4 ms·

I'm speculating based on the rules in Finland, assuming they would be quite similar in Italy. In Finland a store may not choose their customers based on a broad

I'm speculating based on the rules in Finland, assuming they would be quite similar in Italy. In Finland a store may not choose their customers based on a broad criteria (such as age, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation or other reason related to the person). I'm sure being poor would be included in this list. Badly behaving customers can be expelled.

umanwizard 11y ago
I see. There is no such rule in the U.S., although a lot of people mistakenly assume there is one. So I thought you might just be mistaken. I'm not sure whether the law in Italy is more similar to the U.S., or to Finland.
- VLM 11y ago
  "There is no such rule in the U.S." Careful with online lawyering, its illegal not to bake a marriage cake for a gay couple, to cite a recent famous example.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    That's not a counterexample. That's an example of the short and defined list of prohibited axes of discrimination (the specific law at issue included sexual orientation as an enumerated category protected) discussed upthread in the US and contrasted with the Finnish rule against discrimination on any broad category. So, its not an example of the US having a rule like the Finnish open-ended rule.
    - thaumasiotes 11y ago
      What makes you think the Finnish law prohibits discrimination based on "any broad category"?
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        The upthread claims were that it does, and that this is different from the US system of a limited set of specific things it is illegal to discriminate based on. I haven't endorsed either claim, merely pointed out that the example of the wedding cake case (which was based on a law explicitly prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation in public accommodations) is not an example contradicting the claim that the US has laws prohibiting discrimination on specific axes rather than the kind ascribed upthread to Finland. If you have questions about the basis for the claim about Finland, you should as the poster several posts upthread who made it.
- thaumasiotes 11y ago
  > There is no such rule in the U.S., although a lot of people mistakenly assume there is one. There certainly is such a law. It's not something to be proud of. > In US law, public accommodations are generally defined as facilities, both public and private, used by the public. Examples include retail stores > Under United States federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the handicapped and may not discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations
  - umanwizard 11y ago
    What? This is exactly what I said. "race, color, religion, or national origin" is a short whitelist of protected classes, which "homeless" and "poor" are not on.
    - thaumasiotes 11y ago
      "I don't think it's legal for stores to choose their customers". That was correct. And US law, using the theory of disparate impact, treats discrimination on basically any category at all as discrimination by race. Barring entry by poor people would be prosecuted as anti-black discrimination seconds after a store tried to do it.
arethuza 11y ago
There is a case in the UK at the moment where a bakery has got into trouble for refusing to bake a cake with a pro-gay marriage slogan on it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-35474167 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-35474167

umanwizard 11y ago

I see. There is no such rule in the U.S., although a lot of people mistakenly assume there is one. So I thought you might just be mistaken. I'm not sure whether the law in Italy is more similar to the U.S., or to Finland.

VLM 11y ago
"There is no such rule in the U.S." Careful with online lawyering, its illegal not to bake a marriage cake for a gay couple, to cite a recent famous example.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  That's not a counterexample. That's an example of the short and defined list of prohibited axes of discrimination (the specific law at issue included sexual orientation as an enumerated category protected) discussed upthread in the US and contrasted with the Finnish rule against discrimination on any broad category. So, its not an example of the US having a rule like the Finnish open-ended rule.
  - thaumasiotes 11y ago
    What makes you think the Finnish law prohibits discrimination based on "any broad category"?
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      The upthread claims were that it does, and that this is different from the US system of a limited set of specific things it is illegal to discriminate based on. I haven't endorsed either claim, merely pointed out that the example of the wedding cake case (which was based on a law explicitly prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation in public accommodations) is not an example contradicting the claim that the US has laws prohibiting discrimination on specific axes rather than the kind ascribed upthread to Finland. If you have questions about the basis for the claim about Finland, you should as the poster several posts upthread who made it.
thaumasiotes 11y ago
> There is no such rule in the U.S., although a lot of people mistakenly assume there is one. There certainly is such a law. It's not something to be proud of. > In US law, public accommodations are generally defined as facilities, both public and private, used by the public. Examples include retail stores > Under United States federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the handicapped and may not discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations
- umanwizard 11y ago
  What? This is exactly what I said. "race, color, religion, or national origin" is a short whitelist of protected classes, which "homeless" and "poor" are not on.
  - thaumasiotes 11y ago
    "I don't think it's legal for stores to choose their customers". That was correct. And US law, using the theory of disparate impact, treats discrimination on basically any category at all as discrimination by race. Barring entry by poor people would be prosecuted as anti-black discrimination seconds after a store tried to do it.

arethuza 11y ago

There is a case in the UK at the moment where a bakery has got into trouble for refusing to bake a cake with a pro-gay marriage slogan on it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-35474167 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-35474167