- Joined
- Nov 11, 2011
- Messages
- 12,895
- Reaction score
- 2,909
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
There was nothing here to indicate that they were making a scene or disturbing the peace. Even the restaurant doesn't claim that....so sorry....fail.
You don't understand the 14th amendment or it's purpose. It has nothing to do with a business refusing service.
There was nothing here to indicate that they were making a scene or disturbing the peace. Even the restaurant doesn't claim that....so sorry....fail.
What is a "Gyn free zone"?
LOL....now that's funny. I got A's in both Conlaw 1 and Conlaw 2 in law school......I think you need to educate yourself a little before you try to school others.
Yeah, Hawthorne's gone. Arlington Park's still here though. It's owned by Churchill Downs. Who knew?
No, it really doesn't. being that the restaurant, or any business, isn't interested in pursuing truth in such incidents, as opposed to handling them in a manner that will create the least friction among the public.
Is that why the corporate office ignored their complaints for weeks? To create the least friction?
No, they likely ignored it because they saw the complaint as insignificant at the time.
Clearly there is a difference in the potential damage one customer complaint can create and and if that complaint goes viral and gains national attention.
Was that something you were honestly confused about?
25 loyal customers complain, accuse their franchise of racism, and they see it as insignificant?
At what point does a long line of "innocent" mistakes begin to look like something more than innocent mistakes in your world?
actually one guy filed a complaint according to the article and he didn't state if he reported it as an incident of discrimination or not. And yes, such is rather insignificant considering the number of people they serve everyday
you are aware one of the principle owners is an African-american community leader?
Son, the 14th amendment does not prohibit a business from refusing to serve a customer. You need to get your tuition money back.
LOL....dude....why do you think we don't have "White only lunch counters" any more? You might wanna see if the seniors center offer a basic conlaw course. At least something that will give you enough understanding to come to sites like this.
A good place to start would be to start looking at some of these recent florist cases where florists are refusing to provide service to gay weddings. They are being struck down right and left based on equal protection...oh...but ...oops....guess the courts are wrong and you are right, correct? DOH!
Yes, they were causing a scene, it offended patrons and they were asked to leave, end of story. Besides, there are plenty of rib and fried chicken joints they could go to.
christalmighty..and you're a lawyer?
You need to get your tuition money back...dude... :roll:
First of all the case you're referring was regarding photographers, not florists...second, it was New Mexico and the decision was from the supreme court of new mexico...and had nothing to do with the 14th amendment.
Here's the ruling, counselor LMAO.
When Elane Photography refused to work for Vanessa Willock at her same-sex wedding, the Court said, it violated the New Mexico Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination in public accommodations based upon sexual orientation.
"First, we conclude that a commercial photography business that offers its services to the public, thereby increasing its visibility to potential clients, is subject to the antidiscrimination provisions of the NMHRA and must serve same-sex couples on the same basis that it serves opposite-sex couples," Justice Edward Chavez wrote for the majority.
arguably, it violates the photographer's rights of freedom of religion as they don't believe in same sex marriages.
"Elane Photography is not protected by their rights to freely exercise their religion, which are protected by the U.S. Constitution, because the NMHRA is a "neutral law of general applicability," the Court said."
It has nothing to do with the 14th amendment. That argument was never made..because they are REAL lawyers and know the judge would laugh them out of court..and maybe sanction them for wasting the court's time... Mr. "constitutional scholar" LMFAO.
Then there's numerous disabled ex soldiers who have been kicked out of restaurants with their service dogs.
Here's one;
Virginia restaurant refuses service to wounded vet with service dog | Fox News
another one;
Restaurant refuses Iraq War Veteran and service dog
etc..etc...
You don't understand the purpose of the 14th amendment and I see what you're trying to do here. You're trying to be "clever" and purposely cloud the issue by trying to make it a civil rights issue about negroes.
Any business can refuse to serve anyone at any time on an individual basis.
Drunks can be refused service in a bar...or anywhere they go because they're....drunk...
Disorderly people can be refused service ANYWHERE, ANY TIME if the owner chooses...which is what we're talking about here...counselor
EDIT
I take that back...You clearly can't be a lawyer..no real lawyer addresses people as "dude"..and no real lawyer ends a sentence with "doh"..
You are just plain and simply wrong and out of touch with reality. There are numerous florist cases as well as photography cases. The scary thing about people such as yourself is that you honestly seem to believe that you know what you are talking about when you very clearly don't. The foundation of the civil rights legislation is rooted in equal protection and the Constitutional guarantees that require states to ensure that those rights are protected...be it through governmental action or governmental regulation of private businesses. But...I don't know why I'm wasting my time trying to educate you on the subject because you seem to believe that you already know the answers and I will never be able to convince someone of your ilk that you are simply wrong. Sorry dude.
You're the expert, yet you bring no support. You're being obtuse. Let me ask you..you claim to have gone through law school..did you take/pass the bar and are you practicing, dude?
I made it plain what I was saying. Businesses can refuse service for almost any reason (or no reason) with exceptions. . We aren't talking civil rights law and you know it, counselor
The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."
The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which precludes discrimination by businesses on the basis of disability.
In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service. For example, in a recent case, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their "colors," or patches, which signified club membership. The court held that the refusal of service was not based on the club members' unconventional dress, but was to protect a legitimate business interest in preventing fights between rival club members.
Those exceptions at the federal level are race, religion, gender, national origin, and disability/perceived disability (refusing service based on sexual preference does not violate any federal law).
Some states have laws covering all these categories plus sexual preference, and some also include transgendered persons and transsexuals..
There is a narrow exception allowing legalized discrimination when the business has a bona fide business-related reason.
ok dude?
you have ignored that some of that party of 25 allege they were discriminated against because of their color/race/ethnicity
You're the expert, yet you bring no support. You're being obtuse. Let me ask you..you claim to have gone through law school..did you take/pass the bar and are you practicing, dude?
I made it plain what I was saying. Businesses can refuse service for almost any reason (or no reason) with exceptions. . We aren't talking civil rights law and you know it, counselor
The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."
The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which precludes discrimination by businesses on the basis of disability.
In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service. For example, in a recent case, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their "colors," or patches, which signified club membership. The court held that the refusal of service was not based on the club members' unconventional dress, but was to protect a legitimate business interest in preventing fights between rival club members.
Those exceptions at the federal level are race, religion, gender, national origin, and disability/perceived disability (refusing service based on sexual preference does not violate any federal law).
Some states have laws covering all these categories plus sexual preference, and some also include transgendered persons and transsexuals..
There is a narrow exception allowing legalized discrimination when the business has a bona fide business-related reason.
ok dude?
you have ignored that some of that party of 25 allege they were discriminated against because of their color/race/ethnicity
Bingo. For a minute I thought I was the only one seeing that he wasn't making the connection.
That is a stereotypical kind of reaction as to "angry black mobs". I would assume that most African Americans would not react with near rioting after being asked to leave. Especially not on a celebratory evening.
Well....at least you have some of the lingo correct but you are failing to make the connections. Oh and yes....I have been a practicing lawyer for almost 20 years.
Not here for this racism.
:shock:
I missed that post, but I went back and found it:
Yeah, go back to Stormfront.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?