4 ms·

You’re saying a private company is allowed to decide who they want on their property. This must hold for all private companies, no?

msbarnett 6y ago
Yes, provided they are not deciding on the basis of someone belonging to a protected class. Hence a cake maker can cheerfully refuse your business on the basis of you wanting a cake that says “Jennifer Garner Eats Babies” but not on the basis of you, say, being homosexual, or Black.
- andrenth 6y ago
  That means I can refuse servicing you based on, for example, the clothes you’re wearing, right? Or maybe because I don’t like your hair? As far as I know people with bad hair is not a protected class. I’m trying to figure out how do you know the basis on which some private enterprise decided to refuse to provide their service to someone. Is it based on their stated reason?
  - catalogia 6y ago
    For better or worse, many restaurants have dress codes.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - andrenth 6y ago
      But the restaurant is required to be consistent applying it, no? Can they refuse service because you’re not wearing a tie while simultaneously serving the guy in flip flops?
      - krapp 6y ago
        >But the restaurant is required to be consistent applying it, no? IANAL but I don't think so. In the US at least, they can't be inconsistent in a way that correlates to persecuting a protected class (refusing service based on race for instance) but otherwise they have the right - often explicitly displayed on signage to patrons on entry - to be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason.
      - c0nducktr 6y ago
        If that's the case, night clubs have been violating that rule for ages.
  - msbarnett 6y ago
    > I’m trying to figure out how do you know the basis on which some private enterprise decided to refuse to provide their service to someone. If you’re trying to understand the basis by which courts figure this stuff out, what we’re talking about here is the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is civil law, and the evidentiary standard that applies is “preponderance of evidence”. The businesses’ stated reason is certainly one piece of evidence that courts weigh, but it’s far from the only one. If you refuse me business based on what I’m wearing, but I can show you regular do business with people wearing the same thing, or I can demonstrate a preponderance of evidence that you knew I was homosexual and had made statements to the effect that you would refuse to serve homosexuals, courts aren’t going to just take you at your word.
    - andrenth 6y ago
      It seems to me someone blocked on Twitter for alleged right- wing hate speech could easily demonstrate instances of left- wing hate speech which didn’t result in blocking on the same platform. That would be analogous to the clothes example, right?
      - msbarnett 6y ago
        Your political beliefs aren’t a protected class wrt interactions with private entities under the Civil Rights Act, and there’s no other relevant right to not be blocked by a private individual or business if they don’t wish to hear or disseminate your speech, so yes, there’s nothing legally actionable there.
        andrenth 6y ago
        That’s not what I meant though. If I understood your point correctly, a company could get in trouble for refusing to service someone based on some stated reason (e.g. your clothes) if it can be shown that they do serve other people that match that given reason. It seems to me that the situation with Twitter is the same, if it can be shown that they justify banning some people based on hate speech, while refusing to ban other people performing the same kind of speech.
  - gremlinsinc 6y ago
    Sure, or for not wearing a mask during a pandemic. No, 'rights' being taken away from you, it's just business.
    - andrenth 6y ago
      Isn’t that example a bit different because wearing a mask became required by law during the pandemic? That’s the situation in my country, at least.

msbarnett 6y ago

Yes, provided they are not deciding on the basis of someone belonging to a protected class. Hence a cake maker can cheerfully refuse your business on the basis of you wanting a cake that says “Jennifer Garner Eats Babies” but not on the basis of you, say, being homosexual, or Black.

andrenth 6y ago
That means I can refuse servicing you based on, for example, the clothes you’re wearing, right? Or maybe because I don’t like your hair? As far as I know people with bad hair is not a protected class. I’m trying to figure out how do you know the basis on which some private enterprise decided to refuse to provide their service to someone. Is it based on their stated reason?
- catalogia 6y ago
  For better or worse, many restaurants have dress codes.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - andrenth 6y ago
    But the restaurant is required to be consistent applying it, no? Can they refuse service because you’re not wearing a tie while simultaneously serving the guy in flip flops?
    - krapp 6y ago
      >But the restaurant is required to be consistent applying it, no? IANAL but I don't think so. In the US at least, they can't be inconsistent in a way that correlates to persecuting a protected class (refusing service based on race for instance) but otherwise they have the right - often explicitly displayed on signage to patrons on entry - to be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason.
    - c0nducktr 6y ago
      If that's the case, night clubs have been violating that rule for ages.
- msbarnett 6y ago
  > I’m trying to figure out how do you know the basis on which some private enterprise decided to refuse to provide their service to someone. If you’re trying to understand the basis by which courts figure this stuff out, what we’re talking about here is the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is civil law, and the evidentiary standard that applies is “preponderance of evidence”. The businesses’ stated reason is certainly one piece of evidence that courts weigh, but it’s far from the only one. If you refuse me business based on what I’m wearing, but I can show you regular do business with people wearing the same thing, or I can demonstrate a preponderance of evidence that you knew I was homosexual and had made statements to the effect that you would refuse to serve homosexuals, courts aren’t going to just take you at your word.
  - andrenth 6y ago
    It seems to me someone blocked on Twitter for alleged right- wing hate speech could easily demonstrate instances of left- wing hate speech which didn’t result in blocking on the same platform. That would be analogous to the clothes example, right?
    - msbarnett 6y ago
      Your political beliefs aren’t a protected class wrt interactions with private entities under the Civil Rights Act, and there’s no other relevant right to not be blocked by a private individual or business if they don’t wish to hear or disseminate your speech, so yes, there’s nothing legally actionable there.
      - andrenth 6y ago
        That’s not what I meant though. If I understood your point correctly, a company could get in trouble for refusing to service someone based on some stated reason (e.g. your clothes) if it can be shown that they do serve other people that match that given reason. It seems to me that the situation with Twitter is the same, if it can be shown that they justify banning some people based on hate speech, while refusing to ban other people performing the same kind of speech.
- gremlinsinc 6y ago
  Sure, or for not wearing a mask during a pandemic. No, 'rights' being taken away from you, it's just business.
  - andrenth 6y ago
    Isn’t that example a bit different because wearing a mask became required by law during the pandemic? That’s the situation in my country, at least.