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.
I've never been to a restaurant that required a suit and tie. Clubs are a different matter and can even be members only.
But again, stores cannot discriminate on dress and if someone is going to the pharmacy, the drug store, the fast food chain, or any basic retail store the store and the employees absolutely cannot discriminate on dress. Of course Russian trolls like you wouldn't know this, you've never been to America.
Yes, stores absolutely can discriminate based on dress, which is not a protected class. Restaurants that require suit and tie. No gang colors or wife beaters at clubs. Retail banks let high value clients use their non-public bathrooms. See how they treat you at Tourneau if you go in wearing a fast food uniform vs a Patek Phillipe.
Your statements are compete nonsense.
You all need to put down the political, social hats and put on your legal caps. The below may only make some sense to the personal injury or civil lawyers here with accolades. I am solely thinking about this from a LEGAL perspective in how things ACTUALLY play out in civil court and not just the Lexis Nexis textbook version either.
Here's the problem. Dress can be interpreted in court of law as apart of a protected class and here is why:
Spoiler
A store can hypothetically ban Yamakas (sorry I know I effed that one up), Veils, Hijabs and other items but if they have cultural or religious meaning then you really can't. What defines culture or even religion and how it's observed or expressed is a gray area. Culture is tied to ethnicity which is a protected class. This is why implicitly it is illegal to throw a Man in jail just because he has a Swatstika tattooed on his forearm it could mean he is Anti-Jew or it could mean he is Hindu. He can claim it to be representing his ethnic minority group in Germany (to my knowledge none such exists, but that is neither here nor there at the moment) None of that matters because he is protected by the 1st amendment as well as the current "Common law" standards that any sort of visual "profiling" is illegal unless you can pinpoint specific characteristics of a suspect associated with a specific crime that is current. That is not to say that Starbucks cannot ban him. They can ban whomever they want on the INDIVIDUAL BASIS. But the way in which they go about the ban is critical here. It has to be proactive and measured, and typically in response to a specific event. Bans cannot be arbitrary or ill-timed less they be perceived as discriminatory. If 4 Jews in Portland were attacked by a Swatstika wearing gang in a coffeeshop (let's say Starbucks) then yes that particular starbucks store can SEEK to ban Swatistika's as well as other key characteristics such as the make and model of bikes used in the get away from the incident. They would need to work with the police investigating the incident to get OK'ed by a Judge. However - This CAN be challenged at all court levels even by the assailants themselves. (The UK is famous for criminals winning civil restitutions and penalties from establishments where they preyed upon their victims, usually off of a technicality factoring in the above mentioned nuances)
I am not saying this will be automatically granted by a Judge. But it will be considered. The company attorney can argue this is to mitigate the burden of preponderance of evidence in civil court should the victims will sue the company for a lack of secure environment. It is a rational, measured show of "good faith" that will help the company mitigate financial losses. Instead of $10Million they pay $7.5 Million because of their swift and decisive actions. As to whether they can successfully ban the Swatstika in all stores apart from the ones the incident occurred in is questionable.
There have been Black school principals who have unsuccessfully tried to ban sagging pants. The origin of sagging pants is many but mostly linked to Prison. Unfortunately it has been incorporated into mainstream "Urban" culture regardless of race. Gangsters of all nationalities, races and creeds sag and there will be cretins in the Afro American community that claim it is inherently apart of our culture (which they would be wrong, but guess what culture is subjective from one person to the next).
We are down a slippery slope of identity politics. Although Black myself I have been called out for calling out pants sagging as ignorant and impractical. Even in gang culture it is impractical because you can't run up on an enemy gang member with your pants sagging nor escape a drive by in such a state without tripping over your saggy pants. Nonetheless, I do not believe the Men in question had sagging pants at the time based on the video I saw. And the court does not care about the practicality of the fashion only about how it can be interpreted in light of common law in the context of ethnic cultural expression. Common sense does not apply in Common law. Only that the argument or a version of this argument has won over some Judge's favor in the past. Common law is subjective and based on societal norms at the time in which the precedent was set. In today's common law it generally it is not my right to discriminate against the Men for sagging no matter what authority I hold. Now of course this depends on what State you are in but Judges typically look to other states for precedents on landmark cases anyways. Ironically you will be ripped apart by a Jewish lawyer in civil court for attempting this. You don't need the ACLU because any Judge in his right mind will generally limit the scope here considerably to question customers based on attire in an ubiquitous place such as a coffee shop.
Now hypothetically speaking if 5 out of 10 Black youths sag their pants. Starbucks will have a very hard time banning it or justifying their decision to call the police. Given the wide range of interpretation of pants sagging it is likely to not even be considered due to the presence of "Low rise" jeans and other fashion quirks. The problem inherently is Starbucks is a public company and is not a private small establishment. It is within the Judge's right to interpret their actions as affecting public morale and perception. There are some loopholes where if it were large enough - Even a private company would be subject to a higher moral ground than a smaller private co - Mom and Pop. If only 1% of Whites wear the Swatstika and they are not claiming for a specific reason the necessity of it (one that does not intrude upon others rights or comfort such as Neo-Nazi which would naturally be excluded from this right) then the Judge would be determining that the impact is minimal and you are not discriminating against a reasonable amount of people in the vicinity who would be impacted. The argument may even be made that Starbucks accepts sagging pants customer who are White and skateboard but not who are Black and have a Basketball in one hand.
There are many angles to look at this from but all-in-all Starbucks made the right decision to apologize. Now the police may have "technically" followed protocol but they can still be sued in civil court for failing to discern the implicit bias in the reporter once they determined the following:
a) Unspecified loitering by 2 unarmed non-belligerent individuals generally does not warrant the appearance of multiple officers. This was an over-aggressive response. The reaction of the other people confirm the situation was over-blown.
b) If the employee exaggerated consequences should ensue, or proper training should be incorporated and mandated to accurately report the incident. In addition - If no customers are expressing concern this should factor into the decision making process. When I worked in retail, customer filing a concern about another customer was an escalation factor. No gaslighting occurred so I am failing to see why it got to this extent.
c) Loitering is not an arrestable offense if it can be explained and the person is in an area reasonably considered to be a place where people are waiting idly and not engaged in a specific task or action. TL;DR - Both the company and Philadelphia PD are now liable in civil court. I predict damages close to $1 Million minimum if they choose to pursue and play their cards right.
I'm a victim myself and have been asked on many occasions to buy things, and sometimes not. I've gone to Starbucks before or after a work out and honestly, I feel uncomfortable entering that establishment in sweats. I have no choice since I'm going to the gym before, or after my workout. I'd rather go in something more presentable.
<Wall of text> TL;DR - Both the company and Philadelphia PD are now liable in civil court. I predict damages close to $1 Million minimum if they choose to pursue and play their cards right.[/b]
What does any of this have to do with the claim that ALL retail discrimination is illegal?
What does any of this have to do with the claim that ALL retail discrimination is illegal?
Because TL;DR - Businesses don't care about the law they care about how much disobeying the law costs and potential interpretations of the law can be wide. So ANY sort of discrimination is generally prohibited to limit potential contests and legal costs.
The legality in and of itself matters not to businesses because it is not a matter of criminal court. You need to read my explanation in the spoiler because I explain exactly why big business (especially public Fortune 1000 companies) are held to a higher standard and liable under common law. A retail business which is public (and not "invite only") cannot discriminate against a protected class. Are you insinuating that certain forms of retail discrimination should be legal? That argument cannot be made in court of law under the current common law precedents established in this country (let alone most others). Perhaps if this were Weimar Republic Germany it would be possible.
Businesses breaking civil liberties usually leads to fines not imprisonment. The fine is the deterrence not to break the law in addition to heavy regulatory scrutiny (which costs $$$$ to comply with) and the biggest deterrent which is the civil penalties which a Judge would award the victim for damages. A Business can break many laws and in general nobody goes to jail, so as long as they have the money to pay the fines and restitution for victims then it's fine. There are generally no other repercussions.
Tort aside, damages are still awarded to victims by Judges to ensure they comply with the Legislative branch's orders. Sometimes the monetary restitution awarded funds a specific outreach/support program dedicated to the ethnic or religious group of the discriminated party.
I'm a victim myself and have been asked on many occasions to buy things, and sometimes not. I've gone to Starbucks before or after a work out and honestly, I feel uncomfortable entering that establishment in sweats. I have no choice since I'm going to the gym before, or after my workout. I'd rather go in something more presentable.
If a place of business is discriminating based on clothing they must consistently apply the standard or be deemed discriminating against protected classes. Going to starbucks in a suit and tie is not practical, because their original business intent and culture is not solely based on servicing white collar professionals. When they decided to put one on every corner and in Universities - Any semblance of that image went poof.
Think about it - A nightclub generally CAN be shut down by not uniformly demanding a certain attire, publicly stating it in most advertisements. Remember, these clubs are not even public companies but in NYC they are held to a high standard due to the number of clientele being serviced.
So if a nightclub can be shut down think about Starbucks. If you are going to be an ubiquitous part of American culture and market yourself as accessible to EVERYONE you cannot arbitrarily deny patrons based on manner of dress or expression.
As I mentioned above none of this is criminal, but they will still lose money in court - This is why May 29th is happening. Sometimes all it takes is the PERCEPTION of prejudice to lose in civil court due to the preponderance of evidence standard. Now imagine there is CONCRETE video evidence of the interaction. With no evidence and one witness it would only be $1 Million. We could be potentially talking $100 Million if other victims step forward with affidavits.
I encourage you to please patronize without regard to your attire, after this incident they will be scared to pull anything they have in the past. People's jobs are on the line. Now if a customer complains about a stank look or stank eye - They will bend over backwards to rectify that perception. If they do not - File a complaint, continue to go to the same store and bring a friend or better yet a co-worker. Have them observe the interaction and then have them sign and get it notarized. Complain several times and if the problem is not fixed, contact a civil attorney. I guarantee you - Several would be more than happy to help you (if you have good documentation) on a contingency basis.
The only way to change the businesses behavior is to document, organize with other affected people, collaborate and sue.
Because TL;DR - Businesses don't care about the law they care about how much disobeying the law costs and potential interpretations of the law can be wide. So ANY sort of discrimination is generally prohibited to limit potential contests and legal costs.
The legality in and of itself matters not to businesses because it is not a matter of criminal court. You need to read my explanation in the spoiler because I explain exactly why big business (especially public Fortune 1000 companies) are held to a higher standard and liable under common law. A retail business which is public (and not "invite only") cannot discriminate against a protected class. Are you insinuating that certain forms of retail discrimination should be legal? That argument cannot be made in court of law under the current common law precedents established in this country (let alone most others). Perhaps if this were Weimar Republic Germany it would be possible.
Businesses breaking civil liberties usually leads to fines not imprisonment. The fine is the deterrence not to break the law in addition to heavy regulatory scrutiny (which costs $$$$ to comply with) and the biggest deterrent which is the civil penalties which a Judge would award the victim for damages. A Business can break many laws and in general nobody goes to jail, so as long as they have the money to pay the fines and restitution for victims then it's fine. There are generally no other repercussions.
Tort aside, damages are still awarded to victims by Judges to ensure they comply with the Legislative branch's orders. Sometimes the monetary restitution awarded funds a specific outreach/support program dedicated to the ethnic or religious group of the discriminated party.
Can you answer a simple question without the lawyer speak? You dance around the point without a direct answer. It's a yes/no question.
Is ALL discrimination illegal in the retail setting (not just protected classes)?
The other customers who were white can clearly be heard saying they didn't do anything. Starbucks is shutting down all Starbucks stores May 29th for training purposes.
This manager caused severe economic damage to Starbucks itself. So if you can't see that, you don't deserve the job you say you have, because you are so prejudiced you'd cause your own company financial loss.
Is AlexaMatthews your real name? How would your employer feel about the posts you make here? Would that cause a very interesting discussion at your job? Since there are profiles of AlexaMatthews as a recruiter online.....................
Not doing anything is different from not saying anything. Why don't people understand that? We don't know if these guys said "Oh, yeah why do I have to buy something before I go in?"
It doesn't have to be said in a loud, voice for the other customers to hear for the manager to feel as threatening. It could have been mumbled low.
Also just sitting down facing the manager or the baristas could be seen as threatening even though they were waiting for someone. If they didn't say that to the manager until later a manager who might have had the store robbed might want them out.
A business has the right to lock their bathroom if they want.
I have been to Starbucks locations that have allowed me to use the restroom without buying something and some that said I had to buy something. In those cases I grabbed a pack of mints or Madelines or a coffee.
This wasn't a five-star restaurant either you had to pee or you didn't. You didn't have to wait for your friend to order a fall black coffee. The manager either was being a dick, or truly felt a type of way that he felt warranted the phone call. I don't know if the manager asked if they were waiting for someone or if they volunteered that info? Because when they saw the manager wanted them out they could have just got up and left. All we see of the video is when the cops show up. There wasn't any arguing back and forth before hand.
The CEO of Starbucks is just trying to do what he thinks is right.
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.
