Public Accommodations and the Mark of Sodom

Public Accommodations Law and Private Property

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, particularly Title II, is the public accommodations law which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin in places of public accommodation.
Controversies arise when businesses claim religious or expressive freedom to deny services to same-sex couples, raising questions about property rights and the right to exclude.
Supreme Court's decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Inc. highlights the conceptualization of property rights, where corporate owners' religious beliefs can influence business practices, but this does not extend to racial discrimination.

Mississippi Statute (1956) allows businesses to choose customers, reflecting attitudes of segregation.
The author poses a hypothetical scenario; If this law were universal, discriminatory attitudes were widespread, and land is owned primarily by white persons what would the world be like?
The author then compares it to the South before 1964 and South Africa during apartheid rule.
Private property law can perpetuate racial caste systems if owners have the right to choose customers and exclude individuals based on race. Federal statutes and constitutional interpretations have aimed to prevent such discrimination in public accommodations.

The idea that the market controls invidious discrimination is demonstrably false.
The market responds to the attitudes of customers.
The author claims neither law nor markets are sufficient to eradicate invidious discrimination.
Public accommodation laws ensure access to the market without discrimination, not just providing a market niche for specific groups.
The author concludes that in a free and democratic society, certain social relationships like slavery and caste systems have been abolished.
Equal protection of laws and norms of equality have evolved, leading to rejection of discriminatory laws and practices.

The author brings up Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash to further illustrate how the Mississippi statute could devolve into a world of fragmented sovereignty and absolute property rights.
Reference to King William and feudal states illustrates the dangers of combining sovereign power with property ownership.

The Supreme Court, in Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, dismissed the claim that public accommodation laws are unconstitutional takings of property without just compensation.
The author claims property rights serve human values and are limited by it.
Civil rights laws define what property rights can exist in a free and democratic society.
Drawing from the Talmud shows the limits of property rights where the town of Sodom was destroyed because it did not understand the limits of property rights.
Public accommodations must be open to all in a society without a racial caste system.