Sotomayor, J., dissenting
public in general.” H. R. Rep. No. 914, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 2, p. 9 (1963); see also S. Rep. No. 872, at 92.
Having failed to persuade Congress, opponents of Title II turned to the federal courts. In Heart of Atlanta Motel, one of several arguments made by the plaintiff motel owner was that Title II violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights by “tak[ing] away the personal liberty of an individual to run his business as he sees fit with respect to the selection and service of his customers.” Brief for Appellant, O. T. 1964, No. 515, p. 32. This Court disagreed, based on “a long line of cases” holding that “prohibition of racial discrimination in public accommodations” did not “interfer[e] with personal liberty.” 379 U. S., at 260.
In Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U. S. 294 (1964), the owner of Ollie’s Barbecue (Ollie McClung) likewise argued that Title II’s application to his business violated the “personal rights of persons in their personal convictions” to deny services to Black people. Brief for Appellees, O. T. 1964, No. 543, p. 33 (citing, inter alia, West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624 (1943)). Note that McClung did not refuse to transact with Black people. Oh, no. He was willing to offer them take-out service at a separate counter. See Brief for NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., as Amicus Curiae in Katzenbach v. McClung, p. 4, n. 5. Only integrated table service, you see, violated McClung’s core beliefs. So he claimed a constitutional right to offer Black people a limited menu of his services. This Court rejected that claim, citing its decision in Heart of Atlanta Motel. See 379 U. S., at 298, n. 1.
Next is Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U. S. 400 (1968) (per curiam), in which the owner of a chain of drive-in establishments asserted that requiring him to “contribut[e]” to racial integration in any way violated the First Amendment by interfering with his religious liberty. App. to Pet. for Cert., O. T. 1967, No. 339, p. 21a. Title II could not be applied to his business, he argued, because that
