Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

Wait, does that mean I can deny service to homophobes? Or NRA members? Or Republicans? Interesting...

You might have to either put a sign out or refuse on a case by case basis or somethin', but... more or less. Any reason is any reason, so long as it doesn't fall under the purview of legal protected classes. And if it does, you just choose some other reason that doesn't. Or don't give one at all, since you don't really have to, most of the time.

Again, the reason you don't see stuff like that more often isn't because of legal difficulties, it's because it's hell and a half to run a business like that. And a little bit of people not quite realizing what's on the law books.

E: Though obvious disclaimer is obvious -- you still want to check with a lawyer before doing something like that. General rules are made general by the exceptions, and there's no telling whether the particular state or locality you're operating in has something in place that would prevent such shenanigans.

[Descan]

No one's askin' these damned people to fuck us, just take our money for goods and services. :I

[Darvi]

No one's askin' these damned people to fuck us, just take our money for goods and services. :I

But they DO tell you to fuck yourself which apparently is close enough as an excuse?

[SalmonGod]

FYI, that Indiana bill is being signed today.  At a secretive private ceremony, to prevent it being interrupted by any protest.

My facebook feed is exploding with controversy.  Lots of people breaking off with friends and family.  For any who might not know - because I live in Indiana, and most of my Facebook contacts are thus also Hoosiers.

[SirQuiamus]

Wow... I just realized that "protected class" is an actual legal term over there in the States, which is to say that there actually are non-protected classes and legally acceptable forms of discrimination.
I was previously under the impression that federal anti-discrimination law was something like...

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948. It states that:" Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status." (my emphasis)

...but apparently American legislation is off the fucking wall in that respect as well.

[martinuzz]

For a lot of countries, their national constittion supercedes the international declaration of human rights, even if said nation did sign it. Same here in the Netherlands: As a citizen, it is not possible to have your case tested with the human rights declaration, only with the constitution. The degree to which the UDHR is incorporated into the national constitution varies per nation.

[SirQuiamus]

And the problem is that Americans are too finicky about their sacred constitution to make it comply with the UDHR? I know that it is a problem, but I cannot understand why it should be a problem.      

[penguinofhonor]

.

[ArKFallen]

A lot of people in America already view the UN as an imposing world government. Changing the Constitution because of them would be letting not just big government win, but the biggest government.

WTF?
What UN decisions have actually made the US government do something it wasn't already going to do?

[SirQuiamus]

A lot of people in America already view the UN as an imposing world government. Changing the Constitution because of them would be letting not just big government win, but the biggest government.

UN is terrrible commie-NWO bullshit!! --But wait, if we abolish the UN, we'll no longer have a veto in the security council. Can't let that happen!

[Helgoland]

And the problem is that Americans are too finicky about their sacred constitution to make it comply with the UDHR? I know that it is a problem, but I cannot understand why it should be a problem.    

Complying fully with the UDHR would probably be a bad idea.

*ducks*

Now that I've evaded the first salvo of rotten fruits and vegetables, let me explain: The UDHR is very, very broad. No discrimination based on political opinion for example could mean Germany would have to stop throwing Holocaust deniers in jail, which we hopefully all agree is an understandable course of action given our history. More generally, any corrosive and intolerable political opinion would have to go unsilenced, even those calling for direct action against state and society or against segments of the population.

TL;DR: Some voices should be silenced.

[Angle]

Ehh, even there, I'd rather use different methods. Widespread boycotting, perhaps, ongoing public denunciation. Lets leave the government out of it.

[Helgoland]

That way you'll only achieve a muffling of those voices, to stretch the metaphor a bit. But some people shouldn't even be given the opportunity to become active politically.

[Bauglir]

No, look, discrimination is actually a fundamental part of the way laws have to work. We have to discriminate between, for example, members of the military and civilians as part of determining whether or not a shooting was murder or an act of war. The 14th Amendment guarantees "Equal Protection of the laws" to all persons, so there's a basic expectation that no unnecessary discrimination will occur on the part of the government. Suspicious classes are classifications that mandate particular kinds of judicial review; that is, if you pass a law that says something about black people specifically, that law must be subjected to a higher level of scrutiny than other laws in order to ensure that it isn't being pointlessly evil about the whole thing. Protected classes are ones where the government has passed laws that require citizens and organizations not to discriminate on those lines, but that's a whole other thing - but I can just about guarantee you that any law that conflicts with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights will stand or fall on whether or not it actually violates any of the rights, and not on whether or not that violation is equitable.

See, the US actually does follow the UDHR, because that quoted bit doesn't prohibit any and all forms of discrimination, it just prohibits discrimination with regard to the other rights in the document. Did any of you even read it?

[hops]

And they laughed when I said anarchy was the best option.