The Civil Rights laws of the '60's, interpreted as anti-discrimination laws and applied to the private sector, overthrew the principle of freedom of association by making government officials (EEOC, judges) arbiters of who could form relationships with whom in the workplace. Given the sanctity of these laws to so many, you have to expect that for many anti-discrimination is going to trump freedom of association in other contexts too.



I think this is going to be the key political battleground of the next fifty years, and it's one reason the racial division in American politics isn't going away soon.

But that was only if you maintained your establishment as a public place (which still seems wrong), but in other words, if you had a restaurant open to the public you couldn't then exclude blacks. Private associations, even under those acts, were not covered.

Hootie isn't asking about his legal rights, but about what's immoral. His critics are asking the same thing.



Civil rights law is relevant because of the moral principle it embodies. The public accommodation line is arbitrary and based on no discernible moral principle.

The moral principle, the right of free association, is enshrined in the Constitution.

Messrs Judd;



I got into an argument about public accomodation and anti-discrimination laws years back, which I finally reduced to an axiom that we had different views on. My axiom was "I own my business like I own my house". My opponent disagreed. But PJ is right - there's no logical reason to stop this form of "civil rights" before it determines who you can invite to your parties.

Masters and Johnson? O yeah, a sex case.

The term 'free association' doesn't appear in the Constitution, to my knowledge; usually lawyers say freedom of association is derived from First Amendment free speech and free assembly rights, but this isn't quite the same as full-blown freedom of association. An unfortunate oversight by James Madison, who did such a magnificent job.



AOG's view is precisely my own. Ultimately, the argument AOG had is going to be held in the public forum by candidates for office.

pj:



Yes, Freedom of Assembly

I would like to see a historical account of how the founders viewed the scope of 'the right of the people peaceably to assemble' . . . interesting that like the 2nd and 4th amendments this right is limited to 'the people,' i.e. adult citizens not convicted of crimes.



Orrin, I would love for freedom of association to be implied here, rather than for it to reside among the unenumerated rights (9th amendment). Please convince me.

A right of association probably is too broad, rather, one would argue that Congress is given no power to interfere in such purely private organizations.

An enumerated powers argument, in other words . . . That would allow states unlimited power to regulate private associations.

pj:



If they don't have constitutions.

States can change their constitutions . . . or state courts can reinterpret them. Remind me, doesn't NH's constitution now require the state rather than local government to pay for education?

No, our Court, like a couple others, invented out of whole cloth an obligation for every school child to receive an "equal" education.