• Bazoogle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, they cannot discriminate for any reason that is a protected status. However, they can makeup any reason for not serving them. That means some racist asshole could say they aren’t serving the black customer because they were rude or some other made up shit. Thankfully, your political stance is not a protected status.

    • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well they could do that a few times. But if someone really wanted to press the issue I am sure they could use the pattern of behavior to establish that he is indeed kicking out due to race.

      • axtualdave@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Right. The various Civil Rights Acts in establishing proteted classes in placed of public accommodation and associated case law created a standard whereby there does not need to be, for example, an explicit “No blacks!” sign out front. A demonstrated pattern of refusing to serve black customers was sufficient to run afoul of the laws.

        In fact, the discriminatory effect doesn’t even need to be intentional. If the end result of a policy results in a discriminatory result, it too is a violation of the law. For instance, where I grew up down south, whenever you went indoors you took your hat off. It’s respectful and such. Imagine a dining establishment that turned this custom into a steadfast rule – no one is seated while wearing a hat. Seems reasonable right? Everyone is treated the same! Until you refuse to serve a Sikh customer because they refuse to remove their turban. Now you’re discriminating against someone because of their religion, and there’s no overarching reason (safety, health, etc.) that a person can’t eat and wear a turban at the same time.