The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"Bans on Political Discrimination in Places of Public Accommodation and Housing"
This new article of mine is now out, in the NYU Journal of Law & Liberty. The Introduction:
In several major cities and counties, in some territories, perhaps in the whole states of California and Montana, and to a small extent in Minnesota, private businesses may not discriminate against patrons based on certain kinds of political activities. In most of these jurisdictions (plus in South Carolina), it's also illegal to discriminate based on political activities in housing (and sometimes in commercial real estate transactions). Some of these bans are narrow, just protecting the decisions to belong to or support a political party. Others are broader, applying to political advocacy more generally, including political advocacy on the business's premises.
I don't know whether these rules are sound in essentially protecting political affiliation and political expression like how most antidiscrimination laws protect religious affiliation and religious expression. But I do believe they are generally constitutionally permissible in many situations, given that property owners generally don't have a First Amendment right to exclude speakers or speech they dislike, and given the broad acceptance of bans on discrimination based on religious affiliation. And I think it's helpful to gather these rules so as to better understand the options that legislators have chosen with regard to this question, especially when evaluating similar new proposals. This is particularly so given the interest in using public accommodations law as a model for limiting social media platforms' ability to block users based on their speech or political ideology.
It's also helpful to see these rules when considering the implications of certain readings of public accommodation law more broadly. Say, for instance, that courts conclude that a wedding photographer has no First Amendment right to refuse to photograph a same-sex wedding in a state with a ban on sexual orientation discrimination by public accommodations. A photographer would then have no First Amendment right to refuse to photograph a Nazi or Communist event in a jurisdiction with a ban on political discrimination by public accommodations. Indeed, briefs and an opinion in such cases have drawn this analogy.
Here, then, is the list of such bans that I have found, to accompany an older article of mine on laws banning political discrimination by employers. I arrange these roughly in order from narrowest to broadest, but only roughly; the scope of some of them is hard to determine, and the scope of others doesn't fall on a neat spectrum.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Another article in a separatist journal? Did this occur because no mainstream publication would accept this work, or because the author wouldn’t associate with a mainstream publication?
Yeah, those crazy separatists and their support for anti-discrimination laws. Don't know how they are even allowed to keep talking.
People at the dwindling fringe have rights, too. Those rights should be respected, promoted, and defended.
But competent adults recognize clingers and their separatist organizations are not part of the modern American mainstream.
I certainly think NYU is overrated as a law school, but that's a bit much.
David, Artie. Both of you need to resign, interview your diverse replacements. Until you do, both of you need to STFU. You are both vile, old, male, white supremacists.
I believe this is not the NYU Law Review. I sense it is the clingers' pale facsimile.
All anti-discrimination laws violate the Freedom of Association implicit in the Ninth Amendment. They do not work. I would not want to eat in a restaurant that had been forced to accept me at the point of a gun. They would spit in my food, and retaliate many other ways. I would go across the street to a restaurant that welcomes me, and enrich them. The market is the best way and place to address discrimination.
These laws have had a hideous and lethal effect on minorities. Prior to the Civil Rights Act and its horrifying consequences racial disparity in social pathology was small, like 10%. A little more crime, a little more unemployment, etc. After these laws, the disparity shot up to 400%, with an excess of 200000 murders of black young men that would not have occurred, if prior rates had stayed the same. Middle class minorities moved out and devastated the inner cities. No diverse governed jurisdiction is successful today, by any definition of success one may choose.
Good job, lawyer scumbags. Violate the constitution. Kill 100 times more black young people than the Klan ever did. Carpet bomb the inner cities, leaving them looking like Dresden after the war.
It was only a matter of time before the leftist gay person of color weighed in to start whining.
" I would go across the street to a restaurant that welcomes me, and enrich them. The market is the best way and place to address discrimination."
Assuming, of course, that the market allowed such an establishment to exist.
Artie, cut the crap. We need your resignation and your interviews of your own diverse replacement. Until then, STFU, you old, white male supremacist.
And I think it's helpful to gather these rules so as to better understand the options that legislators have chosen with regard to this question, especially when evaluating similar new proposals. This is particularly so given the interest in using public accommodations law as a model for limiting social media platforms' ability to block users based on their speech or political ideology.
More crazy talk from a spotty-focused 1A fundamentalist, who advocates paradoxically to throw press freedom out of the Constitution. With the OP above, it looks like EV is now sliding toward the popular right wing view that the 1A forbids private shaming, exclusion, or shouting down of any right wing advocacy whatever. A reminder for EV, who shouldn't need it, the 1A is about what government can do, not a tool for controlling private speech from right wing opponents.
I don't know whether these rules are sound in essentially protecting political affiliation and political expression like how most antidiscrimination laws protect religious affiliation and religious expression. But I do believe they are generally constitutionally permissible in many situations, given that property owners generally don't have a First Amendment right to exclude speakers or speech they dislike, . . .
Thus EV, dancing along the narrow parapet on the divide which separates strained legal analysis from nutcase partisanship. Would those, "property owners," include internet publishers already, or is there just a bit more slippery slope to be constructed before that happens?
" With the OP above, it looks like EV is now sliding toward the popular right wing view that the 1A forbids private shaming, exclusion, or shouting down of any right wing advocacy whatever."
Wow. Don't you feel even a little shame when you just lie through your teeth like that?
Prof. Volokh's expanding, now-predictable partisanship with respect to protection of conservative advocacy -- from section 230 to limitless privilege for bigots, from affirmative action for right-wing professors to accountability for right-wing statements and positions -- speaks for itself.
Good for you, TwelveInch. You sense disagreement. What do you think it adds to call it lying?
Disaffected losers tend to be sloppy with language.
Not to mention poorly educated culture war casualties.
"the 1A is about what government can do"
It's more about what the government can't do. From the linked article: "... property owners generally don’t have a First Amendment right to exclude speakers or speech they dislike,
...". That matters here because it means the legislature - you know, the mechanism by which the sovereign people establish laws - can forbid such discrimination if they choose to do so, as they have done for other kinds of discrimination.
You are right of course, it would have been better worded to say, "what the government cannot do."
Remember how you humiliated yourself yesterday by reading the school speech case as saying exactly the opposite of what it said? You're doing it again, and you should stop.
It's not merely that you're basing what you think it "looks like" EV is now saying based on a blog post about an article rather than on the article itself, but that you're again incompetently reading it as saying exactly the opposite of what it says.
Nieporent, did you miss my quotes from the article itself, which I relied upon to illustrate my points? Those quotes say what they say. Maybe you can read into them a connotation opposite the one I see, when I consider them in light of EV's other advocacy.
Even if you think you can, what kind of critique is it—when you have evidence to the contrary in front of you—to say, "It's not merely that you're basing what you think it "looks like" EV is now saying based on a blog post about an article rather than on the article itself, . . ." Before deciding you have it right, and I have it wrong, I will wait to hear it from someone who can at least keep track of what I wrote—and maybe explain his disagreement a bit more clearly.
Your gratuitous personal attacks do you no credit. They do suggest status anxiety. I am not claiming legal arguments superior to yours. I am not even a lawyer. You have been trout fishing without much luck. You seem nervous that some bystander might conclude you are losing a battle of wits with a trout.
Lately, your replies to my comments have proved increasingly difficult to answer. Part of the reason is I do not try to make arguments about the fine points of the law. I have mentioned this before, and will do it again. It is one thing to understand the law, and another thing to understand what the law means. To do the latter, you must also understand the activity which the law purports to govern.
You concentrate heavily on the former. I restrict my comments mostly to the few instances where I think I have something to contribute about the latter. On that basis, neither one of us can claim to understand what most of the laws we talk about really mean. I think there is something there that you do not get, but which could help us communicate if you did—we are not likely to settle most of these questions on the basis of superior personal expertise, because neither one of us—nor except in rare instances any other of the other commenters or bloggers here—is likely to fully command the subject.
Because this is a legal blog, you have a notable head start over me. Maybe you should relax a little, and be satisfied with that.
Your statement, "EV is now sliding toward the popular right wing view that the 1A forbids private shaming, exclusion, or shouting down of any right wing advocacy whatever" inaccurately captures Volokh's opinion and wildly overstates it in my view.
In contrast to your claim that he argues the First Amendment forbids exclusion (*), Volokh is arguing that the First Amendment permits the elected branches to optionally forbid exclusion.
(*) Your statement wildly overstates Volokh's opinion because it is limited to excluding serving people in places of public accommodation, housing and employment based on their politics. It does not include bans on shaming or counter protests (although I don't think shouting down another speaker ought to be protected by the First Amendment).
Josh R, here is the nut paragraph from EVs OP:
And I think it's helpful to gather these rules so as to better understand the options that legislators have chosen with regard to this question, especially when evaluating similar new proposals. This is particularly so given the interest in using public accommodations law as a model for limiting social media platforms' ability to block users based on their speech or political ideology.
Yeah, EV starts out where you say. But one sentence later, all that is just prologue for another kind of activism altogether—for government limitations on press freedom by publishers.
You are begging the question that Facebook is a publisher. As you well know, Eugene likely thinks they are not (although, he has expressed some doubt about that conclusion). In no way is Eugene advocating for limitations on freedoms of what are clearly publishers such as New York Times.
'It is one thing to understand the law, and another thing to understand what the law means.' It is another thing altogether to make presumptions based on one's biases, presumptions which are generally incorrect, as has been the case most of the time when you proffer one of your assertions.
Please, Hank, always feel free to correct me substantively, if you find me presumptuous, or incorrect. When you omit the details, I do not get the constructive feedback I write my comments to collect.
You wrote, in response to some quoted language from EV, that he "is now sliding toward the popular right wing view that the 1A forbids private shaming, exclusion, or shouting down of any right wing advocacy whatever." That is at best the exact opposite of what he wrote above. The quoted language is about what a statute requires (and says nothing at all about "right wing advocacy"), not what the 1A forbids.
property owners generally don't have a First Amendment right to exclude speakers or speech they dislike
The right of property owners to exclude speakers and speech they dislike is not based on the First Amendment, but on their status as property owners, who can generally exclude whom they damn please unless some law says otherwise. I do agree that if some state or local government decides to pass such a law it would be constitutional, but it would provoke a fight between free speech libertarians and propertarian libertarians. I'll go make some popcorn.
" it would provoke a fight between free speech libertarians and propertarian libertarians. I'll go make some popcorn."
Why would propertarian libertarians oppose a bill like this, given that people generally don't have the right to decide who they rent to or provide public accommodations to? Libertarians generally don't want to see people's rights get violated, they don't want to quibble over how they get violated.
" Libertarians generally don't want to see people's rights get violated, they don't want to quibble over how they get violated."
They do however, sometimes quibble over whether or not specific rights exist. the limits of rights are found when they intersect with the rights of other people.
" given that people generally don't have the right to decide who they rent to or provide public accommodations to?"
They generally do have that right, unless it's been circumscribed by statute. One of the points of owning property is deciding who gets to use it and who doesn't.
CJColucci: I agree with pretty much everything you say here, with the possible exception of the "if" -- shouldn't it be "when"? My article is all about governments that actually have passed such laws.
"CJColucci: I agree with pretty much everything you say here, with the possible exception of the "if" -- shouldn't it be "when"? My article is all about governments that actually have passed such laws."
The core legal principle there is that if a legislature attempts to pass an unconstitutional statute, the attempt fails no matter how many legislators vote "aye"... even if the votes in favor of it are unanimous. Unconstitutional statutes are void. Or at least, that's what the Court agreed to in Marbury, and it hasn't been overruled in the 200+ years since that opinion issued. Under that understanding, no legislatures has EVER passed an unconstitutional statute, though quite a few of them thought that they had passed.
What sort of "libertarian" would claim a "right" to engage in speech (or any other activity) on someone else's property? Claiming "rights" over someone else's property is what leftists do.
Faux libertarians, such as those who operate and follow The Volokh Conspiracy.
And populate committees such as
Libertarians For Statist Womb Management
Libertarians For Authoritarian Immigration Policies and Practices
Libertarians For Torture
Libertarians For Government Gay-Bashing
Libertarians For Superstition-Flattering Curricula
Libertarians For Invading The Wrong Country
Libertarians For Big-Government Micromanagement Of Ladyparts Clinics
Libertarians For Massive Military Budgets
Libertarians For Prayers Led By State Employees In Classrooms
Libertarians For Government Funding Of Religious Instruction
Carry on, clingers.
"Claiming "rights" over someone else's property is what leftists do."
Somebody just discovered that there are left libertarians and right libertarians. Good job!
https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/minneapolis-tenant-may-be-evicted-for-displaying-nazi-flag-in-apartment
How many of these laws apply to owner-occupied residences?
Or owner-operated websites?
" given that property owners generally don't have a First Amendment right to exclude speakers or speech they dislike"
In the sense that they DO have the right to exclude speakers or speech they dislike, but the source of that right isn't the First Amendment, right?
"Why won't you bake my Hitler birthday cake? It's just my political opinion, keep your politics at home, don't bring them into your business!"
Also, if you against compulsory Nazi cakes, you're denying the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and want to go back to whites-only lunch counters.
The CRA does not include political beliefs as a protected classification, so you can be against both compulsory Nazi cakes and whites-only lunch counters.
"Also, if you against compulsory Nazi cakes, you're denying the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and want to go back to whites-only lunch counters."
That pesky 13th amendment precludes compulsory Nazi cakes, except as punishment for a crime.
:Why won't you bake my Hitler birthday cake?"
Because this is not a bakery.
If you want someone to bake you a cake, try going to a bakery, where they offer to bake cakes in exchange for money.
We all deserve to feel safe and secure in our homes and communities, regardless of our political beliefs. Stand up for what's right and demand that your state pass a ban on political discrimination now! Visit
Better yet, press for a ban on political activity.