> If it is, then I exercise my freedom of speech to place bumper stickers on YOUR car that say things that you find distateful. "But that's my property!"
And in fact, you cannot stop me from putting leaflets on your car, no matter how distasteful you find the content, just because it's your property. In fact, in many jurisdictions, putting stickers is allowed too, the line being drawn at damaging the property of someone else. (I can write stuff on your car with easy to wash water paint, but I can't carve a message on it).
> If you ran a bookstore, and I could force you to carry a bunch of books that glorified Nazism
Welcome to the life of every bookstore clerks in the world. And it turns out they aren't allowed to remove books they disagree with, nor add their own favorite book in the store. If the owner of the store can force that on its clerks I see no reason why the legislator couldn't do the same on the owner. In fact, in countries that aren't hypocritical about freedom of speech, you cannot get fired by your boss if they dislike what you say, but you can definitely be fired if you refuse a customer, which shows doing business has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
So at the end of the day, having refuted your two arguments, my point still stand: Doing business isn't akin to speech, and corporations aren't human beings in the first place so they shouldn't be entitled human rights anyway.
Also, property right isn't some special kind of right that trumps everything else, it's one basic right like any other and have no precedence/superiority over the others.
You have done nothing to refute any of these points because you do not understand the fundamental legal concepts at play here.
You have expressed your opinion, which you are certainly able to have, but the objective reality is that freedom of association applying to businesses is incredibly old and consistently reiterated precedent. If you want to change it in countries where this is the law of the land, you're going to need to pass new laws (and in the case of the US, amend the constitution.)
But the problem is that you seem to misunderstand the difference between being protected from the government compelling speech/association/etc. with the law compelling the protection from other individuals, businesses, etc. from being able to take action because of their disagreement with what you said.
Frankly, I have no idea how the world you are envisioning would function. It would be a neverending argument over what side trumps the other in every disagreement of this nature. It's just not viable and this is one of the reasons that the precedent here is so strong and so universal.
> that freedom of association applying to businesses is incredibly old and consistently reiterated precedent.
I don't know why you bring that up though, as it has no relationship with whether or not the businesses and up having human rights on their own.
> is incredibly old and consistently reiterated precedent.
Again, this is irrelevant, as the age of a practice has no impact on how legitimate it is (slavery used to be incredibly old and reiterated ”).
> and in the case of the US, amend the constitution.
Nah, appointing the right Supreme Court justices is enough to create or destroy constitutional rights.
> Frankly, I have no idea how the world you are envisioning would function
It doesn't take that much imagination though, all you have to look at the real world, especially on the other side of the Atlantic: here businesses just can't put arbitrary restrictions that aren't backed by legitimate interest, and the said restriction must be necessary and proportionate to the achievement of the said legitimate interest. They simply cannot say “I'm free to do whatever I want” because they definitely aren't.
In fact I'm pretty sure that even in the US they cannot either, which is why Visa is framing it in a fraud reduction procedure.
And in fact, you cannot stop me from putting leaflets on your car, no matter how distasteful you find the content, just because it's your property. In fact, in many jurisdictions, putting stickers is allowed too, the line being drawn at damaging the property of someone else. (I can write stuff on your car with easy to wash water paint, but I can't carve a message on it).
> If you ran a bookstore, and I could force you to carry a bunch of books that glorified Nazism
Welcome to the life of every bookstore clerks in the world. And it turns out they aren't allowed to remove books they disagree with, nor add their own favorite book in the store. If the owner of the store can force that on its clerks I see no reason why the legislator couldn't do the same on the owner. In fact, in countries that aren't hypocritical about freedom of speech, you cannot get fired by your boss if they dislike what you say, but you can definitely be fired if you refuse a customer, which shows doing business has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
So at the end of the day, having refuted your two arguments, my point still stand: Doing business isn't akin to speech, and corporations aren't human beings in the first place so they shouldn't be entitled human rights anyway.
Also, property right isn't some special kind of right that trumps everything else, it's one basic right like any other and have no precedence/superiority over the others.