The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: txradioguy on April 26, 2018, 01:20:24 pm
-
A Manhattan judge ruled Wednesday that kicking a Trump supporter out of a bar does not violate the law — because the law does not protect against political discrimination.
Greg Piatek of Philadelphia claims he was refused service and eventually removed from a New York City bar in January 2017 for wearing a “Make America Great Again†hat, in a lawsuit against the establishment.
“Anyone who supports Trump – or believes in what you believe – is not welcome here! And you need to leave right now because we won’t serve you!†Piatek claims the staff of The Happiest Hour told him.
Piatek claimed the incident “offended his sense of being an American,†The New York Post reported.
The lawyer representing The Happiest Hour, Elizabeth Conway, argued that he was not discriminated against because only religious, not political, beliefs are protected under state and city discrimination law.
“Supporting Trump is not a religion,†Conway argued.
Piatek’s attorney, Paul Liggieri, responded in court, “The purpose of the hat is that he wore it because he was visiting the 9/11 Memorial.â€
http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2018/04/25/judge-rules-new-york-city-bar-can-refuse-service-to-trump-supporter-wearing-maga-hat.html (http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2018/04/25/judge-rules-new-york-city-bar-can-refuse-service-to-trump-supporter-wearing-maga-hat.html)
-
But God forbid you refuse to bake someone a cake...
-
But God forbid you refuse to bake someone a cake...
Or put up a sign at a Philly Cheese steak joint sayin: "This Is AMERICA: WHEN ORDERING `SPEAK ENGLISH."'
Then Everyone loses their minds.
-
Isn't that religious discrimination?
-
But God forbid you refuse to bake someone a cake...
Because the statute in question doesn’t protect against political discrimination. If the statute had prohibited discrimination on the basis of political views, he would have won.
-
Isn't that religious discrimination?
Trump is God after all. So yes. Yes it is religious discrimination.
-
Because the statute in question doesn’t protect against political discrimination. If the statute had prohibited discrimination on the basis of political views, he would have won.
Ummm First Amendment anyone?
-
Trump is God after all. So yes. Yes it is religious discrimination.
Secret footage from an Orange Brigade meeting:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DDUL7JQVoAESUVi.jpg)
-
Supporting Trump is not a religion
It is to some people.
-
It is to some people.
As is opposing him.
-
Ummm First Amendment anyone?
Obviously depends on the judge's definition of the First Amendment... :thud:
-
What we need is a hidden camera, and the following folks enter that bar with MAGA hats and ask to be served:
- A black guy who appears to be gay
- A black woman (gay or not)
- An Asian
- An obiviously-Hispanic woman with a heavy accent
Let's see what happens with them!
Addendum:
Throw a muslim-looking woman with a hijab in there, as well!
-
Ummm First Amendment anyone?
Freedom of association is dead, Tex.
-
Ummm First Amendment anyone?
Ummm, the First Amendment doesn’t generally apply to private businesses like the bar in question.
Reading 101 anyone?
-
Ummm, the First Amendment doesn’t generally apply to private businesses like the bar in question.
Reading 101 anyone?
Freedom of speech applies in this case. Do you think the guy would have been turned away from the bar if he'd been wearing a F**K Trump hat?
They'd probably have bought him a drink.
Either way the person is free to put something like that on a hat and wear it in public because our First Amendment protects their right to do that.
In addition the 1st most certainly applies to political speech. And that MAGA hat definitely falls under the definition of political speech.
What was that you were saying about reading 101? :whistle:
-
They thu Ron White out of a bar in NYC for wearing a cap.
-
Freedom of speech applies in this case. Do you think the guy would have been turned away from the bar if he'd been wearing a F**K Trump hat?
They'd probably have bought him a drink.
IN addition the 1st most certainly applies to political speech. And that MAGA hat definitely falls under the definition of political speech.
What was that you were saying about reading 101? :whistle:
How does it apply? Please, counselor, enchant is with your brilliant legal mind. How does the First Amendment limit, on its own terms, the conduct of a private business like a bar? How does the First Amendment make it unconstitutional for a privately owned bar to discriminate against potential patrons with the “wrong†politics.
-
Bake me a cake and shut up
-
How does it apply? Please, counselor, enchant is with your brilliant legal mind. How does the First Amendment limit, on its own terms, the conduct of a private business like a bar? How does the First Amendment make it unconstitutional for a privately owned bar to discriminate against potential patrons with the “wrong†politics.
So you want me to prove a negative? How cute.
Look I know you're still pissed over how I schooled you on the 2nd Amendment thing...do you really want to go through that kind of embarrassment again?
Let's try it this way...show me either by case law or in the 1st Amendment of the Constitution where it says a business is allowed to kick someone out of a bar for wearing a hat the owner doesn't like.
Go ahead...I'll wait.
-
They thu Ron White out of a bar in NYC for wearing a cap.
I'd say they had a pretty good reason, no?
-
They thu Ron White out of a bar in NYC for wearing a cap.
Was it a Red Sox hat?
-
So you want me to prove a negative? How cute.
Look I know you're still pissed over how I schooled you on the 2nd Amendment thing...do you really want to go through that kind of embarrassment again?
Let's try it this way...show me either by case law or in the 1st Amendment of the Constitution where it says a business is allowed to kick someone out of a bar for wearing a hat the owner doesn't like.
Go ahead...I'll wait.
:bigsilly:
No, I want you to prove that the First Amendment applies to a privately owned bar and makes it unconstitutional for that privately owned bar to exclude a patron because of that patron’s expressed political views.
Come on genius, if, as you say, you “schooled†me, this should be a walk in the park for you.
-
:bigsilly:
No, I want you to prove that the First Amendment applies to a privately owned bar and makes it unconstitutional for that privately owned bar to exclude a patron because of that patron’s expressed political views.
Come on genius, if, as you say, you “schooled†me, this should be a walk in the park for you.
Look clearly you are intellectually challenged on the First as well as the Second Amendment. You've decided that enough time has passed since your last tantrum here that you want to start trying to pick fights again to see if I'll take the bait.
Sorry not your Huckleberry. Go peddle your Liberal view of the world to people that actually are interested in what you have to say.
Or just go away again for awhile and cool off again. Your call.
Either way I'm not playing your stupid juvenile game. You're just not worth it.
-
I've gotten a world-class edumacation here on why the First Amendment applies to private businesses on all those threads where it was patiently explained to us rubes why Christian cake bakeries must be compelled to trade with people who commit acts of abomination. I fail to see how refusing to trade with a man wearing a MAGA cap is not a violation of that same principle.
The laws must be written (and court approved) that restrictions can only apply on people with conservative political leanings. That's the only thing my puny mind can noodle out about this.
Personally, I think the bar was in their rights to do what they did, but I am consistent because I also believe the people who bake cakes and photograph weddings are entitled to the same latitude in their businesses. I guess that must be the hobgoblin working on my simple mind...nevermind.
Seeyaluvyabye.
-
Look clearly you are intellectually challenged on the First as well as the Second Amendment. You've decided that enough time has passed since your last tantrum here that you want to start trying to pick fights again to see if I'll take the bait.
Sorry not your Huckleberry. Go peddle your Liberal view of the world to people that actually are interested in what you have to say.
Or just go away again for awhile and cool off again. Your call.
Either way I'm not playing your stupid juvenile game. You're just not worth it.
In other words, you can’t. And for good reason. The First Amendment only applies to government actors. It’s right there in the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law ....â€
-
Was it a Red Sox hat?
He didn't say....
-
I've gotten a world-class edumacation here on why the First Amendment applies to private businesses on all those threads where it was patiently explained to us rubes why Christian cake bakeries must be compelled to trade with people who commit acts of abomination. I fail to see how refusing to trade with a man wearing a MAGA cap is not a violation of that same principle.
The laws must be written (and court approved) that restrictions can only apply on people with conservative political leanings. That's the only thing my puny mind can noodle out about this.
Personally, I think the bar was in their rights to do what they did, but I am consistent because I also believe the people who bake cakes and photograph weddings are entitled to the same latitude in their businesses. I guess that must be the hobgoblin working on my simple mind...nevermind.
Seeyaluvyabye.
You got nothing of the kind. The question in those cases is whether an anti-discrimination statute infringes on a businesses’ First Amendment rights. That has no bearing on the question of whether the First Amendment by itself forces a business to do ssomething, such as tolerating political speech.
-
Go peddle your Liberal view of the world to people that actually are interested in what you have to say.
Gee, when was the last time I was on the side of @Oceander?
He, unless that's changed, is expressing a conservative view in siding with the property owner.
-
Gee, when was the last time I was on the side of @Oceander?
He, unless that's changed, is expressing a conservative view in siding with the property owner.
@endicom
Hat tip to you sir.
-
Ummm First Amendment anyone?
First amendment? It's a private business. If I come on your property with an "I'm with her" t-shirt you don't have the right to kick me off?
-
Gee, when was the last time I was on the side of @Oceander?
He, unless that's changed, is expressing a conservative view in siding with the property owner.
What is Conservative about running someone out of a business because of a hat?
Where in the First Amendment does it say that's allowed? I mean I get that you can't get yell fire in a theater or joke about a bomb on a plane.
But a hat?
The judge got this wrong and so did the owner.
-
First amendment? It's a private business. If I come on your property with an "I'm with her" t-shirt you don't have the right to kick me off?
Why? For wearing a shirt? Seriously?
-
I have been forcibly "extricated" from many a drinking establishment in my day including a few under my own power. The strangest one happened only a few years ago in a very nice place on the Riverwalk in San Antonio*. Before I could even take a seat the bar tender yelled: "Get the F out of my Bar" I figured he must have known me from somewhere so I turned around and left.
I say If you ain't wanted. Go somewhere else.
* When I tell people this story (if they Know the Riverwalk) They always ask if it was Dick's Last Resort. And No it wasn't I clearly stated a Nice Joint!
-
I've been away for awhile. What's new around here?
-
First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress or grievances.
Where is there any mention of private businesses?
-
I have been forcibly "extricated" from many a drinking establishment in my day including a few under my own power. The strangest one happened only a few years ago in a very nice place on the Riverwalk in San Antonio*. Before I could even take a seat the bar tender yelled: "Get the F out of my Bar" I figured he must have known me from somewhere so I turned around and left.
I say If you ain't wanted. Go somewhere else.
* When I tell people this story (if they Know the Riverwalk) They always ask if it was Dick's Last Resort. And No it wasn't I clearly stated a Nice Joint!
Was it because of past instances where the owner didn't like your sparkling personality...or were you wearing a MAGA hat?
And yes I know where Dick's is too. Been there done that got the T Shirt. :)
-
Establishments used to display warning signs near the entrance, "we reserve the right to deny service to anyone."
-
I've been away for awhile. What's new around here?
@Lando Lincoln hey my friend good to see you. How are you doing.
Here? meh...SSDD :shrug:
-
This is not a free speech issue. The bar was within their rights to do what they did.
If someone came into your establishment wearing this (NSFW) tee-shirt (https://2ch.hk/b/arch/2016-12-17/src/142385151/14819740739300.jpg), wouldn't you kick them out?
-
Was it because of past instances where the owner didn't like your sparkling personality...or were you wearing a MAGA hat?
And yes I know where Dick's is too. Been there done that got the T Shirt. :)
I swear I was misidentified. I never made it the 20 feet from the door to the Bar.
And I had a Mavericks hat on at the time. I might have said something disparaging about the Spurs' Kawhi Leonard or that Parker dude since the game was on :shrug:
-
What is Conservative about running someone out of a business because of a hat?
Where in the First Amendment does it say that's allowed? I mean I get that you can't get yell fire in a theater or joke about a bomb on a plane.
But a hat?
The judge got this wrong and so did the owner.
I disagree.
But I highly agree with a place of business using this sign.
(https://www.mydoorsign.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Right-Refuse-Services-Sign-S-7385.gif)
-
What is Conservative about running someone out of a business because of a hat?
Where in the First Amendment does it say that's allowed? I mean I get that you can't get yell fire in a theater or joke about a bomb on a plane.
But a hat?
The judge got this wrong and so did the owner.
The first amendment does not grant rights to anyone, it places explicit limits on what Congress is not allowed to do.
-
* When I tell people this story (if they Know the Riverwalk) They always ask if it was Dick's Last Resort. And No it wasn't I clearly stated a Nice Joint!
If it had been Dick's, you could have just flipped the Bartender off and everyone would have laughed.
-
This is not a free speech issue. The bar was within their rights to do what they did.
If someone came into your establishment wearing this (NSFW) tee-shirt (https://2ch.hk/b/arch/2016-12-17/src/142385151/14819740739300.jpg), wouldn't you kick them out?
Can't read the link. Blocked at work I'll check it out at the house.
Freedom of speech includes expression...you can express something you believe in on a hat or a shirt. The guy was expression his support for Trump by wearing a MAGA hat.
IF the hat is all he was kicked out for...then yes there is a 1st Amendment violation.
-
The first amendment does not grant rights to anyone, it places explicit limits on what Congress is not allowed to do.
It's also protects peoples right to say what they want to say and express themselves without fear of recriminations.
-
If it had been Dick's, you could have just flipped the Bartender off and everyone would have laughed.
That's true! :beer:
-
I disagree.
But I highly agree with a place of business using this sign.
(https://www.mydoorsign.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Right-Refuse-Services-Sign-S-7385.gif)
Just a logic drill... Restaurants can require a sport coat and/or a tie. Golf courses can require collared shirts. Establishments can deny service if you fail to wear shoes or you are shirtless. Some disallow hats altogether. No doubt there are other examples. A proprietor has some right to protect the business and to set standards.
-
I disagree.
But I highly agree with a place of business using this sign.
I will agree with you @thackney ... regardless of ANY reason. I ALWAYS have the right to refuse service. And especially so within the circumference of my own property.
-
It's also protects peoples right to say what they want to say and express themselves without fear of recriminations.
From the government, not from other citizens.
-
From the government, not from other citizens.
Exactly.
You won't be jailed or fined.
You may lose your job or get kicked out of the store.
-
You got nothing of the kind. The question in those cases is whether an anti-discrimination statute infringes on a businesses’ First Amendment rights. That has no bearing on the question of whether the First Amendment by itself forces a business to do ssomething, such as tolerating political speech.
See, that's why I put in the caveat about my simple-mindedness. I don't see the difference between the cake baker and this bar owner. They should both be free to determine with whom they trade. What applies to one should apply to the other equally, and the edumacation I got was that isn't how it works, that Christians are to STFU and take whatever the left-leaning legal system gives them. They are public accommodations, while this bar is not.
Hey, maybe I'm not as stupid as I thought.
-
I've been away for awhile. What's new around here?
LOL! Nothing at all, as it turns out. So good to see you again, Pardner. Stop by the watering hole when you get a chance!
-
LOL! Nothing at all, as it turns out. So good to see you again, Pardner. Stop by the watering hole when you get a chance!
Are the donuts fresh?
-
See, that's why I put in the caveat about my simple-mindedness. I don't see the difference between the cake baker and this bar owner. They should both be free to determine with whom they trade. What applies to one should apply to the other equally, and the edumacation I got was that isn't how it works, that Christians are to STFU and take whatever the left-leaning legal system gives them. They are public accommodations, while this bar is not.
Hey, maybe I'm not as stupid as I thought.
I believe the bar is a 'public accommodation' but not a 'public space,' or whatever is the correct terminology.
@Oceander
-
Are the donuts fresh?
Always! This time of day we start setting out the Happy Hour stuff, though. Bar's open...
-
I believe the bar is a 'public accommodation' but not a 'public space,' or whatever is the correct terminology.
@Oceander
Whatever. I'm still failing to grasp the essential difference between the kinds of business. :shrug:
-
See, that's why I put in the caveat about my simple-mindedness. I don't see the difference between the cake baker and this bar owner. They should both be free to determine with whom they trade. What applies to one should apply to the other equally, and the edumacation I got was that isn't how it works, that Christians are to STFU and take whatever the left-leaning legal system gives them. They are public accommodations, while this bar is not.
Hey, maybe I'm not as stupid as I thought.
I do not believe this is a public accommodation issue as both store and bar would meet that description. (the custom cake work was debatable)
But politics isn't a special protected class (yet) like sexuality. ie: basis of sex; any group which shares a common race, religion, color, or national origin; people over 40; and people with physical or mental handicaps.
https://www.archives.gov/eeo/terminology.html#p (https://www.archives.gov/eeo/terminology.html#p)
-
Ron White started his career with a story about being thrown out of a bar because of his hat. I too, have been thrown out a bar for wearing a hat. I was in a bar that had a bell they would ring if anyone was seen with a hat on. When the bar tender rang the bell you had to either buy a round for everyone, or you had to leave.
I am confused about why bars are so anti-hat? I don't understand their reasons. But being kicked out of a bar for wearing a hat is definitely nothing new.
Why would anyone wear a MAGA hat into a bar anyway, unless they are looking for trouble? Politics, religion, sports, and women, have caused more bar fights than anyone could count. Why court problems? There is more than enough going on in most bars to start a fight. There is no need to go in asking for it.
-
I do not believe this is a public accommodation issue as both store and bar would meet that description. (the custom cake work was debatable)
But politics isn't a special protected class (yet) like sexuality. ie: basis of sex; any group which shares a common race, religion, color, or national origin; people over 40; and people with physical or mental handicaps.
https://www.archives.gov/eeo/terminology.html#p (https://www.archives.gov/eeo/terminology.html#p)
So, then if this were a "non-gay" bar, and some guy walked in naked but for a pair of leather chaps, the bar would have to accommodate him, and can't throw him out like the guy with the MAGA hat, because "gay" is now a protected class? I'm not disbelieving you, I'm just trying to be sure I understand the state of the Law in 21st Century America.
-
So, then if this were a "non-gay" bar, and some guy walked in naked but for a pair of leather chaps, the bar would have to accommodate him, and can't throw him out like the guy with the MAGA hat, because "gay" is now a protected class? I'm not disbelieving you, I'm just trying to be sure I understand the state of the Law in 21st Century America.
It is NYC, so the naked chaps look may be okay. It would get you thrown out of a Texas bar. Chaps are okay, but we expect some Wranglers with them.
-
Ron White started his career with a story about being thrown out of a bar because of his hat. I too, have been thrown out a bar for wearing a hat. I was in a bar that had a bell they would ring if anyone was seen with a hat on. When the bar tender rang the bell you had to either buy a round for everyone, or you had to leave.
I am confused about why bars are so anti-hat? I don't understand their reasons. But being kicked out of a bar for wearing a hat is definitely nothing new.
Why would anyone wear a MAGA hat into a bar anyway, unless they are looking for trouble? Politics, religion, sports, and women, have caused more bar fights than anyone could count. Why court problems? There is more than enough going on in most bars to start a fight. There is no need to go in asking for it.
I don't get the hat thing either. I lived in TX for a short while, and I did DJ duty at a bar. I can assure you that if I asked a cowboy to remove his fine cowboy hat he'd rightfully kick my ass.
I'm in agreement with the bar here, in principle. It's a private business. I just want to know why that same principle doesn't apply in other situations. There appears to be a double standard at work.
-
It is NYC, so the naked chaps look may be okay. It would get you thrown out of a Texas bar. Chaps are okay, but we expect some Wranglers with them.
You have a good point. It was the best analogy I could come up with in a pinch.
-
So, then if this were a "non-gay" bar, and some guy walked in naked but for a pair of leather chaps, the bar would have to accommodate him, and can't throw him out like the guy with the MAGA hat, because "gay" is now a protected class? I'm not disbelieving you, I'm just trying to be sure I understand the state of the Law in 21st Century America.
You have to read the applicable statutes. The law generally doesn’t exist in a vacuum or in the abstract. And kicking someone out for not wearing appropriate attire has nothing to do with being gay, or not, so the analogy fails.
-
See, that's why I put in the caveat about my simple-mindedness. I don't see the difference between the cake baker and this bar owner. They should both be free to determine with whom they trade. What applies to one should apply to the other equally, and the edumacation I got was that isn't how it works, that Christians are to STFU and take whatever the left-leaning legal system gives them. They are public accommodations, while this bar is not.
Hey, maybe I'm not as stupid as I thought.
The New York statute in question does not ban discrimination against people for their political views, so there was no law that made the bar owner’s actions illegal.
In the baker case, the statute made it illegal to refuse service to someone on the basis of sexual orientation.
-
The New York statute in question does not ban discrimination against people for their political views, so there was no law that made the bar owner’s actions illegal.
In the baker case, the statute made it illegal to refuse service to someone on the basis of sexual orientation.
Thank you sincerely. I may not agree with it, but it is what it is, until it gets changed. My earlier analogy was imperfect, I agree, but this nails it down precisely.
-
we expect some Wranglers with them.
Wrangler Jane for me.
-
Geez, folks, didn't anyone read my post 11 above?
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,313710.msg1667726.html#msg1667726 (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,313710.msg1667726.html#msg1667726)
This could be a good one for that James O'Keefe guy to do a video on...
-
Gee, when was the last time I was on the side of @Oceander?
He, unless that's changed, is expressing a conservative view in siding with the property owner.
Of course. And that makes it twice today the @txradioguy has protested that he's a conservative, while proving he's nothing of the sort. A private business is free to discriminate in this context. It's obnoxious, but it is consistent with First Amendment's right of association. And the MAGA-hat wearing cat is free to exercise his First Amendment right to shame this bar and try to hurt its business.
-
Of course. And that makes it twice today the @txradioguy has protested that he's a conservative, while proving he's nothing of the sort. A private business is free to discriminate in this context. It's obnoxious, but it is consistent with First Amendment's right of association. And the MAGA-hat wearing cat is free to exercise his First Amendment right to shame this bar and try to hurt its business.
Bar Shaming. Well that certainly is a new one for our SJW.
-
Bar Shaming. Well that certainly is a new one for our SJW.
Shhh! He's on a roll. He's at his best when he's declaring people "non-conservative." He knows "non-conservative" like nobody's business. :smokin:
-
Of course. And that makes it twice today the @txradioguy has protested that he's a conservative, while proving he's nothing of the sort. A private business is free to discriminate in this context. It's obnoxious, but it is consistent with First Amendment's right of association. And the MAGA-hat wearing cat is free to exercise his First Amendment right to shame this bar and try to hurt its business.
But let two gay people get told to leave the bar and your whole attitude would change on who was right and wrong.
You're not only a flaming Liberal...but a giant hypocrite to boot.
*****rollingeyes*****
-
But let two gay people get told to leave the bar and your whole attitude would change on who was right and wrong.
You're not only a flaming Liberal...but a giant hypocrite to boot.
*****rollingeyes*****
That's different. Gays are a "protected class." It's written into the laws, and has shamefully been found Constitutionally sound. This country's gone to Hell in a handbasket since the government decided to start putting its thumb on the scales. It's been pretty obvious since the Civil Rights Act in the 60's.
-
Any business should be able to deny service to any person for any reason. There, I said it.
-
Any business should be able to deny service to any person for any reason. There, I said it.
Soooo if a cop gets told to leave a restraunt or is refused service...the owner is still justified?
Asking for a friend.
-
I've been away for awhile. What's new around here?
Not a damned thing, sir! :laugh:
-
Soooo if a cop gets told to leave a restraunt or is refused service...the owner is still justified?
Asking for a friend.
Yep. And I'm free not to go to that restaurant because I disagree with their policies.
-
Soooo if a cop gets told to leave a restraunt or is refused service...the owner is still justified?
Asking for a friend.
When word gets out after that happens, public outcry is swift and serious (except for the worst liberal shitholes, in which case they eventually end up with the police the deserve. Like Baltimore). Apologies are quickly issued.
-
Yep. And I'm free not to go to that restaurant because I disagree with their policies.
Fair enough.
I still believe the guy wearing the hat had his 1st Amendment right to free expression violated. :shrug:
But sometimes the Karma Bus catches up with people like that bar owner sooner than later.
-
Not a damned thing, sir! :laugh:
Nope. I like to think we've become better friends, but that's about it...
-
Any business should be able to deny service to any person for any reason. There, I said it.
Exactly and perfectly right, albeit needing emphasis somehow.
-
Nope. I like to think we've become better friends, but that's about it...
You and I have....but that's about it. :patriot:
-
You and I have....but that's about it. :patriot:
That's all I could ask for, DC! :beer:
(I hope I never see the end of those great old house pictures...)
-
You and I have....but that's about it. :patriot:
Chopped liver again. :whistle:
-
Chopped liver again. :whistle:
You ain't missing much.
-
Exactly and perfectly right, albeit needing emphasis somehow.
I did two snaps in a circle after I wrote that.
-
I did two snaps in a circle after I wrote that.
Alright... But I was thinking more along the lines of a baseball bat wrapped in barbed wire. :shrug:
-
Alright... But I was thinking more along the lines of a baseball bat wrapped in barbed wire. :shrug:
Ah yes, Lucille is great at adding emphasis.
-
But God forbid you refuse to bake someone a cake...
Exactly. Don't you love selective equality?
-
RoosGirl wrote:
"Any business should be able to deny service to any person for any reason. There, I said it."
WHITES ONLY.
There, I said it.
-
RoosGirl wrote:
"Any business should be able to deny service to any person for any reason. There, I said it."
WHITES ONLY.
There, I said it.
Seems a pretty stupid way to run your business, and it pretty much guarantees a fail, but I learned once from an overrated movie that stupid is as stupid does.
-
Seems a pretty stupid way to run your business, and it pretty much guarantees a fail, but I learned once from an overrated movie that stupid is as stupid does.
Elmer Gantry?
-
Chopped liver again. :whistle:
:laugh:
-
That's all I could ask for, DC! :beer:
(I hope I never see the end of those great old house pictures...)
They're something, aren't they?? Unbelievable prices...compared to the DC region.
-
Elmer Gantry?
I don't know who that is. Did he make glue?
-
I don't know who that is. Did he make glue?
I forgot you were 13.....
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/82/Elmer_Gantry_poster.jpg/220px-Elmer_Gantry_poster.jpg)
-
I forgot you were 13.....
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/82/Elmer_Gantry_poster.jpg/220px-Elmer_Gantry_poster.jpg)
Oh, Jean Simmons. Yeah, he was good in Kiss.
-
Oh, Jean Simmons. Yeah, he was good in Kiss.
You know about Kiss? Did your Great Grandmother play Detroit Rock City on the Victrola during Thanksgiving?
-
You know about Kiss? Did your Great Grandmother play Detroit Rock City on the Victrola during Thanksgiving?
They're in some old Scooby Doo cartoons I was watching.
-
They're in some old Scooby Doo cartoons I was watching.
You can watch old cartoon on Instagram and Snapchat?
-
You can watch old cartoon on Instagram and Snapchat?
Netflix on my phone. Duh.
-
Netflix on my phone. Duh.
Well be very careful with those Scooby Doo episodes. Some of them might be frightening to a youngster like you. The episode with The Harlem Globe Trotters might trigger your Social Justice tendencies.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/94/4a/a2/944aa2951af13bb71f5f4b5a1a0eda7c.jpg)
-
Oh, Jean Simmons. Yeah, he was good in Kiss.
I have a longhorn heifer named Jean Simmons.
-
I have a longhorn heifer named Jean Simmons.
I can see the resemblance in the two.
-
I can see the resemblance in the two.
I cannot tell from the picture. My Jean is so named because her tongue is long enough to wrap around my wrist. The kids have stopped hand feeding her.
-
The lawyer representing The Happiest Hour, Elizabeth Conway, argued that he was not discriminated against because only religious, not political, beliefs are protected under state and city discrimination law.
“Supporting Trump is not a religion,†Conway argued.
Cool! That means not only can you legally prevent white men from going to "black bars",but you can now legally keep blacks out of your neighborhood. Being black ain't a religion.
Neither is being female.
-
But God forbid you refuse to bake someone a cake...
@txradioguy
Looks like you can now,because being a homo isn't a religion.
-
I cannot tell from the picture. My Jean is so named because her tongue is long enough to wrap around my wrist. The kids have stopped hand feeding her.
And that is where the resemblance comes from!
-
@txradioguy
Looks like you can now,because being a homo isn't a religion.
Unfortunately, the "classes" the government refuses to allow merchants to "freely associate" with, or not, extend beyond religion to people other than you and me. Specifically people who aren't you and me. The Civil Rights Act was added to many times since '65.
-
Unfortunately, the "classes" the government refuses to allow merchants to "freely associate" with, or not, extend beyond religion to people other than you and me. Specifically people who aren't you and me. The Civil Rights Act was added to many times since '65.
Not really. A public accommodation (like this bar) cannot discriminate on the basis of (among other things) race, gender or religion (many jurisdictions also proscribe discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but many still do not). A bar cannot refuse to serve you because you're white, or because you're male. That sort of discrimination isn't historically common, but it is theoretically possible.
The court's decision upholds the liberty of a bar owner to refuse service to anyone on any basis other than one of the "protected classifications". Political ideology isn't a protected classification, so the bar owner retains all of the liberty that conservatives demand.
BTW, if I'd been the lawyer for the guy with the MAGA hat, I wouldn't have argued the religion angle, which is ridiculous. But it is demonstrably true that Trump supporters are proportionately more likely to be white and male. So I would have argued discrimination on the basis of race and gender, citing the disproportionate impact on white males of the bar owner's refusal to serve Trump supporters.
-
the only people acting like SJW's on this thread are the mental midgets who want to prevent a private entity from dealing with who and who they do not let on their property.
-
Not really. A public accommodation (like this bar) cannot discriminate on the basis of (among other things) race, gender or religion (many jurisdictions also proscribe discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but many still do not). A bar cannot refuse to serve you because you're white, or because you're male. That sort of discrimination isn't historically common, but it is theoretically possible.
The court's decision upholds the liberty of a bar owner to refuse service to anyone on any basis other than one of the "protected classifications". Political ideology isn't a protected classification, so the bar owner retains all of the liberty that conservatives demand.
BTW, if I'd been the lawyer for the guy with the MAGA hat, I wouldn't have argued the religion angle, which is ridiculous. But it is demonstrably true that Trump supporters are proportionately more likely to be white and male. So I would have argued discrimination on the basis of race and gender, citing the disproportionate impact on white males of the bar owner's refusal to serve Trump supporters.
I like the disparate impact argument. That would have been interesting to see.
-
Either a business can decide who to serve based on their beliefs or any other criteria, or they can’t. This applying the law willy nilly depending on hats, religion, and whether or not you like sexual play in the butt, is getting rather silly. Especially when judges and lawyers get to decide how the law is applied. Typically with a conservative getting screwed.
-
I like the disparate impact argument. That would have been interesting to see.
An analogy could be a bar's refusal to serve folks with hats bearing the logos of rap artists. That's not discrimination based on the customer's behavior (which is always lawful), unless the simple wearing of a hat is deemed to constitute behavior. But assuming you could show folks with hats bearing rap artist logos are disproportionately black, couldn't the arbitrary refusal to serve folks wearing such hats be seen as a proxy for discrimination on the basis of race?
Here, the MAGA-wearing cat was causing no trouble and making no demands or statements that could be construed as behavior. He was just wearing a hat and seeking a beer, and the bar owner assumed he must be a Trump supporter. Well, there's clearly a ton of polling out there that demonstrate the demographics of Trump supporters, which could show the disparate impact of a Trump hat ban on a potential patrons of a certain race and gender.
Sure would be fun to take that case! :cool:
-
An analogy could be a bar's refusal to serve folks with hats bearing the logos of rap artists. That's not discrimination based on the customer's behavior (which is always lawful), unless the simple wearing of a hat is deemed to constitute behavior. But assuming you could show folks with hats bearing rap artist logos are disproportionately black, couldn't the arbitrary refusal to serve folks wearing such hats be seen as a proxy for discrimination on the basis of race?
Here, the MAGA-wearing cat was causing no trouble and making no demands or statements that could be construed as behavior. He was just wearing a hat and seeking a beer, and the bar owner assumed he must be a Trump supporter. Well, there's clearly a ton of polling out there that demonstrate the demographics of Trump supporters, which could show the disparate impact of a Trump hat ban on a potential patrons of a certain race and gender.
Sure would be fun to take that case! :cool:
Agreed.
-
Not really. A public accommodation (like this bar) cannot discriminate on the basis of (among other things) race, gender or religion (many jurisdictions also proscribe discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but many still do not). A bar cannot refuse to serve you because you're white, or because you're male. That sort of discrimination isn't historically common, but it is theoretically possible.
The court's decision upholds the liberty of a bar owner to refuse service to anyone on any basis other than one of the "protected classifications". Political ideology isn't a protected classification, so the bar owner retains all of the liberty that conservatives demand.
The problem is that violates the 14th amendment, because it creates selective equality and let's the govt define what equality is, which was not it's original intent.
-
The problem is that violates the 14th amendmen,t because it creates selective equality and let's the govt define what equality is, which was not it's original intent.
@Free Vulcan Please don't interrupt the discussion between the barristers. It's so intriguing watching the discussion between two people who think it would be "fun" to gamble with our rights.
-
@Free Vulcan Please don't interrupt the discussion between the barristers. It's so intriguing watching the discussion between two people who think it would be "fun" to gamble with our rights.
I know, I know... ****slapping
-
@Free Vulcan Please don't interrupt the discussion between the barristers. It's so intriguing watching the discussion between two people who think it would be "fun" to gamble with our rights.
/snicker
No, we’re the only ones coming up with a basis on which the schmuck in the stupid red hat might have a cause of action against the bar.
-
The problem is that violates the 14th amendment, because it creates selective equality and let's the govt define what equality is, which was not it's original intent.
Nonsense on stilts.
-
/snicker
No, we’re the only ones coming up with a basis on which the schmuck in the stupid red hat might have a cause of action against the bar.
Whatever.
-
Whatever.
Thought those “rights†were important to you. Guess not.
-
The second biggest problem we face that prevents us from having civil verbal intercourse here at TBR. Two too many damn Lawyers :smokin:
-
The second biggest problem we face that prevents us from having civil verbal intercourse here at TBR. Two too many damn Lawyers :smokin:
You could always persuade TBR to follow Shakespeare’s “adviceâ€.
-
They thu Ron White out of a bar in NYC for wearing a cap.
Naw, man, it was because he was drunk in Public.
-
You could always persuade TBR to follow Shakespeare’s “adviceâ€.
Maybe not the 1st thing we do. But who am I to argue! :silly:
-
I have been forcibly "extricated" from many a drinking establishment in my day including a few under my own power. The strangest one happened only a few years ago in a very nice place on the Riverwalk in San Antonio*. Before I could even take a seat the bar tender yelled: "Get the F out of my Bar" I figured he must have known me from somewhere so I turned around and left.
I say If you ain't wanted. Go somewhere else.
* When I tell people this story (if they Know the Riverwalk) They always ask if it was Dick's Last Resort. And No it wasn't I clearly stated a Nice Joint!
Are you sure you didn't wander into "Dick Head's"?
I'm serious. It was a bar on the Riverwalk where they insulted everybody, on purpose.
-
Naw, man, it was because he was drunk in Public.
If i'da known Morse code, I would have known that already.
-
Are you sure you didn't wander into "Dick Head's"?
I'm serious. It was a bar on the Riverwalk where they insulted everybody, on purpose.
Positive. Weren't Dicks.
-
Positive. Weren't Dicks.
Wow, than the is pretty damned harsh.
-
Nonsense on stilts.
Really.? Transgenderism is a completely psychological condition. It does not scientifically exist, it violates the laws of biology. Yet their are accorded special status, even though it's questionable that that status is even codified in the law.
So then why can't anyone identify as they please and have the special status? Because it's selective and politcally driven, not something intrinsic to civil or constitutional rights.
-
Really.? Transgenderism is a completely psychological condition. It does not scientifically exist, it violates the laws of biology. Yet their are accorded special status, even though it's questionable that that status is even codified in the law.
So then why can't anyone identify as they please and have the special status? Because it's selective and politcally driven, not something intrinsic to civil or constitutional rights.
I’ll grant you every word of that. The result is still a resounding “so what†because the equal protection clause is not triggered. It doesn’t apply, and no amount of butt-hurt on your part will make it apply.
-
Are you sure you didn't wander into "Dick Head's"?
I'm serious. It was a bar on the Riverwalk where they insulted everybody, on purpose.
I don't know if there was a "Dick Head's" on the Riverwalk, but I do (sort of) remember New Year's Eve at this place:
http://www.dickslastresort.com/citypage.cfm?store=SanAntonio (http://www.dickslastresort.com/citypage.cfm?store=SanAntonio)
-
That's different. Gays are a "protected class." It's written into the laws, and has shamefully been found Constitutionally sound. This country's gone to Hell in a handbasket since the government decided to start putting its thumb on the scales. It's been pretty obvious since the Civil Rights Act in the 60's.
So much for "Equal Protection". Some folks is mo equal than others.
-
That's different. Gays are a "protected class."
And so are you, CL. You're protected if you are refused service in a restaurant or bar just because you're white, or male, or straight.
-
I’ll grant you every word of that. The result is still a resounding “so what†because the equal protection clause is not triggered. It doesn’t apply, and no amount of butt-hurt on your part will make it apply.
But it has been applied, it's being applied now, and will continue to be applied in the legal system under the equal protection clause. No amount of never-never land wishful thinking on your part will make it go away.
-
And so are you, CL. You're protected if you are refused service in a restaurant or bar just because you're white, or male, or straight.
@Jazzhead
Interesting theory,but you are lying if you try to claim you honestly believe it works that way in "Real Life".
-
@Jazzhead
Interesting theory,but you are lying if you try to claim you honestly believe it works that way in "Real Life".
Yes, you're right, SP. I have been on this planet 60 years, and have never been refused service in a restaurant or bar just because I was white, or male, or straight.
Been lucky, I guess.
-
And so are you, CL. You're protected if you are refused service in a restaurant or bar just because you're white, or male, or straight.
I wish I could believe that. It's not relevant, because I would not demand to be served in an establishment that doesn't want to serve me, for the same reason I'm never rude to the wait staff. I don't want my food spat on.
Has there ever been a court decision against anybody who refuses to serve a client because he/she is white?
-
Yes, you're right, SP. I have been on this planet 60 years, and have never been refused service in a restaurant or bar just because I was white, or male, or straight.
Been lucky, I guess.
Is it luck, or is it you exercising the good manners of not forcing yourself upon others?
-
But it has been applied, it's being applied now, and will continue to be applied in the legal system under the equal protection clause. No amount of never-never land wishful thinking on your part will make it go away.
/snicker
-
Just a logic drill... Restaurants can require a sport coat and/or a tie. Golf courses can require collared shirts. Establishments can deny service if you fail to wear shoes or you are shirtless. Some disallow hats altogether. No doubt there are other examples. A proprietor has some right to protect the business and to set standards.
An owner of a Boston or New York Irish (Catholic-Green) bar, could refuse services to a fellow that wore a shirt with Protestant (Orange) symbolism, for the simple reason he didn't want a fight, with broken furniture, etc.
(sort of along the lines of the cattle men and the sheep men)
(or Manchester United and Liverpool; or Barcelona and Real Madrid futbol/fussball/football/soccer)
-
An owner of a Boston or New York Irish (Catholic-Green) bar, could refuse services to a fellow that wore a shirt with Protestant (Orange) symbolism, for the simple reason he didn't want a fight, with broken furniture, etc.
(sort of along the lines of the cattle men and the sheep men)
(or Manchester United and Liverpool; or Barcelona and Real Madrid futbol/fussball/football/soccer)
@truth_seeker
Excellent examples! :patriot:
-
An owner of a Boston or New York Irish (Catholic-Green) bar, could refuse services to a fellow that wore a shirt with Protestant (Orange) symbolism, for the simple reason he didn't want a fight, with broken furniture, etc.
(sort of along the lines of the cattle men and the sheep men)
(or Manchester United and Liverpool; or Barcelona and Real Madrid futbol/fussball/football/soccer)
Or the Fog City Diner in SF denied service to a guy wearing a Dodgers hat.
-
https://www.ocregister.com/2018/04/25/lawsuit-3-orange-county-men-say-they-were-victims-of-gay-bashing-at-newport-beach-restaurant/ (https://www.ocregister.com/2018/04/25/lawsuit-3-orange-county-men-say-they-were-victims-of-gay-bashing-at-newport-beach-restaurant/)
"Three Orange County men are suing Newport Beach’s Balboa Inn after they say they were called a gay slur and assaulted by staff in the hotel’s Italian restaurant this month.
In their lawsuit filed in Orange County Superior Court this week, Angel Bonilla, Colton Moyer and Clement Serafin say they were visiting Balboa Island on April 13 when they decided to stop by Siena Restaurant inside the Balboa Inn for dinner.
The trio was immediately met with hostility from a woman working behind the bar, who “demanded that (the men) show their respective identification cards because she wanted to create a ruse for refusing to serve them when her real motive was to not serve gay men,†according to the suit.
snip
-
Yes, you're right, SP. I have been on this planet 60 years, and have never been refused service in a restaurant or bar just because I was white, or male, or straight.
Been lucky, I guess.
More likely careful and sheltered.
Try walking into a black bar one night by yourself and see how long it take for the natives to get restless.
-
I wish I could believe that. It's not relevant, because I would not demand to be served in an establishment that doesn't want to serve me, for the same reason I'm never rude to the wait staff. I don't want my food spat on.
Has there ever been a court decision against anybody who refuses to serve a client because he/she is white?
@Cyber Liberty
Probably not because no court would accept the suit. Don't you know,blacks CAN'T be prejudiced. Only whites.
Besides,it's the black customers,not the management that threatens you.
I even had this happen in a bar in Pleiku during the VN war. I was with a friend of mine doing something in Pleiku,probably shopping at the PX,and we decided to go to a bar and get a beer or three before driving back to Kontum. We discovered it was a "black bar" after we went in,but that make no difference to either of us. We just wanted a couple of beers.
It mattered a great deal to the black GI's in there though,and since it was 2 against 50 or so,they started muttering threats,and then started coming towards us. We each pulled a 45 out from our belts and I sat a baseball grenade on the bar,and they seemed to have a change of heart and no interest at all in attacking us. We drank our beers in peace and left. It could have easily gotten ugly,though.
A polite demeanor and cocked and locked 1911A1 will take you far in this world.
-
https://www.ocregister.com/2018/04/25/lawsuit-3-orange-county-men-say-they-were-victims-of-gay-bashing-at-newport-beach-restaurant/ (https://www.ocregister.com/2018/04/25/lawsuit-3-orange-county-men-say-they-were-victims-of-gay-bashing-at-newport-beach-restaurant/)
Angel Bonilla, Colton Moyer and Clement Serafin say they were visiting Balboa Island on April 13
Those are their real names? Seriously?
-
A polite demeanor and cocked and locked 1911A1 will take you far in this world.
@sneakypete
An armed society is a polite society.
-
/snicker
Would some examples help?
Examples of Court Decisions Supporting Coverage of LGBT-Related Discrimination Under Title VII
Chavez v. Credit Nation Auto Sales, L.L.C., 2016 WL 158820 (11th Cir. Jan. 14, 2016). Reversing summary judgment for the employer on the plaintiff's claim that she was terminated from her job as an auto mechanic because she is transgender, the court remanded the case for trial because there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to create a triable issue of fact as to whether gender bias was a motivating factor. The employer asserted that the plaintiff was fired for sleeping on the job and noted that other employees had been fired for the same offense. However, less than two months before the plaintiff's termination, her supervisor had said that her transgender status made him "nervous" and would negatively impact the business and coworkers. Moreover, the plaintiff had received an excellent performance appraisal prior to disclosing her gender transition, and the employer deviated from its progressive disciplinary policy in imposing termination in the plaintiff's case.
Glenn v. Brumby, 663 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2011). The plaintiff, a transgender female, brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging unlawful discrimination based on sex in violation of the Equal Protection Clause when she was terminated from her position with the Georgia General Assembly. Relying on Price Waterhouse and other Title VII precedent, the court concluded that the defendant discriminated against the plaintiff based on her sex by terminating her because she was transitioning from male to female. The court stated that a person is considered transgender "precisely because of the perception that his or her behavior transgresses gender stereotypes." As a result, there is "congruence" between discriminating against transgender individuals and discrimination on the basis of "gender-based behavioral norms." Because everyone is protected against discrimination based on sex stereotypes, such protections cannot be denied to transgender individuals. "The nature of the discrimination is the same; it may differ in degree but not in kind." The court further concluded that discrimination based on sex stereotypes is subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, and government termination of a transgender person for his or her gender nonconformity is unconstitutional sex discrimination. Although in this case the defendant asserted that it fired the plaintiff because of potential lawsuits if she used the women's restroom, the record showed that the plaintiff's office had only single-use unisex restrooms, and therefore there was no evidence that the defendant was actually motivated by litigation concerns about restroom use. The defendant provided no other justification for its action, and therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment.
Barnes v. City of Cincinnati, 401 F.3d 729 (6th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff, who "was a male-to-female transsexual who was living as a male while on duty but often lived as a woman off duty [and] had a reputation throughout the police department as a homosexual, bisexual or cross-dresser," alleged he was demoted because of his failure to conform to sex stereotypes. The court held that this stated a claim of sex discrimination under Title VII.
Smith v. City of Salem, 378 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2004). The plaintiff alleged that he was suspended based on sex after he began to express a more feminine appearance and notified his employer that he would eventually undergo a complete physical transformation from male to female. The court held that Title VII prohibits discrimination against transgender individuals based on gender stereotyping. The court determined that discrimination against an individual for gender-nonconforming behavior violates Title VII irrespective of the cause of the behavior. The court reasoned that the "narrow view" of the term "sex" in prior case law denying Title VII protection to transgender employees was "eviscerated" by Price Waterhouse, in which the Supreme Court held that Title VII protected a woman who failed to conform to social expectations about how women should look and behave.
Rosa v. Parks W. Bank & Trust Co., 214 F.3d 213 (1st Cir. 2000). Citing Title VII case law, the court concluded that a transgender plaintiff, who was biologically male, stated a claim of sex discrimination under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act by alleging that he was denied a loan application because he was dressed in traditionally female attire.
Schwenck v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187, 1201-02 (9th Cir. 2000). Citing Title VII case law, the court concluded that a transgender woman stated a claim of sex discrimination under the Gender Motivated Violence Act based on the perception that she was a "man who 'failed to act like one.'" The court noted that "the initial approach" taken in earlier federal appellate Title VII cases rejecting claims by transgender plaintiffs "has been overruled by the language and logic of Price Waterhouse."
Baker v. Aetna Life Ins., et al., __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2017 WL 131658 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 13, 2017). The court ruled that an employee stated a claim against her employer for sex discrimination in violation of Title VII based on denial of coverage under employer-provided health insurance plan for costs associated with surgery related to gender transition.
Mickens v. General Electric Co., No. 3:16CV-00603-JHM, 2016 WL 7015665 (W.D. Ky. Nov. 29, 2016). The court denied the employer's motion to dismiss a Title VII sex discrimination claim in which a transgender plaintiff alleged he was unlawfully denied use of the male bathroom close to his work station, and then was fired for attendance issues resulting from having to go to a bathroom farther away. He also alleged that once his supervisor learned of his transgender status, he was singled out for reprimands, and no action was taken in response to his reports of coworker harassment. Rejecting the employer's argument that discrimination based on transgender status is not actionable under Title VII, the court cited Sixth Circuit precedent recognizing that, in light of Price Waterhouse, the prohibition against gender discrimination in Title VII "can extend to certain situations where the plaintiff fails to conform to stereotypical gender norms." The court held that the complaint sufficiently pled a Title VII sex discrimination claim, noting that "(s)ignificantly, plaintiff alleges that GE both permitted continued discrimination and harassment against him and subsequently fired him because he did not conform to the gender stereotype of what someone who was born female should look and act like."
Roberts v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., No. 2:15-cv-00388-JAD-PAL, 2016 WL 5843046 (D. Nev. Oct. 4, 2016). Expressly adopting the EEOC's holdings in Macy and Lusardi, the court ruled that plaintiff, a transgender school police officer, was subjected to sex discrimination in violation of Title VII when he was told by his employer that he could not use either the men's or women's bathroom at work.
Doe v. Ariz., 2016 WL 1089743 (D. Ariz. Mar. 21, 2016). The plaintiff, a corrections officer, alleged the Department of Corrections violated Title VII's prohibition on sex discrimination based on gender identity when supervisors tolerated harassment of him and breached his confidentiality by informing prison inmates of his transition. Denying the employer's motion to dismiss, the court noted that the EEOC and courts have held that Title VII's sex discrimination provision prohibits workplace discrimination based on gender identity, and that the claim was described with sufficient clarity in the EEOC charge to render it exhausted.
Fabian v. Hosp. of Central Conn., 172 F. Supp. 3d 509 (D. Conn. 2016). Plaintiff, an orthopedic surgeon, brought a Title VII sex discrimination claim alleging she was not hired because she disclosed her identity as a transgender woman who would begin work after transitioning to presenting as female. Analyzing Title VII's legislative history and case law in extensive detail, the court held that Price Waterhouse abrogates the narrow view of 0Title VII's plain language that previously excluded sex discrimination claims by transgender individuals, citing supportive rulings by the 6th, 9th, and 11th Circuits, as well as the EEOC's decision in Macy. See also Adkins v. City of New York, 143 F. Supp. 3d 134 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (allowing equal protection claim by transgender individual to proceed under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983).
Lewis v. High Point Regional Health Sys., 79 F. Supp. 3d 588 (E.D.N.C. 2015). Plaintiff, a certified nursing assistant, alleged she was denied hire for several positions because of her transgender status. At the time of her interviews, she was anatomically male, and was undergoing hormone replacement therapy in preparation for sex reassignment surgery in the future. The district court denied the employer's motion to dismiss the case because the employer had argued only that sexual orientation was not covered under Title VII and sexual orientation and gender identity are two distinct concepts. The court therefore allowed plaintiff's transgender discrimination claim to proceed under Title VII.
Finkle v. Howard Cty., Md., 12 F. Supp. 3d 780 (D. Md. 2014). Denying the county's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment on a Title VII claim brought by a volunteer auxiliary police officer, the court ruled that the officer was an "employee" for Title VII purposes, and that her claim that she was discriminated against "because of her obvious transgendered status" raised a cognizable claim of sex discrimination. The court reasoned: "([I)t would seem that any discrimination against transsexuals (as transsexuals) - individuals who, by definition, do not conform to gender stereotypes - is proscribed by Title VII's proscription of discrimination on the basis of sex as interpreted by Price Waterhouse. As Judge Robertson offered in Schroer v. Billington, 577 F. Supp. 2d 293 (D.D.C. 2008), '(u)ltimately I do not think it matters for purposes of Title VII liability whether the Library withdrew its offer of employment because it perceived Schroer to be an insufficiently masculine man, an insufficiently feminine woman, or an inherently gender-nonconforming transsexual.'"
Parris v. Keystone Foods, 959 F. Supp. 2d 1291 (N.D. Ala. 2013), appeal dismissed, No. 13-14495-D (11th Cir. Dec. 26, 2013). Plaintiff, a transgender female, alleged that she was discharged from her job at a chicken processing facility because of her "gender non-conformity." The district court, citing Glenn v. Brumby, recognized that the plaintiff's claims were covered by Title VII's sex discrimination prohibitions, but granted summary judgment to the employer on the ground that plaintiff's comparator evidence and evidence of discriminatory remarks by coworkers did not show that her discharge was motivated by her gender identity as opposed to the legitimate non-discriminatory reason proffered by the employer.
Radtke v. Miscellaneous Drivers & Helpers Union Local #638 Health, Welfare, Eye, & Dental Fund, 867 F. Supp. 2d 1023 (D. Minn. 2012). Assessing a claim under ERISA for wrongful termination of benefits to a legal spouse of a transgender individual, the court quoted the language from Smith v. City of Salem that the Supreme Court's decision in Price Waterhouse "eviscerated" the "narrow view" of "sex" articulated in earlier Title VII cases, and observed: "An individual's sex includes many components, including chromosomal, anatomical, hormonal, and reproductive elements, some of which could be ambiguous or in conflict within an individual."
Schroer v. Billington, 577 F. Supp. 2d 293 (D.D.C. 2008). The plaintiff, a transgender female, was offered a position as a terrorism research analyst before she had changed her name and begun presenting herself as a woman. After the plaintiff notified the employer that she was under a doctor's care for gender dysphoria and would be undergoing gender transition, the employer withdrew the offer, explaining that the plaintiff would not be a "good fit." The court stated that since the employer refused to hire the plaintiff because she planned to change her anatomical sex by undergoing sex reassignment surgery, the employer's decision was literally discrimination "because of ... sex." The court analogized the plaintiff's claim to one in which an employee is fired because she converted from Christianity to Judaism, even though the employer does not discriminate against Christians or Jews generally but only "converts." Since such an action would be a clear case of discrimination "because of religion," Title VII's prohibition of discrimination "because of sex" must correspondingly encompass discrimination because of a change of sex. The court concluded that decisions rejecting claims by transgender individuals "represent an elevation of 'judge-supposed legislative intent over clear statutory text,'" which is "no longer a tenable approach to statutory construction."
Lopez v. River Oaks Imaging & Diagnostic Grp., Inc., 542 F. Supp. 2d 653 (S.D. Tex. 2008). The plaintiff alleged that she was subjected to sex discrimination when the employer rescinded its job offer after learning that she was transgender. Denying the employer's motion for summary judgment, the court concluded that the plaintiff's claim was actionable as sex discrimination under Title VII on the theory that she failed to comport with the employer's notions of how a male should look. A finder of fact might reasonably conclude that the employer's statement that the job offer was rescinded because she had "misrepresented" herself as female reflected animus against individuals who do not conform to gender stereotypes.
Mitchell v. Axcan Scandipharm, Inc., No. 05-243, 2006 WL 456173, at *2 (W.D. Pa. 2006). Plaintiff alleged sex-based harassment and termination in violation of Title VII after the employer learned that plaintiff had been diagnosed with gender identity disorder and plaintiff began presenting at work as a female after having presented as a male during the first four years of employment. Denying the employer's motion to dismiss, the court held that because the complaint "included facts showing that his failure to conform to sex stereotypes of how a man should look and behave was the catalyst behind defendant's actions, plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded claims of gender discrimination."
Tronetti v. TLC HealthNet Lakeshore Hosp., No. 03-cv-375E, 2003 WL 22757935, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. 2003). Relying on the reasoning in Schwenck v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187, 1201-02 (9th Cir. 2000), the court ruled that plaintiff's sex discrimination claims of hostile work environment harassment and discriminatory discharge arising from her transition and sex reassignment surgery were actionable under Title VII, based on factual allegations that she was discriminated against for "failing to act like a man." See also Doe v. United Consumer Fin. Servs., No. 1:01-cv-1112, 2001 WL 34350174, at *2-5 (N.D. Ohio 2001).
Creed v. Family Express Corp., 101 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 609, 2007 WL 2265630 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 3, 2007). The plaintiff, a transgender female, alleged facts permitting an inference that she was terminated because of gender stereotypes; specifically, that she was perceived by her employer to be a man while employed as a sales associate and was fired for refusing to present herself in a masculine way. See also Hunter v. United Parcel Serv., 697 F.3d 697 (8th Cir. 2012) (affirming summary judgment for the employer under both Title VII and state law, the court did not rule that such discrimination was not actionable under Title VII, but rather that there was no evidence that the prospective employer knew or perceived that plaintiff was transgender during the job interview, and therefore a prima facie case of sex discrimination was not established).
Miles v. New York Univ., 979 F. Supp. 248, 249-50 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). Noting that the phrase "on the basis of sex" in Title IX is interpreted in the same manner as similar language in Title VII, the court held that a transgender female student could proceed with a claim that she was sexually harassed "on the basis of sex" in violation of Title IX.
-
Would some examples help?
Examples of Court Decisions Supporting Coverage of LGBT-Related Discrimination Under Title VII
Chavez v. Credit Nation Auto Sales, L.L.C., 2016 WL 158820 (11th Cir. Jan. 14, 2016). Reversing summary judgment for the employer on the plaintiff's claim that she was terminated from her job as an auto mechanic because she is transgender, the court remanded the case for trial because there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to create a triable issue of fact as to whether gender bias was a motivating factor. The employer asserted that the plaintiff was fired for sleeping on the job and noted that other employees had been fired for the same offense. However, less than two months before the plaintiff's termination, her supervisor had said that her transgender status made him "nervous" and would negatively impact the business and coworkers. Moreover, the plaintiff had received an excellent performance appraisal prior to disclosing her gender transition, and the employer deviated from its progressive disciplinary policy in imposing termination in the plaintiff's case.
Glenn v. Brumby, 663 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2011). The plaintiff, a transgender female, brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging unlawful discrimination based on sex in violation of the Equal Protection Clause when she was terminated from her position with the Georgia General Assembly. Relying on Price Waterhouse and other Title VII precedent, the court concluded that the defendant discriminated against the plaintiff based on her sex by terminating her because she was transitioning from male to female. The court stated that a person is considered transgender "precisely because of the perception that his or her behavior transgresses gender stereotypes." As a result, there is "congruence" between discriminating against transgender individuals and discrimination on the basis of "gender-based behavioral norms." Because everyone is protected against discrimination based on sex stereotypes, such protections cannot be denied to transgender individuals. "The nature of the discrimination is the same; it may differ in degree but not in kind." The court further concluded that discrimination based on sex stereotypes is subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, and government termination of a transgender person for his or her gender nonconformity is unconstitutional sex discrimination. Although in this case the defendant asserted that it fired the plaintiff because of potential lawsuits if she used the women's restroom, the record showed that the plaintiff's office had only single-use unisex restrooms, and therefore there was no evidence that the defendant was actually motivated by litigation concerns about restroom use. The defendant provided no other justification for its action, and therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment.
Barnes v. City of Cincinnati, 401 F.3d 729 (6th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff, who "was a male-to-female transsexual who was living as a male while on duty but often lived as a woman off duty [and] had a reputation throughout the police department as a homosexual, bisexual or cross-dresser," alleged he was demoted because of his failure to conform to sex stereotypes. The court held that this stated a claim of sex discrimination under Title VII.
Smith v. City of Salem, 378 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2004). The plaintiff alleged that he was suspended based on sex after he began to express a more feminine appearance and notified his employer that he would eventually undergo a complete physical transformation from male to female. The court held that Title VII prohibits discrimination against transgender individuals based on gender stereotyping. The court determined that discrimination against an individual for gender-nonconforming behavior violates Title VII irrespective of the cause of the behavior. The court reasoned that the "narrow view" of the term "sex" in prior case law denying Title VII protection to transgender employees was "eviscerated" by Price Waterhouse, in which the Supreme Court held that Title VII protected a woman who failed to conform to social expectations about how women should look and behave.
Rosa v. Parks W. Bank & Trust Co., 214 F.3d 213 (1st Cir. 2000). Citing Title VII case law, the court concluded that a transgender plaintiff, who was biologically male, stated a claim of sex discrimination under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act by alleging that he was denied a loan application because he was dressed in traditionally female attire.
Schwenck v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187, 1201-02 (9th Cir. 2000). Citing Title VII case law, the court concluded that a transgender woman stated a claim of sex discrimination under the Gender Motivated Violence Act based on the perception that she was a "man who 'failed to act like one.'" The court noted that "the initial approach" taken in earlier federal appellate Title VII cases rejecting claims by transgender plaintiffs "has been overruled by the language and logic of Price Waterhouse."
Baker v. Aetna Life Ins., et al., __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2017 WL 131658 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 13, 2017). The court ruled that an employee stated a claim against her employer for sex discrimination in violation of Title VII based on denial of coverage under employer-provided health insurance plan for costs associated with surgery related to gender transition.
Mickens v. General Electric Co., No. 3:16CV-00603-JHM, 2016 WL 7015665 (W.D. Ky. Nov. 29, 2016). The court denied the employer's motion to dismiss a Title VII sex discrimination claim in which a transgender plaintiff alleged he was unlawfully denied use of the male bathroom close to his work station, and then was fired for attendance issues resulting from having to go to a bathroom farther away. He also alleged that once his supervisor learned of his transgender status, he was singled out for reprimands, and no action was taken in response to his reports of coworker harassment. Rejecting the employer's argument that discrimination based on transgender status is not actionable under Title VII, the court cited Sixth Circuit precedent recognizing that, in light of Price Waterhouse, the prohibition against gender discrimination in Title VII "can extend to certain situations where the plaintiff fails to conform to stereotypical gender norms." The court held that the complaint sufficiently pled a Title VII sex discrimination claim, noting that "(s)ignificantly, plaintiff alleges that GE both permitted continued discrimination and harassment against him and subsequently fired him because he did not conform to the gender stereotype of what someone who was born female should look and act like."
Roberts v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., No. 2:15-cv-00388-JAD-PAL, 2016 WL 5843046 (D. Nev. Oct. 4, 2016). Expressly adopting the EEOC's holdings in Macy and Lusardi, the court ruled that plaintiff, a transgender school police officer, was subjected to sex discrimination in violation of Title VII when he was told by his employer that he could not use either the men's or women's bathroom at work.
Doe v. Ariz., 2016 WL 1089743 (D. Ariz. Mar. 21, 2016). The plaintiff, a corrections officer, alleged the Department of Corrections violated Title VII's prohibition on sex discrimination based on gender identity when supervisors tolerated harassment of him and breached his confidentiality by informing prison inmates of his transition. Denying the employer's motion to dismiss, the court noted that the EEOC and courts have held that Title VII's sex discrimination provision prohibits workplace discrimination based on gender identity, and that the claim was described with sufficient clarity in the EEOC charge to render it exhausted.
Fabian v. Hosp. of Central Conn., 172 F. Supp. 3d 509 (D. Conn. 2016). Plaintiff, an orthopedic surgeon, brought a Title VII sex discrimination claim alleging she was not hired because she disclosed her identity as a transgender woman who would begin work after transitioning to presenting as female. Analyzing Title VII's legislative history and case law in extensive detail, the court held that Price Waterhouse abrogates the narrow view of 0Title VII's plain language that previously excluded sex discrimination claims by transgender individuals, citing supportive rulings by the 6th, 9th, and 11th Circuits, as well as the EEOC's decision in Macy. See also Adkins v. City of New York, 143 F. Supp. 3d 134 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (allowing equal protection claim by transgender individual to proceed under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983).
Lewis v. High Point Regional Health Sys., 79 F. Supp. 3d 588 (E.D.N.C. 2015). Plaintiff, a certified nursing assistant, alleged she was denied hire for several positions because of her transgender status. At the time of her interviews, she was anatomically male, and was undergoing hormone replacement therapy in preparation for sex reassignment surgery in the future. The district court denied the employer's motion to dismiss the case because the employer had argued only that sexual orientation was not covered under Title VII and sexual orientation and gender identity are two distinct concepts. The court therefore allowed plaintiff's transgender discrimination claim to proceed under Title VII.
Finkle v. Howard Cty., Md., 12 F. Supp. 3d 780 (D. Md. 2014). Denying the county's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment on a Title VII claim brought by a volunteer auxiliary police officer, the court ruled that the officer was an "employee" for Title VII purposes, and that her claim that she was discriminated against "because of her obvious transgendered status" raised a cognizable claim of sex discrimination. The court reasoned: "([I)t would seem that any discrimination against transsexuals (as transsexuals) - individuals who, by definition, do not conform to gender stereotypes - is proscribed by Title VII's proscription of discrimination on the basis of sex as interpreted by Price Waterhouse. As Judge Robertson offered in Schroer v. Billington, 577 F. Supp. 2d 293 (D.D.C. 2008), '(u)ltimately I do not think it matters for purposes of Title VII liability whether the Library withdrew its offer of employment because it perceived Schroer to be an insufficiently masculine man, an insufficiently feminine woman, or an inherently gender-nonconforming transsexual.'"
Parris v. Keystone Foods, 959 F. Supp. 2d 1291 (N.D. Ala. 2013), appeal dismissed, No. 13-14495-D (11th Cir. Dec. 26, 2013). Plaintiff, a transgender female, alleged that she was discharged from her job at a chicken processing facility because of her "gender non-conformity." The district court, citing Glenn v. Brumby, recognized that the plaintiff's claims were covered by Title VII's sex discrimination prohibitions, but granted summary judgment to the employer on the ground that plaintiff's comparator evidence and evidence of discriminatory remarks by coworkers did not show that her discharge was motivated by her gender identity as opposed to the legitimate non-discriminatory reason proffered by the employer.
Radtke v. Miscellaneous Drivers & Helpers Union Local #638 Health, Welfare, Eye, & Dental Fund, 867 F. Supp. 2d 1023 (D. Minn. 2012). Assessing a claim under ERISA for wrongful termination of benefits to a legal spouse of a transgender individual, the court quoted the language from Smith v. City of Salem that the Supreme Court's decision in Price Waterhouse "eviscerated" the "narrow view" of "sex" articulated in earlier Title VII cases, and observed: "An individual's sex includes many components, including chromosomal, anatomical, hormonal, and reproductive elements, some of which could be ambiguous or in conflict within an individual."
Schroer v. Billington, 577 F. Supp. 2d 293 (D.D.C. 2008). The plaintiff, a transgender female, was offered a position as a terrorism research analyst before she had changed her name and begun presenting herself as a woman. After the plaintiff notified the employer that she was under a doctor's care for gender dysphoria and would be undergoing gender transition, the employer withdrew the offer, explaining that the plaintiff would not be a "good fit." The court stated that since the employer refused to hire the plaintiff because she planned to change her anatomical sex by undergoing sex reassignment surgery, the employer's decision was literally discrimination "because of ... sex." The court analogized the plaintiff's claim to one in which an employee is fired because she converted from Christianity to Judaism, even though the employer does not discriminate against Christians or Jews generally but only "converts." Since such an action would be a clear case of discrimination "because of religion," Title VII's prohibition of discrimination "because of sex" must correspondingly encompass discrimination because of a change of sex. The court concluded that decisions rejecting claims by transgender individuals "represent an elevation of 'judge-supposed legislative intent over clear statutory text,'" which is "no longer a tenable approach to statutory construction."
Lopez v. River Oaks Imaging & Diagnostic Grp., Inc., 542 F. Supp. 2d 653 (S.D. Tex. 2008). The plaintiff alleged that she was subjected to sex discrimination when the employer rescinded its job offer after learning that she was transgender. Denying the employer's motion for summary judgment, the court concluded that the plaintiff's claim was actionable as sex discrimination under Title VII on the theory that she failed to comport with the employer's notions of how a male should look. A finder of fact might reasonably conclude that the employer's statement that the job offer was rescinded because she had "misrepresented" herself as female reflected animus against individuals who do not conform to gender stereotypes.
Mitchell v. Axcan Scandipharm, Inc., No. 05-243, 2006 WL 456173, at *2 (W.D. Pa. 2006). Plaintiff alleged sex-based harassment and termination in violation of Title VII after the employer learned that plaintiff had been diagnosed with gender identity disorder and plaintiff began presenting at work as a female after having presented as a male during the first four years of employment. Denying the employer's motion to dismiss, the court held that because the complaint "included facts showing that his failure to conform to sex stereotypes of how a man should look and behave was the catalyst behind defendant's actions, plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded claims of gender discrimination."
Tronetti v. TLC HealthNet Lakeshore Hosp., No. 03-cv-375E, 2003 WL 22757935, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. 2003). Relying on the reasoning in Schwenck v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187, 1201-02 (9th Cir. 2000), the court ruled that plaintiff's sex discrimination claims of hostile work environment harassment and discriminatory discharge arising from her transition and sex reassignment surgery were actionable under Title VII, based on factual allegations that she was discriminated against for "failing to act like a man." See also Doe v. United Consumer Fin. Servs., No. 1:01-cv-1112, 2001 WL 34350174, at *2-5 (N.D. Ohio 2001).
Creed v. Family Express Corp., 101 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 609, 2007 WL 2265630 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 3, 2007). The plaintiff, a transgender female, alleged facts permitting an inference that she was terminated because of gender stereotypes; specifically, that she was perceived by her employer to be a man while employed as a sales associate and was fired for refusing to present herself in a masculine way. See also Hunter v. United Parcel Serv., 697 F.3d 697 (8th Cir. 2012) (affirming summary judgment for the employer under both Title VII and state law, the court did not rule that such discrimination was not actionable under Title VII, but rather that there was no evidence that the prospective employer knew or perceived that plaintiff was transgender during the job interview, and therefore a prima facie case of sex discrimination was not established).
Miles v. New York Univ., 979 F. Supp. 248, 249-50 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). Noting that the phrase "on the basis of sex" in Title IX is interpreted in the same manner as similar language in Title VII, the court held that a transgender female student could proceed with a claim that she was sexually harassed "on the basis of sex" in violation of Title IX.
Wow. You can ctrl-c and ctrl-v with the best of them.
Trouble is, all your cases talk about sex discrimination, which is illegal by statute.
Discriminating against someone for their political views is not.
So still irrelevant because you haven’t proven anything (other than the aforementioned cut-n-paste skills).
-
Wow. You can ctrl-c and ctrl-v with the best of them.
Trouble is, all your cases talk about sex discrimination, which is illegal by statute.
Discriminating against someone for their political views is not.
So still irrelevant because you haven’t proven anything (other than the aforementioned cut-n-paste skills).
Nope. Not irrelevant. You just made my point. Transgenderism is not based on any facts or science whatsoever and yet it has been given legal protected status. It's not sex discrimination over something that does not biologically exist - the 'right' to 'identify' as a different 'gender'. Fantasies have no place in the courtroom.
-
Nope. Not irrelevant. You just made my point. Transgenderism is not based on any facts or science whatsoever and yet it has been given legal protected status. It's not sex discrimination over something that does not biologically exist - the 'right' to 'identify' as a different 'gender'. Fantasies have no place in the courtroom.
And the courts disagree with you. The basis for that disagreement is that the person in question has been discriminated against on the basis of an issue related to gender. Even if one accepts your “positionâ€, the person was still discriminated against because the discriminator saw them as denying or violating their “true†gender. That is gender-based discrimination and therefore actionable according to the courts.
Now that I’ve indulged you, explain why this is even remotely relevant to whether a privately owned business can discriminate against a customer on the basis of that customers stated political views?
Where is the statute that can even colorably be said to confer that protection?
-
Nope. Not irrelevant. You just made my point. Transgenderism is not based on any facts or science whatsoever and yet it has been given legal protected status. It's not sex discrimination over something that does not biologically exist - the 'right' to 'identify' as a different 'gender'. Fantasies have no place in the courtroom.
@Free Vulcan
He's like another liberal leaning member of the board...you can show them all the relevant facts all day long to show where they are wrong and they will still keep their eyes tightly shut refusing to look at what's right in front of them.
-
And the courts disagree with you. The basis for that disagreement is that the person in question has been discriminated against on the basis of an issue related to gender. Even if one accepts your “positionâ€, the person was still discriminated against because the discriminator saw them as denying or violating their “true†gender. That is gender-based discrimination and therefore actionable according to the courts.
Now that I’ve indulged you, explain why this is even remotely relevant to whether a privately owned business can discriminate against a customer on the basis of that customers stated political views?
Where is the statute that can even colorably be said to confer that protection?
Is it true that a jury can decide that a law that someone is accused of breaking can be found to be too burdensome to be followed and so the person essentially not guilty?
-
Is it true that a jury can decide that a law that someone is accused of breaking can be found to be too burdensome to be followed and so the person essentially not guilty?
Do you mean “does it in fact happen†or do you mean “is it permissible�
-
Do you mean “does it in fact happen†or do you mean “is it permissible�
"The law is not just and it should be nullified."
-
"The law is not just and it should be nullified."
It happens. It’s a two-edged sword.
And it doesn’t permit the jury to categorically state that the law is invalid. That is a matter of law, not fact, and juries are for finding facts.
And it generally only works in criminal matters. If a jury in a civil case tries to pull a fast one, the injured party can appeal on the basis that no rational jury could have reached the conclusions the nullifying jury reached.
-
It happens. It’s a two-edged sword.
And it doesn’t permit the jury to categorically state that the law is invalid. That is a matter of law, not fact, and juries are for finding facts.
And it generally only works in criminal matters. If a jury in a civil case tries to pull a fast one, the injured party can appeal on the basis that no rational jury could have reached the conclusions the nullifying jury reached.
I don't think there was a Jury, either.
Something must be wrong: Today appears to be "Agree with @Oceander" day.... :shrug:
-
I don't think there was a Jury, either.
Something must be wrong: Today appears to be "Agree with @Oceander" day.... :shrug:
Sorry bout that!
-
Sorry bout that!
Meh, I'll live with it, as I have many times in the past, it's why I always value your posts whether I agree or not. Fact is, I agreed with you from the start, although possibly not for the same reasons. I don't think the bar should be punished for denying service to somebody. Period. The rest of the arguments going on in this thread are just window dressing.
-
And it doesn’t permit the jury to categorically state that the law is invalid. That is a matter of law, not fact, and juries are for finding facts.
@Oceander
Not just facts, though that's what judges would like you to think.
In the Pennsylvania Constitution, Article I, Section 7, it states: "... and in all indictments for libels the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court, as in other cases." [Bolding is mine.]
Note that it says that the jury is not just to determine the facts, but also the law. And although this section is obviously directed primarily at the Zenger case, those last words note that it doesn't just apply to libel.
This is why I've never been able to sit on a jury. When, during voir dire, we're asked whether we'll follow the judge's directions, and the judge's directions are given as incomplete, I write on the questionnaire that I will follow the Pennsylvania Constitution. Judges (in PA, at least) don't like having to follow the law.
-
I don't think there was a Jury, either.
Something must be wrong: Today appears to be "Agree with @Oceander" day.... :shrug:
The sun will come up Tomorrow. Everything will be back to normal. We hope.
-
@Oceander
Not just facts, though that's what judges would like you to think.
In the Pennsylvania Constitution, Article I, Section 7, it states: "... and in all indictments for libels the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court, as in other cases." [Bolding is mine.]
Note that it says that the jury is not just to determine the facts, but also the law. And although this section is obviously directed primarily at the Zenger case, those last words note that it doesn't just apply to libel.
This is why I've never been able to sit on a jury. When, during voir dire, we're asked whether we'll follow the judge's directions, and the judge's directions are given as incomplete, I write on the questionnaire that I will follow the Pennsylvania Constitution. Judges (in PA, at least) don't like having to follow the law.
If you can’t sit on a jury, then that’s because you aren’t following the Pennsylvania Constitution, because it expressly states that you must follow the court’s - i.e., the judge’s - direction.
And that has no bearing in federal juries whatsoever.
And no, as a matter of common law jurisprudence, juries do not decide what the law is. You might want to read up on that before deciding that jury nullification is hunky-dory.
On the other hand, perhaps it’s just best if you stayed off juries, period.
-
Something must be wrong: Today appears to be "Agree with @Oceander" day.... :shrug:
@Cyber Liberty
It's probably just a setup.
-
@Cyber Liberty
It's probably just a setup.
If it was that other lawyer guy I'd be inclined to agree, but @Oceander and I actually do agree on things, for the most part. But don't get him mad at you....
-
I am an oldtimer who can remember when it was terrible manners to ever wear a hat (cap) indoors at any time.
Not that it has anything to do with this.........
-
I am an oldtimer who can remember when it was terrible manners to ever wear a hat (cap) indoors at any time.
Not that it has anything to do with this.........
Same here. I had a brother-in-Las that constantly wore a cap, and when I had him over for a Thanksgiving dinner once, I told him, "Hey! We're not Jewish! Take your effing hat off for the 'thank-you to our Lord' dinner! It's rude."
-
And the courts disagree with you. The basis for that disagreement is that the person in question has been discriminated against on the basis of an issue related to gender. Even if one accepts your “positionâ€, the person was still discriminated against because the discriminator saw them as denying or violating their “true†gender. That is gender-based discrimination and therefore actionable according to the courts.
Now that I’ve indulged you, explain why this is even remotely relevant to whether a privately owned business can discriminate against a customer on the basis of that customers stated political views?
Where is the statute that can even colorably be said to confer that protection?
And that 'discrimination' is based on a psychological fantasy based on no science, logic, or fact. It's like saying I identify as black, and by walking around in blackface in a fro wig speaking ebonics that, if my employer fires me for doing that they are racially discriminating against me.
Of course that's not a 'protected' class determined by the govt. Let's throw out the fact that there's nothing in the law that states transgenderism is protected. Sex as defined was intended to mean biological and not some notion of 'identity'. Sexual or gender 'identity' is a strictly a judicial fiction created by the courts.
By honoring one 'identity' and not the other, you have applied selective equality. By protecting a complete fantasy and not protecting poltical beliefs, you have created more selective equality, all purportedly under the guise of the 14th.
So how exactly do you justify selective equality under an amendment that supposedly is the very opposite of that?
If one person can identify, than all should should be able to identify as they please and have it legally supported in the law and courts. And if we we honor protecting imaginary identity, we definitely ought to protect political beliefs.
-
Same here. I had a brother-in-Las that constantly wore a cap, and when I had him over for a Thanksgiving dinner once, I told him, "Hey! We're not Jewish! Take your effing hat off for the 'thank-you to our Lord' dinner! It's rude."
Is he "Helmet Headed"? :shrug:
-
Is he "Helmet Headed"? :shrug:
No, just "low-rent." He didn't hang around for long. Not my sister's best catch.
-
Now that I’ve indulged you, explain why this is even remotely relevant to whether a privately owned business can discriminate against a customer on the basis of that customers stated political views?
@Oceander
In a REAL "free country",any PRIVATELY OWNED business owner has an unquestioned RIGHT to discriminate against ANYONE AND EVERYONE he wants to discriminate against for any reason at all.
It is the GOVERNMENT that can't discriminate.
-
No, just "low-rent." He didn't hang around for long. Not my sister's best catch.
Say no more. Seen that up close too.
-
@Free Vulcan
He's like another liberal leaning member of the board...you can show them all the relevant facts all day long to show where they are wrong and they will still keep their eyes tightly shut refusing to look at what's right in front of them.
Yep. I'd be damned before I'd trust an oil rig, a 10 million dollar well, and the lives of the men and/or women on it, not to mention the potential for other damage to someone who can't figure out their own plumbing. Just don't even cross the cattleguard.
-
Yep. I'd be damned before I'd trust an oil rig, a 10 million dollar well, and the lives of the men and/or women on it, not to mention the potential for other damage to someone who can't figure out their own plumbing. Just don't even cross the cattleguard.
@Smokin Joe for those type of people a cattle guard isn't just effective on keeping the animals out ;)
-
I am an oldtimer who can remember when it was terrible manners to ever wear a hat (cap) indoors at any time.
Not that it has anything to do with this.........
Even Bum Phillips wouldn't wear a hat in Astrodome, from what I remember.
-
@Smokin Joe for those type of people a cattle guard isn't just effective on keeping the animals out ;)
Maybe not, but a half-dozen pissed off roughnecks can git 'er done. :whistle:
-
Maybe not, but a half-dozen pissed off roughnecks can git 'er done. :whistle:
No doubt about that.