This is a bad take. When we, society, allow you to register as a business, we form an agreement. Part of that agreement is that you follow certain rules. We make those rules to better society.
Some rules are things like pay taxes, or don’t sell outdated food. Some rules are there to make sure anyone can shop there, without discussion.
Those rules are important because it’s very possible for a small number of business owners to make a group of people’s lives very difficult, especially out in rural areas where people don’t have a lot of options.
For a concrete example, let’s say Pfizer cures cancer. Do you want them to be able to say they won’t sell to Christians? You can’t just “go elsewhere”. But now this is allowed.
The much more dangerous part of this ruling is that the supreme Court ruled on a case where there was no standing. A lot of people don’t realize that having standing is one of the cornerstones of our legal structure. Now, in theory, any idiot could sue for any dreamed up scenario and have a much better chance of winning in court.
Society needs to codify these rules into law though otherwise bad actors break those rules. When a right wing activist supreme court removes these protections, people get hurt. But, a store like this isnt doing this to hurt people, it’s to make a statement that the far-rights own discrimination can backfire on them. It’s a form of protest and a statement, not true bigotry. Its like using the flying spaghetti monster tactic to push legislation to be more strict on religion. These people are trying ro show that regulation on business to prevent denying goods and services is important for everyone, not just minorities the the right hates.
You’re right in that the current state of the country does not actually reflect the ideals it professes to be based on, and this Supreme Court ruling is proof of that.
There are already regulations on discrimination. You cannot be discriminated against for your religious beliefs. However, Pfizer could choose not to service rapists. In which case, want the cure for cancer? Don’t rape. Having the option to not service someone based on their actions is very different than not servicing them because of who they are. If someone is being a dick to your employees, you should have the right to kick them out. Based on what you’re saying, you think no matter how much of an asshole they are, the employees should put up with it and be their personal assistant.
Based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, they cannot discriminate for any reason that is a protected status. However, they can makeup any reason for not serving them. That means some racist asshole could say they aren’t serving the black customer because they were rude or some other made up shit. Thankfully, your political stance is not a protected status.
Well they could do that a few times. But if someone really wanted to press the issue I am sure they could use the pattern of behavior to establish that he is indeed kicking out due to race.
Right. The various Civil Rights Acts in establishing proteted classes in placed of public accommodation and associated case law created a standard whereby there does not need to be, for example, an explicit “No blacks!” sign out front. A demonstrated pattern of refusing to serve black customers was sufficient to run afoul of the laws.
In fact, the discriminatory effect doesn’t even need to be intentional. If the end result of a policy results in a discriminatory result, it too is a violation of the law. For instance, where I grew up down south, whenever you went indoors you took your hat off. It’s respectful and such. Imagine a dining establishment that turned this custom into a steadfast rule – no one is seated while wearing a hat. Seems reasonable right? Everyone is treated the same! Until you refuse to serve a Sikh customer because they refuse to remove their turban. Now you’re discriminating against someone because of their religion, and there’s no overarching reason (safety, health, etc.) that a person can’t eat and wear a turban at the same time.
Well within their right. A business can serve whoever the fuck it wants. You don’t like it, don’t shop there.
This is a bad take. When we, society, allow you to register as a business, we form an agreement. Part of that agreement is that you follow certain rules. We make those rules to better society.
Some rules are things like pay taxes, or don’t sell outdated food. Some rules are there to make sure anyone can shop there, without discussion.
Those rules are important because it’s very possible for a small number of business owners to make a group of people’s lives very difficult, especially out in rural areas where people don’t have a lot of options.
For a concrete example, let’s say Pfizer cures cancer. Do you want them to be able to say they won’t sell to Christians? You can’t just “go elsewhere”. But now this is allowed.
The much more dangerous part of this ruling is that the supreme Court ruled on a case where there was no standing. A lot of people don’t realize that having standing is one of the cornerstones of our legal structure. Now, in theory, any idiot could sue for any dreamed up scenario and have a much better chance of winning in court.
Society needs to codify these rules into law though otherwise bad actors break those rules. When a right wing activist supreme court removes these protections, people get hurt. But, a store like this isnt doing this to hurt people, it’s to make a statement that the far-rights own discrimination can backfire on them. It’s a form of protest and a statement, not true bigotry. Its like using the flying spaghetti monster tactic to push legislation to be more strict on religion. These people are trying ro show that regulation on business to prevent denying goods and services is important for everyone, not just minorities the the right hates.
I think I’m confused. I’m pretty sure the court case that the supreme Court just ruled on proved the opposite.
I think I’m confused. I’m pretty sure the court case that the supreme Court just ruled on proved the opposite.
You’re right in that the current state of the country does not actually reflect the ideals it professes to be based on, and this Supreme Court ruling is proof of that.
Gay. Wedding. Cakes.
There are already regulations on discrimination. You cannot be discriminated against for your religious beliefs. However, Pfizer could choose not to service rapists. In which case, want the cure for cancer? Don’t rape. Having the option to not service someone based on their actions is very different than not servicing them because of who they are. If someone is being a dick to your employees, you should have the right to kick them out. Based on what you’re saying, you think no matter how much of an asshole they are, the employees should put up with it and be their personal assistant.
All fun and games until you can’t find anywhere to shop or buy anything.
You want to act like it’s the odd shop and you can just go next door, but just look at history. Really, take an objective look at history.
This is what Republicans wanted after all. Remember gay wedding cakes??
Based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, they cannot discriminate for any reason that is a protected status. However, they can makeup any reason for not serving them. That means some racist asshole could say they aren’t serving the black customer because they were rude or some other made up shit. Thankfully, your political stance is not a protected status.
Well they could do that a few times. But if someone really wanted to press the issue I am sure they could use the pattern of behavior to establish that he is indeed kicking out due to race.
Right. The various Civil Rights Acts in establishing proteted classes in placed of public accommodation and associated case law created a standard whereby there does not need to be, for example, an explicit “No blacks!” sign out front. A demonstrated pattern of refusing to serve black customers was sufficient to run afoul of the laws.
In fact, the discriminatory effect doesn’t even need to be intentional. If the end result of a policy results in a discriminatory result, it too is a violation of the law. For instance, where I grew up down south, whenever you went indoors you took your hat off. It’s respectful and such. Imagine a dining establishment that turned this custom into a steadfast rule – no one is seated while wearing a hat. Seems reasonable right? Everyone is treated the same! Until you refuse to serve a Sikh customer because they refuse to remove their turban. Now you’re discriminating against someone because of their religion, and there’s no overarching reason (safety, health, etc.) that a person can’t eat and wear a turban at the same time.