Dershowitz Takes Issue With Farmers' Market After Pierogi Denial

Nice try, but that applies to employment law not public accommodation

How different are they?

So you want public accommodation businesses to be able to turn away democrats or republicans?

"I'm not denying you service because you are gay, I'm denying you service because you support gay rights"

Sounds good to me.
 
[THIS IS AN OLD POST FROM A DIFFERENT BOARD, BUT THE OPINION STILL APPLIES.]

Here are my thoughts...

Three generations ago there were...

1. Areas of the country where black people couldn't rent a room for the night when traveling.

2. Areas of the country where black people traveling couldn't buy gas from white station owners.

3. Areas of the country where blacks couldn't eat unless they could find a black's only food establishment.

4. And we had systematic discrimination against minorities in terms of how government functioned, such as segregated mass transit (buses, trains, etc.), schools, law enforcement, etc.

5. Even segregation in the military.
.
.
.
In those days such things were commonplace, but society has changed in the last 60 years and changed a lot. There has been a "corporatisation" where you can't spit without finding a company gas station, movie theater, restaurateur, motel/hotel, etc. Just because we repeal Public Accommodation laws, doesn't mean that things are going to go back to the way they were 3-generations ago. And there are a number of factors that impact this:

1. We are much more mobile society. People routinely travel in a manner unprecedented then both temporary and "permanent" relocation's out of the area they grew up in.

2. We are more informed society and information is much more available today about how a business conducts itself in terms of taking care of customers we have Criag's list, Angie's list, Yelp, and a plethora of hotel, restaurant, and review sites for any type of business and it's not just the discriminated against who would choose not to associate with such a business. In addition I fully support the ability of a community having access to information about businesses and their discriminatory practices. News media (TV, Radio, Newspapers) and social media (email, texting, Facebook, etc.), and complaints filed with business licensing entities. People should all be free to report and have customers report on discriminatory business practices so that the public can make an informed choice.

3. The "corporatisation" of businesses in America watches the bottom line and having your "brand name" associated with and appearing to condone discrimination has a negative impact on the bottom line. With corporate owned "shops" and franchises who still fall under policies of the home office means that these businesses will not allow or condone what was going on prior to the 60's.

**************************************************

So the question becomes the balance of the rights of the private business owner to manage their private property according to their desires as compared to the desires of others to have access to that private business. With the widespread discrimination 3-generations ago there may have been justification to say the rights of the property owner needed to be usurped - on a temporary basis - but those times are pretty much gone. The balance was greatly tilted toward discrimination. I find my position aligned with what were called Goldwater Conservatives quite a bit because Goldwater had the testicular fortitude to stand up against Federal Public Accommodation laws, not because he was a bigot or a racist - but because he believed in limited government.

But in general the widespread issues from 60 years ago have been resolved by fundamental shifts in society. Sure there will be isolated instances, that's the price of liberty and dealing with your own issues. A burger joint says - I won't serve a black? OK, walk across the street to Applebee's. A photographer doesn't want to shoot a same-sex wedding? OK, Google or Angie's List another photographer in the area.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all FOR keeping Public Accommodation laws in force in terms of the functioning of government and who the government can do business with, but that is because citizens have an inherent right to equal treatment by the government. There is no such right to equal treatment by other private individuals.

WW

"In those days such things were commonplace, but society has changed in the last 60 years and changed a lot. There has been a "corporatisation" where you can't spit without finding a company gas station, movie theater, restaurateur, motel/hotel, etc. Just because we repeal Public Accommodation laws, doesn't mean that things are going to go back to the way they were 3-generations ago. And there are a number of factors that impact this:"

In the event that Trump nation gets its wish and brings back segregation, you can bet that corporations will be the first people that Trump's henchmen will try and pressure into enforcing it.

And don't even bother to pretend that isn't what the Trump cult wants. They're openly advocating it now.

The idea that the US is a more mobile society is also a myth. In fact, few Americans travel, outside a vacation to their nearest beach, lake or mountain resort every year, and a trip to Disney World and Vegas.
 
Your hypocricy is obvious.

We don't hear folks like you complaining when a baker refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. In fact, you got a couple of years worth of gay bashing over that one.

And we don't hear folks like you condemning Trump's attacks on law firms, Firms that had people your fuhrer doesn't like as clients.

Yes, the hypocrisy is obvious, although not unpredictable.

I've been clear on that repeatedly if you bothered to read my posts. Those bakers NEVER deny non custom point of sale goods to ANYONE. They only request to not provide contacted services for the event in question.

This situation is an ACTUAL public accommodation, and I support those laws.

You are the one picking and choosing, fucktard.
 
it's already the law in NY, and seems to work just fine here.
Doesn't look like it:

The New York State Human Rights Law prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation on the basis of several “protected characteristics.” It is against the law for someone to discriminate against you because of one of these protected characteristics:

  • Creed/Religion
  • Disability
  • Gender Identity or Expression
  • Marital Status
  • Military Status
  • National Origin
  • Race/Color
  • Sex
  • Sexual Orientation
 
Doesn't look like it:

The New York State Human Rights Law prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation on the basis of several “protected characteristics.” It is against the law for someone to discriminate against you because of one of these protected characteristics:

  • Creed/Religion
  • Disability
  • Gender Identity or Expression
  • Marital Status
  • Military Status
  • National Origin
  • Race/Color
  • Sex
  • Sexual Orientation

Employment law covers political views, and I doubt someone would win a PA fight.

Why shouldn't PA laws cover political affiliation?
 
Employment law covers political views, and I doubt someone would win a PA fight.

Why shouldn't PA laws cover political affiliation?
Doesn't look like it covers political views either.
 
In NY it covers political affiliation.

No the NY Human Rights Law pertaining to Public Accommodation laws DOE NOT list political affiliantion.

WW
.
.
.
.
.
1754069683764.webp
 
Doesn't look like it:

The New York State Human Rights Law prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation on the basis of several “protected characteristics.” It is against the law for someone to discriminate against you because of one of these protected characteristics:

  • Creed/Religion
  • Disability
  • Gender Identity or Expression
  • Marital Status
  • Military Status
  • National Origin
  • Race/Color
  • Sex
  • Sexual Orientation

In other words, don't get caught walking while Jewish in a lefty white neighborhood.
 
15th post

Here is the law.

Please cite the section that provides either Employment and/or Public Accommodations based on political affiliation.

WW

Political Discrimination in New York

In 1992, the New York Legislature added Section 201-d to the New York Labor Law. This statute is best known for its prohibition against employment discrimination on the basis of off-duty “recreational activities” such as smoking and skiing. Less well known is the statute’s prohibition of discrimination on the basis of an employee’s “political activities outside of working hours, off of the employer’s premises and without use of the employer’s equipment or other property.”

The statute’s definition of “political activities” is relatively narrow. It covers “running for public office,” “campaigning for a candidate for public office,” or participating in political fundraising activities. It does not include mere political belief, or an expression of political views. Thus, an employer would violate the statute if it were to discharge an employee because she handed out leaflets for a candidate at a train station in her spare time, but would be in compliance with the statute if it were to discharge an employee because she expressed dislike for a particular candidate, or simply because it suspects that the employee favors a particular political philosophy.
 
Thank you.

But again (A) that is labor law not Public Accommodations, and (B) it's still NY and not MA. The officer in MA was correct.

WW

And the Pirogi people are assholes.

50 MAGA Hat people should line up in front of their stand and force them to deny service to each of them.
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom