Implicit cutbacks on 1st Am protections

[Michael deHaven Newsom]

Samuel Martin Ventola wrote:

> I've not before heard it suggested that the 14th amendment
> requires private citizens to extend equal protection to
> anyone.  If it could have previously been said that
> governments have free speech or freedom of religion rights,
> then I suppose the 14th amendment would affect, and
> partially rescind, that.  However, the 14th amendment can't
> be interpreted as affecting private speech or religious
> practice, except perhaps by strengthening those rights by
> requiring States to observe them.  The 14th certainly does
> not cut back on private 1st amendment rights, nor does it
> create an obligation of any non-State actor to treat people
> equally.

The line between public and private is neither self-defining nor fixed.
It changes depending on what is at stake.  I might agree with what you
say as a matter of textual form, but you and I might disagree in the
application of the form to the facts of a particular case.