That's what Ollie McClung thought, too, but the Supreme Court told him otherwise. You can only refuse service to someone on the grounds of a patron who detracts from the safety, welfare, and well-being of other patrons and the restaurant itself. You cannot refuse service just because of your feelings.
I unequivocally can. When I was a guard, I threw many people out for no reason other than "the manager said so." We were always upheld against all complaints. It's private property, the owner/manager says you're out, so you're out. Don't need a reason beyond that. When the cops got involved, the persons ejected thought they would get some satisfaction but all they would get is a trespass warning, which barred them for good. Had they just walked away, they probably could have come back the next week and nobody would have said anything as long as they didn't cause trouble.
Comically, one group of university students disputed that we could throw them out just because the manager said so, and refused to leave. I ejected the most vociferous one forcibly and the others decided they'd walk on their own. They then went to another of the restaurant's chains across town and complained to the manager there, saying they were going to sue. They wanted my name, which, of course, he didn't have. They figured he had my name in his files. He ended up throwing them out, too.
A cop was thrown out of a diner recently in Portland just for being a cop. Made national news. And the proprietor is within his rights. Because it's his diner and he says so.
Now...as far as McClung, he ran into a buzzsaw because of our nation's history on race relations. There are several things on which race is an exception. It's an exception carved out solely for race/creed/ethnicity and whatever the numbnuts in Washington decide to add to it next week, which could easily be pedophilia. It's kind of like when Affirmative Action was passed; it was held up because some representatives didn't want quotas, and it wouldn't have passed unless there was some assurance that it wouldn't result in quotas. That assurance was given, then at the last minute, so-to-speak, an amendment was slipped in that said that it would be prima facie evidence of discrimination if the racial makeup of the company's workforce didn't match that of the community. So the assurance was given that there would be no quotas, then quotas were codified in it. Exceptions.
Bottom line: race is
an exception to lots of things, and Ollie McClung, as well as that South Carolina barbecue restaurant guy, is a poster child for them. But that's not true for any individual refused service for some other reason. In fact, you see signs in many places reserving the right to refuse service to anyone, though, again, they wouldn't get away with it if it was racial.
Freedom of association is the right to assemble. It's got nothing to do with kicking someone out of a restaurant.
You seriously need to read up on freedom of association.
Freedom of association is the right to assemble when connected to the exercise of a civil right. For example, an early case related to a demand of the government on the Alabama chapter of the NAACP. The gummint demanded their membership roster, and the NAACP, in what just might be the last time they were right about anything, filed suit to prevent them from having to turn it over. So there was no literal assembly in question. It was a matter of associating together other than physical assembly. Now, it's true that I mischaracterized the employment example as freedom of assembly, but that doesn't change the fact that, in all but communist states, employment is at-will (previously mentioned exceptions apply, of course), and OJ or Casey Anthony could be fired--or ejected from a restaurant for any or no reason (other than race/sex/creed/etc. exceptions), as could Joe Pastrami (freakin' auto correct) were he still alive. If Pastrami demanded to know why, the manager might or might not choose to give him one, and if he does, he could say he doesn't want "your type" in here, and not being a minority, Joe would have no legal recourse, no way to claim illegal discrimination.
Senator Ben Nelson, once a popular man in Nebraska, is very unpopular there after his vote on Commie-care. He went into a pizza restaurant back home and he was booed rather vigorously. He and his party choose to skedaddle, but had they not, the owner could have booted him for any or no reason.
You're confusing a limitation of powers versus unalienable rights. Unalienable rights are rights which are inherent and cannot be transferred or taken away by anyone, including the government, but especially not individuals. You certainly don't have to allow any type of speech in your living room, but you cannot deny them to speak their mind under any and all circumstances outside of your living room. Restriction of powers prevents the government, or GUMMINT, if you like, from depriving individuals from their life or liberty, but that doesn't mean you can deprive someone of those rights simply because you are not the government.
If there are laws preventing me from doing X, then no. But in this case, I'm not putting Pastrami on trial, couldn't if I wanted to, so the legal protections embodied in the principle "Innocent until proven guilty" don't apply to me. The restrictions in the Bill of Rights are a charter of negative liberties on government and don't apply to me. It's not the Bill of Rights protections against depriving someone of life without due process that makes it illegal for one man to kill another; it's the law against murder. The law against murder has its roots in the same place, but I'm still not restricted by the Bill of Rights. The government is.
You can think all day long that someone is guilty, you can even voice that opinion, but you cannot take it upon yourself to deprive them of any of their rights because of what you think. The presumption of innocence in the law stems directly from the unalienable right of liberty, where the right to be left alone and not be persecuted without proof.
Their right to walk down the street, yes. The right for them to go into McDonald's and order a Big Mac absent the owner's or manager's objection, yes. But they don't have a right to be there
over the manager's objection, nor do they have the right to be in AMonger's Deli and Bait Shop over my objection. That's called private property rights.
It's also part and parcel of the Golden Rule.
That's why I pointed out the issue of moral guilt. It's much like caring for the poor. God makes it clear that we are to be compassionate towards the poor, and He even set up specific ways that ancient Israel was to do so. But if someone wouldn't, there was no civil, temporal penalty. There was no magistrate making sure a farmer didn't harvest the corners of his field or making sure he wasn't preventing the poor from eating standing grain. If he didn't do what was expected of him, the penalty was eternal and spiritual. Same here. If I treat OJ Simpson or Casey Anthony like murderers, or Joe Pastrami like someone who let someone else get away with buggering boys (kind of hard since he's dead, but, you know), not letting 'em buy corned beef with a side of worms--
and I'm wrong --then I answer to a Higher Authority, meaning God, not government. My private property rights in my deli and bait shop mean I don't have to allow anyone in that I don't want in, other than the aforementioned exceptions. If they don't leave, then it's at bare minimum "refusing a request to leave," a simple misdemeanor, and could potentially rise to the level of trespassing, and that goes for the Portland cop, too.
I'm not sure why you are unable to incarcerate someone (deprive them of liberty) in the first place, but the restrictions of the State do, absolutely, apply to the individual, a well. The individual cannot deprive another individual of their unalienable rights without just cause.
Eating in my deli and bait shop is not a right, not for you, not for Pastrami, not for OJ Simpson. I can't have the gummint lock them up, but I don't have to sell them a sandwich, or haul their freight if I choose not to. Nor is being free from social approbation a right. Nor MUST I or society associate with someone. They can be shunned because we think they're guilty of that for which the government acquitted them. Again, a moral problem if we're wrong, but no government protection against it regardless.
--
You know the problem with bad cops? They make the other 5% look bad.
