See 4th Amendment U.S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act 1983 as amended to name two.
If I may quote myself in full context:
bagpiper said:
Current statutes do not fully respect this principle [of individual rights.] ... But I defy anyone here to make a case that he has some right to force association contrary to the terms that a business owner is willing to voluntarily accept.
--emphasis added.
The 4th amendment is a limitation on government, NOT on private citizens. Just like the 1st and 2nd amendment. Government cannot constitutionally infringe on your right to worship, speak, publish, or bear arms. But I have every right to deny you the use of my property for any of those reasons if I so choose. Government cannot prevent Heffner and other pornographers from creating and selling their magazines. I have every right to prevent others from bringing those magazines into my home. Government cannot prevent you from praying to whomever you see fit. I don't have to invite you into my property for your worship services. And so it is with the 4th amendment. Government is limited in what it can require you to do. I however, can set pretty much what terms I will for entering my property. You remain free to reject my terms and not enter my property.
The civil rights acts are some of those statutes that do not fully respect pure rights theory. It is application of majority force against an unpopular, minority opinion. Again, I don't care to debate whether it serves a greater good than pure respect for rights, but let's be accurate about what it is. It is force, plain and simple.
If your position is, "I can force association because the majority supports me in doing so" then just say that and be done. But don't pretend you have any natural right to do so. You may have a statutory ability to do so, just as Chicago and DC can and will throw our back sides into jail just for exercising our rights to peacefully possess a self-defense firearm. There is a difference between "ability", "might", or "force", and an actual "
right" to do something.
I defy you to point to any recognized aspect of pure rights theory that allows you to force association with another person, a private citizen, on terms he finds disagreeable.
Beyond that, I defy you to point to any statutory language in the civil rights act that allows you to force association based on not wanting to allow a check of receipt and merchandise upon exiting the store. Direct citation welcome. I'm sure there are various local or State statutes, and myriad store policies that support your desire not to submit to a receipt/merchandise check. But I'm fairly certain you won't find any such thing mentioned in any federal civil rights acts. Show me a citation to the contrary and I will have learned something new today.
Now, if a store only wants to check the receipts of black customers, or refuses to do business with Jews, or denies access to the handicapped, that business will find itself sideways with various civil rights acts and the ADA. No doubt. But to check receipts of every customer? Or even a random sampling of customers not based on race, sex, religion, ethnicity, etc? I don't think federal civil rights laws are going to prevent that.
I get it. You don't like someone asking to check your receipt. That is fine. You are fully entitled to your opinion in this regard. But let's be clear that it is your opinion. It may be supported by certain local or State statutes that, I contend, would be operating in violation of pure rights theory. I do not believe any federal civil rights statute prevents a store from checking receipts. If it did, it too would be operating in violation of pure rights theory. And maybe that is a greater good. You may believe it is. I would argue that denying a business the practical legal ability to check receipts and merchandise exiting the store imposes an unjust, undue burden on business owners in addition to being a violation of the owner's rights. A majority vote of the correct body (legislative, or public) can make such limits on others' rights legal. I don't believe it can change the fundamental nature of what is or is not a natural right.
It is the misuse of the word "right" that has me bothered. Tell me that no non--membership store (in your city or State) has the statutory ability to require a receipt check and I won't argue with you. Tell me you find such checks offensive and I will offer my contrary opinion, but otherwise not argue; you are as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. But so long as you assert that a business owner has no "right" to require a receipt/merchandise check I will push back on what is or is not really a "right" as that term was properly understood by those who framed our second amendment.
In failing to properly understand what is or is not a right, we get ourselves all wrapped up in all kinds of false dilemmas. Once we clearly understand what is or is not a right, we can then move forward with some firm footing on principle. There are times when we may deliberately decide to allow majority rule to violate individual rights based on some calculation of the greater good. But we should do so carefully and deliberately, fully understanding what we are doing, rather than deluding ourselves into thinking we are not violating rights. Otherwise we are no different than those who would (or do) use majority vote to violate our RKBA simply because they find that disagreeable.
Charles