Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He's breaking the law. You can't ban people of religions you don't like from coming in your store any more than you could ban certain races.
While reprehensible, is he really violating the law? And, if so, which law(s)? From my understanding, Federal civil rights legislation on this subject generally only apply to businesses having a certain number of employees (I'm not sure this guy's shop would qualify). I'd imagine that any possible illegality would stem from state law, but even that's not a guarantee.
While reprehensible, is he really violating the law? And, if so, which law(s)? From my understanding, Federal civil rights legislation on this subject generally only apply to businesses having a certain number of employees (I'm not sure this guy's shop would qualify). I'd imagine that any possible illegality would stem from state law, but even that's not a guarantee.
"Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- the federal law which prohibits discrimination by private businesses which are places of public accommodation only prevents businesses from refusing service based on race, color, religion, or national origin."
Chapter 760, Florida Statutes
It is against the law to discriminate in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap or marital status.
It is against the law to discriminate in the sale, rental, financing, appraisal, or insuring of housing, in the provision of real estate brokerage service, or in the advertising of a dwelling onthe basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap or familial status (families with children under 18, pregnant women and people securing custody of children under l8). Steering and blockbusting are also illegal. In addition, it is against the law to fail to design and construct new multi-family housing in an accessible manner, or to refuse certain modifications or accommodations to persons with a mental or physical disability.
It is against the law to discriminate in evaluating an application for membership in certain defined "private" clubs on the basis of race, color, age, sex, religion, national origin, handicap or marital status. It is against the law to refuse accommodations or service to any person on the basis of race, color, creed, sex, national origin, or physical disability.
"Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- the federal law which prohibits discrimination by private businesses which are places of public accommodation only prevents businesses from refusing service based on race, color, religion, or national origin."
Chapter 760, Florida Statutes
It is against the law to discriminate in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap or marital status.
It is against the law to discriminate in the sale, rental, financing, appraisal, or insuring of housing, in the provision of real estate brokerage service, or in the advertising of a dwelling onthe basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap or familial status (families with children under 18, pregnant women and people securing custody of children under l8). Steering and blockbusting are also illegal. In addition, it is against the law to fail to design and construct new multi-family housing in an accessible manner, or to refuse certain modifications or accommodations to persons with a mental or physical disability.
It is against the law to discriminate in evaluating an application for membership in certain defined "private" clubs on the basis of race, color, age, sex, religion, national origin, handicap or marital status. It is against the law to refuse accommodations or service to any person on the basis of race, color, creed, sex, national origin, or physical disability.
Thanks for supplying some sources.
That text, however, does not resolve things, at least not for Title II of 1964 CRA.
Also in Title II is the following:
Quote:
42 U.S.C. §2000a(b) (b) Each of the following establishments is a place of public accommodation within this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action: (1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence. (2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment, or any gasoline station;
(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and (4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of any such covered establishment.
Just from the definition section of which establishments are covered under Title II, I'm not sure the legislation covers this business. The only way I can see Title II covering this business is if the business is physically located within one of the establishments explicitly named in the Title.
Also, do you know if there is a minimum number of employees a business has to be employ to be covered under Title II? I ask only because Title VII applies only to employers with 15 or more employees. While I couldn't find anything in the text of Title II to suggest this is the case, I wonder if the answer is found elsewhere in the CRA.
Also, its not clear that the FL statute you provided applies to this situation. From my reading, it seems to mainly deal with housing, employment, and accommodations for disabilities; none of these situations seem to be at issue here.
Again, I believe the man is wrong for his behavior. I just question whether his actions/statements are illegal.
"Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- the federal law which prohibits discrimination by private businesses which are places of public accommodation only prevents businesses from refusing service based on race, color, religion, or national origin."
Chapter 760, Florida Statutes
It is against the law to discriminate in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap or marital status.
It is against the law to discriminate in the sale, rental, financing, appraisal, or insuring of housing, in the provision of real estate brokerage service, or in the advertising of a dwelling onthe basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap or familial status (families with children under 18, pregnant women and people securing custody of children under l8). Steering and blockbusting are also illegal. In addition, it is against the law to fail to design and construct new multi-family housing in an accessible manner, or to refuse certain modifications or accommodations to persons with a mental or physical disability.
It is against the law to discriminate in evaluating an application for membership in certain defined "private" clubs on the basis of race, color, age, sex, religion, national origin, handicap or marital status. It is against the law to refuse accommodations or service to any person on the basis of race, color, creed, sex, national origin, or physical disability.
If I go into the store, as a Muslim, and he refuses to sell a gun to me I'm sure I could sue him.
If I go into the store, as a Muslim, and he refuses to sell a gun to me I'm sure I could sue him.
Under what law? I'm still waiting for a satisfactory answer in that regard. I already explained that the cited to statutes above do not seem to apply to this scenario.
Under what law? I'm still waiting for a satisfactory answer in that regard. I already explained that the cited to statutes above do not seem to apply to this scenario.
ocnjgirl didn't drill down far enough into the Civil Rights Act:
(4) any establishment
(A)
(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or
(ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and
(B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.
(c) Operations affecting commerce; criteria; “commerce†defined
The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this subchapter if
(1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b) of this section;
(2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b) of this section, it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers of a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce;
(3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b) of this section, it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and
(4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b) of this section, it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, “commerce†means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.
ocnjgirl didn't drill down far enough into the Civil Rights Act:
(4) any establishment
(A)
(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or
(ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and
(B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.
(c) Operations affecting commerce; criteria; “commerce” defined
The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this subchapter if
(1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b) of this section;
(2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b) of this section, it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers of a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce;
(3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b) of this section, it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and
(4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b) of this section, it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, “commerce” means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.
Thanks!
I'm not sure what (4)(A)(i) or (ii) are referring to, though. The key part of that passage isn't the part about interstate commerce; that merely is a necessity, legally, that gives/shows Congress' authorization to legislate on such matters under the interstate commerce clause. Rather, the key part is that what seems to be missing from the section you quoted. Specifically, what "any covered establishment" or "any establishment otherwise covered" is key to determining whether the business owner's actions here are covered.
What section exactly of the Civil Rights Act did you get that text from? I'd like to check myself to see what the language I quoted refers to!
If that language is still in Title II, then it still doesn't cover the man's actions here as the "covered establishment[s]" under Title II deal with lodging, dining/food, and entertainment establishments. The man's gun shop, thus, does not seem to fall under Title II.
I wonder how he discerns who is Muslim and who isn't. Is it by there dress, the color of there skin, facial features. I would love it a few white Muslims bought guns from him and then posted videos thanking him for selling them guns on online.
He would know who they are by looking at the Application, to see if they checked off the "Muslim" box, or if they had ISIL patches or flags. The women are easy. Covered faces.
The guy is a red neck moron, and will have his wings clipped by the first person that's a Muslim and wants to buy a gun there. You may have to wait a while, since I am sure he may get about one Muslim customer per ten years. He would have done as well to say that his store was a "Martian Free" store, since he probably will also get the same amount of them.
Under what law? I'm still waiting for a satisfactory answer in that regard. I already explained that the cited to statutes above do not seem to apply to this scenario.
CAIR has taken this to the Department of Justice so they can investigate it and see if any laws were broken, so it sounds muddled all the way around.
He would know who they are by looking at the Application, to see if they checked off the "Muslim" box, or if they had ISIL patches or flags. The women are easy. Covered faces.
The guy is a red neck moron, and will have his wings clipped by the first person that's a Muslim and wants to buy a gun there. You may have to wait a while, since I am sure he may get about one Muslim customer per ten years. He would have done as well to say that his store was a "Martian Free" store, since he probably will also get the same amount of them.
I just read that two people who are Hindu wanted to use the gun range earlier this year and after asking if they were Muslim, he said they couldn't use the range.
He's a goober.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
