My only quibble with this is that you don't automatically have the right to have the State enforce your "rules" via criminal sanction. You can make me leave if I violate your rules and you know about it. But breaking your list of rules isn't automatically a crime.The Annoyed Man wrote:Just to play devil's advocate (which for those of you who don't know who the devil is, simply means I'm trying to poke holes in what follows to see if it makes sense or not, but doesn't necessarily mean I believe what I'm going to write next...):That works for me until you cross my property line, which I may bar you from doing any time I please. You don't have an automatic right of access to my property. You only have access to it on my forbearance. That means that, on my property, I set the rules. On your property, you set the rules. But you don't get to set the rules on my property, and I don't get to set the rules on yours.austinrealtor wrote:I am all for property rights. I'm a big believer in property rights. I respect property rights and protect my own property rights strongly. BUT ... my natural right of self defense trumps ANYONE's property rights EVERY time.
The State has the power to set conditions on your operation of a business that require you to allow access to certain groups, even if the individual has control over their status as a member of that group. You can't bar people from your public business due to religion, though presumably people have control over the religion they subscribe to.The Annoyed Man wrote:Aaahhh... but the handicapped person has no choice in the matter of being handicapped, therefore the requirement to modify your property, which you have decided to make accessible to all the public, simply gives the handicapped person the same ability to access as you or I enjoy — whereas you can simply choose to disarm if you want to access the building. Think of all the racists who were forced to take down their "no coloreds allowed" signs (a forced modification of private property) in order to allow public access to people of color, who have no choice in the matter of their color, so that they would have the same access as white people. It's kind of like that.austinrealtor wrote:Just like the rights of the handicapped to access an open-to-the-public business trump the rights of the property owner to not be forced to alter his building to accomodate them. That is the best analogy for CHL rights trumping property rights ... the ADA.
Your private property rights are strongly protected by the State, but not absolute.