that says Open for Business, then it is open for business with people who intend to do business with me. And, unless I live in California or New York or Wisconsin, I can pretty much refuse to do business with anyone for any reason without disclosing said reason. And one I decide to not do business with someone, they're suddenly trespassing on my property.

_________________

aren't there specific rules for lodging, housing and eating establishments, etc?

No, they are not suddenly trespassing on your property at all. You have to ask them to leave and give them a reasonable opportunity to do so. When you ask someone to leave your home, you cannot call the polcie and expect to have them arrested unless they refuse to leave or fail to do so in a timely manner, and a timely manner is not "fleeing as fast as their feet will carry them and leaving their coats behind" either. The same applies to your business.

Obviously in some states you can refuse to do business. However, the fact of the matter is that if you put a sign out indicating you are open for business to passersby, then any of them have a right to come inside and inquire if you'd like to do business.

Your right to determine who you will do business with does not extend somehow into a requirement for other people to read your mind, nor for you to indicate the public is welcome and then create an instance of "trespassing" because you used your sign to indicate they were welcome and then decided once they were inside that they weren't.

Wanting to be able to freely associate with whom you please and do business with who you please is fine, but if you hang out a sign indicating people are welcome in your establishment, then anyone who walks in should be welcome in your establishment. If you decide they aren't, then you had damn well better make every effort to inform them in a timely manner and give them a reasonable opportunity to leave.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

If you are informed that I'm refusing to do business with you, the reasonable expectation is that you leave my property. It's really quite that simple. More to the point, you don't actually have a right to enter my business. You have the privilege to do so, which I can revoke at any time I choose.

_________________

No, not at all. If you have a sign out saying "open", with no other limitations or strictures, and the person in question has never been informed not to come to that business, then any person has a right to come in there. Not a privilege. Remaining there is a privilege. You can't revoke that privilege unless I come in there to do so, or do you intend to stand outside your establishment telling people at random not to come in there whether they intended to or not? You have no right whatsoever to demand that people who have not yet entered your buisness be aware of whether you want them there or not unless you post a sign indicating what limits are in place. If the nature of your business is such that passersby would be normally expected to stop there and do business, and it is an hour when you are open then the obligation is on you to inform anyone you don't want present that they are not welcome. Until you do, they have a right to be there.

If you post a sign outside limiting who can come in (such as "No one under 21") then your buisness is no longer "open to the public" it's limited to certain sectors of the public by duly informing them with a sign. Even then, those people that fit into the category you want to do business with have a right to come in there and attempt to do business with you until and unless you ask them to leave.

No one is disagreeing that the reasonable expectation if you tell someone to leave is that they leave. I just got done saying that. Your reasonable expectation, however, does not extend to either accusing them of trespassing if they are, in fact, attempting to leave in a timely fashion, nor does it extend to demanding that they leave so quickly that they are unable to collect their posessions or do so safely. If you demand someone leave your establishment, he is not trespassing if he stops to put on his raincoat.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

It isn't a right though correct? It is an invitation extended to everyone who can read/recognize the sign by Khross via his "Open" sign. He can revoke that invitation at any time provided he gives notice to the party(ies)?

_________________

Well, sort of. The first distinction needing to be made is whether a business is a public accommodation or not. Public accommodations cannot refuse service on the basis of race, color, religion, or natural origin. This does not mean that they possess no ability to refuse service. As an aside, there is no difference in the protection afforded a business posting a "reserve the right to refuse service" sign vs. a business not posting such a sign.

_________________

Someone explain to me how refusing to do business on the basis of dress (ex. no shoes, no shirt, no service) is any more legitimate (and somehow more protected by the right to free association) than discriminating on the basis of race, religion, gender, or national origin.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

Health and safety. Bare feet and no shirts will typically violate the General Liability of just about any business.

_________________

Generally, because the basis of dress (or more specifically, the lack thereof evidenced by no shoes or no shirt) is a matter of hygiene. Ethnic dress, for example, is not legally considered a valid reason to refuse service.

_________________

health concerns? Shoes/shirt have some protective qualities (hot grease, stepping on things, etc)

Shoes/shirt are decency and safety issues.

"Decency" is not an objective standard. Some busineses and their patrons might not find it within the limits of decency to conduct business with the Irish, or Jews, or people of any other distinguishable ethnic background.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I'm not attempting to defend it, I'm just answering the question.

Lets bring back the focus to what really matters - rights , not the law as written.

Does the owner of the property have the right to exclude people from his property for whatever reason he wishes? Yes.

Thus nothing else matters. This doesn't change if its a bedroom, a home, wild land, or a business. The property owner can say who and who cannot come in and can revoke that privilege at any time for any reason.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Except in this country you don't have that right.

Huh?

_________________

People do not have this blanket right in this country Hop.

What is so unexceptional about Americans that you would separate them from something as innate as their thoughts? Are they somehow less than human in your eyes? Or did you mean that the Government of the United States does not protect that right?

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

It is a right for people to act on that invitation. In other words, no one other than Khross has any right to stop them. Khross himself has no right to expect that anyone he does not want to do buisness with will not act on that invitation unless he takes some steps to inform them via a sign, letter to a disagreeable person,etc. He cannot extend that invitation, then, when someone acts on it, complain that they are trespassing because now they are on his property. He could only do that if he so informed them and gave them a reasonable opportunity to leave.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

The problem with rights is they tend to cross paths with each other. So what a society does is decide (thankfully in our case collectively and democratically) what rights cut off what other rights. For example I have an unlimited right to property and you have an unlimited right to keep and bare arms. However I don't want guns in my privately owned hospital so society (at least where I am standing)through the democratic process has decided that I am allowed to put up a sign to that effect and if you violate it you are the one in the wrong. Same deal.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Seconded. Huh? Unless you mean to single out owners who have legal contracts with tenants as your exception to the statement.

In addition: I see signs that tell people they can't wear bandannas, hoodies, long white t shirts, overly baggy pants, etc when going into establishments. Is this "bad" discrimination or the kind we accept in society because we recgonize signs of problem behavior?

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Again you don't understand the term.

That right is not protected, it is not absent.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

So if 51% of the population decides for the other 49% that they are slaves - this is a just and rights - respecting act?

Also - point out to me where the rights of a person are infringed if they are denied an invitation to another's property.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

It's not me that doesn't understand what rights are. Rights are figments of our imagination. When you get enough people to agree on a figment it becomes a reality through action, law and enforcement. What I'm saying is that you're figment of imagination hasn't attained that status in this country. Regardless of how much you think it should.