Is it legal to deny service to minority groups?

[Valmorian]

Is it legal for a place of business to refuse to do business with people of a particular minority? I know at one time there were stores that would refuse to serve different ethnic groups, but is it still legal to do so??

[Aoidoi]

I believe in the US that private companies can do business with whomever they wish (and by extention not serve those they do not want to). Government organizations and those that get money from the government are subject to strict rules on this, and I believe that above a certain size their are regulations on hiring.

Openly denying service to minorities is a great way to attract a lot of negative attention, so I think those places that do so tend to be on the sly (certain golf courses with memberships, for example).

It also may vary from state to state here... I don't think there's a federal law on it.

No idea on the laws in Canada (or elsewhere, for that matter).

But I'm no expert. Those with more knowledge feel free to enlighten me.

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by Aoidoi
I believe in the US that private companies can do business with whomever they wish (and by extention not serve those they do not want to). Government organizations and those that get money from the government are subject to strict rules on this, and I believe that above a certain size their are regulations on hiring.



Does this mean there are still places in the states where people of specific ethnic backgrounds are prevented from shopping at?

[Boo]

I don't believe this is true anymore. I cannot recall seeing the sign "We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone" in the last 5-10 years. Before that it was still fairly common.

A store with an ethnic policy is usually very subtle by having staff 'ignore' those 'types' of people they don't want in their store, or they will simply not stock items that cater to a certain ethniticity. IIRC there was a lawsuit about this issue within the last several years where a store was accused of discrimination by targeting blacks with accusations of shoplifting to a much higher percentage of any other demographic.



Boo

[Dancing David]

Public bussinesses can not deny anyone the right to service without a prior cause, discrimination in service can and does lead to expensive lawsuits, remember Denny's?

Now where the exception is is in private clubs, so you can have a bar call it a private club, charge an initiation fee and deny service to who ever you want.

(Could be wrong)

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Aoidoi

It also may vary from state to state here... I don't think there's a federal law on it.


Actually, there is the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It in part according to the U.S. Supreme Court in the "Ollie's BBQ" case (KATZENBACH v. McCLUNG, 379 U.S. 294 (1964))
: Section 201 (a) of Title II commands that all persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods and services of any place of public accommodation without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin; and 201 (b) defines establishments as places of public accommodation if their operations affect commerce or segregation by them is supported by state action. Sections 201 (b) (2) and (c) place any "restaurant . . . principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises" under the Act "if . . . it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves . . . has moved in commerce."

In other words, federal law prohibits discrimination on basis of race, etc., for any business open to the public which does business in interstate commerce.

Interstate commerce, as a legal matter, pretty much includes everything, as it is given a construction so broad as to be stupifying. As Justice Clark put it in the above case It goes without saying that, viewed in isolation, the volume of food purchased by Ollie's Barbecue from sources supplied from out of state was insignificant when compared with the total foodstuffs moving in commerce. But, as our late Brother Jackson said for the Court in Wickard v. Filburn (1942): "That appellee's own contribution to the demand for wheat may be trivial by itself is not enough to remove him from the scope of federal regulation where, as here, his contribution, taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial."

[Aoidoi]

Huh, well, there you go. I didn't realize that was part of the Civil Rights Act. Learn something new every day. :)

So, the membership thing is a way to get around the laws rather than just a way to get it out of sight. I though it was just public pressure rather than legal issues that forced the issue. Also forgot about the Feds using interstate commerce to get around the constitutional issues. Guess I was wrong on a fair number of counts. Not the first time. :)

[shuize]

Originally posted by Suddenly


Interstate commerce, as a legal matter, pretty much includes everything, as it is given a construction so broad as to be stupifying.

Yes, after Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), an amazingly stupid ruling, "interstate commerce" means absolutely everything. (Small scale wheat farmer growing for his own exclusive consumption was held subject to federal agricultural quotas as a participant in "interstate commerce.")

[corplinx]

It isn't legal, but it should be for a private business. I think this governement bandaid for widespread and ingrained racial disparity has outlived its usefulness.

Its time to let the bigots feel free to expose themselves so they can be publicly scrutinized and boycotted.

[Suddenly]

Congress had passed a civil rights act in 1875 that was similar to the 1964 act. This act was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on the basis that neither the 13th or 14th amendments empowered congress to make such a law.

I've always found their decision lacking and subscribed to the idea put forth by Justice Harlan in his dissent that discrimination based on race was a mark of servitude and thus the civil rights act was constitutional:

I am of opinion that such discrimination is a badge of servitude, the imposition of which congress may prevent under its power, through appropriate legislation, to enforce the thirteenth Amendment; and consequently, without reference to its enlarged power under the fourteenth Amendment, the act of March 1, 1875, is not, in my judgment, repugnant to the constitution. (Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883)) Link to opinion (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=109&page=3)

I wonder what things would be like today had the USSC in 1883 gone with Harlan and let the 1875 act stand. Segregation would have never been viewed as legal, Jim Crow type laws would never have existed.

[VicDaring]

Not only is it legal to deny services to smokers, it's mandated in many places.

Sorry, I just had to.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by VicDaring
Not only is it legal to deny services to smokers, it's mandated in many places.

Sorry, I just had to.

Huh? Not being allowed to smoke in a public place does not equal a denial of access, it is a refusal to allow certain behaviour. Smokers are perfectly welcome as long as they don't smoke. Most businesses wouldn't let me golf on their premeses but that doesn't add up to discrimination against golfers, does it?

[Skeptic]

It isn't legal, but it should be for a private business.

I think it IS illegal--for a business that's open to the public. In other words, a store or restaurant must serve everybody; a private club doesn't have to--and shouldn't.

Of course, the fact that a private person or organization should be LEGALLY allowed to show bigotry doesn't mean that it's a good thing.

It is simply that freedom of association also means the freedom to be a jerk and associate only with "the superior white race" (or whatever), in the same way that freedom of speech means you also have the right to publish hate literature.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Suddenly


Huh? Not being allowed to smoke in a public place does not equal a denial of access, it is a refusal to allow certain behaviour. Smokers are perfectly welcome as long as they don't smoke. Most businesses wouldn't let me golf on their premeses but that doesn't add up to discrimination against golfers, does it?

As the old joke says...

MAN: "Doctor, we've been married for 25 years, and our sex life became routine and boring."

PSYCHAITRIST: "Why don't you try something new? When she least expects it, kiss her, tear off her clothes, and make love to her. Surprise and novelty usually help spice up the sex life."

(A week later)

MAN: "Doctor, it worked! At breakfast, when she least expected it, I tore off her clothes, laid her on the breakfast table, and made passionate love to her. It was the best sex we had in years."

DOCTOR: "And then what happened?"

MAN: "Well, we were kicked out of Denny's."