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.
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)?
Please only answer yes or no.
There is no Yes or No answer to this.
You are trying to simplify the law, it does not work that way. Application of the law is not "Yes" or "No", "Black" or "White". Give up this binary way of thinking when it comes to legality. Why do you think 2 people accused of the same crime in the same circumstances can face 2 different results? Or even 4 different results if you were to clone the 2 defendants and put them in 2 different jurisdictions.
If this was the case then both criminal and civil court dockets would be minimal. Everything is handled on the case by case basis. Even in gang sweeps, the defendants may be arraigned as a group but are still treated individually and may be offered separate pleas based on their unique background.
Let's try this - If a company says "We do not allow skaters in this establishment" they probably will get a warning to revise the language to say "We do not allow skateboards, bicycles or other non-essential apparatus in this establishment". This is discrimination of a non-protected class. Depending on the jurisdiction it could hold up - Or it may not. Only a Judge can confirm for you the outcome of a specific case. It could work in Nebraska, but it probably won't hold up in SoCal. Get the point?
I find it ironic that you are in agreement with the men at Starbucks being discriminated against because of their ethnicity and here you are discriminating against me and that I have no place to give any opinions, or advice because of my occupation as a receptionist. Because a receptionist can't possibly have a thought in her brain!
You talk about discrimination and here you are exemplifying it based on ones occupation. Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? Ops! What's black?
I find it ironic that you are in agreement with the men at Starbucks being discriminated against because of their ethnicity and here you are discriminating against me and that I have no place to give any opinions, or advice because of my occupation as a receptionist. Because a receptionist can't possibly have a thought in her brain!
You talk about discrimination and here you are exemplifying it based on ones occupation. Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? Ops! What's black?
You're dismissed. Goodbye!
LMAO! He always does that. The "Writerdude" thinks he's above and beyond everyone else because he supposedly writes for a living and graduated from not one but TWO Ivy League schools (never mind his atrocious grammar - the irony isn't lost on moi).
Some bathrooms you need a code for entry that you'd get on the receipt after purchasing a product. Is that the setup at this particular Philly location?
You are trying to simplify the law, it does not work that way. Application of the law is not "Yes" or "No", "Black" or "White". Give up this binary way of thinking when it comes to legality. Why do you think 2 people accused of the same crime in the same circumstances can face 2 different results? Or even 4 different results if you were to clone the 2 defendants and put them in 2 different jurisdictions.
If this was the case then both criminal and civil court dockets would be minimal. Everything is handled on the case by case basis. Even in gang sweeps, the defendants may be arraigned as a group but are still treated individually and may be offered separate pleas based on their unique background.
Let's try this - If a company says "We do not allow skaters in this establishment" they probably will get a warning to revise the language to say "We do not allow skateboards, bicycles or other non-essential apparatus in this establishment". This is discrimination of a non-protected class. Depending on the jurisdiction it could hold up - Or it may not. Only a Judge can confirm for you the outcome of a specific case. It could work in Nebraska, but it probably won't hold up in SoCal. Get the point?
I don't know if you're deliberately being obtuse because you like to see how much you can write, or because you're trying to show how smart you are.
This is not about ambiguities of the law. The original statement was that all discrimination is illegal. If you provide one instance of discrimination that is legal, then the statement is false. That's all there is to it.
LMAO! He always does that. The "Writerdude" thinks he's above and beyond everyone else because he supposedly writes for a living and graduated from not one but TWO Ivy League schools (never mind his atrocious grammar - the irony isn't lost onmoi).
Degrees are not awarded on the basis of acting like an old lady. The language you use is so prim and proper and old womanly. Did you hang out with your grandmother too much as a child (no offense to grandmothers).
Some bathrooms you need a code for entry that you'd get on the receipt after purchasing a product. Is that the setup at this particular Philly location?
I haven't seen that reported in the news yet.
Now if Starbucks set that up at all locations and enforced it, as well as REQUIRED everyone to buy something before sitting down or hanging out, they would be covered in this case.
But of course I've seen definitely homeless people hangout in Starbucks without buying anything, especially in the winter.
I personally if I have to use the bathroom in a place that requires it, I would have bought tea or something. I know the business pays employees to use the bathroom, so I do think the least those men could have done was bought a cup of coffee or whatever.
With that said the major issue is Starbucks very often let's people hangout without buying something. In order to avoid PR nightmares and discrimination lawsuits, they need to either enforce the everyone must buy something or they have to not enforce it at all and say there is no requirement. CONSISTENCY is needed.
Degrees are not awarded on the basis of acting like an old lady. The language you use is so prim and proper and old womanly. Did you hang out with your grandmother too much as a child (no offense to grandmothers). Something really unmanly about you.
It's becoming of someone educated in a European private school, but I thought you knew about such things being Ivy educated and all. I can accept if my English is "strange" (it's correct). I speak several languages which heavily influences my English. What's your excuse for such horrendous grammar?
Now if Starbucks set that up at all locations and enforced it, as well as REQUIRED everyone to buy something before sitting down or hanging out, they would be covered in this case.
But of course I've seen definitely homeless people hangout in Starbucks without buying anything, especially in the winter.
I personally if I have to use the bathroom in a place that requires it, I would have bought tea or something. I know the business pays employees to use the bathroom, so I do think the least those men could have done was bought a cup of coffee or whatever.
With that said the major issue is Starbucks very often let's people hangout without buying something. In order to avoid PR nightmares and discrimination lawsuits, they need to either enforce the everyone must buy something or they have to not enforce it at all and say there is no requirement. CONSISTENCY is needed.
Or just don't use the bathroom if they tell you it is for customers only. If you have to go that badly, then buy something or pee in the street. But don't go around trying to intimidate staff.
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.
I can accept if my English is "strange" (it's correct). I speak several languages which heavily influences my English. What's your excuse for such horrendous grammar? 
