12 ms·

> they can 100% prevent you from buying a new Tesla ever again. Probably in the US. In some other countries, it's illegal to refuse a sale, if you're a store (

by krasin 3y ago

> they can 100% prevent you from buying a new Tesla ever again. Probably in the US. In some other countries, it's illegal to refuse a sale, if you're a store (online or offline). A buyer comes, a sale happens.

xeromal 3y ago
Yeah, in the US you can be refused service unless you're protected class.
- krasin 3y ago
  I sincerely hope that the US will eventually recognize that everyone is a protected class. :)
  - lamontcg 3y ago
    Yeah, rich assholes have really been missing out, they're so crippled by their lack of empathy and unfair inheritance of wealth and position, people should understand how hard they've had it.
  - zerocrates 3y ago
    "Protected class" is a somewhat misleading phrase: the rule is that there are certain characteristics that you cannot legally discriminate on the basis of, not certain groups of people that are protected and some that aren't (at least mostly). Race, religion, national origin, sex, these all apply regardless of which specific group you're in under that banner. There are a few categories which are really only defined as applying to "one side", but they're generally not controversial (the laws against pregnancy discrimination, for example). Age is the one big outlier: the law against age discrimination in employment applies only to people over 40.
    - HarryHirsch 3y ago
      In other words it's a blueprint for discrimination: you can't fire someone because he is homosexual, instead you fire him for the colour of his hair. It's nuts.
      - KennyBlanken 3y ago
        > you can't fire someone because he is homosexual, instead you fire him for the colour of his hair No judge in the developed world would believe such a contrived excuse. It's weird how people think this sort of thing is actually a valid defense.
        HarryHirsch 3y ago
        In the real world you just find pretexts to fire people, and the laws are written to permit such outs. Your trust in the legal system is touching. (And then there's that Hewlett-Packard class ageism class action that was settled for 18 millions. Is that one or two days of profits?)
        PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
        because the real world is complicated. How can I tell that person is an asshole who meant to hurt my feelings vs that person who just said a stupid thing without thinking about it? I can't, so the reality is that some subset of people are going to get away with hurting my feelings on purpose. The alternative is that people who make mistakes get punished unnecessarily. Which side of that would you rather the law be on?
    - pauldenton 3y ago
      Everyone is equal, but some people are more equal than others.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - YiraldyGuber 3y ago
    In the interim I wish they would stop beating around the bush and simply call it "not a straight White cis man". It's far fewer words with the exact same meaning as listing all the things that are 'protected', and has an air of honesty about it.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > In the interim I wish they would stop beating around the bush and simply call it "not a straight White cis man". That's not what "protected class" means, in any of the contexts in which it is used (employment, public accommodation, housing, etc.) To the extent it seems like it means that, that's only because, well, the historically privileged are more likely to be in a position to discriminate in favor of those like themselves. In each of those contexts, race (not "being non-white") is a protected class; it is just as illegal to discriminate against White people in any of those contexts as it is to discriminate in favor of White people. For each of the other descriptors which actually relates to a protected class, it works the same way where it does. > It's far fewer words with the exact same meaning as listing all the things that are 'protected', and has an air of honesty about it. It doesn't have the exact same meaning at all.
- threeseed 3y ago
  No. You can still be refused service if you're a protected class. It just can't be the only reason.
  - Someone 3y ago
    I would expect it can’t be part of the reason, otherwise things like “we don’t sell to women on weekdays” would be legal.
    - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
      the entire reason would still be that they're a woman. you can't refuse service to _any_ protected class on the weekends because ... you can't refuse service to protected classes for being in that protected class.
    - muttled 3y ago
      Guess you could do a reverse "lady's night" and only charge women instead of the inverse.
- sarchertech 3y ago
  A person who is part of a protected class can be refused service for any reason other than just because they are a protected class. A woman walks into your bar. You can refuse to solve her because you don’t like the way she does her hair, or the color of her clothes. You can’t refuse to serve her because she’s a woman.
  - KennyBlanken 3y ago
    The standards and burdens are different in civil cases, and judges are not born-yesterday, gullible idiots who fall for such contrived nonsense? The bar owner would face substantial incredulity from a judge if they claimed that they were turning down business because of how someone's hair looked. That said, the plaintiffs could strengthen their case showing a significant number of women were being denied service, or evidence the owner was misogynistic.
    - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
      There's literal precedence for this, what are you on about?
    - clipsy 3y ago
      There is virtually zero chance that a bar would be found guilty of illegal discrimination for banning an individual woman unless there were witnesses or recordings establishing that they did so specifically on the basis of gender. Proving discrimination, even by the lower standards of civil court, generally requires either a well-documented pattern of behavior or (as mentioned above) evidence that the customer was banned due specifically to their gender.
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        > There is virtually zero chance that a bar would be found guilty of illegal discrimination for banning an individual woman Especially since, federally at least, sex is not a protected class for public accommodation discrimination (it is for employment and housing discrimination.)
- huytersd 3y ago
  You can refuse a sale to anyone. The reason for refusal just can’t be discriminatory.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    The decision to refuse a sale is always discriminatory. It just can't be discriminatory on the basis of a protected class.
    - dllthomas 3y ago
      ... unless you are uniformly refusing service to everyone.
      - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
        There are caveats to this. If you uniformly refuse everyone for the same reason but it unduly affects a specific class then you can still be found guilty of discrimination of a protected class. The canonical example of this is banning all headwear in a restaurant. This has been found to unfairly target certain religions and as such is considered a violation of civil rights. If you banned all headwear sporting university football teams, that would most likely fly.
        dllthomas 3y ago
        No, no, I mean uniformly refusing all service to everyone for no reason. The two points at which you are not discriminating at all are uniformly providing and uniformly withholding services. Otherwise you are discriminating based on something, which may be fine or terrible depending on a whole bunch of details.
        dragonwriter 3y ago
        The discrimination theory you describe sounds disparate impact, which is a feature of employment but not public accommodation law, unless the intent was to discriminate on religion and the facial neutrality if the policy was pretextual. Though the US cases on broad headwear bans I am familiar with are mostly not in discrimination, per se, but on failure to accommodate a religious practice grounds (again, a protection that applies in employment and education, not public accommodation, contexts.) E.g., https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/01/411213623/supreme-court-rules-for-woman-denied-abercrombie-fitch-job-over-headscarf https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/01/411213623... and
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  No, in the US you can be refused service, except that you cannot be discriminated against in public accommodations on the basis of status in a protected class. Everyone is in multiple protected classes. For public accommodations, all of the following are protected classes under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: race, color, religion, and national origin. Everyone has a value on each of those axes, and everyone is protected against discrimination in public accommodations on the bases of each of those.
woleium 3y ago
That’s how it is for medical supplies and medicine in the USA too, that’s how you can always get into a Costco without a card.
- muttled 3y ago
  Alcohol too, in 14 states: https://www.tastingtable.com/1355636/non-members-buy-liquor-costco-states/ https://www.tastingtable.com/1355636/non-members-buy-liquor-...
- cute_boi 3y ago
  I thought there are guards who always check card in Costco.
  - aaomidi 3y ago
    Specifically for medical stuff Costco lets you through.

by krasin 3y ago

xeromal 3y ago

Yeah, in the US you can be refused service unless you're protected class.

krasin 3y ago
I sincerely hope that the US will eventually recognize that everyone is a protected class. :)
- lamontcg 3y ago
  Yeah, rich assholes have really been missing out, they're so crippled by their lack of empathy and unfair inheritance of wealth and position, people should understand how hard they've had it.
- zerocrates 3y ago
  "Protected class" is a somewhat misleading phrase: the rule is that there are certain characteristics that you cannot legally discriminate on the basis of, not certain groups of people that are protected and some that aren't (at least mostly). Race, religion, national origin, sex, these all apply regardless of which specific group you're in under that banner. There are a few categories which are really only defined as applying to "one side", but they're generally not controversial (the laws against pregnancy discrimination, for example). Age is the one big outlier: the law against age discrimination in employment applies only to people over 40.
  - HarryHirsch 3y ago
    In other words it's a blueprint for discrimination: you can't fire someone because he is homosexual, instead you fire him for the colour of his hair. It's nuts.
    - KennyBlanken 3y ago
      > you can't fire someone because he is homosexual, instead you fire him for the colour of his hair No judge in the developed world would believe such a contrived excuse. It's weird how people think this sort of thing is actually a valid defense.
      - HarryHirsch 3y ago
        In the real world you just find pretexts to fire people, and the laws are written to permit such outs. Your trust in the legal system is touching. (And then there's that Hewlett-Packard class ageism class action that was settled for 18 millions. Is that one or two days of profits?)
        PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
        because the real world is complicated. How can I tell that person is an asshole who meant to hurt my feelings vs that person who just said a stupid thing without thinking about it? I can't, so the reality is that some subset of people are going to get away with hurting my feelings on purpose. The alternative is that people who make mistakes get punished unnecessarily. Which side of that would you rather the law be on?
  - pauldenton 3y ago
    Everyone is equal, but some people are more equal than others.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- YiraldyGuber 3y ago
  In the interim I wish they would stop beating around the bush and simply call it "not a straight White cis man". It's far fewer words with the exact same meaning as listing all the things that are 'protected', and has an air of honesty about it.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > In the interim I wish they would stop beating around the bush and simply call it "not a straight White cis man". That's not what "protected class" means, in any of the contexts in which it is used (employment, public accommodation, housing, etc.) To the extent it seems like it means that, that's only because, well, the historically privileged are more likely to be in a position to discriminate in favor of those like themselves. In each of those contexts, race (not "being non-white") is a protected class; it is just as illegal to discriminate against White people in any of those contexts as it is to discriminate in favor of White people. For each of the other descriptors which actually relates to a protected class, it works the same way where it does. > It's far fewer words with the exact same meaning as listing all the things that are 'protected', and has an air of honesty about it. It doesn't have the exact same meaning at all.
threeseed 3y ago
No. You can still be refused service if you're a protected class. It just can't be the only reason.
- Someone 3y ago
  I would expect it can’t be part of the reason, otherwise things like “we don’t sell to women on weekdays” would be legal.
  - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
    the entire reason would still be that they're a woman. you can't refuse service to _any_ protected class on the weekends because ... you can't refuse service to protected classes for being in that protected class.
  - muttled 3y ago
    Guess you could do a reverse "lady's night" and only charge women instead of the inverse.
sarchertech 3y ago
A person who is part of a protected class can be refused service for any reason other than just because they are a protected class. A woman walks into your bar. You can refuse to solve her because you don’t like the way she does her hair, or the color of her clothes. You can’t refuse to serve her because she’s a woman.
- KennyBlanken 3y ago
  The standards and burdens are different in civil cases, and judges are not born-yesterday, gullible idiots who fall for such contrived nonsense? The bar owner would face substantial incredulity from a judge if they claimed that they were turning down business because of how someone's hair looked. That said, the plaintiffs could strengthen their case showing a significant number of women were being denied service, or evidence the owner was misogynistic.
  - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
    There's literal precedence for this, what are you on about?
  - clipsy 3y ago
    There is virtually zero chance that a bar would be found guilty of illegal discrimination for banning an individual woman unless there were witnesses or recordings establishing that they did so specifically on the basis of gender. Proving discrimination, even by the lower standards of civil court, generally requires either a well-documented pattern of behavior or (as mentioned above) evidence that the customer was banned due specifically to their gender.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > There is virtually zero chance that a bar would be found guilty of illegal discrimination for banning an individual woman Especially since, federally at least, sex is not a protected class for public accommodation discrimination (it is for employment and housing discrimination.)
huytersd 3y ago
You can refuse a sale to anyone. The reason for refusal just can’t be discriminatory.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  The decision to refuse a sale is always discriminatory. It just can't be discriminatory on the basis of a protected class.
  - dllthomas 3y ago
    ... unless you are uniformly refusing service to everyone.
    - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
      There are caveats to this. If you uniformly refuse everyone for the same reason but it unduly affects a specific class then you can still be found guilty of discrimination of a protected class. The canonical example of this is banning all headwear in a restaurant. This has been found to unfairly target certain religions and as such is considered a violation of civil rights. If you banned all headwear sporting university football teams, that would most likely fly.
      - dllthomas 3y ago
        No, no, I mean uniformly refusing all service to everyone for no reason. The two points at which you are not discriminating at all are uniformly providing and uniformly withholding services. Otherwise you are discriminating based on something, which may be fine or terrible depending on a whole bunch of details.
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        The discrimination theory you describe sounds disparate impact, which is a feature of employment but not public accommodation law, unless the intent was to discriminate on religion and the facial neutrality if the policy was pretextual. Though the US cases on broad headwear bans I am familiar with are mostly not in discrimination, per se, but on failure to accommodate a religious practice grounds (again, a protection that applies in employment and education, not public accommodation, contexts.) E.g., https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/01/411213623/supreme-court-rules-for-woman-denied-abercrombie-fitch-job-over-headscarf https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/01/411213623... and
dragonwriter 3y ago
No, in the US you can be refused service, except that you cannot be discriminated against in public accommodations on the basis of status in a protected class. Everyone is in multiple protected classes. For public accommodations, all of the following are protected classes under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: race, color, religion, and national origin. Everyone has a value on each of those axes, and everyone is protected against discrimination in public accommodations on the bases of each of those.

woleium 3y ago

That’s how it is for medical supplies and medicine in the USA too, that’s how you can always get into a Costco without a card.

muttled 3y ago
Alcohol too, in 14 states: https://www.tastingtable.com/1355636/non-members-buy-liquor-costco-states/ https://www.tastingtable.com/1355636/non-members-buy-liquor-...
cute_boi 3y ago
I thought there are guards who always check card in Costco.
- aaomidi 3y ago
  Specifically for medical stuff Costco lets you through.