None of this has anything to do with discrimination, but with the right of liberty. I have the right to choose with whom I associate (it's in the first amendment in case folks need a pointer) or conversely, not associate. Only protected classes have an argument against such.

"implicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment" is "a corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends." In Roberts the Court held that associations may not exclude people for reasons unrelated to the group's expression, such as gender (a protected class).

However, in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston (1995), the Court ruled that a group may exclude people from membership if their presence would affect the group's ability to advocate a particular point of view. Likewise, in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000), the Court ruled that a New Jersey law, which forced the Boy Scouts of America to admit an openly gay member, to be an unconstitutional abridgment of the Boy Scouts' right to free association.

1) Only for a protected class.
2) Only if you don't believe that the constitution says what it actually says.

M v M was wrongly decided. Like I said, SCOTUS has often been wrong. There's nothing in the constitution that gave them that power. They created it out of thin air.

Find my post on Saul Alinsky and Rules for Radicals. It explains it all.

Where do you get that the business owner would use the courts? It says that the business owner gets to decide whom they do business with (except for protected classes). They don't do anything except say, "no thank you" to the potential client. If anyone would try to use force, it would have to be the said client.

SCOTUS has often been wrong.

Due process is only a right owed you by the federal government. Not a private business.

Where do those things happen as a consequence of law? They might do so to serve more customers, but I haven't seen that they have been legally required to do so - it might be true, but I am not aware of it.

However, on the other side of the issue, there are still remnants of the "blue laws" that restrict a business from certain practices to serve their customers - no liquor sales on certain days, or certain hours, cannot sell raw milk, etc.

How do you figure? All this does is make explicit that a business does not have to serve all potential customers.

Evidently liberty only goes one way.

Frank: Where do you get that states are limited as you say? They are constructed by state constitutions or similar organizing document.

Government.

You've got it wrong. The gov't would only be using force in this situation to make a business serve a customer that they chose not to. This law does not use force against the potential customers.

Really? A Kosher deli forced to sell pork by the federal government? Links & proof, please.

I think all the federal government is asking is that if your store is selling Nazi flags and KKK robes, that you must be willing sell them to everyone, including blacks and Jews. Simple enough, eh?