"the normal bounds of society to make your other customers/potential customers uncomfortable,"

I get your point with regard to affirmative action Dahs. IF I'm not mistaken there HAS been lawsuits brought against it on that very basis. So far, I guess, no Judge with enough authority has found any non-black plaintiff "damaged" enough I guess. Because, if so, I'd think a non-black person would be able to sue about being "denied" because of some limit or quota specifically excluding them for a black person. But, I'm no lawyer. And even If I was, there's Law and the letter and they differ.

But, I've digressed.
Please explain to me just WTF your statement I quoted (above) means??

What ARE "normal bounds" and please define "uncomfortable" to me under Law?
And you didn't address my point regarding the "private (retail) business" and the proprietors OWN rights to just decide someone is a JERK, or by your phrase "out of bounds" and most importantly WHO gets to enforce this Governmental intrusion into inter-personal contact and relationships in the public sphere?

Even when we enact a Law to try and exclude skin tone/color from the public inter-personal discourse it just begats a myriad of "slopes". One of which is your very point I guess.

Can I accept that affirmative action is (basic) reverse discrimination, call it necessary, and STILL support the anti-discrimination Laws?
I've accepted bigger compromises than that, I suppose.

Affirmative action has been sanctioned by the Supreme Court.

it could be up for grabs with a 6/3 conservative bench and go the way of the voting rights act.

I guess defining uncomfortable under the law may be similar to defining pornography - you know it when you see it.

The point is that you want some kind of protection for business owners to take action against things that aren't actively undermining the business but still clearly drive away customers and, you might say, passively undermine the business. For example... I said the law I'd like to see would prevent discrimination against a customer because you somehow know he's a member of the Aryan Brotherhood. BUT, I do think you should be able to throw him out if he walks into your store wearing a swastika arm band and a white power T-shirt. Even without an optimal legal definition I think we can agree that by doing that he's violated some accepted cultural boundaries and is likely to be harming your business, even if he's behaving perfectly.

I think you do get my point. When we try to put rules on when it is and isn't ok to treat people differently we run into all kinds of grey areas and logical inconsistencies. A better policy for me is to actually require that EVERYONE be treated equally until they actively disqualify themselves. I think this is what you would call being a jerk, but it's not enough to just know that Tom's a jerk. Tom has to be a jerk in your store. Then you can throw him out. And if every black guy in town has been a 'jerk' in Gene's pharmacy, I think that's another 'know it when you see it' scenario. The reality is that most of the time action is only taken under anti-discrimination laws when there are numerous instances.

Posted by dahsdebater on 9/21/2020 2:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dino27 on 9/21/2020 2:24:00 PM (view original):
So you are changing the subject to affirmative action? argument clinic guy ?

No. The point is that I don't really think most Americans agree that we should treat everyone the same way. Most Americans will say that they think we should treat everyone the same way, but in practice they support lots of things that undermine the credibility of the statement.

Tying back in to the question of the responsibility of businesses to serve clients, I would personally say the only clearly-delineated way of handling things is to require all people to be served until they disqualify themselves by their own actions within the place of business. That means you have to serve the gay, trans, safe spacers, anti-vaxxers, and even white supremacists. However, if any of those groups do things outside the normal bounds of society to make your other customers/potential customers uncomfortable, you could give them the boot. That's where I think protected categories should come into play. You can't boot people for kissing while being, say, interracial or same-sex if you don't do the same for single-race heterosexual couples. But I'd protect absolutely everything when it comes to getting in the door.

Practically, you can't really discriminate against a white supremacist unless they demonstrated it in some way. But if someone is wearing a swastika, I think that alone gives me, as a business owner, the right to refuse them service.

The business owner can throw someone out that he deems is acting like a jerk.

you can’t toss someone out for wearing a maga hat the swastaka arm band probably.

certainly if he walked into Jewish gift store for example.

you can’t always avoid gray areas in an essentially free society.

it happens.

", but it's not enough to just know that Tom's a jerk. Tom has to be a jerk in your store. Then you can throw him out"

Exactly! And I agree with that.

Example:
Theoretical customer comes into retail store, proprietor doesn't know him from adam (or eve!)....... said customer exhibits NOTHING unusual in appearance, in fact is of the predominant racial make-up for the region, BUT said customer is an opinionated big mouth who likes to loudly spout off all his supposed knowledge on whatever topic seems appropriate SUCH THAT said proprietor makes the determination that HE doesn't like said customer, that in fact HE believes this customer to be a 1st class opinionated jerkface and (loses tolerance) which results in said proprietor threatening said customer with physical removal IF customer doesn't comply with proprietors RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE, which is appropriately being and on display within said bizness.

In that particular example, with which I have had a tad of experience (hahaha) I certainly expect the business owners RIGHT(S) to take preference over the customers because the business, though doing business in the public sphere, is still PRIVATE (property) and NO customer is willy-nilly guaranteed entrance. Though denial of entry can NOT be arbitrary and capricious on a prohibited basis.

Do we agree?

That's an interesting point Dino!!
I'm an idealist by nature.
AND I wear my heart on my sleeve.
(I expect I'd be a poor poker player!!)
I can be...........shall we say volatile.
AND, on MY PROPERTY you (must) abide my rules.

So........... you bring up the MAGA hat.
I'm very glad I'm no longer in business.
I'm quite certain I wouldn't have denied entrance to a MAGA hat wearer BUT I CAN GUARANTEE you that they'd be asked (Firmly!!) to remove the hat while within my business. And, people being as people are, that would have undoubtedly led to some rather interesting exchanges.
I'd probably end up in jail as a result of one of them, what with their being those stairs and all.............

I'd have never grown into this mellow liberal feller I am now.
some might say, too bad.............

if you're gonna ask the MAGA hat wearer to remove his hat while in your place of business, do you do the same for the person wearing the BLM hat?? If not, that is, to me, discrimination. You're allowing one person to wear a hat but not another solely based on what the hat says. What is the both act respectable?

Ya know I’ve never thought about the possibility of throwing someone out of a store because they look like a jerk or troublemaker and it isn’t based on a prohibited animus such as race or ethnicity etc.
that would be capricious and I’m sure not legal anywhere but tomorrow or Wednesday I’m going to call aclu.

i used to call an expert from time to time when there would be a discussion or I had a curiosity about something and I wanted an answer from the horses mouth.

i would call professors at universities.....paleontologists......astronomers.......
historians etc.
it was fun.

Posted by wylie715 on 9/21/2020 4:10:00 PM (view original):
if you're gonna ask the MAGA hat wearer to remove his hat while in your place of business, do you do the same for the person wearing the BLM hat?? If not, that is, to me, discrimination. You're allowing one person to wear a hat but not another solely based on what the hat says. What is the both act respectable?

I disagree. I think a business owner has the justification to ask either to leave or not use their services.

Sure times have changed, but at 22 (over 3 decades ago) I was "escorted" out of a bar/club simply for being white. I went to see a local rapper perform, and was honestly told the reason I was unwelcome. I didn't scream racism and/or file some BS lawsuit; I simply accepted it as a business owner not wanting my business, as I think he was entitled to.

Posted by all3 on 9/21/2020 4:34:00 PM (view original):
Sure times have changed, but at 22 (over 3 decades ago) I was "escorted" out of a bar/club simply for being white. I went to see a local rapper perform, and was honestly told the reason I was unwelcome. I didn't scream racism and/or file some BS lawsuit; I simply accepted it as a business owner not wanting my business, as I think he was entitled to.

All3 in the couch starts to explain the origin of his feces.

Posted by tangplay on 9/21/2020 4:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 9/21/2020 4:10:00 PM (view original):
if you're gonna ask the MAGA hat wearer to remove his hat while in your place of business, do you do the same for the person wearing the BLM hat?? If not, that is, to me, discrimination. You're allowing one person to wear a hat but not another solely based on what the hat says. What is the both act respectable?

I disagree. I think a business owner has the justification to ask either to leave or not use their services.

Say I own a restaurant. I really don't like Wangler jeans...much prefer Levis. Is it okay if I say I won't serve people wearing Wranglers? If not why is that any different than saying I won't serve people wearing MAGA hats, but will serve people wearing BLM hats? Or vice versa. To me, it is no different.

Actually in all seriousness what all3 related bugged me. First of all it disturbs me to think that all3 was once a beastie boy with a turned around baseball cap.

it was very wrong for the owner or mgr. to have done what he did. Maybe he thought you could get injured or maybe it was racist.

but you should have made a big deal about it.
it obviously affected you as it would me.
i would have complained to someone or more than someone because it is wrong and counterproductive.

however mad I would be I would not have taken it personally.
maybe you did not and if not maybe because you already knew of white establishments that did the same and that was ok with you.

racism is wrong.
i hope your beliefs did not evolve from that or similar incidents.

Posted by wylie715 on 9/21/2020 7:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 9/21/2020 4:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 9/21/2020 4:10:00 PM (view original):
if you're gonna ask the MAGA hat wearer to remove his hat while in your place of business, do you do the same for the person wearing the BLM hat?? If not, that is, to me, discrimination. You're allowing one person to wear a hat but not another solely based on what the hat says. What is the both act respectable?

I disagree. I think a business owner has the justification to ask either to leave or not use their services.

Say I own a restaurant. I really don't like Wangler jeans...much prefer Levis. Is it okay if I say I won't serve people wearing Wranglers? If not why is that any different than saying I won't serve people wearing MAGA hats, but will serve people wearing BLM hats? Or vice versa. To me, it is no different.

You can’t refuse to serve people because of simple political expression that is not recognized as hate speech and or likely to incite violence like I hate irish sheenies or trump supporters should be murdered.

just think about shouting fire in the packed theater to cause a stampede.