There's no legal recourse for them but they can 100% prevent you from buying a new Tesla ever again.
Probably in the US. In some other countries, it's illegal to refuse a sale, if you're a store (online or offline). A buyer comes, a sale happens.
Race, religion, national origin, sex, these all apply regardless of which specific group you're in under that banner. There are a few categories which are really only defined as applying to "one side", but they're generally not controversial (the laws against pregnancy discrimination, for example). Age is the one big outlier: the law against age discrimination in employment applies only to people over 40.
No judge in the developed world would believe such a contrived excuse.
It's weird how people think this sort of thing is actually a valid defense.
How can I tell that person is an asshole who meant to hurt my feelings vs that person who just said a stupid thing without thinking about it?
I can't, so the reality is that some subset of people are going to get away with hurting my feelings on purpose. The alternative is that people who make mistakes get punished unnecessarily.
Which side of that would you rather the law be on?
That's not what "protected class" means, in any of the contexts in which it is used (employment, public accommodation, housing, etc.)
To the extent it seems like it means that, that's only because, well, the historically privileged are more likely to be in a position to discriminate in favor of those like themselves.
In each of those contexts, race (not "being non-white") is a protected class; it is just as illegal to discriminate against White people in any of those contexts as it is to discriminate in favor of White people.
For each of the other descriptors which actually relates to a protected class, it works the same way where it does.
> It's far fewer words with the exact same meaning as listing all the things that are 'protected', and has an air of honesty about it.
It doesn't have the exact same meaning at all.
It just can't be the only reason.
you can't refuse service to _any_ protected class on the weekends because ... you can't refuse service to protected classes for being in that protected class.
A woman walks into your bar. You can refuse to solve her because you don’t like the way she does her hair, or the color of her clothes. You can’t refuse to serve her because she’s a woman.
The bar owner would face substantial incredulity from a judge if they claimed that they were turning down business because of how someone's hair looked. That said, the plaintiffs could strengthen their case showing a significant number of women were being denied service, or evidence the owner was misogynistic.
Especially since, federally at least, sex is not a protected class for public accommodation discrimination (it is for employment and housing discrimination.)
It just can't be discriminatory on the basis of a protected class.
If you uniformly refuse everyone for the same reason but it unduly affects a specific class then you can still be found guilty of discrimination of a protected class.
The canonical example of this is banning all headwear in a restaurant. This has been found to unfairly target certain religions and as such is considered a violation of civil rights.
If you banned all headwear sporting university football teams, that would most likely fly.
The two points at which you are not discriminating at all are uniformly providing and uniformly withholding services. Otherwise you are discriminating based on something, which may be fine or terrible depending on a whole bunch of details.
Though the US cases on broad headwear bans I am familiar with are mostly not in discrimination, per se, but on failure to accommodate a religious practice grounds (again, a protection that applies in employment and education, not public accommodation, contexts.)
E.g., https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/01/411213623... and
This is not theory, the courts have spoken on this. that you're calling this theory tells me you both don't know and haven't checked.
try again.
Dude, dragonwriter said that what you were talking about seems like a specific thing the courts have applied to some areas and not to others.
Your reply seems to ignore the content of that post on the justification that the use of the word "theory" to refer to something that "the courts have ruled on" is such a glaring contradiction as to render the rest of the post irrelevant. If that reply was doing something else and I have misinterpreted, what was it?
Your mode of interaction here is obnoxious enough that I might abandon this thread.
I don't care if you feel reality is obnoxious, take your toys and go home. or stay. quite literally, nothing you do or say changes that the courts have ruled on this already.
Everyone is in multiple protected classes.
For public accommodations, all of the following are protected classes under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: race, color, religion, and national origin.
Everyone has a value on each of those axes, and everyone is protected against discrimination in public accommodations on the bases of each of those.