6 ms·

> no foreigners It's such a contrast to USA, where I doubt that such a thing would even be legal. And also the bit about no tattoos. That's lawsuit city.

bitwize 1y ago
Among Japanese, tattoos are almost exclusively worn by yakuza members. The shop owners don't want any trouble or criminal activity on their premises.
SoftTalker 1y ago
"Has tattoos" is not a protected class. You're free to ban tattooed people from your place of business if you like.
- 8note 1y ago
  has tattoos should be a protected class though. same with political affiliation
zeroonetwothree 1y ago
Denying to an individual for any reason is ok but excluding entire groups is generally frowned upon or straight up illegal.
jalapenos 1y ago
More like lawsuit country - whole legal system is designed to allow lawyers to take everyone to the cleaners with impunity.
diggan 1y ago
> That's lawsuit city Aren't private businesses in the US allowed to deny access to their premises for any reasons? Seems like a weird thing to get sued over, I think in most places if you own the local, you get to decide who goes there, unless it's a place for government or similar.
- VWWHFSfQ 1y ago
  > deny access to their premises for any reasons Definitely not. This kind of discrimination is explicitly prohibited by federal civil rights law (Civil Rights Act 1964). It protects people regardless of their national origin (in addition to their skin color).
  - diggan 1y ago
    "National origin" is what country you are born in right? So banning non-US residents would be OK it seems?
- HelloMcFly 1y ago
  You may deny entry based on your own criteria provided you are not discriminating on race, color, religion, national origin, disability status, veteran status, age (more wiggle room here) or other state-specific traits (sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, etc.). I don't think there's any place in America that would be illegal to bar entry based on the presence of tattoos.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - keysdev 1y ago
    But no shoes, no shirt, no service is quite common.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - raydev 1y ago
      Sure, but you can instantly go put on some shoes and a shirt if necessary.
  - diggan 1y ago
    So it would be legal to bar non-US residents then? "Residency" seems different from all the criteria's you listed.
TimorousBestie 1y ago
> It's such a contrast to USA, where I doubt that such a thing would even be legal. The sign itself is probably protected speech. As for the policy, it is probably also legal here. Private businesses have broad rights to refuse individual customers without stating a reason. Fabricating a legitimate business reason to deny service to a particular group of customers is usually trivial, as well. Proving it was fabricated for discriminatory reasons can be difficult.
- autobodie 1y ago
  >without stating a reason That part is key. If they do state a reason, it could become a civil rights issue. The sign alone might not be enough to make a case, but it's a very good start.
- deaddodo 1y ago
  > Private businesses have broad rights to refuse individual customers without stating a reason. They don't have to state a reason. The entire foundation of the common law system is to have a court decide intent; not be technically bound by your words. It would only take showing a continued behavior of denying people in a discriminatory manner (e.g. 10% of your visitors are foreigners, but 95% of the people barred entry are in that group) to fine/sanction/shut down the business.
  - TimorousBestie 1y ago
    > They don't have to state a reason. The entire foundation of the common law system is to have a court decide intent; not be technically bound by your words. Yes, I agree. It becomes more difficult to infer intent without a stated reason. Practically speaking, I think most civil rights lawsuits that are decided in the plaintiff’s favor are very, very explicit cases of discrimination. Someone was called a slur, someone was refused service violently, someone had racist iconography scrawled on their property. Yes, fines and sanctions then. Well, sometimes. The ones who are clever about it never get to that stage. They don’t put up a sign saying “no foreigners,” they put up a sign saying “we speak english here,” “proud to be an american,” and etc. Confederate flags, military paraphernalia, the usual soft threats against the other. Foreigners in particular are going to find it very difficult to interact with our justice system. A civil rights case that goes to trial is going to take much longer than the typical tourist visa allows. It’s going to be prohibitively expensive for the typical tourist to procure the services of a skilled lawyer.
lofaszvanitt 1y ago
You have to protect your culture. USA has a 250 year history while Japan has 10x of that.
- 8note 1y ago
  the US has that much history too, it just chooses to ignore it
- sosborn 1y ago
  Those signs have nothing to do with protecting culture. Most of the time, they are simply a naive defense against dealing with a population often doesn't speak Japanese very well.
  - anigbrowl 1y ago
    There's no prohibition against requiring customers to be able to speak Japanese, and this works very well as a tourist filter.
    - ChromaticPanic 1y ago
      The signs say No Foreigners not No non Japanese speakers . A subtle but important difference.
      - sosborn 1y ago
        Every time I've come across one of these signs and wanted to patronize the establishment, a friendly chat with the manager in Japanese was always enough to get them to let me in. YMMV.
- gruez 1y ago
  >USA has a 250 year history while Japan has 10x of that. Is that supposed to imply that Japan has more culture, or that it needs more protection because it's 10x longer? Even if Japanese culture is 10x longer than American culture, it doesn't necessarily follow that there's less of it. Pop music and hollywood music might not be considered "culture" by snobs, but they're still culture, and arguably more plentiful and pervasive than Japanese culture.
steveBK123 1y ago
Indeed, and as I frequently say.. those who thinks US is the most racist country in the world should visit 5-10 other countries and report back.
- tayo42 1y ago
  The US is building modern day concentration camps for immigrants. Maybe the country isnt actively killing the out groups right now like a handful of other countries but I'd say the racism is extreme and up there.
  - missedthecue 1y ago
    But the immigrants aren't racial or ethnic outgroups per se. Many are incidentally Latino, yes, but so is the current Secretary of State.
    - jalapenos 1y ago
      Rubio has taken "close the door behind me" and dialed it up to 11
    - krapp 1y ago
      It isn't incidental. Trump's entire political legacy has been marked by his bigotry against people from, as he called them, "shithole countries," and remember how badly wanted to wall off Mexico, but not Canada. I believe this is explicitly an attempt to purge the US of its nonwhite immigrant population, possibly out of fear of "white replacement" (which Trump has alluded to believing more than once.) Not to Godwin (but kind of to Godwin,) the Nazis put plenty of non-Jews into camps, and some Jews even collaborated with Nazi Germany. That doesn't mean the number of Jews persecuted by the Nazis was incidental.
      - missedthecue 1y ago
        My point is that if a bunch of Latino Americans wanted to wall off Mexico, that would be many things, but it would not be racism against a racial outgroup. According to The Hill, 43% of Central Americans support the border wall. Not a majority, but far too statistically significant to describe as racism against an outgroup. Not trying to get into US politics on HN, but I think my point is clear when it comes to comparing this American situation to the views of non-ethnics in foreign cultures, which was the original OPs argument.
kazinator 1y ago
> lawsuit city. A.k.a. New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, Dallas, Miami ... take your pick. Litigation, the great all-American pastime.
anigbrowl 1y ago
You could totally bar people with tattoos from your business in teh USA. You'd be unpopular given their prevalence, but you would be on oslid legal ground.

bitwize 1y ago

Among Japanese, tattoos are almost exclusively worn by yakuza members. The shop owners don't want any trouble or criminal activity on their premises.

SoftTalker 1y ago

"Has tattoos" is not a protected class. You're free to ban tattooed people from your place of business if you like.

8note 1y ago
has tattoos should be a protected class though. same with political affiliation

zeroonetwothree 1y ago

Denying to an individual for any reason is ok but excluding entire groups is generally frowned upon or straight up illegal.

jalapenos 1y ago

More like lawsuit country - whole legal system is designed to allow lawyers to take everyone to the cleaners with impunity.

diggan 1y ago

> That's lawsuit city Aren't private businesses in the US allowed to deny access to their premises for any reasons? Seems like a weird thing to get sued over, I think in most places if you own the local, you get to decide who goes there, unless it's a place for government or similar.

VWWHFSfQ 1y ago
> deny access to their premises for any reasons Definitely not. This kind of discrimination is explicitly prohibited by federal civil rights law (Civil Rights Act 1964). It protects people regardless of their national origin (in addition to their skin color).
- diggan 1y ago
  "National origin" is what country you are born in right? So banning non-US residents would be OK it seems?
HelloMcFly 1y ago
You may deny entry based on your own criteria provided you are not discriminating on race, color, religion, national origin, disability status, veteran status, age (more wiggle room here) or other state-specific traits (sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, etc.). I don't think there's any place in America that would be illegal to bar entry based on the presence of tattoos.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- keysdev 1y ago
  But no shoes, no shirt, no service is quite common.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - raydev 1y ago
    Sure, but you can instantly go put on some shoes and a shirt if necessary.
- diggan 1y ago
  So it would be legal to bar non-US residents then? "Residency" seems different from all the criteria's you listed.

TimorousBestie 1y ago

> It's such a contrast to USA, where I doubt that such a thing would even be legal. The sign itself is probably protected speech. As for the policy, it is probably also legal here. Private businesses have broad rights to refuse individual customers without stating a reason. Fabricating a legitimate business reason to deny service to a particular group of customers is usually trivial, as well. Proving it was fabricated for discriminatory reasons can be difficult.

autobodie 1y ago
>without stating a reason That part is key. If they do state a reason, it could become a civil rights issue. The sign alone might not be enough to make a case, but it's a very good start.
deaddodo 1y ago
> Private businesses have broad rights to refuse individual customers without stating a reason. They don't have to state a reason. The entire foundation of the common law system is to have a court decide intent; not be technically bound by your words. It would only take showing a continued behavior of denying people in a discriminatory manner (e.g. 10% of your visitors are foreigners, but 95% of the people barred entry are in that group) to fine/sanction/shut down the business.
- TimorousBestie 1y ago
  > They don't have to state a reason. The entire foundation of the common law system is to have a court decide intent; not be technically bound by your words. Yes, I agree. It becomes more difficult to infer intent without a stated reason. Practically speaking, I think most civil rights lawsuits that are decided in the plaintiff’s favor are very, very explicit cases of discrimination. Someone was called a slur, someone was refused service violently, someone had racist iconography scrawled on their property. Yes, fines and sanctions then. Well, sometimes. The ones who are clever about it never get to that stage. They don’t put up a sign saying “no foreigners,” they put up a sign saying “we speak english here,” “proud to be an american,” and etc. Confederate flags, military paraphernalia, the usual soft threats against the other. Foreigners in particular are going to find it very difficult to interact with our justice system. A civil rights case that goes to trial is going to take much longer than the typical tourist visa allows. It’s going to be prohibitively expensive for the typical tourist to procure the services of a skilled lawyer.

lofaszvanitt 1y ago

You have to protect your culture. USA has a 250 year history while Japan has 10x of that.

8note 1y ago
the US has that much history too, it just chooses to ignore it
sosborn 1y ago
Those signs have nothing to do with protecting culture. Most of the time, they are simply a naive defense against dealing with a population often doesn't speak Japanese very well.
- anigbrowl 1y ago
  There's no prohibition against requiring customers to be able to speak Japanese, and this works very well as a tourist filter.
  - ChromaticPanic 1y ago
    The signs say No Foreigners not No non Japanese speakers . A subtle but important difference.
    - sosborn 1y ago
      Every time I've come across one of these signs and wanted to patronize the establishment, a friendly chat with the manager in Japanese was always enough to get them to let me in. YMMV.
gruez 1y ago
>USA has a 250 year history while Japan has 10x of that. Is that supposed to imply that Japan has more culture, or that it needs more protection because it's 10x longer? Even if Japanese culture is 10x longer than American culture, it doesn't necessarily follow that there's less of it. Pop music and hollywood music might not be considered "culture" by snobs, but they're still culture, and arguably more plentiful and pervasive than Japanese culture.

steveBK123 1y ago

Indeed, and as I frequently say.. those who thinks US is the most racist country in the world should visit 5-10 other countries and report back.

tayo42 1y ago
The US is building modern day concentration camps for immigrants. Maybe the country isnt actively killing the out groups right now like a handful of other countries but I'd say the racism is extreme and up there.
- missedthecue 1y ago
  But the immigrants aren't racial or ethnic outgroups per se. Many are incidentally Latino, yes, but so is the current Secretary of State.
  - jalapenos 1y ago
    Rubio has taken "close the door behind me" and dialed it up to 11
  - krapp 1y ago
    It isn't incidental. Trump's entire political legacy has been marked by his bigotry against people from, as he called them, "shithole countries," and remember how badly wanted to wall off Mexico, but not Canada. I believe this is explicitly an attempt to purge the US of its nonwhite immigrant population, possibly out of fear of "white replacement" (which Trump has alluded to believing more than once.) Not to Godwin (but kind of to Godwin,) the Nazis put plenty of non-Jews into camps, and some Jews even collaborated with Nazi Germany. That doesn't mean the number of Jews persecuted by the Nazis was incidental.
    - missedthecue 1y ago
      My point is that if a bunch of Latino Americans wanted to wall off Mexico, that would be many things, but it would not be racism against a racial outgroup. According to The Hill, 43% of Central Americans support the border wall. Not a majority, but far too statistically significant to describe as racism against an outgroup. Not trying to get into US politics on HN, but I think my point is clear when it comes to comparing this American situation to the views of non-ethnics in foreign cultures, which was the original OPs argument.

kazinator 1y ago

> lawsuit city. A.k.a. New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, Dallas, Miami ... take your pick. Litigation, the great all-American pastime.

anigbrowl 1y ago

You could totally bar people with tattoos from your business in teh USA. You'd be unpopular given their prevalence, but you would be on oslid legal ground.