Are Gay-Rights Laws Trampling on Freedom of Religion?

[Torie]

This article seems to be all about the New Mexico photographer example where the court ruled that he had to photograph a gay wedding (a result with which I disagree because that does go too far in intruding on private religious beliefs). Hopefully SCOTUS in due course will make clear that beyond selling stuff over the counter, one is not obligated to get enmeshed in a gay wedding ceremony vis a vis having to offer one's personal services at the affair itself. Muon2 and I spent some time chatting about this example, when he was faced with a potential vote on SSM in Illinois (before it all went away).

[barfbag]

I have to say no. Religious people are free to remain against homosexuality and don't have to accept gays into their church or religion. If they were forced to then it would violate the first amendment.

[7,052,770]

No moreso than anti-gay laws. My denomination has gay marriage,  and I strongly believe that being against 100% full equality is a sin.

[DC Al Fine]

This article seems to be all about the New Mexico photographer example where the court ruled had to photograph a gay wedding (a result with which I disagree because that does go too far in intruding on private religious beliefs). Hopefully SCOTUS in due course will make clear that beyond selling stuff over the counter, who is not obligated to get enmeshed in a gay wedding ceremony vis a vis having to offer one's personal services at the affair itself. Muon2 and I spent some time chatting about this example, when he was faced with a potential vote on SSM in Illinois (before it all went away).

This brings up a larger debate about how far religious freedom extends. Does it merely apply to specifically religious practices or does it extend to living one's life according to one's conscience?

I believe religious freedom should extend beyond mere freedom of worship. Limiting freedom of religion to worship renders the faith moot. Faith without works is dead

This is the problem with the New Mexico photographer case. The state is forcing someone to go against their deeply held convictions. This is no different than telling a Catholic doctor to perform an abortion or a Quaker to go to war.

[pbrower2a]

This article seems to be all about the New Mexico photographer example where the court ruled had to photograph a gay wedding (a result with which I disagree because that does go too far in intruding on private religious beliefs). Hopefully SCOTUS in due course will make clear that beyond selling stuff over the counter, who is not obligated to get enmeshed in a gay wedding ceremony vis a vis having to offer one's personal services at the affair itself. Muon2 and I spent some time chatting about this example, when he was faced with a potential vote on SSM in Illinois (before it all went away).

Such would set a precedent for refusing to serve an interfaith or interracial marriage.

So far as I know, Westboro Baptist Church, the infamous gay-baiters who use the Bible as a pretext for opposing homosexuality in any form, has not had its capacity to condemn homosexuality curtailed.

[Ban my account ffs!]

This article seems to be all about the New Mexico photographer example where the court ruled had to photograph a gay wedding (a result with which I disagree because that does go too far in intruding on private religious beliefs). Hopefully SCOTUS in due course will make clear that beyond selling stuff over the counter, who is not obligated to get enmeshed in a gay wedding ceremony vis a vis having to offer one's personal services at the affair itself. Muon2 and I spent some time chatting about this example, when he was faced with a potential vote on SSM in Illinois (before it all went away).

Such would set a precedent for refusing to serve an interfaith or interracial marriage.

So far as I know, Westboro Baptist Church, the infamous gay-baiters who use the Bible as a pretext for opposing homosexuality in any form, has not had its capacity to condemn homosexuality curtailed.

Indeed.

I have no problem with a church refusing to marry a gay couple for religious reasons.  But as a business owner, you do not have the right to deny someone a service on the basis of their sexuality.

This is no different than refusing to seat blacks at your lunch counter, or muslim cab drivers in Minneapolis refusing to transport customers who have alcohol in their luggage.

[TDAS04]

No.  Some people may hold a deeply-held religious belief that blacks are inferior to whites, but there should be laws against discrimination.

I can see the argument that forcing someone to photograph a gay wedding that he is against may be wrong, but the same standard should apply to right of racist religious people to deny service because of race.  

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No.  Some people may hold a deeply-held religious belief that blacks are inferior to whites, but there should be laws against discrimination.

I can see the argument that forcing someone to photograph a gay wedding that he is against may be wrong, but the same standard should apply to right of racist religious people to deny service because of race.  

A wedding photographer, or at least a good wedding photographer, is going to have a good deal more personal interaction with their clients than someone selling food at a restaurant or renting out a motel room or an apartment.  At least in the case of restaurants and hotels one can point to discrimination as interfering with freedom of movement, but denying one's service as a photographer? That just doesn't rise to the same level.

[DC Al Fine]

This article seems to be all about the New Mexico photographer example where the court ruled had to photograph a gay wedding (a result with which I disagree because that does go too far in intruding on private religious beliefs). Hopefully SCOTUS in due course will make clear that beyond selling stuff over the counter, who is not obligated to get enmeshed in a gay wedding ceremony vis a vis having to offer one's personal services at the affair itself. Muon2 and I spent some time chatting about this example, when he was faced with a potential vote on SSM in Illinois (before it all went away).

Such would set a precedent for refusing to serve an interfaith or interracial marriage.

So far as I know, Westboro Baptist Church, the infamous gay-baiters who use the Bible as a pretext for opposing homosexuality in any form, has not had its capacity to condemn homosexuality curtailed.

Indeed.

I have no problem with a church refusing to marry a gay couple for religious reasons.  But as a business owner, you do not have the right to deny someone a service on the basis of their sexuality.

This is no different than refusing to seat blacks at your lunch counter, or muslim cab drivers in Minneapolis refusing to transport customers who have alcohol in their luggage.

The problem is with a wedding photographer, it's much more ambiguous than just being a business owner. The photographer for lack of a better phrase is aiding and abetting a gay marriage. There's a huge difference between forcing someone to serve/sell to someone they find morally repugnant and making them help with the action they find so wrong.

To use your Muslim example, the photography case is more akin to forcing a Muslim farmer to sell grain to a brewery than making him drive someone with a six-pack.

[afleitch]

Is it conducive to society to grant people outs from equality legislation? If society grows to consider homophobia or sexism or racism as morally repugnant, why enact laws to grant people an exemption from that understanding based on religious faith alone? I do not doubt the sincerity of the convictions of people who don’t wish to serve me based on their religious objections to me as a person, but nor do I doubt the sincerity of the convictions held by someone who doesn’t wish to serve me based on the fact that I am a Tory, or to assist a friend of mine because he is black. Some people sincerely and deeply hold the belief that black people are simply inferior regardless of what the law says or how society has moved on and find it a day to day struggle in their jobs, lives and in their community to act upon their own deeply held conscience. No one proposes legislation to assist them. Because of the curios of the Constitution perhaps if they formed a religion in which they could express their sincere convictions then they may be allowed that element of protection. Indeed, society should just simply form more religions based on everything from sexuality, to hair colour. Really morbidly obese people can form an Obese Church and get some tax exempt cheek room..

What might be more accurate of course is that people object to having to serve gay people not because of sincerely held religious beliefs but because in general, they are assholes. The same goes for white supremacists that hold similarly sincerely held beliefs and feel that not turning away n-ggers away from their shop interferes with that. They are assholes. When you go through life you will generally meet people you can’t stand for any rational or irrational reason; if you interact with these people be nice about it. Do everything through gritted teeth if you have to, just don’t be an asshole and demand that they law should allow you to be because you are say, a ‘Christian’, because the vast majority of Christians are not assholes and can generally handle being a Christian while dealing with groups and people they perhaps on paper, shouldn’t have to. Given that most politicians are assholes (with Republicans in particular going one step further into being ar$eholes) then they appeal to the asshole constitutent more often than they should because assholes in general whine about everything. The fact a photographer is whining about having to take the pictures of a gay couple is like whining about having to take photographs of fossils when contractually doing a nature shoot, because they were planted there by Jews. Do we run to the regional legislature and demand that he has the right not to deal with anything, [absolutely anything he can think of if he can twist it into some conscientious religious objection? But if you’re morbidly obese, a Communist, a ginger supremacist or the organiser of the Nazi Supermen Are Our Superiors bake sale and rodeo you can get to f-ck because it’s not a religious objection?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Is it conducive to society to grant people outs from equality legislation? If society grows to consider homophobia or sexism or racism as morally repugnant, why enact laws to grant people an exemption from that understanding based on religious faith alone? I do not doubt the sincerity of the convictions of people who don’t wish to serve me based on their religious objections to me as a person, but nor do I doubt the sincerity of the convictions held by someone who doesn’t wish to serve me based on the fact that I am a Tory, or to assist a friend of mine because he is black. Some people sincerely and deeply hold the belief that black people are simply inferior regardless of what the law says or how society has moved on and find it a day to day struggle in their jobs, lives and in their community to act upon their own deeply held conscience. No one proposes legislation to assist them. Because of the curios of the Constitution perhaps if they formed a religion in which they could express their sincere convictions then they may be allowed that element of protection. Indeed, society should just simply form more religions based on everything from sexuality, to hair colour. Really morbidly obese people can form an Obese Church and get some tax exempt cheek room..

You know, it's posts like this that make me think you are not merely an atheist, but that you have an absolute contempt for religion.

But back to the topic: to reverse your original question, is it conducive to society to grant people ins via equality legislation? Except in the most egregious situations, I think not. Having a photographer refuse to do your wedding for whatever reason does not to me appear to be egregious enough to use the force of law to compel him to do that which he does not want to do.  Besides, why anyone would want their wedding photos done by someone who would have no reason to do his best is something I don't understand.

[Torie]

I should have mentioned that to me forcing someone to spend a day doing something they consider immoral is akin to involuntary servitude, and is itself unConstitutional for that reason, as well as the 1st amendment clause. The Court was simply off the wall here. It made no effort to engage in a reasonable balancing test at all.  Sure one can question one's motives, like alfeitch does, but one can't fashion legal precepts on that basis that would be administratively practicable. The law does much better focusing on actions, rather than motives. JMO.

[afleitch]

Is it conducive to society to grant people outs from equality legislation? If society grows to consider homophobia or sexism or racism as morally repugnant, why enact laws to grant people an exemption from that understanding based on religious faith alone? I do not doubt the sincerity of the convictions of people who don’t wish to serve me based on their religious objections to me as a person, but nor do I doubt the sincerity of the convictions held by someone who doesn’t wish to serve me based on the fact that I am a Tory, or to assist a friend of mine because he is black. Some people sincerely and deeply hold the belief that black people are simply inferior regardless of what the law says or how society has moved on and find it a day to day struggle in their jobs, lives and in their community to act upon their own deeply held conscience. No one proposes legislation to assist them. Because of the curios of the Constitution perhaps if they formed a religion in which they could express their sincere convictions then they may be allowed that element of protection. Indeed, society should just simply form more religions based on everything from sexuality, to hair colour. Really morbidly obese people can form an Obese Church and get some tax exempt cheek room..

You know, it's posts like this that make me think you are not merely an atheist, but that you have an absolute contempt for religion.

But back to the topic: to reverse your original question, is it conducive to society to grant people ins via equality legislation? Except in the most egregious situations, I think not. Having a photographer refuse to do your wedding for whatever reason does not to me appear to be egregious enough to use the force of law to compel him to do that which he does not want to do.  Besides, why anyone would want their wedding photos done by someone who would have no reason to do his best is something I don't understand.

Its posts like this that make me think you don’t understand the use of humour (or perhaps even read what was written) to make a serious point The ‘serious hat’ version of what I said is this. Why is religious conscientious exemption held higher in law (and the answer to this is partly tradition) than philosophical conscientious exemption? For example, in Britain, Quakers could generally successfully argue for being exempt from the draft during the Great War, Quaker Socialists could argue on account of their Quakerism, but Socialists couldn’t on account of their socialism. Secondly why are these objections entirely subjective? If the vast majority of Christians and people of other faiths can operate in society without needing to utilise any faith based objection even if granted to them, why do other people of faith need them? Is it really their faith that motivates them or is it perhaps simply a personal objection that would have no legal traction unless it was wrapped up in religious rhetoric?

In short should homophobic, sexist or racist reactions ‘claimed’ by the person who espouses them as a facet of their manifestation of religious belief (even though other people who manifest that belief do not espouse those views) be classifiable in law as a ‘credible’ homophobic, sexist or racist act because the espouser appeals to religion?

There is a difference between a religious ritualistic requirement and a social response. There is no ritualistic requirement for a Christian to prohibit a gay person from utilising their services (or by permitting them, ceases to be able to ‘act Christian’ as a result)

[pbrower2a]

This article seems to be all about the New Mexico photographer example where the court ruled had to photograph a gay wedding (a result with which I disagree because that does go too far in intruding on private religious beliefs). Hopefully SCOTUS in due course will make clear that beyond selling stuff over the counter, who is not obligated to get enmeshed in a gay wedding ceremony vis a vis having to offer one's personal services at the affair itself. Muon2 and I spent some time chatting about this example, when he was faced with a potential vote on SSM in Illinois (before it all went away).

Such would set a precedent for refusing to serve an interfaith or interracial marriage.

So far as I know, Westboro Baptist Church, the infamous gay-baiters who use the Bible as a pretext for opposing homosexuality in any form, has not had its capacity to condemn homosexuality curtailed.

Indeed.

I have no problem with a church refusing to marry a gay couple for religious reasons.  But as a business owner, you do not have the right to deny someone a service on the basis of their sexuality.

This is no different than refusing to seat blacks at your lunch counter, or muslim cab drivers in Minneapolis refusing to transport customers who have alcohol in their luggage.

The problem is with a wedding photographer, it's much more ambiguous than just being a business owner. The photographer for lack of a better phrase is aiding and abetting a gay marriage. There's a huge difference between forcing someone to serve/sell to someone they find morally repugnant and making them help with the action they find so wrong.

To use your Muslim example, the photography case is more akin to forcing a Muslim farmer to sell grain to a brewery than making him drive someone with a six-pack.

A wedding photographer is no more aiding and abetting a same-sex marriage than is a travel agent who arranges the honeymoon, the rental agent for the tuxedos, the baker of the wedding cake, or the leasing agent for the limousine.

...Maybe if one is a Muslim one might seek to avoid employment with a brewery, a firm that deals weapons to Israel, a merchant who deals in alcohol,  a publisher of pornography, or a dealer in shellfish or pork. Heck, I styled myself as a "pacifist Mormon" so that I could avoid investing an insurance payout in cancerweed, alcohol, or firearms and military contracting.

[memphis]

Is it conducive to society to grant people outs from equality legislation? If society grows to consider homophobia or sexism or racism as morally repugnant, why enact laws to grant people an exemption from that understanding based on religious faith alone? I do not doubt the sincerity of the convictions of people who don’t wish to serve me based on their religious objections to me as a person, but nor do I doubt the sincerity of the convictions held by someone who doesn’t wish to serve me based on the fact that I am a Tory, or to assist a friend of mine because he is black. Some people sincerely and deeply hold the belief that black people are simply inferior regardless of what the law says or how society has moved on and find it a day to day struggle in their jobs, lives and in their community to act upon their own deeply held conscience. No one proposes legislation to assist them. Because of the curios of the Constitution perhaps if they formed a religion in which they could express their sincere convictions then they may be allowed that element of protection. Indeed, society should just simply form more religions based on everything from sexuality, to hair colour. Really morbidly obese people can form an Obese Church and get some tax exempt cheek room..

You know, it's posts like this that make me think you are not merely an atheist, but that you have an absolute contempt for religion.

But back to the topic: to reverse your original question, is it conducive to society to grant people ins via equality legislation? Except in the most egregious situations, I think not. Having a photographer refuse to do your wedding for whatever reason does not to me appear to be egregious enough to use the force of law to compel him to do that which he does not want to do.  Besides, why anyone would want their wedding photos done by someone who would have no reason to do his best is something I don't understand.

Its posts like this that make me think you don’t understand the use of humour (or perhaps even read what was written) to make a serious point The ‘serious hat’ version of what I said is this. Why is religious conscientious exemption held higher in law (and the answer to this is partly tradition) than philosophical conscientious exemption? For example, in Britain, Quakers could generally successfully argue for being exempt from the draft during the Great War, Quaker Socialists could argue on account of their Quakerism, but Socialists couldn’t on account of their socialism. Secondly why are these objections entirely subjective? If the vast majority of Christians and people of other faiths can operate in society without needing to utilise any faith based objection even if granted to them, why do other people of faith need them? Is it really their faith that motivates them or is it perhaps simply a personal objection that would have no legal traction unless it was wrapped up in religious rhetoric?

In short should homophobic, sexist or racist reactions ‘claimed’ by the person who espouses them as a facet of their manifestation of religious belief (even though other people who manifest that belief do not espouse those views) be classifiable in law as a ‘credible’ homophobic, sexist or racist act because the espouser appeals to religion?

There is a difference between a religious ritualistic requirement and a social response. There is no ritualistic requirement for a Christian to prohibit a gay person from utilising their services (or by permitting them, ceases to be able to ‘act Christian’ as a result)

^^^^^^^^^
Mr. Fleitch, you are my favorite.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Why is religious conscientious exemption held higher in law (and the answer to this is partly tradition) than philosophical conscientious exemption?

As you said, tradition.  Yet where you seem to take the position that religion should be leveled with other philosophies by denying the use of a religious reason to engage in discrimination, I take the complete opposite tack.  To me it doesn't matter why that photographer we've been using as an example wants to be an idiot and not shoot gay weddings. When rights conflict, there is a need to choose which takes precedence, but I see no compelling reason in this case to force him to provide that service so as to facilitate a right to be married.  To me it's not freedom of religion that rights laws trample but freedom of association.  Freedom of religion is but a specific case of freedom of association. I grant the OP posed the question in terms of that specific case, but the right that is trampled is the more generic one.

[memphis]

Why is religious conscientious exemption held higher in law (and the answer to this is partly tradition) than philosophical conscientious exemption?

As you said, tradition.  Yet where you seem to take the position that religion should be leveled with other philosophies by denying the use of a religious reason to engage in discrimination, I take the complete opposite tack.  To me it doesn't matter why that photographer we've been using as an example wants to be an idiot and not shoot gay weddings. When rights conflict, there is a need to choose which takes precedence, but I see no compelling reason in this case to force him to provide that service so as to facilitate a right to be married.  To me it's not freedom of religion that rights laws trample but freedom of association.  Freedom of religion is but a specific case of freedom of association. I grant the OP posed the question in terms of that specific case, but the right that is trampled is the more generic one.

So you're against the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Why is religious conscientious exemption held higher in law (and the answer to this is partly tradition) than philosophical conscientious exemption?

As you said, tradition.  Yet where you seem to take the position that religion should be leveled with other philosophies by denying the use of a religious reason to engage in discrimination, I take the complete opposite tack.  To me it doesn't matter why that photographer we've been using as an example wants to be an idiot and not shoot gay weddings. When rights conflict, there is a need to choose which takes precedence, but I see no compelling reason in this case to force him to provide that service so as to facilitate a right to be married.  To me it's not freedom of religion that rights laws trample but freedom of association.  Freedom of religion is but a specific case of freedom of association. I grant the OP posed the question in terms of that specific case, but the right that is trampled is the more generic one.

So you're against the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

It was needed in 1964 to secure the freedom of travel to all citizens.  But if you've checked a calendar lately, this isn't 1964.  While there no doubt would be some small scale return to discrimination in public accommodations if Title II were repealed, I doubt that it would be significant enough to impede the ability of anyone to find a hotel room or restaurant to serve them while traveling.  Even without a law prohibiting it, few businesses would care to be known for doing that, and they certainly would lose custom if they did, thus placing their owners at an economic disadvantage.  The only reason to keep Title II on the book is inertia.  It's not worth the effort it would take to repeal it, especially while other laws do need to remain on the books addressing other areas of discrimination.

Hopefully we'll also get to the point that Title VII of the CRA and the Fair Housing Act of 1968 are no longer needed, but regretfully, we're not there yet as a society.

However, access to a job or housing has far more repercussions to a person than access to a wedding photographer.

[barfbag]

Why is religious conscientious exemption held higher in law (and the answer to this is partly tradition) than philosophical conscientious exemption?

As you said, tradition.  Yet where you seem to take the position that religion should be leveled with other philosophies by denying the use of a religious reason to engage in discrimination, I take the complete opposite tack.  To me it doesn't matter why that photographer we've been using as an example wants to be an idiot and not shoot gay weddings. When rights conflict, there is a need to choose which takes precedence, but I see no compelling reason in this case to force him to provide that service so as to facilitate a right to be married.  To me it's not freedom of religion that rights laws trample but freedom of association.  Freedom of religion is but a specific case of freedom of association. I grant the OP posed the question in terms of that specific case, but the right that is trampled is the more generic one.

So you're against the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

No he's not but you've just proven you're against the first amendment by comparing freedom of religion to segregation. What's so bad about freedom of religion which includes the church's right to not accept gay marriage?  Does this mean you're against freedom of speech as protected by our first amendment too? You must oppose it because you're sure against people speaking from religious grounds to support where they stand.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Sigh.

[memphis]

Why is religious conscientious exemption held higher in law (and the answer to this is partly tradition) than philosophical conscientious exemption?

As you said, tradition.  Yet where you seem to take the position that religion should be leveled with other philosophies by denying the use of a religious reason to engage in discrimination, I take the complete opposite tack.  To me it doesn't matter why that photographer we've been using as an example wants to be an idiot and not shoot gay weddings. When rights conflict, there is a need to choose which takes precedence, but I see no compelling reason in this case to force him to provide that service so as to facilitate a right to be married.  To me it's not freedom of religion that rights laws trample but freedom of association.  Freedom of religion is but a specific case of freedom of association. I grant the OP posed the question in terms of that specific case, but the right that is trampled is the more generic one.

So you're against the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

It was needed in 1964 to secure the freedom of travel to all citizens.  But if you've checked a calendar lately, this isn't 1964.  While there no doubt would be some small scale return to discrimination in public accommodations if Title II were repealed, I doubt that it would be significant enough to impede the ability of anyone to find a hotel room or restaurant to serve them while traveling.  Even without a law prohibiting it, few businesses would care to be known for doing that, and they certainly would lose custom if they did, thus placing their owners at an economic disadvantage.  The only reason to keep Title II on the book is inertia.  It's not worth the effort it would take to repeal it, especially while other laws do need to remain on the books addressing other areas of discrimination.

Hopefully we'll also get to the point that Title VII of the CRA and the Fair Housing Act of 1968 are no longer needed, but regretfully, we're not there yet as a society.

However, access to a job or housing has far more repercussions to a person than access to a wedding photographer.

Do you think blacks in 1964 couldn't find restaurants or hotels? Under Jim Crow, they had their own parallel institutions. The point was not that they had no opportunities for services. The point was that they ought to have access to the same services as everybody else. And they still do in 2013, just as much as in 1964. I find your blatent suggestion that this long established legal right to public services ought not to apply today extremely distasteful, but that's fine. We're all allowed to our own opinions.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Do you think blacks in 1964 couldn't find restaurants or hotels? Under Jim Crow, they had their own parallel institutions. The point was not that they had no opportunities for services. The point was that they ought to have access to the same services as everybody else. And they still do in 2013, just as much as in 1964. I find your blatent suggestion that this long established legal right to public services ought not to apply today extremely distasteful, but that's fine. We're all allowed to our own opinions.

You missed my point. If Title II was repealed and no longer on the books, I believe we would not see a return to Jim Crow today.  The few establishments that might try it would be quickly left with a fraction of their former business as only die-hard racists who are willing to admit to their racism would frequent them.  America has changed since 1964.  Not as much as might be hoped for, but it has changed.  Ideally we should have as few laws as possible.  As repugnant as racists are, they still have rights, and impinging upon their freedom of association is not something to be done lightly.  The context of 1964 made it necessary to impinge upon their rights so as to support and uphold the freedom of non-racists to associate with people of any race. That's no longer the case.  That battle has been won, but there are still plenty of other battles to fight in the war against discrimination.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

In most cases, no.  You do not have the freedom to restrict another's freedom.  It's that simple.  That said, should the photographer have been punished in any way for refusing to work that wedding?  Of course not, that's a personal, private matter. 

[memphis]

Do you think blacks in 1964 couldn't find restaurants or hotels? Under Jim Crow, they had their own parallel institutions. The point was not that they had no opportunities for services. The point was that they ought to have access to the same services as everybody else. And they still do in 2013, just as much as in 1964. I find your blatent suggestion that this long established legal right to public services ought not to apply today extremely distasteful, but that's fine. We're all allowed to our own opinions.

You missed my point. If Title II was repealed and no longer on the books, I believe we would not see a return to Jim Crow today.  The few establishments that might try it would be quickly left with a fraction of their former business as only die-hard racists who are willing to admit to their racism would frequent them.  America has changed since 1964.  Not as much as might be hoped for, but it has changed.  Ideally we should have as few laws as possible.  As repugnant as racists are, they still have rights, and impinging upon their freedom of association is not something to be done lightly.  The context of 1964 made it necessary to impinge upon their rights so as to support and uphold the freedom of non-racists to associate with people of any race. That's no longer the case.  That battle has been won, but there are still plenty of other battles to fight in the war against discrimination.

Most people also are not interested in murder, whether or not it is illegal. Should we not have laws against murder in the interest of having as few laws as possible?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Most people also are not interested in murder, whether or not it is illegal. Should we not have laws against murder in the interest of having as few laws as possible?

No, because murder causes considerable harm to others, So did the widespread discrimination in the provision of public accommodations in 1964. But I believe that in 2013 what little discrimination that Title II prevents now would at most cause a minor inconvenience.

Also, one reason for laws against murder is to prevent revenge killings and the like.  Is the opprobrium and ostracization that racists who openly discriminate in the provision of public accommodations would face something we need to enact laws to prevent?