re: Is MLK's Civil Rights Act Constitutional?

There was precedent to support the public accommodations portion of the law with respect to hotels, railroads, rental cars, airplanes, etc under the “Right to Travel” as established by Crandel v. Nevada.

The idea was that if you cannot stay in a hotel, buy a plane ticket, etc, you cannot travel. One could argue that similar prohibitions on discrimination by restaurants could also be supported under the same line of thought (if you can’t buy food, you can’t travel).

However, the same logic starts to fall apart once extended to theaters and bars, as you don’t need those to travel. On the flip side, one could argue that access to those spaces are necessary for the freedom of association. What good is a freedom of association if you can be denied a place to gather? However, it also flies in the face of the freedom to choose with whom one associates, so it’s a double-edged sword.

As usual with most sweeping changes in human rights legislation, there are constitutional arguments both for and against which can be made in good faith.