7 ms·

Why would it be legally invalid to exclude blondes or people with a brother named "Mike"? (Obviously it would be immoral and stupid, but that doesn't make such

Why would it be legally invalid to exclude blondes or people with a brother named "Mike"? (Obviously it would be immoral and stupid, but that doesn't make such an exclusion legally unenforceable.)

Hjfrf 5y ago
In the case of name/appearance, those things can be strongly correlated with protected categories like race and gender. E.g. Consider a similar legal exclusion to only people called Nguyen or Mohammed or Singh.
lupire 5y ago
It violates civil rights laws in the US, likely.
henryfjordan 5y ago
California has the Unruh Civil Rights Act that applies to all commercial public accommodations which basically says "categorical discrimination of any kind is illegal". Saying "I won't do business with anyone named Mike" or putting up a "No blondes" sign is categorical discrimination. I have no idea how that law would apply to this license though.
- CalChris 5y ago
  But I don't think people with a brother named Mike are a protected class according to the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Those are sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status.
  - henryfjordan 5y ago
    The text of the law reads: > All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever. The important part is "All persons ... are free and equal ... and are entitled to ... equal accommodations". When you read it this way (which is how the courts read the law), the list is just illustrating some classes that might be discriminated against. It does not limit the classes merely to those listed.
    - junon 5y ago
      That's not how you read legal text. You can't just omit parts of the law to fit what you want.
      - henryfjordan 5y ago
        The alternative to my interpretation is "because there is a list, nothing not on that list is a protected class". That interpretation omits the parts of the sentence I highlighted as much as I omitted the list. As you can see from links/quotes elsewhere in this thread, the caselaw agrees with me.
- humanistbot 5y ago
  Unruh protected classes are: sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, age, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status [1] Corporate status is not one of these. [1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB600 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...
  - henryfjordan 5y ago
    Those classes are illustrative, not exhaustive
    - jcranmer 5y ago
      I don't see a single word in the operative part that suggests that the list is an inclusive list: > (b) All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever. In interpreting statute, a list of things is generally assumed to be exclusive unless there are specific words that indicate it is to be treated as nonexclusive--and those words are missing here.
      - henryfjordan 5y ago
        > The California Supreme Court has repeatedly "interpreted the [law] as protecting classes other than those listed on its face".[6] For example, even prior to the 2005 addition of sexual orientation to the law's list of covered classes, the Unruh Act had been "construed as protecting gays and lesbians from arbitrary discrimination",[6] such as in the case of Rolon v. Kulwitzky.[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_Civil_Rights_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_Civil_Rights_Act
    - junon 5y ago
      Which part of the legal text indicates that?

Why would it be legally invalid to exclude blondes or people with a brother named "Mike"? (Obviously it would be immoral and stupid, but that doesn't make such an exclusion legally unenforceable.)

Hjfrf 5y ago

In the case of name/appearance, those things can be strongly correlated with protected categories like race and gender. E.g. Consider a similar legal exclusion to only people called Nguyen or Mohammed or Singh.

lupire 5y ago

It violates civil rights laws in the US, likely.

henryfjordan 5y ago

California has the Unruh Civil Rights Act that applies to all commercial public accommodations which basically says "categorical discrimination of any kind is illegal". Saying "I won't do business with anyone named Mike" or putting up a "No blondes" sign is categorical discrimination. I have no idea how that law would apply to this license though.

CalChris 5y ago
But I don't think people with a brother named Mike are a protected class according to the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Those are sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status.
- henryfjordan 5y ago
  The text of the law reads: > All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever. The important part is "All persons ... are free and equal ... and are entitled to ... equal accommodations". When you read it this way (which is how the courts read the law), the list is just illustrating some classes that might be discriminated against. It does not limit the classes merely to those listed.
  - junon 5y ago
    That's not how you read legal text. You can't just omit parts of the law to fit what you want.
    - henryfjordan 5y ago
      The alternative to my interpretation is "because there is a list, nothing not on that list is a protected class". That interpretation omits the parts of the sentence I highlighted as much as I omitted the list. As you can see from links/quotes elsewhere in this thread, the caselaw agrees with me.
humanistbot 5y ago
Unruh protected classes are: sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, age, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status [1] Corporate status is not one of these. [1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB600 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...
- henryfjordan 5y ago
  Those classes are illustrative, not exhaustive
  - jcranmer 5y ago
    I don't see a single word in the operative part that suggests that the list is an inclusive list: > (b) All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever. In interpreting statute, a list of things is generally assumed to be exclusive unless there are specific words that indicate it is to be treated as nonexclusive--and those words are missing here.
    - henryfjordan 5y ago
      > The California Supreme Court has repeatedly "interpreted the [law] as protecting classes other than those listed on its face".[6] For example, even prior to the 2005 addition of sexual orientation to the law's list of covered classes, the Unruh Act had been "construed as protecting gays and lesbians from arbitrary discrimination",[6] such as in the case of Rolon v. Kulwitzky.[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_Civil_Rights_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_Civil_Rights_Act
  - junon 5y ago
    Which part of the legal text indicates that?