Summations Only

That says it all. This one comment shows that you feel that the law is an attempt to force one subset of the populations views on to all of society. That Faith is tyranny.

Yup. Just like all those people that went to prison after passage of the civil rights act.Blacks are no different than those evil gays are they.(I tried to you use more vulgar slang on that last line, but just couldn't sink to that level.)

There are such things as what is right for society and what stands constitutional muster.This law back fired on the bigots because society has reached the point that as a whole we do not countenance overt state sanctioned bigotry. I know that bigots are going to go kicking and screaming, but you will go. Society has matured a lot in the last 10 years on issues of race, sexual orientation and immigrants. These are baby steps but strong steps forcing the bigots further to the margins of society.The problem with them being pushed to the margins is their final death throes have a good chance of being very disruptive and violent.The SPLC has recently reported hate groups are declining but are getting more violent. Source

No it isn't. That is a bizarre libertarian fantasy of how things should be. Funny how people like you want all the pluses of government but don't want to have to follow any laws you don't like.

Millions of white europeans were held in indentured servitude also. It wasn't a racial thing it was a "fuck everyone else I got mine" thing. How very christian.

They worked oof much more than the debt of passage. Indentured servitude could be much harsher than slavery, as the slave was a lifetime investment but indentured servants were only around for 7 years or so. Though a large percentage of immigrants to the new world in the 17th and 18th century were indentured servants, they came because their prospects in Europe seemed to be even worse. There are a number of good articles about the subject on the web. The wiki article is pretty good, but a number of others talk more about the brutality of the arrangement.As for the Chinese indentured servitude it is a little different but just as harsh and brutal. It is known as the Chinese ticket system.

quote:

---

Railroad building and continued westward expansion created a huge demand for labor that neither voluntary immigration from Europe nor involuntary internal migration could satisfy.To make up the deficit, the growing nation looked to China as a source of cheap workers. On paper, the Chinese coolies appeared to be voluntary migrants enlisted by brokers in China to work for American employers who paid the broker and shipping agent and collected the debt from the Chinese employees’ wages. In practice, most were forced into service in China and placed in occupations and regions in the United States where alternative employment was impossible, leaving them at the employer’s mercy. This credit-ticket system, which brought 350,000 Chinese laborers to the American mainland between 1840 and 1882, embodied many features of the old indentured labor system. In contrast to earlier European immigrants, however, the Chinese were never encouraged to become permanent settlers or citizens and were prohibited from doing so after 1882.

---

SourceThe difference between both and modern human trafficking is that modern human trafficking has no legal basis. Indentured servitude and Chinese-ticket system were supported by and authorized by the law. Society approved of the brutal systems.

And many don't think a god had anything to do with it. So there you go.What I am trying to say is that what "many regard" means absolutely squat.

Where is this right of which you speak granted? I do not see the tight to refuse service anywhere. Not in Constitution or Bill of Rights or any state constitution.There is no right to refuse service.

Show me where this "right" is codified. What document is the "right" in?

Even felons.

Don't get me started on missionaries