4 ms·

You may deny entry based on your own criteria provided you are not discriminating on race, color, religion, national origin, disability status, veteran status,

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.
- BobaFloutist 1y ago
  Residency inherently includes national origin, since if your national origin is the US you're automatically a resident.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - diggan 1y ago
    Yeah, but the opposite isn't true, my national origin can be Swedish but I can reside in Spain, so banning by residency isn't banning by national origin, seems like a way to ban foreigners (non-residents). Edit: Actually wait > since if your national origin is the US you're automatically a resident This isn't true is it? If you're born in the US but you live (100% of the time) elsewhere, you're no longer a resident, are you?
    - BobaFloutist 1y ago
      Ok, but you're a citizen, which is a higher status than a "permanent resident." Actually, you fully can discriminate for or against local or state residency. I think national residence would be harder, though to be fair you're absolutely able to not hire non-residents. Frankly the biggest barrier might be that as actual residents would get mad if you asked for proof, and if you didn't test everyone it would likely be an open-and-shut racial (or maybe national origin if you tested on the basis of accent) case.
      - diggan 1y ago
        > Ok, but you're a citizen, which is a higher status than a "permanent resident." That sounds like a immigration/social hierarchy/importance rather than something that matters in discrimination contexts, what exactly you mean with "higher status"? If a bar bans non-US residents, if a US-citizen+Spanish-residency tries to enter, then it shouldn't matter if they're US citizens or not, because the criteria is residency, not citizenship. Or is there like a priority/order for OK/not OK discrimination criteria?
        BobaFloutist 1y ago
        Now that I think about it a better quibble is that you probably can't get around anti-discrimination laws by posting a sign that says "No Canadians or Americans that have spent too long in Canada."
        diggan 1y ago
- michaelt 1y ago
  Sometimes I believe one can also face legal trouble for unreasonably banning things strongly correlated with a protected characteristic. I can’t sidestep gender discrimination law by refusing to hire people with long hair, unless the job is something like “wig model” or “Jeff bezos impersonator” where being bald is a bona fide occupational qualification.

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.

BobaFloutist 1y ago
Residency inherently includes national origin, since if your national origin is the US you're automatically a resident.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- diggan 1y ago
  Yeah, but the opposite isn't true, my national origin can be Swedish but I can reside in Spain, so banning by residency isn't banning by national origin, seems like a way to ban foreigners (non-residents). Edit: Actually wait > since if your national origin is the US you're automatically a resident This isn't true is it? If you're born in the US but you live (100% of the time) elsewhere, you're no longer a resident, are you?
  - BobaFloutist 1y ago
    Ok, but you're a citizen, which is a higher status than a "permanent resident." Actually, you fully can discriminate for or against local or state residency. I think national residence would be harder, though to be fair you're absolutely able to not hire non-residents. Frankly the biggest barrier might be that as actual residents would get mad if you asked for proof, and if you didn't test everyone it would likely be an open-and-shut racial (or maybe national origin if you tested on the basis of accent) case.
    - diggan 1y ago
      > Ok, but you're a citizen, which is a higher status than a "permanent resident." That sounds like a immigration/social hierarchy/importance rather than something that matters in discrimination contexts, what exactly you mean with "higher status"? If a bar bans non-US residents, if a US-citizen+Spanish-residency tries to enter, then it shouldn't matter if they're US citizens or not, because the criteria is residency, not citizenship. Or is there like a priority/order for OK/not OK discrimination criteria?
      - BobaFloutist 1y ago
        Now that I think about it a better quibble is that you probably can't get around anti-discrimination laws by posting a sign that says "No Canadians or Americans that have spent too long in Canada."
        diggan 1y ago
michaelt 1y ago
Sometimes I believe one can also face legal trouble for unreasonably banning things strongly correlated with a protected characteristic. I can’t sidestep gender discrimination law by refusing to hire people with long hair, unless the job is something like “wig model” or “Jeff bezos impersonator” where being bald is a bona fide occupational qualification.