Religious freedom, political correctness, and the culture of outrage

[grumbler]

I am not trying to equate anything.  The law requires that people not disriminate against others on enumerated grounds.  You know, the thing this thread is about.

Actually, the US law doesn't do that.  Can't speak for the Canadian law.

Anyone can discriminate against anyone else, in the US, perfectly legally.  Public accommodations may not do so under some circumstances, but they are not "people."

[grumbler]

The Constitution requires that the government not discriminate.

The government though, has in turn passed legislation which prohibits private people from discriminating when providing goods and services.  In Alberta it's the Alberta HUman Rights Act, and it definitely applies in a  transaction between a shopkeeper and customer.

Do you not have similar laws in the US?  Is it permissible to open a store and have a "No Blacks or Irish" policy?

In the US it applies to the public accommodation (i.e. the store), not the individual.  Obviously, the storekeeper is answerable to the store, so the effect (in cases of public accommodations only) is the same.  If I am operating a booth at a flea market, I can discriminate as I please (though the operator of the flea market cannot).

[OttoVonBismarck]

Individuals cannot discriminate when they are basically acting as an authority within a public accommodation. This would include the owner/sole proprietor or one of his employees. It is actually individualized in that aspects of this can result in criminal charges. If you kick someone's assistance animal out of a store you can actually be charged criminally, it's not just a civil fine.

[crazy canuck]

I am not trying to equate anything.  The law requires that people not disriminate against others on enumerated grounds.  You know, the thing this thread is about.

Actually, the US law doesn't do that.  Can't speak for the Canadian law.

Anyone can discriminate against anyone else, in the US, perfectly legally.  Public accommodations may not do so under some circumstances, but they are not "people."

You missed the part where I stated "on enumerated grounds".   

[OttoVonBismarck]

Also people is a murky term, a sole proprietorship restaurant cannot discriminate based on race. And in many legal aspects the proprietor and the business/accommodation are one and the same in that situation.

[crazy canuck]

In the US it applies to the public accommodation (i.e. the store), not the individual.  Obviously, the storekeeper is answerable to the store, so the effect (in cases of public accommodations only) is the same.  If I am operating a booth at a flea market, I can discriminate as I please (though the operator of the flea market cannot).

That sounded wrong so I looked it up.  Sure enough it is wrong. Title II section 203 expressly states that obligations also extend to individuals.  Further section 204 provides a remedy if "any person" violates the obligations in section 203.

[Barrister]

I am not trying to equate anything.  The law requires that people not disriminate against others on enumerated grounds.  You know, the thing this thread is about.

Actually, the US law doesn't do that.  Can't speak for the Canadian law.

Anyone can discriminate against anyone else, in the US, perfectly legally.  Public accommodations may not do so under some circumstances, but they are not "people."

You missed the part where I stated "on enumerated grounds".   

No, "people" can discriminate.  I'm free to hate you because you're tall, to not invite chinese people to my house, or to not date someone because of their religion.

It's only when you deal with the "provision of goods, services, accommodation or facilities customarily available to the public" that Human Rights legislation kicks in.

[crazy canuck]

I am not trying to equate anything.  The law requires that people not disriminate against others on enumerated grounds.  You know, the thing this thread is about.

Actually, the US law doesn't do that.  Can't speak for the Canadian law.

Anyone can discriminate against anyone else, in the US, perfectly legally.  Public accommodations may not do so under some circumstances, but they are not "people."

You missed the part where I stated "on enumerated grounds".   

No, "people" can discriminate.  I'm free to hate you because you're tall, to not invite chinese people to my house, or to not date someone because of their religion.

It's only when you deal with the "provision of goods, services, accommodation or facilities customarily available to the public" that Human Rights legislation kicks in.

Do you not understand what "on enumerated grounds" means?

[CountDeMoney]

I discriminated against people all the time as a bail bondsman.  That was reason #475 why it was so cool.

[Barrister]

I am not trying to equate anything.  The law requires that people not disriminate against others on enumerated grounds.  You know, the thing this thread is about.

Actually, the US law doesn't do that.  Can't speak for the Canadian law.

Anyone can discriminate against anyone else, in the US, perfectly legally.  Public accommodations may not do so under some circumstances, but they are not "people."

You missed the part where I stated "on enumerated grounds".   

No, "people" can discriminate.  I'm free to hate you because you're tall, to not invite chinese people to my house, or to not date someone because of their religion.

It's only when you deal with the "provision of goods, services, accommodation or facilities customarily available to the public" that Human Rights legislation kicks in.

Do you not understand what "on enumerated grounds" means?

There are two different aspects - who does the law apply to, and on what basis are you prohibited from discriminating.  The "enumerated grounds" deals with the areas you can not discriminate on - the usual sex, race, religion, etc.  However all of that only applies to providing goods and services to the public.

[The Brain]

At least BB is better than those South American prosecutors: "GAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!!!"

[Barrister]

At least BB is better than those South American prosecutors: "GAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!!!"

[crazy canuck]

There are two different aspects - who does the law apply to, and on what basis are you prohibited from discriminating.  The "enumerated grounds" deals with the areas you can not discriminate on - the usual sex, race, religion, etc.  However all of that only applies to providing goods and services to the public.

You are wrong about it only applying goods and services to the public.  prohibitions on discrimination enumerated ( ) in Human Rights codes in this country and in the Civil Rights codes in the US also deal with employment.

If you want to think I meant that all discrimination was illegal and not just the disrimination enumerated in the Code then all I can say is that is typical for Languish.

[Barrister]

There are two different aspects - who does the law apply to, and on what basis are you prohibited from discriminating.  The "enumerated grounds" deals with the areas you can not discriminate on - the usual sex, race, religion, etc.  However all of that only applies to providing goods and services to the public.

You are wrong about it only applying goods and services to the public.  prohibitions on discrimination enumerated ( ) in Human Rights codes in this country and in the Civil Rights codes in the US also deal with employment.

If you want to think I meant that all discrimination was illegal and not just the disrimination enumerated in the Code then all I can say is that is typical for Languish.

That seemed to be what you were saying, but thanks for clarifying.

[Siege]

Everybody discriminates against me here in Languish.

You all make fun of my ethnicity, national origin, religion, political beliefs, accent, food preference, beer preference, female appearance preference, education level, conspiracy theory preference, etc, etc, etc.