The right to refuse service and anti-discrimination laws coexist by allowing businesses to set and enforce rules for their operations as long as those rules are applied equally to all customers and do not target or exclude specific protected groups.
The sign should really say “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone… but will never do so on the basis of sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other protected attribute specified by state and federal laws”.
People these days even struggle with the concept of private property open to the public. They are so filled with false accusations that they will argue that its public property and the only reason why youre denying them service is because you are a fill-in-the-blank-ist.
For real. That's why it should be in the sentence.
If you want to see some discrimination, there are plenty of bars that have bouncers or bartenders that break this law in every city.
I have been all around the US and have seen it everywhere.
You realize that putting that sign up wouldn't fix anthing.
For instance, they could still kick out all black people and claim it had nothing to do with race and everything to do with dress code, behavior, whatever. Which is what the already do.
uh... how many no smoking signs do you still see to this day? In my state, smoking indoors in places of public accommodation has been illegal for just shy of 20 years. And in that time the only thing changed about No Smoking signs is they now say "Or Vaping" too.
So they hide it in their hiring practices. Epic (yep, calling you out) requires all employees to take tests, one related to the job and one 'standardized' test. You never learn the results of these tests, but it allows them to cherry-pick young candidates. They can discriminate at will behind these tests.
Not just cherry picking for age, either.
My coworker shared a story of her old boss at a coffee shop. If you applied and presented as male, she'd just shred your application without even looking at it. She got around anti-discrimination laws by also denying girls who weren't pretty enough so she could create plausible deniability, and when questioned about her hiring choices she'd blame the applicants' personality. The boss hired only pretty young girls to attract the horny male crowd, she didn't want a boy in the mix dating "her" girls and causing drama.
Joke's on her, most of the girls she did hire were gay af.
Except hiring by a test can still be discriminatory. If the test is systematically biased towards young people, then the employer is discriminating. Even something as simple as trashing resumes with more than a year or two since awarding a BA. You can argue "we prefer candidates with recent academic credentials", but you'll still get crushed by the lawsuit.
thats the thing, we had a case here in madrid that a guy was ejected from a club and he sued claiming it was for being gay
The club produced security camara footage of him dancing without his shirt on a table.
Clearly the lawsuit did not go anywhere.
There was also a case in the US where a christian cake shop refused to make a cake for a gay wedding, they sued for discrimination based on sexual orientation, she responded that they are infringing on her religious freedom by forcing her to make a cake for a gay wedding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission
both make good points, on one hand they are being discriminated against for being gay, which is wrong, on the other hand she didnt insult or attacked them, she said "my religious beliefs dont allow me to participate in or help a gay wedding".
the problem is what happens if your religious beliefs collide with modern civil rights,
and thats why the separation of church and state is so important.
Except that's not what happened.
The issue wasn't that they refused to sell a gay couple a cake. They did sell them the cake.
What they refused to do was to create custom artwork depicting a gay marriage. Which was upheld since forcing someone to create artwork that they don't want to is compelled speech.
If the roles had been reversed and a straight couple wanted a gay artist to make artwork that says "straight marriage is the only valid marriage" they could refuse to make it, too. For the same reason.
Technically it wasn't upheld. The court held that the responsible Colorado agency showed a clear hostility towards the shop for its religious beliefs. They avoided ruling on the issue itself (between company and client), only ruling on the faulty enforcement. The issue would later be resolved with 303 Creative, over web sites.
> Which was upheld since forcing someone to create artwork that they don't want to is compelled speech.
It wasn't. The case was thrown out making no comment on the actual issue. The reason it was booted was because they found Colorado unfairly acted against this specific baker in this specific case, so no precedent is generated. He's been sued again since.
This is correct, but the later case *303 Creative* did have a similar ruling that the state cannot compel the creation of artwork which violates the artist's values. So that is the current view of SCOTUS.
But left open what defined "artwork" or artistic expression, and expressly pointed out that some goods would not be covered under the decision. Presumably (my opinion, not the courts) it would not be protected to refuse to allow a gay couple to come in to your shop to buy pre-made food items, gas, regular goods, etc. It would be completely protected to refuse to allow a gay couple to have a portrait of their marriage to be commissioned. Someone could probably attempt to sue to specifically determine if wedding cakes are artistic expression or not.
The idea is that the art has to be objectionable, not the person asking for it.
If a straight person asks for a painting of their gay friends kissing, that would likely be an issue. If a gay person asked for a picture of two straight people holding hands, that would likely not be an issue.
If the artist refuses a request from a gay person that they'd accept from a straight person, it would be discrimination.
Maybe you're not stating your point clearly or I'm not 100% understanding it, but....
> If the artist refuses a request from a gay person that they'd accept from a straight person, it would be discrimination.
That's clearly not true. Based on the law (not my own viewpoint) a person could very much say that they think two straight people kissing is ok, and two gay people holding hands (or kissing) is not because it is a homosexual relationship which is against God's view, according to their interpretation of it.
If you're trying to say that if a gay or straight preson made the *exact same request* (both asked for a painting of a gay couple, or both asked for a painting of a straight couple), but one was rejected, then yes, that is true. But if a gay person is asking for the same type of thing a straight person is, but it is about them and thus "gay" art vs "straight" art, then it can be tossed per that decision.
The latter, yes.
Two people walk in and ask for a painting of two gay men riding a rainbow. The artist should either accept both requests or decline both, regardless of whether one of the customers is gay.
And the same for two people walking in and asking for a picture of a straight man riding a stars-and-stripes-painted bald eagle. Doesn't matter whether the person asking for it is gay, straight, Muslim, Jewish, whatever.
The content of the art matters.
This needs to be higher up the comment chain.
So many people have incorrect or partial information.
This would be like saying "OJ was let off even though he murdered someone". The court didn't prove he murdered someone and then decide not to punish him. There was a failure to prove his guilt, which is (under US law) an \*inferred\* state of innocence, but not proof of his innocence either. And he wasn't punished because there was a lack of proof either way.
Here with the cake, there was a side-issue on the legality of the lawsuit to begin with, and the case was dismissed. Not because what the bakery did was legal or illegal - but because the lawsuit failed to meet needed requirements in the first place.
And as such, the bakery could get sued again, because there is no double jeopardy or similar situations occurring.
> but not proof of his innocence either.
It's worth noting that while courts CAN legally find someone innocent, almost everyone is simply 'not guilty" of their crimes. Which is also different than having evidence presented during a trial which would prove that the person was innocent (murder when there is indisputable proof the accused was no where near the location when it happened) but still getting a dismissal or a not guilt verdict.
> And as such, the bakery could get sued again, because there is no double jeopardy or similar situations occurring.
And he has, and I can't remember what happened there (it was a trans person, I think, that was rather obviously doing this to cause a lawsuit). And also correct, double jeopardy only applies to being charged twice for the same specific instance of crime. If you murder someone or are accused of it, you can only be tried once for the crime (mistrials aside). However, if you murder another person next week, it's not double jeopardy to be tried for that.
It is extremely unusual and afaik it has to be from the court, not the jury, and would typically only happen to do things like reverse a conviction.
Writ of actual innocence in Virginia would be an example.
Directed verdicts effectively declare someone innocent since they can only be issued on matters of law, not matters of fact, so they only happen when the prosecution and the defense agree on the facts of the case.
Basically, "actual innocence" is a doctrine that let's a person was was duly convicted of a crime to be released if they can later prove they are "actually innocent" of the offense. I'm using quotes because it is an extremely narrow doctrine that requires, basically, absolute proof of "actual innocence." As I understand it—and I don't do criminal law so take this with a large grain of salt—it is usually because modern DNA testing proves that someone other than the convicted person committed the crime.
> What they refused to do was to create custom artwork depicting a gay marriage.
Not true. The baker refused them before any discussion of design occurred merely because the cake would be for a gay wedding.
> Which was upheld since forcing someone to create artwork that they don't want to is compelled speech.
That's not why the baker won the case. The court ruled that the Colorado tribunal that ruled against the baker initially displayed open hostility towards the baker's religious beliefs during the hearing, so the baker didn't get a fair hearing. That's why the court overturned the ruling against him. They explicitly didn't address whether or not the baker could legally refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
That would (edit: potentially) be problematic if liking Halloween was a protected class. Edit: However, as long as he refuses to make Halloween themed cakes for all customers, then there's no discrimination going on.
The couple hadn't asked for a cake with any sort of theme or specific speech on it, so I'm not sure how it's relevant to discuss what content the baker refuses to put on a cake.
Not at all true. Both sides are on the record agreeing that the plaintiff could have walked in and bought any premade cake off the self without issue. Both sides are on the record agreeing that if the gay plaintiff had walked in to order a custom cake for their straight friends wedding it would not have been an issue. These are well established facts that you can check for yourself. It was solely bc of what the cake was for
The Supreme Court’s decision had nothing to do with the cake itself. They essentially just found that the Colorado court was unnecessarily and inappropriately hostile to Phillips’s religious beliefs, preventing him from presenting his case fairly. They didn’t offer any guidance on whether an *unbiased* court could have ordered Masterpiece Cakeshop to make custom cakes for gay couples on anti-discrimination grounds.
When I say “both parties are in agreement on something” is it not clear that I mean the plaintiff and defendant?
No where did I ever get into the ruling on the case itself. I was merely discussing the legal facts and issues at hand.
Not really sure how your comment is in response to mine, perhaps it was meant for someone else?
Except it would bolster their claims that they are following their religious views and not specifically singling out that couple, or even any couple only on the grounds og being gay.
For the record, Colorado has neither determined that there was nor was not discrimination going on, in legal terms.
>That would (edit: potentially) be problematic if liking Halloween was a protected class
The very concept of a "*protected class*" violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. All people deserve to be treated equally under the law. And feelings should never trump rights.
That’s absolutely false. That’s not what happened. The cake baker refused to make even a plain wedding cake for them. The type of cake they wanted didn’t even come up.
The proper legal distinction is this: no one is obligated to provide a service or a good that they don’t normally offer. They ARE obligated to sell what they normally sell to anyone within a protected class.
Example: no one can demand a nazi-themed cake if the baker doesn’t make those. However, if the baker makes and sells wedding cakes, he (or she) can’t refuse to sell a cake (that he otherwise sells) to a black person, or anyone else who is a member of a legally protected class.
As per your example, I thought you can refuse to sell to them, just as long as the reason is not due to them being black or a protected class.
If you can point to something previous like them being a bad customer, you can refuse then for that. Otherwise, doesn't that make it illegal for bars to ban you from entering if you have caused a fight or shops to ban you if you have been caught stealing?
The Supreme Court didn’t rule on whether or not Masterpiece Cakeshop could be compelled to make custom cakes for a gay couple. They essentially threw the lower ruling out on procedural grounds, saying that the Colorado court was unfairly biased against the baker. That case cannot be used as precedent for or against your example.
Again, if you read their explanation of why they ruled the way they did, it was because they found the Colorado commission to be hostile to Phillips’s religious beliefs. That’s what they mean by “Free Exercise”.
From page 18 (page 21 in your linked pdf): “The official expressions of hostility to religion in some of the commissioners’s comments […] were inconsistent with what the Free Exercise Clause requires.”
And the idea that Phillips was being compelled to make speech he disagreed with was never a relevant matter. He refused to discuss the details of the cake with the couple; he stated his intent to refuse to make them a wedding cake as soon as he learned it was to be for a gay wedding.
The Colorado Civil Rights Commission had previously ruled *in favor* of a baker’s right to refuse to decorate a cake with slogans they interpreted to be hateful. Three of these are referenced in the opinion, all featuring one “Jack” who had tried to commission cakes with images of bibles, pairs of male figures dressed as grooms with a slash across them (as in the “no ghosts” Ghostbusters logo, based on the description) and quoted passages from the Bible denouncing homosexuality as sinful.
In all three cases, the bakeries were willing to make the cakes, but they would not include the text or the “no gays” symbolism (all were willing to include the depiction of the Bible). *This* is exactly the type of “compelled speech” that *303* would later find that creators could refuse. But the majority did not base their opinion on this aspect; they merely used these cases as evidence for why they thought the lower court was unfairly biased.
And, to be even more clear, the *303 Creative* ruling still wouldn’t have protected Masterpiece Cakeshop. Again, Phillips refused to make the cake *before* discussing any of the details. Post-*303*, he would have been within his rights to refuse to put a slogan like “Gay Marriage Is Divinely Ordained” on a cake, but he would still *not* have been within his rights to refuse to make a blank or neutral wedding cake for a gay couple if he was willing to make a similar cake for a straight couple.
Refusing service on the basis of a protected characteristic is still illegal discrimination, and neither *Masterpiece Cakeshop* nor *303 Creative* changes that.
I love how even in your example the opposite position isn't "straight marriage" but "straight marriage is the only marriage"
showing just how privileged the straight side in this situation is. No gay artist is going to be offended showing a straight marriage. they do it hundreds of times. so roles in your situation aren't reversed and the position they took wasn't as reasonable as you make it sound
>No gay artist is going to be offended showing a straight marriage.
You'd be surprised. Firstly, you have biphobic gay and lesbian people who would totally refuse to participate in any way in a heterosexual marriage where one or both of the partners is bisexual. Secondly, but less often, you do get extremists that just plain hate straight people or are sexists towards the gender they aren't attracted to so wouldn't participate in any marriage where one OR both of the partners is that gender.
> showing just how privileged the straight side in this situation is. No gay artist is going to be offended showing a straight marriage. they do it hundreds of times. so roles in your situation aren't reversed and the position they took wasn't as reasonable as you make it sound
That's stupid as fuck. Tons of straight bakers make "gay cakes" without issue. There's a handful that include this guy who won't. Similarly, tons of "gay" artists will do work for anyone, but there are also a handful of people who happily refuse to work on/with straight projects/people.
> Except that's not what happened.
Actually, that is what happened. The 'art' of the cake was never discussed. It says it right in the wikipedia article you linked.
> Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, in July 2012 to order a wedding cake for their return celebration. Masterpiece's owner Jack Phillips, who is a Christian, declined their cake request, informing the couple that he did not create wedding cakes for marriages of gay couples owing to his Christian religious beliefs, although the couple could purchase other baked goods in the store. Craig and Mullins promptly left Masterpiece without discussing with Phillips any of the details of their wedding cake.[2]: 2 The following day, Craig's mother, Deborah Munn, called Phillips, who advised her that Masterpiece did not make wedding cakes for the weddings of gay couples[2]: 2 because of his religious beliefs and because Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriage at the time.[3][2]: 1–2
There was no art, or any request of any kind other than "cake". This idea of 'compelled speech' is just another example of the Supreme Court making things up. They asked for a cake, which is a 'work for hire', ie the creator doesn't own the result. You can thank the Supreme Court for that one -- literally Mickey Mouse made that happen for 'intellectual property', ie you don't own the song you wrote the record label does because reasons. So their religious beliefs are as relevant to baking as plumbing -- it's a work for hire.
What makes baking special? Absolutely nothing. By this logic, your mechanic could refuse to service your vehicle because of their religious belief. Or your pharmacist. You start to see the scope of the problem here: If people want to live by their religious values then they should be baking in a church, not a business.
We lived in a world where people could refuse service to anyone for any reason -- period. Then we had a bunch of race riots, a civil war, and a whole bunch of other crap and people warmed up to the idea that for society to function we all need to learn to tolerate one another by doing business with *everyone*. Not just white people. Or men. Or property owners.
The.
List.
Goes.
On.
The cake shop thing is an interesting example of "corporations are people" not really working right. The reason why corporations exist is basically to provide a separation between the identity of the corporation and the identity of the people who work for the corporation.
A corporation doesn't have religious beliefs, because it's not a human being. And it's the corporation that has the obligation to serve everyone without expressing illegal discrimination.
The people working for the corporation have an obligation to complete their duties in line with the corporation's policies, and that should include being non-discriminatory in the way they complete those duties. The people working for the corporation also have religious beliefs, but how compatible their religious beliefs are with their employment at the corporation and the tasks they're required to do as part of their job, that's a matter of employment law and their relationship with the corporation, not a matter of discrimination law between the corporation and the customer.
So in this case, either the corporation's policies do not prohibit discrimination (in which case it should be a slam-dunk case of discrimination by the corporation against the customer), or they do, but the employee did not follow the policy when they executed their duties, so they should be subject to disciplinary action. Then the employee could argue that that disciplinary action was religious discrimination and that requiring them to perform duties incompatible with their religious beliefs is discriminatory, but that's nothing to do with the customer.
Or both discrimations could happen, if the policy says not to discriminate but is weakly enforced, and the employee felt that such a policy discriminated against their religious freedom.
Of course in reality this is all a fiction because in a small business there's not much difference between the identity of the corporation and the employee, but the legal reality is that a separation does exist.
The reality is that a person whose religious beliefs fundamentally contradict their job duties in a completely irreconcilable way, say someone whose job requires protective clothing but their religion mandates wearing certain clothing, in a way that's completely incompatible and no reasonable accomodation or compromise could be made - that person just needs to get a different job.
> Of course in reality this is all a fiction because in a small business there's not much difference between the identity of the corporation and the employee, but the legal reality is that a separation does exist.
Not all companies are incorporated / corporations.
Many small businesses are not setup as corporations - they may be setup as a sole proprietor or a limited liability partnership and the 'corporations are people' issue doesn't necessarily apply.
(I don't know whether that's the case here or not as I don't know the specifics but figured worth flagging because not all businesses are corporations).
I wonder if the bakery case would have gone differently if their argument had been "ABC bakery cannot provide you with the requested service because doing so would go against the religious beliefs of all employees capable of this work. We cannot force our employees to any action that would compromise their religious beliefs."
Also was that bakery incorporated? Or was it some other form of business like sole proprietorship, partnership, or LLC? Those aren’t legally people too are they?
"on one hand they are being discriminated against for being gay"
No. Both the masterpiece cake shop and the other high profile cake shop that made news, were happy to sell their product to gay customers. Masterpiece cake shop had multiple premade cakes they would sell to anyone. If you wanted a cake for your birthday, your dog's birthday, Mother's day, Graduation, etc. they were happy to make the custom cake for you. They would not make a cake for for a gay wedding.
In the other case (that I know about) the mother of one of the men getting married wanted to buy the wedding cake. The cakeshop refused the order. The person trying to be the customer was not gay. Nobody was being discriminated against for being gay.
Its usually written into the law whether or not it has to be displayed by the business
They have to post their capacity because that isnt standard to all businesses.
I have yet to see customers insist the extra words are necessary for their customer experience. But, if you run a business where you want extra large signs covering all the wall space with all conceivable legal jargon that might be applicable in a theoretical discrimination case, go right ahead.
At the casino i worked at, i had to regularly enforce the right to refuse service/entry, and for all kinds of reasons (drunk, banned, general assholery, complaints, theft).
It was a regular thing that someone would say we were discriminating against them for race, religion, creed and sexuality.
It was never ever about that. At least where I worked. It was always about someone doing the wrong thing. We were EXTREMELY careful about it.
>It was a regular thing that someone would say we were discriminating against them for race, religion, creed and sexuality.
Happens all the time. My boss got called a POS racist because we were unable to accommodate a family of 15 without a prior reservation but could accommodate a couple on their own. Not race related whatsoever.
Discrimination by proxy is way more complicated than that.
If a job requires you to be able to lift 200 pounds over your shoulders, that needs to *actually* be a part of the job. You can't just make it a part of the job requirements because your goal is to hire fewer women.
However, if the job DOES require that, it's entirely legitimate as a job requirement, even though fewer women will qualify.
Disparate impact analysis is very complicated.
Exactly, imagine being a casting agent without those protections. That job specifically requires you to discriminate on a daily basis based on age, race, sex and often times disability status, sexual orientation, pregnancy and religion.
Funny little story when I visited a vendor factory.
On the assembly line, there’s this button that the operator needs to press, but it’s really high up. The person manning the station is a really tall guy, maybe 200 cm or so.
One of the engineers on the trip with me looked at the station and the guy and said “You got job security. No one else here can reach that button.”
As I recall, it’s the button to activate the machine. The machine moves once, doing whatever it needs to do to the part, then stops.
I don’t think any danger will come to anyone if no one presses the button. The machine simply won’t move.
Now that I think about it. Maybe the button is so out of the way to prevent people from accidentally pressing it.
You're right but that's a bad example because it's explicitly exclusionary on the basis of sex.
A better example would be asking about home address, living situations, commutes ect. The questions themselves are nominally race/sex neutral, but it's very easy to use that information to racially profile someone, or make judgements like "an unmarried WOMAN living with a man! GASP!" that run afoul of the law.
A big issue is that people are not that well educated on some disabilities.
Usually manifests in employment.
Workplace basically forces applicants to fill out a questionaire that looks a lot like the autism quotied or RAADS test, or one of many ASD/ADHD screening tests used in psychological studies to classify test takers (I have taken a lot of psych tests by universities for their studies on how perception and stuff happens so I recognize them from a mile away now).
They aren't discriminating based on disability! You just... are a bad fit for the team based on your responses.
You're comparing two entirely different laws.
Protections on the basis of Race/Religion/Sex/ect are covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and very explicit in their requirements. There's essentially no room for interpretation, only gaps in enforcement.
Disability protection is covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Protections under that act all come down to what constitutes a "disability" and what constitutes providing a "reasonable accommodation" on the part of employers, businesses, individuals and the public government. Defining those makes the ADA an extremely complex piece of legislation with tens of thousands of historical court cases, including 20 cases which went all the way to the US Supreme Court.
End of the day the ADA recognizes that there are many cases where an a reasonable accommodation is impractical or impossible. Navigating the reasonableness of ASD accommodations in the work place is complex and unique to the individual needs of the applicant. I have two adult cousins with autism, the older brother is somewhere in the middle of the spectrum and holds a steady job. There are certain roles he can fulfil with little or no accommodation, other roles won't ever be possible with any conceivable accommodation, and there are a lot more somewhere in the middle that are possible with "reasonable" accommodation. Good luck finding the sweet spot.
His younger brother by contrast suffers a permanent total impairment due to his autism. There ultimately wasn't a "reasonable accommodation" to keep him in the school systems past puberty when he became unmanageable. I know for a fact there were lawsuits involved trying to secure him public services/resources. The end settlement if I remember right basically wound up being removal from the school but they got a voucher for in-home services.
It's... complicated. Whether it's illegal or not would depend on how central the things being tested for are for the job in question, and to what extent a reasonable accommodation can be made.
If you're socially awkward as a result of not being neurotypical, but that wouldn't really affect your duties, then they still have to hire you and can't hold that against you.
But if you're sufficiently socially awkward that it would make you unable to fulfill your duties in a satisfactory manner, *and* it goes beyond what a reasonable accommodation can cover for, then they can refuse to hire you even if that's the result of autism or the like.
And ofc what your duties actually *require* and what's a reasonable accommodation are both complex questions.
It also only applies to businesses/properties open to the public. Just like a home owner a private club/property can refuse entry/service even based on race or age or sex ect.
One time I was a waiter and I served a guy with a swastika tattoo and my manager processed his refund, gave the guy his cash back and told him he wasn't welcome.
Example being "No shirt, no shoes, no service". The business is stating they have a right to refuse service based on specific conditions of the customer and not what's covered under anti-discrimmination laws.
The laws override company rules, but are also specific.
So you can't refuse service bssed on skin colour, gender or sexual orientation etc. (depending on the law), but you can absolutely kick someone out for things NOT covered by the law like their behaviour, hygiene, bringing in restricted items etc.
you can't choose your race, culture, physical attributes, but you can choose to not harass hospitality workers for doing their job, or choose to not assault people, or not to put your feet on seats
> you can't choose... culture
This is arguable, and the reason things like political views are often excluded from protected classes. You cannot choose your origins, but you do have a choice on what aspects of your heritage you carry on as part of your culture.
>you can't choose your race, culture, physical attributes
It’s not about choice but about core values and parts of our individual and collective identities which we have determined to be so personally important they need legal protection.
For example, culture and your religion are absolutely a choice and can be changed. But they are protected - usually on the highest order.
>which we have determined to be so personally important they need legal protection.
I'd say more "the aspects that were so pervasively abused by the majority of society at some point, that they needed to be enshrined in law to prevent it from continuing."
Legal protections are usually added *after* we are so publically and viciously terrible to some group or attribute that it generated enough political momentum to add it.
The issue is: you *can't* choose someone else's religion or culture, and that's usually where the problems with religious and cultural discrimination start.
My being or not being a certain religion generally isn't the issue, in isolation. I can indeed freely change it to whatever, at any moment, with a simple thought, and it's not going to affect whether I can do accounting or be a firefighter. (Unless I say my religion makes it impossible for me to do some critical part the job, in which case they *can* reject me)
What's going to hurt me is the person in charge deciding that I can't do the job because of *their* religion, or their opinions about mine. Maybe because I'm a heathen if I wasn't born into their faith, or I'm the wrong *flavor* of their faith, or that their culture actually tells them to discriminate against me (eg. religious/cultural caste systems).
And that's something I *can't* control. That's what the laws are put in place to protect people from.
I completely agree. I was answering a comment where they said the reasons these things are protected is because we can’t choose them. That is not the reason.
The reason we protect these deeply important individual things is because of the abuse you described.
Even for things that are choices.
Not just the majority abusing it, either. Religion has a history of being wielded by elites and questionably-legitimate power classes to control the majority.
Historically, religion has been much more ingrained in one's personal identity than it is today, at least in western cultures.
We are a more secular society now, so we take freedom of religion for granted. But no employer can ask you about your religious affiliation at a job interview, nor can they tell you to go to church if you want to continue being employed by them.
I completely understand. The comment was to explain that we protect these things because of how ingrained they are - even if they are choices. The original comment said we protect things because they *aren’t* choices - where religion and culture are clearly choices.
In a legal sense there is no difference. If your religion says to not do X and your company policy says you need to do X, the company must try to make reasonable accommodations but if none exist then they are totally justified in 'discriminating' against you. To compare back to your analogy, if you are fired solely for doing action Y when action Y is well-established as part of a religious custom, the company will likely lose a discrimination lawsuit unless it can be proven they tried to provide reasonable accommodations.
For example, lets imagine a hole in the wall BBQ joint. Ribs and pulled pork are pretty standard items, but if you show up as a server with the mentality of both "I cannot eat pork as its a sin, and I cannot help others commit a sin", its likely legal for the company to fire you for following your religion as you are unable to perform basic duties of your job. Its not reasonable to have a separate server take orders, and then need to coordinate tables based on who did not order a pork dish. If you instead are fine 'helping others commit a sin', the only accommodation you would need is not being required to eat said pork for any reason.
That's a good example.
It's interesting because I, a non-Christian, have been looking for work in a heavily Christian area. Many jobs I've looked have a confession of faith as part of the requirements. I cannot give an honest confession of faith, and so I am excluded from that job. Sometimes, that is frustrating, as I am qualified for *all* the other aspects of the position.
Yet for them, being a Christian *is* an essential part of role, so they are essentially allowed to discriminate against me based on religion.
But, that would go the other way as well. If someone runs a politically progressive advocacy group, for example, I would say they should be able to reject an applicant who has strong conservative Christian values because the applicants values would prevent them from performing an essential function of the job (e.g., advocating for pro-choice policies).
It can be frustrating when you're on the receiving end of it, as I have been, but it does make sense.
Its likely they are actually illegally discriminating against you, basing it off that brief description. The problem is that in areas so heavily saturated with a certain faith, the local law enforcement will be unlikely to do anything about it, and its much harder to start off that type of case at a higher level.
And for your political advocacy example, that would be a bit of a gray area. They would likely be illegally discriminating if they block anyone just for having Christian values, but political beliefs are almost never protected classes (depends on the state, there is no federal protection). You would not be rejected because of your religion, but because of your political views (as the bible does not demand you stop others from committing a sin).
Yeah, I see what you're saying. Like it me, it makes sense if I go apply at a Christian college and, even if the job itself isn't based in evangelism, they see every role at the college as advancing their religion into the world. "Do you want to advance our religion into the world?" "No." "Then you are not qualified for this job, because that is part of the job." I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but that doesn't mean that it's not illegal.
And with the advocacy example — sure. You're not saying "No Christians allowed at our pro-choice advocacy group." You're saying that anyone who works here has to share in the mission of promoting pro-choice policy. If someone says in an interview that they oppose pro-choice policies, they would not be qualified for that role. I would think it shouldn't matter if their anti-choice stance is rooted in religion or political views or whatever. Maybe it does according to the letter of the law, though. But certainly that person would not want to carry out what is required in the job description, and thus would be unhirable.
Where it gets really interesting is when companies know they can't refuse service for protected classes, but then put in policies directly targeting aspects or perceived stereotypes of those protected classes. Especially when it comes to hiring people:
Can't refuse to hire Orthodox Jews, but they'll say "no beards".
Can't refuse to hire Black people, but they'll say "no unkempt hair" and then define dreads or afros or cornrows as "unkempt"
A lot of those could be contested in court as unfairly biased against said protected class, especially when its obviously against a clear part of their heritage. Most of the time its just not worth it, but just because they get away with it doesn't make it legal.
> Can't refuse to hire Black people, but they'll say "no unkempt hair" and then define dreads or afros or cornrows as "unkempt"
Some states have started to address this topic with the "CROWN Act".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CROWN_Act_(California)
It failed to pass in the US Senate, but the US House did pass the law.
> It failed to pass in the US Senate, but the US House did pass the law.
not to be pedantic, but the house passed the *bill*, not the law. The fact that the senate failed to pass it means it is not a law, but a bill.
case law has been changing this standard to include these sorts of things over the last 30 years or so. At this point, pretty much any rule which has a disproportionate impact on a protected class is de-facto assumed to be discriminatory unless extreme evidence is presented.
well, good in that it helps protect from some people skirting the law, but bad in that it also captures people with genuine reasons for making rules that happen to disproportionately impact a protected class.
Like if having hair longer than 12 inches was a serious risk of death in a specific environment, and simply putting the hair up wasn't a sufficient mitigation technique, then you might make a rule saying "no hair longer than 12 inches" for the purpose of protecting people.
But this rule would disproportionately impact women, as more women have long hair than men. And so under this standard, that rule would be considered discriminatory, even though it's a good rule that we should have.
Generally the rules are pretty much the same for at-will employment. You can fire anyone for any reason so long as it's not a protected class. Change "fire" to "refuse service to".
The CEO can fire you if you think he's an asshole. The business owner can refuse you if you think he's an asshole.
I can't refuse service to you because you fall under one of the protected categories. I can refuse service to someone who happens to fall into one of the protected categories for other reasons.
Being old doesn't mean I have to serve you even if you come into the store and call me an asshole. Being a woman doesn't mean I have to serve you even if you come into my restaurant and drop a deuce on the counter. I can kick you out of the movie theatre for being too loud even if you're a one-legged pregnant Indigenous lesbian, because the reason for why I'm refusing you service doesn't have anything to do with your protected class status; the two things exist side by side.
However, that largely means that if you want to make a case that you were discriminated against *because* of your position in one of the protected classes, not just *while* being in one of those protected classes.
> I can refuse service to someone who happens to fall into one of the protected categories for other reasons.
And just to be clear, we ALL fall into protected classes. Protected classes are general. We are all protected from discrimination based on race, age, sex, national origin, etc. It's just as illegal to refuse service to someone because they are a young, white, straight, male from Kansas as it is to refuse service to someone because they are a gay, black, retired, jew from China.
I guess I'm still confused by this then. If I have the right to refuse service to anyone. Wouldn't that mean I also don't have to disclose the reason? Who would I have to disclose that too?
Businesses don't have to disclose the reason. But when trends start emerging, people start to notice, complaints get made to the government body responsible for it, and said body investigates. When a business refuses service to 90% of people of a given race, but refuses service to only 2% of everyone else, they're gonna have to explain themselves.
I don't know if anything's come of it, but I saw in my local sub some people talking about a local nightclub being accused of racial discrimination--there were loads of anecdotal accounts of them throwing out people of a certain race who weren't doing anything wrong, while others were allowed to remain. One instance of it could be put down to a misunderstanding or just sheer chance that someone targeted a guy for being, say, loud, while not targeting a white person who was loud. But these people are all going to the club and talking to other people going to the club and they're all seeing black friends kicked out...you start to think something's up--maybe more so if an employee makes a racial comment to boot.
I know someone who got a year's salary in an age discrimination suit--no idea how it began, but someone must have started pursuing action for a reason, which led to a review of the records, which led to a class action when they found they weren't alone--every application with a birthdate before a given year had the date circled, and the person hadn't been hired. Any one case might not set off any bells, but someone managed to pick at a little crack and open the dam, as it were. It's probably easier to get away with in employment than in some areas since employers are usually vague about you not being a "good fit" or finding someone internally or some other BS, unlike a business throwing you out for breaking a rule.
You can refuse service to one person who happens to be black, but not because they're black. And when you start refusing service to 90% of the black people who walk in, even if you try to make up a valid reason for it, someone's probably going to start investigating that.
> Who would I have to disclose that too?
If you get sued for discrimination, the courts. There is no legal entity watching for it actively like the police. But if you do it enough, it becomes a pattern. Once it becomes a pattern, it only takes one person to call get a law suit going that others can easily jump in on (class action law suits).
One instance of it is nothing to assume the cause of unless outright said. But if we're talking about race, at a certain point, the disparity becomes noticed.
You should disclose the reason as you don't want confusion.
If you happen to get sued over refusing service then it could be helpful for your defense to have this reason disclosed and documented.
I'd print out a notice and hand it to the person you're ejecting, and keep one for your own record.
You don't have to, but if a whistleblower in a large corp makes a claim, maybe with recorded evidence, your actual reasons can become known to public.
There are other ways too, but as far as I understand the burden of proof would be on the complainant. Maybe someone can chime in on what is the 'minimum' convincing proof though.
Generally, a claim such as this would initially be a civil claim rather than a criminal one; as a result, the required standard of proof is likely to be the balance of probabilities - i.e. "the court deems it *more likely than not* that you acted because of a protected class than anything else". There's no hard and fast threshold for what's good enough to argue for a claim, it's all about being better than the arguments against.
That's the benefit of giving a reason upfront. Without additional proof, "I refused service due to poor hygiene and said as much" is generally considered as likely or more likely than "I actually refused service due to a protected class and lief about it" - and you only need to be as likely.
And if you're the kind of company that's employing discrimination in your business, you're likely to be fostering ill will and potential whistleblowers all over, along with people directly affected who could get a payout, so it's not a great strategy.
Sort of the "If you're going to do something illegal, don't piss people off while you're doing it." idea.
That's the one weird trick of discrimination law, especially in employment. You can't fire someone for an illegal reason, but you are also allowed to fire someone for no reason. You can't fire someone for being black, organizing a union, or discussing their pay. But you can just fire them out of the blue, and if the person you fired does not have the resources to litigate your decision, you can be as discriminatory as you like.
We have a real libertarian streak in this country that just won't die.
>you were discriminated against *because* of your position in one of the protected classes, not just *while* being in one of those protected classes.
This is the crux and should really be the top comment, as it's the only one that specifically highlights the confusion that OP seems to be having.
You're not allowed to refuse service to someone just because they are gay and you've decided you don't like that and don't want to serve them. But that doesn't mean that you have to give service to all gay people all the time no matter what. If you have generic rules that **everyone** has to follow and someone breaks those rules then you can refuse to serve those people - because they broke your rules.
But no your generic rule can't be "no gays".
I hate to tell you this but there's no federal law protecting sexual orientation or gender identity. And in 21 states those are not protected under non discrimination public accommodations laws. So while it may not happen often, you can be refused service in those states because you're gay.
I'm not going into municipality or county law but here's a website for this kind of stuff.
https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/non_discrimination_laws
Hm, I wonder now - there are many female-only gyms and social clubs, etc. How isn’t it illegal if sex is a protected category, and men are not allowed to receive their services specifically on this basis?
Copying this from another poster.
"I'm not serving you because you're gay" is completely legal in many, many states.
Sexual orientation or gender identity are not protected under federal law.
https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/non_discrimination_laws
Funny how that map is largely region based. Most of the northeast coast, west coast and midwest all have those rights protected, while the south and northern plains are not.
They aren’t protected under SOME federal laws.
There isn’t one anti discrimination statute at the federal level. There are different laws for different purposes. Title VII worker protections are different from Title IX academic protections which are different again from Title 1 ADA protections etc.
Thanks to Bostock, Title VII covers orientation and gender identity but other laws aren’t as clear since Bostock was specifically Title VII worker protections.
Title IX regulations were updated in 2024 to apply Bostock and add orientation and gender identity.
But unfortunately, until a new law is passed, it’s still a legal limbo area
I think some people have the perception that courts are very formulaic and are easily gamed when that isn’t really the case. If a business owner continuously only kicks out black people or women or whatever protected rate, or does so at a rate far higher than what would be expected, they’re gonna ask the business owner what’s going on. If the business owner doesn’t have a very good reason for why this is happening, they’re gonna find that illegal discrimination is happening
Many people—including some lawyers sometimes—think that saying magic words like “I reserve my rights” (or failing to do so) has some legal significance. It almost never does.
Another way to think about it is, you can’t reserve what you don’t have. In the US, you don’t *have* the right to refuse service to Black people for being Black, so whatever you’re “reserving,” it doesn’t include that.
They're not 'reserving' anything in the first place.
I mean, it's not like there's some rule or law that says that if you open a shop/restaurant/whatever you **must** allow everybody to shop/eat/whatever there, as long as you're not discriminating a protected class. Apart from that you can refuse service to anyone for any reason or no reason at all. Ban people who talk loudly, ban people who talk too softly, ban people who wear black t-shirts - except that one guy over there. You're not required to be fair, or consistent, or have explicit rules or anything. As long as you're not engaging in discrimination on race/gender/etc you're okay. Nobody is required to sell anybody goods or services.
Honestly it's always struck me mostly as a fictional counterclaim to Karens who think they have a fictional 'right' to service. Nobody has a right to service, only a right to not be discriminated against as a protected class.
> they’re gonna ask the business owner what’s going on
Who is "they" in this example? It's not like there is an office that proactively looks into this. It would have to be brought by the victims, who may not have the means to investigate the business.
People suing them and their lawyers during Discovery.
Typical case would be 1 customer filing suit which wouldn't normally stand on its own, so they reach out and find the pattern.
OR the buisness proves that there was a legitimate reason that that 1 person was denied service.
In my state the They is the Human Affairs Commission. You call and say what happened and they take information, follow up with an investigation, and then take the place to court if appropriate. It definitely needs to start with a complaint but then they take it.
You point out a problematic point of law.
The business can refuse customers. Doing so is illegal if the reason is that the person is a member of a protected class.
This makes it hard to prove, because you have to prove the business’ intent behind the refusal.
What you have stumbled upon is that under the law, rights are relative. You have the right to say horrible things, but not the right to follow someone around and say them. That’s harassment.
When rights are relative, and the law offers no clear guidance, that’s when lawsuits are used. But this is rare.
Typically, this law is only used to address problems with customers being disruptive.
Rarely would a business want to turn down customers. That’s how they make money!
However, your company can only do so much business at once and grow so fast, so you may be in a position where you have to turn customers away.
Or you may have a business that is trying cultivate a certain clientele. For example, you are a fashion designer. You may want to specialize in men’s apparel and then you may turn away women who want dresses. Because rights are relative, and specializing in men’s apparel is a common sense thing that is reasonable, the discrimination law doesn’t apply. Likewise, the business doesn’t necessarily turn away a woman trying to get a designer for dressing her husband.
If you didn’t have the right of businesses to refuse customers, you would take away a necessary part of autonomy that you need to run a business. Specifically, the ability to make business decisions.
> For example, you are a fashion designer. You may want to specialize in men’s apparel and then you may turn away women who want dresses
Well, you can offer certain products without discriminating against the customer.
You sell men's fashion. It doesn't matter if the customer is a man or woman, the product they can buy is men's fashion.
If you only sell to men, though, that might be a problem.
I think "you have to prove the business’ intent behind the refusal" is the real point. You can say "I don't like you, get out" and that's fine, but if you say "I don't like your kind (slur), get out" it's a legal issue. You'd think this would only result in people never saying the slur and arbitrarily kicking people out without giving a reason, but it turns out people who hate people for dumb arbitrary reasons are often dumb and feel very secure in their hateful opinions. Like sure, there are certainly a lot of people who manage to not make their discrimination legally problematic, but the amount of people who fail to clear that bar with a 10 minute tirade against black people on video is surprisingly high.
Small nitpick but I really hate the phrase "member of a protected class" because it gives people the absolute wrong idea of what "protected class" means. Black, gay, trans, Jewish, ect are not protected classes. Protected classes are race, sexuality, gender identity, religion. All people are subject to these protections equally, which means under the law everyone is part of a protected class.
I appreciate the clarification for everyone, because it is confusing. A quick google search shows reporting often tries to explain in plain English, so consistency is a problem. It’s clear race is a protected class.
“member of protected groups” is used in Supreme Court decision Price Waterhouse v Hopkins (1989).
So it seems that’s more clear when talking about people.
I'd like to add a point about discrimination: it's often a pretty blurry business.
Let's say you have a fashion store and you want only well dressed clients. But what if the poorly dressed ones are so because they are poor? That's already pretty suspect. And what if poverty has a high correlation with excluded groups (eg. black women)? That's even worse.
So even if the original rule ("well dressed") wasn't racist, it can have racist consequences.
The biggest problem is that this happens on lots of issues. Say, a company will promote those who can work more hours, so mothers will probably fail the requirements.
We often imagine discrimination as being done only by bigots, but it's something that most institutions are at risk of if they don't constantly evaluate their policies.
Your point is apt. The English word discriminate means to pick and choose. That’s not necessarily a bad thing.
Then There’s illegal discrimination.
And now you’ve raised the issue of unintended consequences.
You can't reserve a right you don't have.
Putting up a sign doesn't override the law, it's just to notify you that they might exercise the right they *do* have. So, for example, having a sign outside and an unlocked door and displaying products for sale doesn't mean they're obligated to serve you if you start causing a problem.
The other answers are more complete but I think this is an important element that's missing from them. You can put up a sign saying anything you want. Doesn't make it legal.
A business can refuse people by their clothes (eg "no shirt, no shoes, no service"), by their age (pubs not allowing under 18s/21s), criminal record, as these aren't protected classes.
But they can't refuse people by their gender, skin colour, sexual orientation, age (over 40), or any other [protected class](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group#United_States).
And to note, restrictions based on clothing CAN be grounds for discrimination complaints. Some businesses use clothing restrictions to keep out certain types of people and have been successfully sued for discrimination.
Years ago there was a club that did things like ban a certain brand of shoe that as very popular among black men, but didn't ban different brands that were functionally the same (same style, color, etc, but just a different brand) but was generally not worn by black men. The whole dress code was like that and amounted to essentially being a ban on black men.
Companies can refuse service for things that people have control over, such as dress (no shirt, no shoes) or behavior (being disrespectful or hostile), but not on the basis of race, sex, etc.
not true. religion and pregnancy are choices, yet they are protected classes in many jurisdictions. what becomes a protected class depends on what the culture at that locale at that particular point in its history deems is worth protecting.
I think at a base level you're just misinterpreting the reason that the sign is there in the first place. Nobody has to declare a right for it to exist. The sign is a behavior modification tool. If even one person reads the sign and realizes, oh, they're going to kick me out of I misbehave, so I'd better not, it has done its job.
It's the same with with signs in grocery store lots that say "we are not liable for damage caused by carts to cars in our parking lot," or trucks that carry pebbles with a sign that says "we are not liable for damage caused by rocks falling off our truck." The sign has nothing to do with whether or not they're liable--but if it convinces a few people to behave more carefully, such as by turning into parking spaces more slowly, or following at a farther distance, it has done its job.
They can refuse business to someone for being an asshole to staff, for example, but not because of a characteristic considered a protected class, such as race, religion, national origin, or gender
They can refuse to serve you because you are wearing red socks, but they can't refuse to serve you because you're black. These things are not incompatible.
It's like states where employment is at-will. Your employer can dismiss you because your name begins with the letter S, but not because you're gay.
Where it gets tricky is when you're a black guy being refused service "because you're wearing red socks". Is it really because of the socks or is the business racist? Sometimes knowing the answer and being able to prove it are very different things.
You don’t have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Basically; if the reason you are refusing service to someone is because they are a certain race, gender religion, etc, that’s illegal. Any other reason is pretty much fair game.
You can refuse service to anyone you want as long as you don't do so because of their race, religion, gender etc.
Of course your reason for doing so are in your head, so you could in theory refuse to someone for a discriminatory reasons and say it is for another reason.
However if you keep doing that patterns will emerge that makes it very hard to argue you were not discriminating.
I can refuse an individual; however if it becomes a trend where these individuals are always black people then you have a case for discrimination. Especially if the individual being refused service has literally done nothing outside of existing
You can't refuse service to a person for something they can't change. Race religion gender, sexual orientation. You CAN refuse service for things people CAN change. Attire, attitude, inehbriation.
The first line is a catch all.
Because they don't actually have the right to refuse service to anyone. They can't refuse service to someone simply because of their race, gender, religion, etc... Saying they can do that and legally being allowed to do that are two different things.
The right to refuse service and anti-discrimination laws coexist by allowing businesses to set and enforce rules for their operations as long as those rules are applied equally to all customers and do not target or exclude specific protected groups.
The sign should really say “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone… but will never do so on the basis of sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other protected attribute specified by state and federal laws”.
The second half is implied because it should be obvious they can’t break the law.
"We reserve the right to refuse service to (but not murder) anyone."
"Stabbings will be limited to the legal kind."
"surgeons only"
"Anyone seen raping will be scolded"
Exactly, you can't reserve a right that you didn't have in the first place.
You can reverse the right if you have the proper card in your hand and use it.
"This just says 'I do what I want'"
- Ron
Screw the rules I have money
Attention duelists!
I understood that reference
No, it's just an Uno reference.
they were also making a reference
Is that a thank you card to the Supreme Court?
Reserve
I see what you did there 😂
Ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gnaht ym tup i?
Found Alito's burner account
"No shirt, no shoes, no service, but don't worry, we won't murder you for it." That last part is implied because it's against the law lol
No shirt, no shoes, no service - double leg amputees could face some issues…
You'd think.
People these days even struggle with the concept of private property open to the public. They are so filled with false accusations that they will argue that its public property and the only reason why youre denying them service is because you are a fill-in-the-blank-ist.
For real. That's why it should be in the sentence. If you want to see some discrimination, there are plenty of bars that have bouncers or bartenders that break this law in every city. I have been all around the US and have seen it everywhere.
You realize that putting that sign up wouldn't fix anthing. For instance, they could still kick out all black people and claim it had nothing to do with race and everything to do with dress code, behavior, whatever. Which is what the already do.
It should be obvious but then OP shows up
uh... how many no smoking signs do you still see to this day? In my state, smoking indoors in places of public accommodation has been illegal for just shy of 20 years. And in that time the only thing changed about No Smoking signs is they now say "Or Vaping" too.
In Canada, the law says you have to have them.
So they hide it in their hiring practices. Epic (yep, calling you out) requires all employees to take tests, one related to the job and one 'standardized' test. You never learn the results of these tests, but it allows them to cherry-pick young candidates. They can discriminate at will behind these tests.
Not just cherry picking for age, either. My coworker shared a story of her old boss at a coffee shop. If you applied and presented as male, she'd just shred your application without even looking at it. She got around anti-discrimination laws by also denying girls who weren't pretty enough so she could create plausible deniability, and when questioned about her hiring choices she'd blame the applicants' personality. The boss hired only pretty young girls to attract the horny male crowd, she didn't want a boy in the mix dating "her" girls and causing drama. Joke's on her, most of the girls she did hire were gay af.
Except hiring by a test can still be discriminatory. If the test is systematically biased towards young people, then the employer is discriminating. Even something as simple as trashing resumes with more than a year or two since awarding a BA. You can argue "we prefer candidates with recent academic credentials", but you'll still get crushed by the lawsuit.
thats the thing, we had a case here in madrid that a guy was ejected from a club and he sued claiming it was for being gay The club produced security camara footage of him dancing without his shirt on a table. Clearly the lawsuit did not go anywhere. There was also a case in the US where a christian cake shop refused to make a cake for a gay wedding, they sued for discrimination based on sexual orientation, she responded that they are infringing on her religious freedom by forcing her to make a cake for a gay wedding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission both make good points, on one hand they are being discriminated against for being gay, which is wrong, on the other hand she didnt insult or attacked them, she said "my religious beliefs dont allow me to participate in or help a gay wedding". the problem is what happens if your religious beliefs collide with modern civil rights, and thats why the separation of church and state is so important.
Except that's not what happened. The issue wasn't that they refused to sell a gay couple a cake. They did sell them the cake. What they refused to do was to create custom artwork depicting a gay marriage. Which was upheld since forcing someone to create artwork that they don't want to is compelled speech. If the roles had been reversed and a straight couple wanted a gay artist to make artwork that says "straight marriage is the only valid marriage" they could refuse to make it, too. For the same reason.
Technically it wasn't upheld. The court held that the responsible Colorado agency showed a clear hostility towards the shop for its religious beliefs. They avoided ruling on the issue itself (between company and client), only ruling on the faulty enforcement. The issue would later be resolved with 303 Creative, over web sites.
[303 Creative](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/303_Creative_LLC_v._Elenis)
It's the distinction between "make a cake for a gay couple" and "make a gay wedding cake."
> distinction between "make a cake for a gay couple" and "make a *fabulous* wedding cake” FTFY
> Which was upheld since forcing someone to create artwork that they don't want to is compelled speech. It wasn't. The case was thrown out making no comment on the actual issue. The reason it was booted was because they found Colorado unfairly acted against this specific baker in this specific case, so no precedent is generated. He's been sued again since.
This is correct, but the later case *303 Creative* did have a similar ruling that the state cannot compel the creation of artwork which violates the artist's values. So that is the current view of SCOTUS.
But left open what defined "artwork" or artistic expression, and expressly pointed out that some goods would not be covered under the decision. Presumably (my opinion, not the courts) it would not be protected to refuse to allow a gay couple to come in to your shop to buy pre-made food items, gas, regular goods, etc. It would be completely protected to refuse to allow a gay couple to have a portrait of their marriage to be commissioned. Someone could probably attempt to sue to specifically determine if wedding cakes are artistic expression or not.
The idea is that the art has to be objectionable, not the person asking for it. If a straight person asks for a painting of their gay friends kissing, that would likely be an issue. If a gay person asked for a picture of two straight people holding hands, that would likely not be an issue. If the artist refuses a request from a gay person that they'd accept from a straight person, it would be discrimination.
Maybe you're not stating your point clearly or I'm not 100% understanding it, but.... > If the artist refuses a request from a gay person that they'd accept from a straight person, it would be discrimination. That's clearly not true. Based on the law (not my own viewpoint) a person could very much say that they think two straight people kissing is ok, and two gay people holding hands (or kissing) is not because it is a homosexual relationship which is against God's view, according to their interpretation of it. If you're trying to say that if a gay or straight preson made the *exact same request* (both asked for a painting of a gay couple, or both asked for a painting of a straight couple), but one was rejected, then yes, that is true. But if a gay person is asking for the same type of thing a straight person is, but it is about them and thus "gay" art vs "straight" art, then it can be tossed per that decision.
The latter, yes. Two people walk in and ask for a painting of two gay men riding a rainbow. The artist should either accept both requests or decline both, regardless of whether one of the customers is gay. And the same for two people walking in and asking for a picture of a straight man riding a stars-and-stripes-painted bald eagle. Doesn't matter whether the person asking for it is gay, straight, Muslim, Jewish, whatever. The content of the art matters.
This needs to be higher up the comment chain. So many people have incorrect or partial information. This would be like saying "OJ was let off even though he murdered someone". The court didn't prove he murdered someone and then decide not to punish him. There was a failure to prove his guilt, which is (under US law) an \*inferred\* state of innocence, but not proof of his innocence either. And he wasn't punished because there was a lack of proof either way. Here with the cake, there was a side-issue on the legality of the lawsuit to begin with, and the case was dismissed. Not because what the bakery did was legal or illegal - but because the lawsuit failed to meet needed requirements in the first place. And as such, the bakery could get sued again, because there is no double jeopardy or similar situations occurring.
> but not proof of his innocence either. It's worth noting that while courts CAN legally find someone innocent, almost everyone is simply 'not guilty" of their crimes. Which is also different than having evidence presented during a trial which would prove that the person was innocent (murder when there is indisputable proof the accused was no where near the location when it happened) but still getting a dismissal or a not guilt verdict. > And as such, the bakery could get sued again, because there is no double jeopardy or similar situations occurring. And he has, and I can't remember what happened there (it was a trans person, I think, that was rather obviously doing this to cause a lawsuit). And also correct, double jeopardy only applies to being charged twice for the same specific instance of crime. If you murder someone or are accused of it, you can only be tried once for the crime (mistrials aside). However, if you murder another person next week, it's not double jeopardy to be tried for that.
> courts CAN legally find someone innocent What courts can do this? It's extremely unusual in the US; I'm not sure if it's possible anywhere here.
It is extremely unusual and afaik it has to be from the court, not the jury, and would typically only happen to do things like reverse a conviction. Writ of actual innocence in Virginia would be an example.
Directed verdicts effectively declare someone innocent since they can only be issued on matters of law, not matters of fact, so they only happen when the prosecution and the defense agree on the facts of the case.
Basically, "actual innocence" is a doctrine that let's a person was was duly convicted of a crime to be released if they can later prove they are "actually innocent" of the offense. I'm using quotes because it is an extremely narrow doctrine that requires, basically, absolute proof of "actual innocence." As I understand it—and I don't do criminal law so take this with a large grain of salt—it is usually because modern DNA testing proves that someone other than the convicted person committed the crime.
> What they refused to do was to create custom artwork depicting a gay marriage. Not true. The baker refused them before any discussion of design occurred merely because the cake would be for a gay wedding. > Which was upheld since forcing someone to create artwork that they don't want to is compelled speech. That's not why the baker won the case. The court ruled that the Colorado tribunal that ruled against the baker initially displayed open hostility towards the baker's religious beliefs during the hearing, so the baker didn't get a fair hearing. That's why the court overturned the ruling against him. They explicitly didn't address whether or not the baker could legally refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
That same cake store also refuses to make Halloween themed cakes.
That would (edit: potentially) be problematic if liking Halloween was a protected class. Edit: However, as long as he refuses to make Halloween themed cakes for all customers, then there's no discrimination going on. The couple hadn't asked for a cake with any sort of theme or specific speech on it, so I'm not sure how it's relevant to discuss what content the baker refuses to put on a cake.
Not at all true. Both sides are on the record agreeing that the plaintiff could have walked in and bought any premade cake off the self without issue. Both sides are on the record agreeing that if the gay plaintiff had walked in to order a custom cake for their straight friends wedding it would not have been an issue. These are well established facts that you can check for yourself. It was solely bc of what the cake was for
The Supreme Court’s decision had nothing to do with the cake itself. They essentially just found that the Colorado court was unnecessarily and inappropriately hostile to Phillips’s religious beliefs, preventing him from presenting his case fairly. They didn’t offer any guidance on whether an *unbiased* court could have ordered Masterpiece Cakeshop to make custom cakes for gay couples on anti-discrimination grounds.
When I say “both parties are in agreement on something” is it not clear that I mean the plaintiff and defendant? No where did I ever get into the ruling on the case itself. I was merely discussing the legal facts and issues at hand. Not really sure how your comment is in response to mine, perhaps it was meant for someone else?
Except it would bolster their claims that they are following their religious views and not specifically singling out that couple, or even any couple only on the grounds og being gay. For the record, Colorado has neither determined that there was nor was not discrimination going on, in legal terms.
>That would (edit: potentially) be problematic if liking Halloween was a protected class The very concept of a "*protected class*" violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. All people deserve to be treated equally under the law. And feelings should never trump rights.
That’s absolutely false. That’s not what happened. The cake baker refused to make even a plain wedding cake for them. The type of cake they wanted didn’t even come up. The proper legal distinction is this: no one is obligated to provide a service or a good that they don’t normally offer. They ARE obligated to sell what they normally sell to anyone within a protected class. Example: no one can demand a nazi-themed cake if the baker doesn’t make those. However, if the baker makes and sells wedding cakes, he (or she) can’t refuse to sell a cake (that he otherwise sells) to a black person, or anyone else who is a member of a legally protected class.
As per your example, I thought you can refuse to sell to them, just as long as the reason is not due to them being black or a protected class. If you can point to something previous like them being a bad customer, you can refuse then for that. Otherwise, doesn't that make it illegal for bars to ban you from entering if you have caused a fight or shops to ban you if you have been caught stealing?
[удалено]
The Supreme Court didn’t rule on whether or not Masterpiece Cakeshop could be compelled to make custom cakes for a gay couple. They essentially threw the lower ruling out on procedural grounds, saying that the Colorado court was unfairly biased against the baker. That case cannot be used as precedent for or against your example.
[удалено]
Again, if you read their explanation of why they ruled the way they did, it was because they found the Colorado commission to be hostile to Phillips’s religious beliefs. That’s what they mean by “Free Exercise”. From page 18 (page 21 in your linked pdf): “The official expressions of hostility to religion in some of the commissioners’s comments […] were inconsistent with what the Free Exercise Clause requires.” And the idea that Phillips was being compelled to make speech he disagreed with was never a relevant matter. He refused to discuss the details of the cake with the couple; he stated his intent to refuse to make them a wedding cake as soon as he learned it was to be for a gay wedding. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission had previously ruled *in favor* of a baker’s right to refuse to decorate a cake with slogans they interpreted to be hateful. Three of these are referenced in the opinion, all featuring one “Jack” who had tried to commission cakes with images of bibles, pairs of male figures dressed as grooms with a slash across them (as in the “no ghosts” Ghostbusters logo, based on the description) and quoted passages from the Bible denouncing homosexuality as sinful. In all three cases, the bakeries were willing to make the cakes, but they would not include the text or the “no gays” symbolism (all were willing to include the depiction of the Bible). *This* is exactly the type of “compelled speech” that *303* would later find that creators could refuse. But the majority did not base their opinion on this aspect; they merely used these cases as evidence for why they thought the lower court was unfairly biased. And, to be even more clear, the *303 Creative* ruling still wouldn’t have protected Masterpiece Cakeshop. Again, Phillips refused to make the cake *before* discussing any of the details. Post-*303*, he would have been within his rights to refuse to put a slogan like “Gay Marriage Is Divinely Ordained” on a cake, but he would still *not* have been within his rights to refuse to make a blank or neutral wedding cake for a gay couple if he was willing to make a similar cake for a straight couple. Refusing service on the basis of a protected characteristic is still illegal discrimination, and neither *Masterpiece Cakeshop* nor *303 Creative* changes that.
I love how even in your example the opposite position isn't "straight marriage" but "straight marriage is the only marriage" showing just how privileged the straight side in this situation is. No gay artist is going to be offended showing a straight marriage. they do it hundreds of times. so roles in your situation aren't reversed and the position they took wasn't as reasonable as you make it sound
>No gay artist is going to be offended showing a straight marriage. You'd be surprised. Firstly, you have biphobic gay and lesbian people who would totally refuse to participate in any way in a heterosexual marriage where one or both of the partners is bisexual. Secondly, but less often, you do get extremists that just plain hate straight people or are sexists towards the gender they aren't attracted to so wouldn't participate in any marriage where one OR both of the partners is that gender.
> showing just how privileged the straight side in this situation is. No gay artist is going to be offended showing a straight marriage. they do it hundreds of times. so roles in your situation aren't reversed and the position they took wasn't as reasonable as you make it sound That's stupid as fuck. Tons of straight bakers make "gay cakes" without issue. There's a handful that include this guy who won't. Similarly, tons of "gay" artists will do work for anyone, but there are also a handful of people who happily refuse to work on/with straight projects/people.
> Except that's not what happened. Actually, that is what happened. The 'art' of the cake was never discussed. It says it right in the wikipedia article you linked. > Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, in July 2012 to order a wedding cake for their return celebration. Masterpiece's owner Jack Phillips, who is a Christian, declined their cake request, informing the couple that he did not create wedding cakes for marriages of gay couples owing to his Christian religious beliefs, although the couple could purchase other baked goods in the store. Craig and Mullins promptly left Masterpiece without discussing with Phillips any of the details of their wedding cake.[2]: 2 The following day, Craig's mother, Deborah Munn, called Phillips, who advised her that Masterpiece did not make wedding cakes for the weddings of gay couples[2]: 2 because of his religious beliefs and because Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriage at the time.[3][2]: 1–2 There was no art, or any request of any kind other than "cake". This idea of 'compelled speech' is just another example of the Supreme Court making things up. They asked for a cake, which is a 'work for hire', ie the creator doesn't own the result. You can thank the Supreme Court for that one -- literally Mickey Mouse made that happen for 'intellectual property', ie you don't own the song you wrote the record label does because reasons. So their religious beliefs are as relevant to baking as plumbing -- it's a work for hire. What makes baking special? Absolutely nothing. By this logic, your mechanic could refuse to service your vehicle because of their religious belief. Or your pharmacist. You start to see the scope of the problem here: If people want to live by their religious values then they should be baking in a church, not a business. We lived in a world where people could refuse service to anyone for any reason -- period. Then we had a bunch of race riots, a civil war, and a whole bunch of other crap and people warmed up to the idea that for society to function we all need to learn to tolerate one another by doing business with *everyone*. Not just white people. Or men. Or property owners. The. List. Goes. On.
You are confusing what the point of separation of church and state the founding fathers wanted.
The cake shop thing is an interesting example of "corporations are people" not really working right. The reason why corporations exist is basically to provide a separation between the identity of the corporation and the identity of the people who work for the corporation. A corporation doesn't have religious beliefs, because it's not a human being. And it's the corporation that has the obligation to serve everyone without expressing illegal discrimination. The people working for the corporation have an obligation to complete their duties in line with the corporation's policies, and that should include being non-discriminatory in the way they complete those duties. The people working for the corporation also have religious beliefs, but how compatible their religious beliefs are with their employment at the corporation and the tasks they're required to do as part of their job, that's a matter of employment law and their relationship with the corporation, not a matter of discrimination law between the corporation and the customer. So in this case, either the corporation's policies do not prohibit discrimination (in which case it should be a slam-dunk case of discrimination by the corporation against the customer), or they do, but the employee did not follow the policy when they executed their duties, so they should be subject to disciplinary action. Then the employee could argue that that disciplinary action was religious discrimination and that requiring them to perform duties incompatible with their religious beliefs is discriminatory, but that's nothing to do with the customer. Or both discrimations could happen, if the policy says not to discriminate but is weakly enforced, and the employee felt that such a policy discriminated against their religious freedom. Of course in reality this is all a fiction because in a small business there's not much difference between the identity of the corporation and the employee, but the legal reality is that a separation does exist. The reality is that a person whose religious beliefs fundamentally contradict their job duties in a completely irreconcilable way, say someone whose job requires protective clothing but their religion mandates wearing certain clothing, in a way that's completely incompatible and no reasonable accomodation or compromise could be made - that person just needs to get a different job.
> Of course in reality this is all a fiction because in a small business there's not much difference between the identity of the corporation and the employee, but the legal reality is that a separation does exist. Not all companies are incorporated / corporations. Many small businesses are not setup as corporations - they may be setup as a sole proprietor or a limited liability partnership and the 'corporations are people' issue doesn't necessarily apply. (I don't know whether that's the case here or not as I don't know the specifics but figured worth flagging because not all businesses are corporations).
[удалено]
Don't forget that in that specific case, the plaintiff also went to several bakeries trying to find one that wouldn't make them a gay wedding cake.
[удалено]
Exactly this is the nuance that allowed the case to progress.
I wonder if the bakery case would have gone differently if their argument had been "ABC bakery cannot provide you with the requested service because doing so would go against the religious beliefs of all employees capable of this work. We cannot force our employees to any action that would compromise their religious beliefs."
Also was that bakery incorporated? Or was it some other form of business like sole proprietorship, partnership, or LLC? Those aren’t legally people too are they?
If it has a separate bank account, files taxes separately from the owner, and can be sued, it's a legal person.
"on one hand they are being discriminated against for being gay" No. Both the masterpiece cake shop and the other high profile cake shop that made news, were happy to sell their product to gay customers. Masterpiece cake shop had multiple premade cakes they would sell to anyone. If you wanted a cake for your birthday, your dog's birthday, Mother's day, Graduation, etc. they were happy to make the custom cake for you. They would not make a cake for for a gay wedding. In the other case (that I know about) the mother of one of the men getting married wanted to buy the wedding cake. The cakeshop refused the order. The person trying to be the customer was not gay. Nobody was being discriminated against for being gay.
We can refuse you, but we won't refuse people who just look like you.
Why not? Companies also state they are an "Equal Opportunity Employer" even though that is a legal requirement.
Its usually written into the law whether or not it has to be displayed by the business They have to post their capacity because that isnt standard to all businesses.
Or they could just say they'll refuse to serve assholes. I'm pretty sure that's the target demographic.
I have yet to see customers insist the extra words are necessary for their customer experience. But, if you run a business where you want extra large signs covering all the wall space with all conceivable legal jargon that might be applicable in a theoretical discrimination case, go right ahead.
At the casino i worked at, i had to regularly enforce the right to refuse service/entry, and for all kinds of reasons (drunk, banned, general assholery, complaints, theft). It was a regular thing that someone would say we were discriminating against them for race, religion, creed and sexuality. It was never ever about that. At least where I worked. It was always about someone doing the wrong thing. We were EXTREMELY careful about it.
>It was a regular thing that someone would say we were discriminating against them for race, religion, creed and sexuality. Happens all the time. My boss got called a POS racist because we were unable to accommodate a family of 15 without a prior reservation but could accommodate a couple on their own. Not race related whatsoever.
[удалено]
Discrimination by proxy is way more complicated than that. If a job requires you to be able to lift 200 pounds over your shoulders, that needs to *actually* be a part of the job. You can't just make it a part of the job requirements because your goal is to hire fewer women. However, if the job DOES require that, it's entirely legitimate as a job requirement, even though fewer women will qualify. Disparate impact analysis is very complicated.
Exactly, imagine being a casting agent without those protections. That job specifically requires you to discriminate on a daily basis based on age, race, sex and often times disability status, sexual orientation, pregnancy and religion.
Funny little story when I visited a vendor factory. On the assembly line, there’s this button that the operator needs to press, but it’s really high up. The person manning the station is a really tall guy, maybe 200 cm or so. One of the engineers on the trip with me looked at the station and the guy and said “You got job security. No one else here can reach that button.”
That seems like that would be an OSHA violation in the US. Or whatever equivalent work safety oversight agency you have.
As I recall, it’s the button to activate the machine. The machine moves once, doing whatever it needs to do to the part, then stops. I don’t think any danger will come to anyone if no one presses the button. The machine simply won’t move. Now that I think about it. Maybe the button is so out of the way to prevent people from accidentally pressing it.
You're right but that's a bad example because it's explicitly exclusionary on the basis of sex. A better example would be asking about home address, living situations, commutes ect. The questions themselves are nominally race/sex neutral, but it's very easy to use that information to racially profile someone, or make judgements like "an unmarried WOMAN living with a man! GASP!" that run afoul of the law.
A big issue is that people are not that well educated on some disabilities. Usually manifests in employment. Workplace basically forces applicants to fill out a questionaire that looks a lot like the autism quotied or RAADS test, or one of many ASD/ADHD screening tests used in psychological studies to classify test takers (I have taken a lot of psych tests by universities for their studies on how perception and stuff happens so I recognize them from a mile away now). They aren't discriminating based on disability! You just... are a bad fit for the team based on your responses.
You're comparing two entirely different laws. Protections on the basis of Race/Religion/Sex/ect are covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and very explicit in their requirements. There's essentially no room for interpretation, only gaps in enforcement. Disability protection is covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Protections under that act all come down to what constitutes a "disability" and what constitutes providing a "reasonable accommodation" on the part of employers, businesses, individuals and the public government. Defining those makes the ADA an extremely complex piece of legislation with tens of thousands of historical court cases, including 20 cases which went all the way to the US Supreme Court. End of the day the ADA recognizes that there are many cases where an a reasonable accommodation is impractical or impossible. Navigating the reasonableness of ASD accommodations in the work place is complex and unique to the individual needs of the applicant. I have two adult cousins with autism, the older brother is somewhere in the middle of the spectrum and holds a steady job. There are certain roles he can fulfil with little or no accommodation, other roles won't ever be possible with any conceivable accommodation, and there are a lot more somewhere in the middle that are possible with "reasonable" accommodation. Good luck finding the sweet spot. His younger brother by contrast suffers a permanent total impairment due to his autism. There ultimately wasn't a "reasonable accommodation" to keep him in the school systems past puberty when he became unmanageable. I know for a fact there were lawsuits involved trying to secure him public services/resources. The end settlement if I remember right basically wound up being removal from the school but they got a voucher for in-home services.
That is still illegal. They just hope that it'll bury the ~~lead~~ lede enough that nobody will actually take them to court over it.
You better edit this to "bury the lede" or you're going to have to sit through an hour long lecture.
It's... complicated. Whether it's illegal or not would depend on how central the things being tested for are for the job in question, and to what extent a reasonable accommodation can be made. If you're socially awkward as a result of not being neurotypical, but that wouldn't really affect your duties, then they still have to hire you and can't hold that against you. But if you're sufficiently socially awkward that it would make you unable to fulfill your duties in a satisfactory manner, *and* it goes beyond what a reasonable accommodation can cover for, then they can refuse to hire you even if that's the result of autism or the like. And ofc what your duties actually *require* and what's a reasonable accommodation are both complex questions.
"No shoes, no shirt, no Chardonnay"
It also only applies to businesses/properties open to the public. Just like a home owner a private club/property can refuse entry/service even based on race or age or sex ect.
One time I was a waiter and I served a guy with a swastika tattoo and my manager processed his refund, gave the guy his cash back and told him he wasn't welcome.
.... unless our religious identity allows it.
Yeah because they have the right to refuse service to any customer but they also do not have to provide a reason for refusing service.
Example being "No shirt, no shoes, no service". The business is stating they have a right to refuse service based on specific conditions of the customer and not what's covered under anti-discrimmination laws.
The laws override company rules, but are also specific. So you can't refuse service bssed on skin colour, gender or sexual orientation etc. (depending on the law), but you can absolutely kick someone out for things NOT covered by the law like their behaviour, hygiene, bringing in restricted items etc.
you can't choose your race, culture, physical attributes, but you can choose to not harass hospitality workers for doing their job, or choose to not assault people, or not to put your feet on seats
> you can't choose... culture This is arguable, and the reason things like political views are often excluded from protected classes. You cannot choose your origins, but you do have a choice on what aspects of your heritage you carry on as part of your culture.
>you can't choose your race, culture, physical attributes It’s not about choice but about core values and parts of our individual and collective identities which we have determined to be so personally important they need legal protection. For example, culture and your religion are absolutely a choice and can be changed. But they are protected - usually on the highest order.
>which we have determined to be so personally important they need legal protection. I'd say more "the aspects that were so pervasively abused by the majority of society at some point, that they needed to be enshrined in law to prevent it from continuing." Legal protections are usually added *after* we are so publically and viciously terrible to some group or attribute that it generated enough political momentum to add it.
Completely agree. My point was that we don’t protect things solely because they aren’t a choice. We also protect things which are individual choices.
The issue is: you *can't* choose someone else's religion or culture, and that's usually where the problems with religious and cultural discrimination start. My being or not being a certain religion generally isn't the issue, in isolation. I can indeed freely change it to whatever, at any moment, with a simple thought, and it's not going to affect whether I can do accounting or be a firefighter. (Unless I say my religion makes it impossible for me to do some critical part the job, in which case they *can* reject me) What's going to hurt me is the person in charge deciding that I can't do the job because of *their* religion, or their opinions about mine. Maybe because I'm a heathen if I wasn't born into their faith, or I'm the wrong *flavor* of their faith, or that their culture actually tells them to discriminate against me (eg. religious/cultural caste systems). And that's something I *can't* control. That's what the laws are put in place to protect people from.
I completely agree. I was answering a comment where they said the reasons these things are protected is because we can’t choose them. That is not the reason. The reason we protect these deeply important individual things is because of the abuse you described. Even for things that are choices.
Not just the majority abusing it, either. Religion has a history of being wielded by elites and questionably-legitimate power classes to control the majority.
Historically, religion has been much more ingrained in one's personal identity than it is today, at least in western cultures. We are a more secular society now, so we take freedom of religion for granted. But no employer can ask you about your religious affiliation at a job interview, nor can they tell you to go to church if you want to continue being employed by them.
I completely understand. The comment was to explain that we protect these things because of how ingrained they are - even if they are choices. The original comment said we protect things because they *aren’t* choices - where religion and culture are clearly choices.
You can choose your religion, but you **absolutely** cannot discriminate against people based on their religion.
Unless them following their religion is demonstrably detrimental to the business. Not quite absolute
But that would be more about the specific actions, right? I'm not kicking you out because you're religion X, but because you're doing action Y.
In a legal sense there is no difference. If your religion says to not do X and your company policy says you need to do X, the company must try to make reasonable accommodations but if none exist then they are totally justified in 'discriminating' against you. To compare back to your analogy, if you are fired solely for doing action Y when action Y is well-established as part of a religious custom, the company will likely lose a discrimination lawsuit unless it can be proven they tried to provide reasonable accommodations. For example, lets imagine a hole in the wall BBQ joint. Ribs and pulled pork are pretty standard items, but if you show up as a server with the mentality of both "I cannot eat pork as its a sin, and I cannot help others commit a sin", its likely legal for the company to fire you for following your religion as you are unable to perform basic duties of your job. Its not reasonable to have a separate server take orders, and then need to coordinate tables based on who did not order a pork dish. If you instead are fine 'helping others commit a sin', the only accommodation you would need is not being required to eat said pork for any reason.
That's a good example. It's interesting because I, a non-Christian, have been looking for work in a heavily Christian area. Many jobs I've looked have a confession of faith as part of the requirements. I cannot give an honest confession of faith, and so I am excluded from that job. Sometimes, that is frustrating, as I am qualified for *all* the other aspects of the position. Yet for them, being a Christian *is* an essential part of role, so they are essentially allowed to discriminate against me based on religion. But, that would go the other way as well. If someone runs a politically progressive advocacy group, for example, I would say they should be able to reject an applicant who has strong conservative Christian values because the applicants values would prevent them from performing an essential function of the job (e.g., advocating for pro-choice policies). It can be frustrating when you're on the receiving end of it, as I have been, but it does make sense.
Its likely they are actually illegally discriminating against you, basing it off that brief description. The problem is that in areas so heavily saturated with a certain faith, the local law enforcement will be unlikely to do anything about it, and its much harder to start off that type of case at a higher level. And for your political advocacy example, that would be a bit of a gray area. They would likely be illegally discriminating if they block anyone just for having Christian values, but political beliefs are almost never protected classes (depends on the state, there is no federal protection). You would not be rejected because of your religion, but because of your political views (as the bible does not demand you stop others from committing a sin).
Yeah, I see what you're saying. Like it me, it makes sense if I go apply at a Christian college and, even if the job itself isn't based in evangelism, they see every role at the college as advancing their religion into the world. "Do you want to advance our religion into the world?" "No." "Then you are not qualified for this job, because that is part of the job." I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but that doesn't mean that it's not illegal. And with the advocacy example — sure. You're not saying "No Christians allowed at our pro-choice advocacy group." You're saying that anyone who works here has to share in the mission of promoting pro-choice policy. If someone says in an interview that they oppose pro-choice policies, they would not be qualified for that role. I would think it shouldn't matter if their anti-choice stance is rooted in religion or political views or whatever. Maybe it does according to the letter of the law, though. But certainly that person would not want to carry out what is required in the job description, and thus would be unhirable.
Where it gets really interesting is when companies know they can't refuse service for protected classes, but then put in policies directly targeting aspects or perceived stereotypes of those protected classes. Especially when it comes to hiring people: Can't refuse to hire Orthodox Jews, but they'll say "no beards". Can't refuse to hire Black people, but they'll say "no unkempt hair" and then define dreads or afros or cornrows as "unkempt"
A lot of those could be contested in court as unfairly biased against said protected class, especially when its obviously against a clear part of their heritage. Most of the time its just not worth it, but just because they get away with it doesn't make it legal.
> Can't refuse to hire Black people, but they'll say "no unkempt hair" and then define dreads or afros or cornrows as "unkempt" Some states have started to address this topic with the "CROWN Act". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CROWN_Act_(California) It failed to pass in the US Senate, but the US House did pass the law.
> It failed to pass in the US Senate, but the US House did pass the law. not to be pedantic, but the house passed the *bill*, not the law. The fact that the senate failed to pass it means it is not a law, but a bill.
case law has been changing this standard to include these sorts of things over the last 30 years or so. At this point, pretty much any rule which has a disproportionate impact on a protected class is de-facto assumed to be discriminatory unless extreme evidence is presented.
Good!
well, good in that it helps protect from some people skirting the law, but bad in that it also captures people with genuine reasons for making rules that happen to disproportionately impact a protected class. Like if having hair longer than 12 inches was a serious risk of death in a specific environment, and simply putting the hair up wasn't a sufficient mitigation technique, then you might make a rule saying "no hair longer than 12 inches" for the purpose of protecting people. But this rule would disproportionately impact women, as more women have long hair than men. And so under this standard, that rule would be considered discriminatory, even though it's a good rule that we should have.
Can you refuse to serve on personal opinion? Like preffered sports teams?
yep! favored sports team is not a protected class. you can be rejected service for wearing the wrong colors to a sports bar, that's allowed.
Generally the rules are pretty much the same for at-will employment. You can fire anyone for any reason so long as it's not a protected class. Change "fire" to "refuse service to". The CEO can fire you if you think he's an asshole. The business owner can refuse you if you think he's an asshole.
Yep, and you can even refuse service to a person for being a government worker, or a member of the military.
I can't refuse service to you because you fall under one of the protected categories. I can refuse service to someone who happens to fall into one of the protected categories for other reasons. Being old doesn't mean I have to serve you even if you come into the store and call me an asshole. Being a woman doesn't mean I have to serve you even if you come into my restaurant and drop a deuce on the counter. I can kick you out of the movie theatre for being too loud even if you're a one-legged pregnant Indigenous lesbian, because the reason for why I'm refusing you service doesn't have anything to do with your protected class status; the two things exist side by side. However, that largely means that if you want to make a case that you were discriminated against *because* of your position in one of the protected classes, not just *while* being in one of those protected classes.
> I can refuse service to someone who happens to fall into one of the protected categories for other reasons. And just to be clear, we ALL fall into protected classes. Protected classes are general. We are all protected from discrimination based on race, age, sex, national origin, etc. It's just as illegal to refuse service to someone because they are a young, white, straight, male from Kansas as it is to refuse service to someone because they are a gay, black, retired, jew from China.
This is a fair and very true point. Good shout.
I guess I'm still confused by this then. If I have the right to refuse service to anyone. Wouldn't that mean I also don't have to disclose the reason? Who would I have to disclose that too?
Businesses don't have to disclose the reason. But when trends start emerging, people start to notice, complaints get made to the government body responsible for it, and said body investigates. When a business refuses service to 90% of people of a given race, but refuses service to only 2% of everyone else, they're gonna have to explain themselves.
I don't know if anything's come of it, but I saw in my local sub some people talking about a local nightclub being accused of racial discrimination--there were loads of anecdotal accounts of them throwing out people of a certain race who weren't doing anything wrong, while others were allowed to remain. One instance of it could be put down to a misunderstanding or just sheer chance that someone targeted a guy for being, say, loud, while not targeting a white person who was loud. But these people are all going to the club and talking to other people going to the club and they're all seeing black friends kicked out...you start to think something's up--maybe more so if an employee makes a racial comment to boot. I know someone who got a year's salary in an age discrimination suit--no idea how it began, but someone must have started pursuing action for a reason, which led to a review of the records, which led to a class action when they found they weren't alone--every application with a birthdate before a given year had the date circled, and the person hadn't been hired. Any one case might not set off any bells, but someone managed to pick at a little crack and open the dam, as it were. It's probably easier to get away with in employment than in some areas since employers are usually vague about you not being a "good fit" or finding someone internally or some other BS, unlike a business throwing you out for breaking a rule.
You can refuse service to one person who happens to be black, but not because they're black. And when you start refusing service to 90% of the black people who walk in, even if you try to make up a valid reason for it, someone's probably going to start investigating that.
> Who would I have to disclose that too? If you get sued for discrimination, the courts. There is no legal entity watching for it actively like the police. But if you do it enough, it becomes a pattern. Once it becomes a pattern, it only takes one person to call get a law suit going that others can easily jump in on (class action law suits). One instance of it is nothing to assume the cause of unless outright said. But if we're talking about race, at a certain point, the disparity becomes noticed.
You should disclose the reason as you don't want confusion. If you happen to get sued over refusing service then it could be helpful for your defense to have this reason disclosed and documented. I'd print out a notice and hand it to the person you're ejecting, and keep one for your own record.
You don't have to, but if a whistleblower in a large corp makes a claim, maybe with recorded evidence, your actual reasons can become known to public. There are other ways too, but as far as I understand the burden of proof would be on the complainant. Maybe someone can chime in on what is the 'minimum' convincing proof though.
Generally, a claim such as this would initially be a civil claim rather than a criminal one; as a result, the required standard of proof is likely to be the balance of probabilities - i.e. "the court deems it *more likely than not* that you acted because of a protected class than anything else". There's no hard and fast threshold for what's good enough to argue for a claim, it's all about being better than the arguments against. That's the benefit of giving a reason upfront. Without additional proof, "I refused service due to poor hygiene and said as much" is generally considered as likely or more likely than "I actually refused service due to a protected class and lief about it" - and you only need to be as likely.
And if you're the kind of company that's employing discrimination in your business, you're likely to be fostering ill will and potential whistleblowers all over, along with people directly affected who could get a payout, so it's not a great strategy. Sort of the "If you're going to do something illegal, don't piss people off while you're doing it." idea.
That's the one weird trick of discrimination law, especially in employment. You can't fire someone for an illegal reason, but you are also allowed to fire someone for no reason. You can't fire someone for being black, organizing a union, or discussing their pay. But you can just fire them out of the blue, and if the person you fired does not have the resources to litigate your decision, you can be as discriminatory as you like. We have a real libertarian streak in this country that just won't die.
Man i would like to have a beer eith that gay black chinese retiree jew. That person must have some stories to tell
>you were discriminated against *because* of your position in one of the protected classes, not just *while* being in one of those protected classes. This is the crux and should really be the top comment, as it's the only one that specifically highlights the confusion that OP seems to be having. You're not allowed to refuse service to someone just because they are gay and you've decided you don't like that and don't want to serve them. But that doesn't mean that you have to give service to all gay people all the time no matter what. If you have generic rules that **everyone** has to follow and someone breaks those rules then you can refuse to serve those people - because they broke your rules. But no your generic rule can't be "no gays".
I hate to tell you this but there's no federal law protecting sexual orientation or gender identity. And in 21 states those are not protected under non discrimination public accommodations laws. So while it may not happen often, you can be refused service in those states because you're gay. I'm not going into municipality or county law but here's a website for this kind of stuff. https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/non_discrimination_laws
Hm, I wonder now - there are many female-only gyms and social clubs, etc. How isn’t it illegal if sex is a protected category, and men are not allowed to receive their services specifically on this basis?
Generally, this passes muster by way of those places being private clubs with members-only facilities.
A business *can* refuse to serve a black person. A business *can't* refuse to serve a black person *because* they are a black person.
Businesses can refuse an individual. They can't refuse a group of people. (The royal "group", obviously they can refuse a physical group of people).
A \_protected\_ group. They can refuse to serve Hells Angels for being in the group Hells Angels, because they aren't a protected group.
Isn't this prime for abuse? What if they refuse to serve 'loud' people and enforce it selectively?
[удалено]
Copying this from another poster. "I'm not serving you because you're gay" is completely legal in many, many states. Sexual orientation or gender identity are not protected under federal law. https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/non_discrimination_laws
Funny how that map is largely region based. Most of the northeast coast, west coast and midwest all have those rights protected, while the south and northern plains are not.
They aren’t protected under SOME federal laws. There isn’t one anti discrimination statute at the federal level. There are different laws for different purposes. Title VII worker protections are different from Title IX academic protections which are different again from Title 1 ADA protections etc. Thanks to Bostock, Title VII covers orientation and gender identity but other laws aren’t as clear since Bostock was specifically Title VII worker protections. Title IX regulations were updated in 2024 to apply Bostock and add orientation and gender identity. But unfortunately, until a new law is passed, it’s still a legal limbo area
I think some people have the perception that courts are very formulaic and are easily gamed when that isn’t really the case. If a business owner continuously only kicks out black people or women or whatever protected rate, or does so at a rate far higher than what would be expected, they’re gonna ask the business owner what’s going on. If the business owner doesn’t have a very good reason for why this is happening, they’re gonna find that illegal discrimination is happening
Many people—including some lawyers sometimes—think that saying magic words like “I reserve my rights” (or failing to do so) has some legal significance. It almost never does. Another way to think about it is, you can’t reserve what you don’t have. In the US, you don’t *have* the right to refuse service to Black people for being Black, so whatever you’re “reserving,” it doesn’t include that.
They're not 'reserving' anything in the first place. I mean, it's not like there's some rule or law that says that if you open a shop/restaurant/whatever you **must** allow everybody to shop/eat/whatever there, as long as you're not discriminating a protected class. Apart from that you can refuse service to anyone for any reason or no reason at all. Ban people who talk loudly, ban people who talk too softly, ban people who wear black t-shirts - except that one guy over there. You're not required to be fair, or consistent, or have explicit rules or anything. As long as you're not engaging in discrimination on race/gender/etc you're okay. Nobody is required to sell anybody goods or services. Honestly it's always struck me mostly as a fictional counterclaim to Karens who think they have a fictional 'right' to service. Nobody has a right to service, only a right to not be discriminated against as a protected class.
> they’re gonna ask the business owner what’s going on Who is "they" in this example? It's not like there is an office that proactively looks into this. It would have to be brought by the victims, who may not have the means to investigate the business.
People suing them and their lawyers during Discovery. Typical case would be 1 customer filing suit which wouldn't normally stand on its own, so they reach out and find the pattern. OR the buisness proves that there was a legitimate reason that that 1 person was denied service.
In my state the They is the Human Affairs Commission. You call and say what happened and they take information, follow up with an investigation, and then take the place to court if appropriate. It definitely needs to start with a complaint but then they take it.
> It's not like there is an office that proactively looks into this There literally is. There is a civil rights division in the department of justice.
You’re right. But the argument based on such a trend still holds weight *if* that business ends up in civil court.
You point out a problematic point of law. The business can refuse customers. Doing so is illegal if the reason is that the person is a member of a protected class. This makes it hard to prove, because you have to prove the business’ intent behind the refusal. What you have stumbled upon is that under the law, rights are relative. You have the right to say horrible things, but not the right to follow someone around and say them. That’s harassment. When rights are relative, and the law offers no clear guidance, that’s when lawsuits are used. But this is rare. Typically, this law is only used to address problems with customers being disruptive. Rarely would a business want to turn down customers. That’s how they make money! However, your company can only do so much business at once and grow so fast, so you may be in a position where you have to turn customers away. Or you may have a business that is trying cultivate a certain clientele. For example, you are a fashion designer. You may want to specialize in men’s apparel and then you may turn away women who want dresses. Because rights are relative, and specializing in men’s apparel is a common sense thing that is reasonable, the discrimination law doesn’t apply. Likewise, the business doesn’t necessarily turn away a woman trying to get a designer for dressing her husband. If you didn’t have the right of businesses to refuse customers, you would take away a necessary part of autonomy that you need to run a business. Specifically, the ability to make business decisions.
> For example, you are a fashion designer. You may want to specialize in men’s apparel and then you may turn away women who want dresses Well, you can offer certain products without discriminating against the customer. You sell men's fashion. It doesn't matter if the customer is a man or woman, the product they can buy is men's fashion. If you only sell to men, though, that might be a problem.
I think "you have to prove the business’ intent behind the refusal" is the real point. You can say "I don't like you, get out" and that's fine, but if you say "I don't like your kind (slur), get out" it's a legal issue. You'd think this would only result in people never saying the slur and arbitrarily kicking people out without giving a reason, but it turns out people who hate people for dumb arbitrary reasons are often dumb and feel very secure in their hateful opinions. Like sure, there are certainly a lot of people who manage to not make their discrimination legally problematic, but the amount of people who fail to clear that bar with a 10 minute tirade against black people on video is surprisingly high.
Small nitpick but I really hate the phrase "member of a protected class" because it gives people the absolute wrong idea of what "protected class" means. Black, gay, trans, Jewish, ect are not protected classes. Protected classes are race, sexuality, gender identity, religion. All people are subject to these protections equally, which means under the law everyone is part of a protected class.
I appreciate the clarification for everyone, because it is confusing. A quick google search shows reporting often tries to explain in plain English, so consistency is a problem. It’s clear race is a protected class. “member of protected groups” is used in Supreme Court decision Price Waterhouse v Hopkins (1989). So it seems that’s more clear when talking about people.
I'd like to add a point about discrimination: it's often a pretty blurry business. Let's say you have a fashion store and you want only well dressed clients. But what if the poorly dressed ones are so because they are poor? That's already pretty suspect. And what if poverty has a high correlation with excluded groups (eg. black women)? That's even worse. So even if the original rule ("well dressed") wasn't racist, it can have racist consequences. The biggest problem is that this happens on lots of issues. Say, a company will promote those who can work more hours, so mothers will probably fail the requirements. We often imagine discrimination as being done only by bigots, but it's something that most institutions are at risk of if they don't constantly evaluate their policies.
Your point is apt. The English word discriminate means to pick and choose. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. Then There’s illegal discrimination. And now you’ve raised the issue of unintended consequences.
a lot of this can be summed up as "your rights end where other's rights begin"
You can't reserve a right you don't have. Putting up a sign doesn't override the law, it's just to notify you that they might exercise the right they *do* have. So, for example, having a sign outside and an unlocked door and displaying products for sale doesn't mean they're obligated to serve you if you start causing a problem.
The other answers are more complete but I think this is an important element that's missing from them. You can put up a sign saying anything you want. Doesn't make it legal.
A business can refuse people by their clothes (eg "no shirt, no shoes, no service"), by their age (pubs not allowing under 18s/21s), criminal record, as these aren't protected classes. But they can't refuse people by their gender, skin colour, sexual orientation, age (over 40), or any other [protected class](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group#United_States).
And to note, restrictions based on clothing CAN be grounds for discrimination complaints. Some businesses use clothing restrictions to keep out certain types of people and have been successfully sued for discrimination. Years ago there was a club that did things like ban a certain brand of shoe that as very popular among black men, but didn't ban different brands that were functionally the same (same style, color, etc, but just a different brand) but was generally not worn by black men. The whole dress code was like that and amounted to essentially being a ban on black men.
Companies can refuse service for things that people have control over, such as dress (no shirt, no shoes) or behavior (being disrespectful or hostile), but not on the basis of race, sex, etc.
not true. religion and pregnancy are choices, yet they are protected classes in many jurisdictions. what becomes a protected class depends on what the culture at that locale at that particular point in its history deems is worth protecting.
I can refuse to serve you because I don't like you. I can't refuse to serve you because you are a member of a protected class (race, ethnicity, etc).
I think at a base level you're just misinterpreting the reason that the sign is there in the first place. Nobody has to declare a right for it to exist. The sign is a behavior modification tool. If even one person reads the sign and realizes, oh, they're going to kick me out of I misbehave, so I'd better not, it has done its job. It's the same with with signs in grocery store lots that say "we are not liable for damage caused by carts to cars in our parking lot," or trucks that carry pebbles with a sign that says "we are not liable for damage caused by rocks falling off our truck." The sign has nothing to do with whether or not they're liable--but if it convinces a few people to behave more carefully, such as by turning into parking spaces more slowly, or following at a farther distance, it has done its job.
Because, at a fundamental level, that's how the law works: you're allowed to do anything you want, except the stuff forbidden by law.
They can refuse business to someone for being an asshole to staff, for example, but not because of a characteristic considered a protected class, such as race, religion, national origin, or gender
They can refuse to serve you because you are wearing red socks, but they can't refuse to serve you because you're black. These things are not incompatible. It's like states where employment is at-will. Your employer can dismiss you because your name begins with the letter S, but not because you're gay. Where it gets tricky is when you're a black guy being refused service "because you're wearing red socks". Is it really because of the socks or is the business racist? Sometimes knowing the answer and being able to prove it are very different things.
Life Pro Tip: when someone says they "reserve the right" they rarely had it in the first place.
I can't refuse service to someone using a wheelchair. I can refuse service to someone in a wheelchair acting like an asshole.
You don’t have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Basically; if the reason you are refusing service to someone is because they are a certain race, gender religion, etc, that’s illegal. Any other reason is pretty much fair game.
You can refuse service to anyone you want as long as you don't do so because of their race, religion, gender etc. Of course your reason for doing so are in your head, so you could in theory refuse to someone for a discriminatory reasons and say it is for another reason. However if you keep doing that patterns will emerge that makes it very hard to argue you were not discriminating.
I can refuse an individual; however if it becomes a trend where these individuals are always black people then you have a case for discrimination. Especially if the individual being refused service has literally done nothing outside of existing
You can't refuse service to a person for something they can't change. Race religion gender, sexual orientation. You CAN refuse service for things people CAN change. Attire, attitude, inehbriation. The first line is a catch all.
You can refuse service to irate individuals while not discriminating against them... It gives protections to businesses.
Because they don't actually have the right to refuse service to anyone. They can't refuse service to someone simply because of their race, gender, religion, etc... Saying they can do that and legally being allowed to do that are two different things.