Four Ejected From Cafe for Wearing Nazi Pins Win Civil Rights Case
4 Ejected From Cafe for Wearing Nazi Pins Win Civil Rights Case - Los Angeles Times
4 Ejected From Cafe for Wearing Nazi Pins Win Civil Rights Case - Los Angeles Times
Four Ejected From Cafe for Wearing Nazi Pins Win Civil Rights Case
4 Ejected From Cafe for Wearing Nazi Pins Win Civil Rights Case - Los Angeles Times
The authoritarianism in your post is revolting.
Again, it depends on what state you live in. In California, you can apparently walk in to a restaurant wearing swastika lapel pins and demand service. Should they ask you to remove the pins, you can even respond with a "I'm not going to do anything a nigger tells me to do" and the ACLU will defend you and the California courts will side with you.
Four Ejected From Cafe for Wearing Nazi Pins Win Civil Rights Case
4 Ejected From Cafe for Wearing Nazi Pins Win Civil Rights Case - Los Angeles Times
That's not true. Many, if not most, states protect people based on creed.A case from 1988. And it also happened in California, one of the few states that protect people based on "creed".
Not really "courts" but "court".
Certainly most states, but not all. Kentucky is an example of a state where sex has some, but not all, of the protections that apply to race, religion, disability, national origin, etc.
Businesses that are open to the public must abide by public standards. Refusing service to a group is an aggressive act - economic warfare.
One cannot speed on the highways and one cannot wage economic warfare in public-access business.
I am not sure I follow. But it seems to me to be one thing, if someone does not support a ceremony of what they believe to be evil and allowing the government to force them to do so.
Refusing service is an expression of belief. And forbidding the expression is similar to forbidding people to say "Hail Hitler!". It is anti democratic. If you do not like somebody's expression of belief then demonstrate, scream at him. But do not give government the authority to prevent him expressing his view. That is absolutely irresponsible and stands in scary contrast to what had made the US exceptional in the past.
Maybe so, maybe not. Why don't you try to test that idea in a restaurant in, say, West Oakland?Again, it depends on what state you live in. In California, you can apparently walk in to a restaurant wearing swastika lapel pins and demand service. Should they ask you to remove the pins, you can even respond with a "I'm not going to do anything a nigger tells me to do" and the ACLU will defend you and the California courts will side with you.
I fully support the business to exclaim, put up signs, etc of their opinions on issues. That might solve the problem right there.
How exactly do you mean?
I fully support the business to exclaim, put up signs, etc of their opinions on issues. That might solve the problem right there.
How exactly do you mean?
Makes you wonder what thing, inconceivable today, will be accepted as normal 30 years from now.
Gender is not federally protected with respect to public accommodations... most (probably all) states now have more stringent law, but whether or not (and the extent) to which gender is protected is a matter of state law:Really? Gender is federally protected. Can you provide a few examples that show what you mean?
You may be right...we still dont have protection for equal pay for women.
As the Supreme Court prepares to decide the future of same-sex marriage--an institution described as "newer than cellphones or the internet by one justice last year--two things are clear.
Despite this year's breathtaking string of lower court victories, the battle for marriage equality hasn't been swift or easy. To the lawyers who devised the legal strategy decades ago, the journey has been arduous, the setbacks plentiful, and the battle scars deep.
And even after the high court rules--most likely striking down state bans on gay marriage at the end of its term in June--the fight won't be over. Another clash looms over the issue of religious freedom.
Read the article here: Gay marriage, once inconceivable, now appears inevitable
It looks like this battle has reached an important point.I don't believe that the 1st Amendment will stop this from happening.
Churches will be able to do what they want to do, but businesses will have to obey the law whether they like it or not.
I don't believe many carry about the marriage aspect - however will gays be socially accepted is a completely different story.
Clearly many do care about the marriage aspect. We've seen it in every state that has legalized same-sex marriage.
As for socially acceptable, the trends on that are also quite clear.
The anti-equality crowd has already lost this fight. It's just a bureaucratic process at this point.
Gender is not federally protected with respect to public accommodations... most (probably all) states now have more stringent law, but whether or not (and the extent) to which gender is protected is a matter of state law:
42 U.S. Code § 2000a - Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation
Current through Pub. L. 113-163. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US Code
(a) Equal access
All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
As long as it's understood that this is a guess on your part and not necessarily required by law in all states.I'm willing to bet that there isn't a court in this country that wouldn't rule in favor of a man or woman that was turned away from a business just for being a man or woman, particularly if there was no transgenderism involved.
As long as it's understood that this is a guess on your part and not necessarily required by law in all states.
What law is being violated?Do you believe that a Muslim store owner in any state would not face legal action if he (almost certainly would be a man given the situation) were to refuse to serve a woman who was not accompanied by a man?