4 ms·
... unless you are uniformly refusing service to everyone.
by dllthomas 3y ago
... unless you are uniformly refusing service to everyone.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y agoThere 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 agoNo, 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 agoThe 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
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago> The discrimination theory you describe This is not theory, the courts have spoken on this. that you're calling this theory tells me you both don't know and haven't checked.
- dllthomas 3y agoI'm very much not an expert, but as I've heard the terms used a legal theory that's supported by the courts is still a legal theory (as is one invalidated by the courts).
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago> The discrimination theory you describe ... try again.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- dllthomas 3y agoI don't know if it is what you intended, but your comment comes across as really rude, and even if you don't care about politeness in the name of efficiency or effectiveness or what have you it fails on those grounds as well as it gives me nothing to work from in addressing your complaint.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y agoI didn't tell you to go after a strawman.
- dllthomas 3y agoI didn't go after anything. I tried to address what looked like a misunderstanding. Dude, dragonwriter said that what you were talking about seems like a specific thing the courts have applied to some areas and not to others. Your reply seems to ignore the content of that post on the justification that the use of the word "theory" to refer to something that "the courts have ruled on" is such a glaring contradiction as to render the rest of the post irrelevant. If that reply was doing something else and I have misinterpreted, what was it? Your mode of interaction here is obnoxious enough that I might abandon this thread.