So - the state chooses to "protect" a class of downtrodden people. Never mind whether we agree that those people are oppressed and never mind whether we like the law. What part of the Constitution prevents a state from doing so? I see a few posters here mention some right of freedom of association, but there is no such enumeration in the constitution that I am aware of.
If there is no human right of free association, then you agree that the Gov't has the power to choose your spouse for you.
These public accommodation laws don't "protect" anybody - they simply force individuals to associate with other individuals.
y'all are very good at remembering what rights you claim, but seem to be a bit forgetful of the rights of others. Some of those rights don't sit well with you (or maybe even me), but once they have been accepted as rights, they do seem to fall under protection of the 11th. Argue the validity of stated rights if you want - that is not the point of my reply here.
Since when do the rights claimed by one party produce an obligation on the part of another party?
The test of whether something is truly a right versus a privilege hinges on whether or not that supposed "right" produces an obligation on someone else's part. For example, if we have a right to an education, that implies that someone is obligated to teach us. Therefore, it is not really a right. However, if you rephrase that as "we have a right to pursue an education", then we may have a right because it doesn't obligate anyone to cooperate. All it does is ban laws that prevent our pursuit.
