Which of the following are protected under the First Amendment?

[opebo]

they are all protected but refusing to serve blacks was later made illegal.  I don't think it should be illegal, if people are dumb enough to turn away money then let them follow their idiotic beliefs.

You're mistaking their situation - the restauranteurs were not 'turning away money' out of racism, they were following the dictates of the market.  The great majority of their potential customers were white, and these whites would refuse to eat in the company of blacks, so banning blacks was the more rational, self-interested, laissez-faire capitalist course of action.

[opebo]

Denying blacks service is protected by freedom of association.

Not at all, Jake.  Freedom of association refers to private, personal activities, not commercial ones.

[opebo]

how is refusing to serve blacks remotely linked to the First Amendment?

Apparnetely it's your "free expression" to deny blacks service. I got into some argument with Philip over this. He thinks denying blacks service is more protected than dancing naked.

Uh, no. I said neither is protected by the First Amendment. However, denying blacks service is at least remotely connected to free association, whereas dancing naked is obviously not covered by anything.

No, dancing naked is clearly speech.

[opebo]

I say all are except refusing to serve blacks.

Agreed.

#4 isn't really a First Amendment issue, but should be legal anyway.

Why not?  In what other way can dancing naked be interpreted than as expression?

[opebo]

I say all are except refusing to serve blacks.

Agreed.

#4 isn't really a First Amendment issue, but should be legal anyway.

Why not?  In what other way can dancing naked be interpreted than as expression?

Commerce, obviously. They aren't dancing out of political concerns or anything of the like, they're doing it for money.

What does the money have to do with anything?  It is art, produced and consumed for its entertainment value. 

[opebo]

I say all are except refusing to serve blacks.

Agreed.

#4 isn't really a First Amendment issue, but should be legal anyway.

Why not?  In what other way can dancing naked be interpreted than as expression?

Commerce, obviously. They aren't dancing out of political concerns or anything of the like, they're doing it for money.

What does the money have to do with anything?  It is art, produced and consumed for its entertainment value. 

Entertainment sure - but art, no. If you think strip dancing is art, then you have horrible taste - that's like comparing a Picasso or a da Vinci to a bucket of paint thrown on a canvas randomly.

No, stripping is an art, and anyway taste is purely subjective.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You think only political speech is protected under the first amendment?!  Some libertarian you are.  It will be easy enough to define away nearly all speech as something other than purely political.

As for your perrenial private property reference, are you suggesting that the poor, who have no property, should be denied their freedom of speech (and nudity)?  No, the propertyless must be allowed free expression in the public domain, otherwise speech becomes the purvue solely of the priviledged.

[opebo]

Denying blacks service is protected by freedom of association.

Not at all, Jake.  Freedom of association refers to private, personal activities, not commercial ones.

So a prostitute couldn't deny service to anyone even if she didn't wish to provide that service to a person?

Opebo got owned.

In point of fact, Ebowed, Dibbles claim of a similarity between a lunch counter and a prostitute at first sounds reasonable.  Of course it is not if we view the act of prostitution as essentially a personal one based upon the right to privacy, with its commercial considerations merely secondary.  The lunch counter of course, is not a person, but a corporation, which throws itself open to the commercial attentions of the general public. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think they were talking about the sidewalk.

[opebo]

Denying blacks service is protected by freedom of association.

Not at all, Jake.  Freedom of association refers to private, personal activities, not commercial ones.

So a prostitute couldn't deny service to anyone even if she didn't wish to provide that service to a person?

Opebo got owned.

You know, this is the second time I've asked this question and I've yet to hear a response from him.

Prostitutes and lunch counters are very different things, Dibble.  See above.

[opebo]

they are all protected but refusing to serve blacks was later made illegal.  I don't think it should be illegal, if people are dumb enough to turn away money then let them follow their idiotic beliefs.

You're mistaking their situation - the restauranteurs were not 'turning away money' out of racism, they were following the dictates of the market.  The great majority of their potential customers were white, and these whites would refuse to eat in the company of blacks, so banning blacks was the more rational, self-interested, laissez-faire capitalist course of action.

That was then. I believe now times are different and the majority of whites aren't racist.

Oh they're just as racist as ever, they just don't go around yelling it at the top of their lungs.  I guess that's progress.  The same old racism, just better concealed.