Make anti-LGBT businesses publicly post their policy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

a) There is precedence for laws that protect specific classes of people against denial of service discrimination.

Irrelevant to mandating them posting a list of who they will not serve

b) There is precedence for laws which require businesses to post applicable information about the goods and services offered.

For Health and Safety Reasons.

c) There is precedence for laws which limit businesses (and individuals) free speech in advertising.

To prevent misleading statements or lies.

Try again. Show where this law furthers a compelling governmental interest in the least restrictive way (aka, the standard the government has to meet to deal with First Amendment issues).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Anyways, this is the relevant argument for the Freedom of Association claim (for if you actually bothered to look for it):

Freedom of association as a concept thus grew out of a series of cases in the 1950's and 1960's in which certain States were attempting to curb the activities of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. In the first case, the Court unanimously set aside a contempt citation imposed after the organization refused to comply with a court order to produce a list of its members within the State. ''Effective advocacy of both public and private points of view, particularly controversial ones, is undeniably enhanced by group association, as this Court has more than once recognized by remarking upon the close nexus between the freedoms of speech and assembly.'' 198 ''[T]hese indispensable liberties, whether of speech, press, or association,'' 199 may be abridged by governmental action either directly or indirectly, wrote Justice Harlan, and the State had failed to demonstrate a need for the lists which would outweigh the harm to associational rights which disclosure would produce.

http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/annotation12.html

FWIW, it may not apply in cases where there isn't any particular "organization", but there may be an argument to be made that it is an indirect abridgment of those Association rights by the government, and therefore the government would have to pass strict scrutiny to get around it.

[Aeson]

Irrelevant to mandating them posting a list of who they will not serve

It is relevant. Laws restricting harm done to blacks by denial of service have been upheld (or can be assumed to be) Constitutional. It's not a very big leap to go from one class to another.

Except for for the bigots who can't drop their hate of homosexuals of course.

This is just another form of restricting harm done to a class by denial of service. The fundamental issue is the same "harm to class by denial of service" vs "harm to business by manner of restriction". In any reasonable assessment using the viewpoint of the bigotted business, it is much less harm to have to post a customer service policy and disclaimers on ads than to have to change the customer service policy altogether and serve those who are deemed unworthy of being served.

For Health and Safety Reasons.

Many other reasons as well. For instance, if running a contest you must accurately describe the entry requirements, the prizes that will be awarded, and the process by which they are rewarded.

It's pretty sick that you think that homosexuals shouldn't be afforded the same level of information about goods and services.

To prevent misleading statements or lies.

"Come on down to the [place of business] where you'll be treated to the best [goods or services]!"

It is definitely misleading (and likely an intentional lie) if the store policy is to reject serving a class of people.

Show where this law furthers a compelling governmental interest in the least restrictive way (aka, the standard the government has to meet to deal with First Amendment issues).

As for calculable harm done economically and physically, it can be describe by the increased amount of time, resource use, and traffic deaths involved in the affected class (or those affected by them) visiting establishments that have enticed their patronage under false premises. Emotional harm is of course impossible to quantify, but is likely a far greater harm.

Whether or not this is "compelling" probably boils down to how homophobic a person is. So I don't expect much from you.

As for restrictive ... The best way to restrict that harm from happening is to add homosexuals as a protected class in the Constitution, disallowing refusal of service altogether. That isn't the least restrictive way though. Having a company post their customer service policy publicly (with disclaimers on ads) is the least restrictive way that the affected classes will not incur harm due to misleading advertising.

[Aeson]

... a need for the lists which would outweigh the harm to associational rights which disclosure would produce.

A requiring a list of patrons is completely different than a requirement to post accurate TOS or customer service policy.

As for the "harm" of requiring posting accurate TOS or customer service policies, posting an accurate TOS or customer service policy is already required in many instances. There is no harm in it, other than the harm of a business being known to provide what it actually provides.

Your homophobia leads you to conclude that it's better for businesses to mislead their customers about their bigotted policies than for customers to know what the policies are before they are mislead into testing them.

[Uncle Sparky]

I move that besides banning former Canadians who are now Texans we also ban former New Jerseyans currently living in Georgia but don't tell them.

[Kidlicious]

By not leaving the house?

By not believing that you are humiliated. We live in a society where people can offend you, shame you, and humiliate you if you allow them too. It doesn't matter if you were born a certain way either. We all benefit from such a society, the weak-minded not so much.

[Kidlicious]

How does the generalized posted policy, "we reserve the right to refuse service," help LGBT customers to know in advance whether or not they're going to be denied service for not being straight??

That generalized posting of such policy does not help customers make a better informed decision. Would you rather subject LGBT people to public embarrassment when they find out, only when they are denied service??

Customers of any sort should have the right to all the information they need, to make an informed decision.

You're confusing the matter. You're claiming, on the one hand, that consumers have the right to information about their potential purchases, which reasonable people won't disagree with. One the other hand, you're saying consumers have the right not to be embarrassed. I'm sorry but consumers do not have the right not to be embarrassed, and you are not being kept from any information you need regarding your potential purchase.

[kentonio]

By not believing that you are humiliated. We live in a society where people can offend you, shame you, and humiliate you if you allow them too. It doesn't matter if you were born a certain way either. We all benefit from such a society, the weak-minded not so much.

It's amazing how easy it is to brush off the harmful effects of things that you do not have to experience. Top marks for your empathy.

[Aeson]

I don't think it's a stretch to say that Kid is nigh impervious to criticism or scorn.

[Kidlicious]

It's amazing how easy it is to brush off the harmful effects of things that you do not have to experience. Top marks for your empathy.

You're really just saying that I think like a man.

[Kidlicious]

To be clear, this is politically motivated. Knowing that doesn't say anything about how empathetic I am.

[kentonio]

To be clear, this is politically motivated. Knowing that doesn't say anything about how empathetic I am.

Explain please.

[Kidlicious]

You intentionally misused the word 'empathy.' Making a decision that makes people feel bad isn't lack of empathy.

[kentonio]

You intentionally misused the word 'empathy.' Making a decision that makes people feel bad isn't lack of empathy.

No, you claimed to be unable to understand why being treated as a lesser person would be humiliating or shaming to people. That demonstrates a near perfect example of a lack of empathy.

The part I'd like to hear your explanation of though, was..

To be clear, this is politically motivated.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It is relevant. Laws restricting harm done to blacks by denial of service have been upheld (or can be assumed to be) Constitutional. It's not a very big leap to go from one class to another.

Unless, you know, you actually know how the law works. Protected classes is something statutory - its part of the enabling legislation of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. Which means that Congress is going to have to agree to it... Congress. A body opposed to doing much of anything.

Regardless whether or not one can mandate disclosure is an entirely different question than whether one can deny service. The later is based on enabling legislation flowing from the 14th Amendment, while the former is based on questions involving the 1st Amendment.

"Come on down to the [place of business] where you'll be treated to the best [goods or services]!"

It is definitely misleading (and likely an intentional lie) if the store policy is to reject serving a class of people.

I would love you to try to make that argument in front of a Federal Judge.

As for calculable harm done economically and physically, it can be describe by the increased amount of time, resource use, and traffic deaths involved in the affected class (or those affected by them) visiting establishments that have enticed their patronage under false premises. Emotional harm is of course impossible to quantify, but is likely a far greater harm.

Whether or not this is "compelling" probably boils down to how homophobic a person is. So I don't expect much from you.

As for restrictive ... The best way to restrict that harm from happening is to add homosexuals as a protected class in the Constitution, disallowing refusal of service altogether. That isn't the least restrictive way though. Having a company post their customer service policy publicly (with disclaimers on ads) is the least restrictive way that the affected classes will not incur harm due to misleading advertising.

Ie, you have absolutely no idea how 1st Amendment jurisprudence works in the United States.

Also this forum has literally the shortest memory ever. I am highly amused that I'm being called homophobic. (Also demonstrates that Political Correctness is alive and well - due to concerns about free speech issues about mandating publicizing refusal to serve LGBT people, I'm being called homophobic... who said PC was dead?)