Judge rules New York City bar can refuse service to Trump supporter wearing MAGA hat

[Free Vulcan]

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.

[Oceander]

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 “position”, 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?

[txradioguy]

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.

[RoosGirl]

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 “position”, 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?

[Oceander]

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”?

[Cyber Liberty]

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."

[Oceander]

"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. 

[Cyber Liberty]

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....

[Oceander]

I don't think there was a Jury, either.

Something must be wrong:  Today appears to be "Agree with @Oceander" day....

Sorry bout that!

[Cyber Liberty]

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.

[Suppressed]

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.

[WingNot]

I don't think there was a Jury, either.

Something must be wrong:  Today appears to be "Agree with @Oceander" day....

The sun will come up Tomorrow.  Everything will be back to normal.  We hope.

[Oceander]

@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. 

[sneakypete]

Something must be wrong:  Today appears to be "Agree with @Oceander" day....

@Cyber Liberty

It's probably just a setup.

[Cyber Liberty]

@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....

[catfish1957]

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.........

[Cyber Liberty]

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."

[Free Vulcan]

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 “position”, 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.

[WingNot]

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"?    

[Cyber Liberty]

Is he  "Helmet Headed"?   

No, just "low-rent."  He didn't hang around for long.  Not my sister's best catch.

[sneakypete]

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.

[WingNot]

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.

[Smokin Joe]

@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.

[txradioguy]

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 ;)

[GrouchoTex]

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.