Some people need a refresher course in Civil Rights on this board...

[Solon]

especially when it pertains to businesses that cater to the public and what they are and AREN'T allowed to do. OK, this pertains to Title 2 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is under the title "Public Accomodation", this pertains to restaurants, stores, services, banks, and other businesses who do NOT have a "Membership Only" policy.

LOOK HERE TO SEE THE IGNORANCE I'M TALKING ABOUT:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x644466

Alright, first things first, who is protected, and who isn't, by this law. Well the law itself says that businesses cannot discriminate against or give preferential treatment to people based on these criteria:

Race, Color, Religion, or National Origin

This includes giving discounts based on these specific criteria. Now, onto Quizno's, and the reason their policy is discriminatory, first, they only offer it on a specific, day, Sunday, which is the Christian Holy Day, whether they accept Jewish bulletins dated the day before I don't know, or Muslim ones dated on that previous Friday, I doubt that strongly. But it doesn't matter, for they are discriminating based on whether people are religious or not, an Atheist would have to do what amounts to fraud to get the discount in the first place, same for many other minority religions that don't have established places of worship in the area.

This is not comparable to "ladie's nights" at bars, or Senior Citizen's discounts, look at the criteria again, they aren't MENTIONED! Now, there are laws, usually by states, that add other groups to the criteria, GLBT people, women, etc. Usually they allow LIMITED promotions based on let's say gender for SOME businesses, but they usually limit it to certain days of the week, etc. However, they CANNOT override the Federal Law in this, so forget that. As far as other promotions, such as the "I voted" example, well, that is giving a promotion based on an ACT on a specific day, and is a gray area to begin with. Businesses, even those that market themselves as Christian, like the corner Christian bookstore, if they don't keep membership lists, they cannot deny me from entering the store while wearing a pentacle, even if they have a Jesus Fish on the door.

Also, one last note, places of worship themselves are EXEMPT from this law, they are not considered, legally, places of public accomodation, they don't even pay taxes, so the law doesn't apply to them. Hence the objection to Faith Based Initiatives, since such religious organizations recieve federal monies, they would then no longer be exempt from the Civil Rights Act and other anti-discimination laws. I hope this clears things up.

[entanglement]

1. Thank you for this thread

n/t

[Solon]

2. Just doing my part to inform, thank you. n/t

[reality based]

3. It was an amazing thread.

[beyurslf]

4. So true. There are several restaurants here that have discounts on

Sundays for certain churches. I hate it. I would go but I don't want to puke up my lunch being surrounded by all of them.

[Solon]

6. And they should be reported to the Better Business Bureau and...

the Department of Justice for discriminatory practices, one call, they get investigated, and then they are fined till the practice stops. If you fear retribution, you can make the call anonymously, that's probably best to do anyways.

[cali]

5. This is a GREAT post.

Thanks for writing it. You're right, many people here would benefit from reading it.

K&R

[UCLA02]

7. I always laugh at the businesses that have "We refuse the right..." signs

They are such bullshit. Once you open up to the public, you MAY NOT be arbitrary as to who you will serve.

Kind of the corollary to your post. Thanks for it.

[Sgent]

8. Actually read the law above

As long as they are not refusing service on the basis of one of those items (or other state issues), they are perfectly ok to refuse to seat you.

Don't like the way you dress? Don't like the way you look? Don't like the shoes your wearing? Its perfectly within the law to kick those people out.

[Solon]

9. Correct, hence the reason for signs like:

No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service. I think the ONLY restriction in this regard is that businesses have to have the policy posted where easily seen, in front windows, lobbies, etc. Of course signs that say "Guys: No Shirt, no service, Ladies: No Shirt, No Charge" would be considered a gray area, at the very least. ;)

[UCLA02]

11. I think those have independent justification

though local and state health ordinances.

The the ladies sign should be required and adhered to in many more businesses, methinks. If not, the terrorists have won.

[UCLA02]

10. I meant it in context of this thread

That opens up all sorts of interesting borderline cases of excluding people due to conduct that can be rfacially inert, but eligiously motivated (speech, dress, etc).

It's ridiculous that these sorts of debates need to occur at all in 2006. Sad.

[mondo joe]

15. You can bet your ass if I were a business owner I'd reserve that right.

And it's quite legal.

[Solon]

12. Shameless KICK!!! n/t

[BlooInBloo]

13. Correct me if I'm wrong plz? But haven't women been "added on" somewhere?

Although women weren't highlighted in the law you mention, aren't they "added on" in some later law?

At the very least, I believe it's be done (at least) piecemeal - ie, can't discrim against women in lending, can't discrim against women in college admissions, can't discrim against women in housing, can't discrim against women in.... Another way to say it: at the very least, aren't there like a jillion separate "title IX"'s covering all sortsa stuff?

Though I really did think there was a "can't discrim against women in anything" law...

Or is that a load of rich creamery butter that I mistook for reality?

(yes, I'm perfectly well aware that women don't comprise a "minority" numerically... whatever...)

[Solon]

16. You're thinking of the Equal Rights Amendment...

it failed ratification when sent to the states.

[BlooInBloo]

17. nah not that - somethin similar tho...

Go the other way around: Is it still legal, as far as federal law is concerned, to discriminate against women in the following areas: public college admissions, lending, and housing?

I thought not, but like I said, I could be bathing in rich creamery butter....

[Solon]

19. No, those are covered under the Fair Housing law...

Affirmative Action laws, and the Fair Banking laws.

[BlooInBloo]

21. Ok - so women have been "added on" piecemeal then - thx!

EDIT: Where among other faults with the piecemeal approach is a biggie: that there's stuff that gets "missed" - either intentionally or no.

[Solon]

23. I know, to be honest, having the ERA as part of the Constitution...

would be the best approach to the matter.

[NewJeffCT]

14. so, you can discriminate based on age?

or sex

[Solon]

18. I didn't say that...

I'm only covering ONE law here, not others that pertain to gender based discrimination are later additions or supplements, like Affirmative Action, etc. Also, technically, yes you can discriminate based on age alone, its actually quite common, if you just look. Movie Theaters, who are also covered under the Public Accommodation clause routinely discriminate against minors, if you wish to call it that, restricting the conditions in which they could view movies, etc. Just for your Information, Movie Theaters are NOT legally obligated to follow any guidelines, it is NOT illegal in this country for a 12 year old to watch a rated R movie, they follow their own practices, and its good business practice to roughly follow MPAA guidelines, otherwise you may not be able to order more of their movies for your theater. Same goes for video stores and others, they also routinely discriminate based on age when it comes to certain items that are not LEGALLY restricted, like Cigarettes and Alcohol. Not to mention Senior Citizen discounts. Employment is also different, covered by the EEOC.

ON EDIT: Equal Opportunity Commission don't exist, me stupid :dunce:

[EFerrari]

20. Thanks for posting this thread.

:)

[Solon]

26. No problem, thought people needed a little refresher...

about matters of importance like Civil Rights.

[EFerrari]

28. I sure needed it. We always think we know more than we do.

:)

[Solon]

29. True, though as soon as I finish making the brain implant...

that will interface straight into the internet, then I will be a true "know it all", to bad most of the stuff I'll know about will be crap. :)

[NewJeffCT]

35. I was thinking more along the lines of...

Those 55 & Over "active adult" communities where you have to be at least 55 years old to live there.

But, it's interesting that age isn't in there.

And yes, I know you were covering one law. But, the implication is that age (and sex) were not covered by that law.

[Kingshakabobo]

31. Yes, you can. All the way up to 50yrs. Then the person is protected.

That's my understanding

[BlooInBloo]

22. Notice also the abstract *methodology* of such laws tho....

Theoretically, there are 2 broad ways to go in anti-discrimination legislation:

(1) Say which groups you CANNOT discriminate against, or

(2) Say which groups you CAN discriminate against.

Firstly, note that on (2) there can be morally valid/reasonable things to put in. For example, I hope it's no insult to say that, in the obvious sense, it makes sense to not have quadraplegics as firefighters. Basically, the valid sorts of things that can be done from the (2) approach would be things of the form "people who intrinsically aren't capable of doing this job". (If my example is a poor one, my apologies - surely tho there is SOME such example - feel free to plug your own in).

The approach (1) strikes me as the reluctant-white-sexist-racist-gay-hater approach whereby they only give as much discrimination-ground as they absolutely have to.

The approach (2) strikes me as the freed-their-mind approach whereby the assumption is that EVERYONE has such-and-such freedom by default, a default that has to have CAUSE to be overriden.

I think it's too bad the approach (2) wasn't taken - tho the history of it all makes it sorta make sense. Sorta.

I just think it's interesting to note the EXCLUSIVE-by-default-with-these-exceptions approach vs the INCLUSIVE-by-default-with-these-exceptions approaches.

Does that make sense?

[Solon]

24. Actually, your example is a decent one...

Usually the litmus test, as the Americans with Disability Act states at least, is that it is discrimination IF a reasonable accomodation can be made and/or the job can still be performed by the disabled person, but neither of those took place. To give another example would be a police officer who suffered a disability, whether through their work, or on their own time. Let's say they are now wheelchair bound, they can still do their jobs, changing positions, being stuck at a desk, but they would still be a police officer, that's a reasonable accomodation. A quadrapeglic could be a dispatcher, as an example, even in the fire department, but, since they aren't capable of breaking down doors or carrying a fire hose, or chase down suspects in uniform as a cop, they wouldn't be expected to do those types of jobs.

[BlooInBloo]

25. Phew! Was hopin not to offend anyone accidentally...

I just thought the inclusive vs exclusive difference was interesting tho...

[Iowa]

33. Excellent thread Solon!

There's great information here.

To add to your excellent comments regarding the ADA for anyone who might be interested... the individual with a disability must be be qualified to perform the work, and be able to perform the "essential functions" of the job (with or without an accommodation). In other words, the employer can't simply add on some extraneous job duty and then claim the person with a disability cannot perform the job. If the person isn't able to perform the essential functions of the job (even with an accommodation), the employer can decline to hire them. The employer is allowed to inquire whether the person is able to perform the essential functions of the job, but cannot ask about past medical history, diagnoses, etc. prior to making an offer of employment.

The rehab act also comes into play - and state laws - there's a hodgepodge of laws addressing our civil rights and it's sometimes difficult to sort it all out. Sometimes we might think we're protected when we aren't, and sometimes we are protected without realizing it. This thread provides a useful summary. Thanks for posting it.

[slipslidingaway]

27. K&R...thanks! n/t

[slaveplanet]

30. what about coupons?

Don't restaurants discrimanate against people who don't subscribe to the propaganda of the Sunday paper?

Don't those little mailer packs discriminate against homeless people?

[Solon]

32. That isn't discrimination...

As far as I know, and this is just a guess, but I don't think any government on the planet thinks that it is discrimination if you CAN'T find someone's address, nor if you deny a coupon to someone because they DECIDED to not access it in the first place. Again, this is just a guess, I could be wrong, but I strongly doubt it. Hello, protected, versus unprotected people. Do businesses discriminate against people that refuse to wear shirts too?

[cali]

34. early morning kick

for a post that adds more light than heat.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

36. Not only did someone provide a link to the Civil Rights Act, I posted

the NJ law, direct from the NJ AG's site on that thread regarding this, and it was astonishing that a few people were challenging me as to how it applied to Quiznos. The law is very clear about giving preference over one group of people from others.