Comment by VWWHFSfQ
20 hours ago
> no foreigners
It's such a contrast to USA, where I doubt that such a thing would even be legal. And also the bit about no tattoos. That's lawsuit city.
20 hours ago
> no foreigners
It's such a contrast to USA, where I doubt that such a thing would even be legal. And also the bit about no tattoos. That's lawsuit city.
Indeed, and as I frequently say.. those who thinks US is the most racist country in the world should visit 5-10 other countries and report back.
The US is building modern day concentration camps for immigrants. Maybe the country isnt actively killing the out groups right now like a handful of other countries but I'd say the racism is extreme and up there.
But the immigrants aren't racial or ethnic outgroups per se. Many are incidentally Latino, yes, but so is the current Secretary of State.
5 replies →
More like lawsuit country - whole legal system is designed to allow lawyers to take everyone to the cleaners with impunity.
> That's lawsuit city
Aren't private businesses in the US allowed to deny access to their premises for any reasons? Seems like a weird thing to get sued over, I think in most places if you own the local, you get to decide who goes there, unless it's a place for government or similar.
You may deny entry based on your own criteria provided you are not discriminating on race, color, religion, national origin, disability status, veteran status, age (more wiggle room here) or other state-specific traits (sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, etc.).
I don't think there's any place in America that would be illegal to bar entry based on the presence of tattoos.
But no shoes, no shirt, no service is quite common.
2 replies →
So it would be legal to bar non-US residents then? "Residency" seems different from all the criteria's you listed.
10 replies →
You can deny entry on a non-discriminatory basis. E.g., a bar can kick out an individual Black American for being a nuisance or otherwise troublesome, they can't kick out a black guy for wearing blue (unless it's a blanket ban and reasonable, such as it being a theme bar) or being black.
This is why the signs are always phrased as "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone/any person".
As with most things though, this is just the minimum federal regulation and states will handle how far they take it differently. There are jurisdictions that wouldn't touch a "no tattoos" policy with a ten-foot pole at the risk of a lawsuit. While there are others that are more lax.
> deny access to their premises for any reasons
Definitely not. This kind of discrimination is explicitly prohibited by federal civil rights law (Civil Rights Act 1964). It protects people regardless of their national origin (in addition to their skin color).
"National origin" is what country you are born in right? So banning non-US residents would be OK it seems?
Yes! I was a bouncer for a while here in Philadelphia, and our bar/dancefloor had a rule on St. Patricks day: If you're wearing any green, you can't come in.
Worked great, never had any problems on St. Patricks day.
"You can go to any other bar in the city, just not this one."
"Has tattoos" is not a protected class. You're free to ban tattooed people from your place of business if you like.
has tattoos should be a protected class though. same with political affiliation
Denying to an individual for any reason is ok but excluding entire groups is generally frowned upon or straight up illegal.
You could totally bar people with tattoos from your business in teh USA. You'd be unpopular given their prevalence, but you would be on oslid legal ground.
Among Japanese, tattoos are almost exclusively worn by yakuza members. The shop owners don't want any trouble or criminal activity on their premises.
You have to protect your culture. USA has a 250 year history while Japan has 10x of that.
Those signs have nothing to do with protecting culture. Most of the time, they are simply a naive defense against dealing with a population often doesn't speak Japanese very well.
There's no prohibition against requiring customers to be able to speak Japanese, and this works very well as a tourist filter.
Japan also closed itself to the world for 250 years, and it looks like some people haven't still gotten the memo that the Edo era is long gone.
the US has that much history too, it just chooses to ignore it
>USA has a 250 year history while Japan has 10x of that.
Is that supposed to imply that Japan has more culture, or that it needs more protection because it's 10x longer? Even if Japanese culture is 10x longer than American culture, it doesn't necessarily follow that there's less of it. Pop music and hollywood music might not be considered "culture" by snobs, but they're still culture, and arguably more plentiful and pervasive than Japanese culture.
If you are an outsider, you should adhere to that country's rules. Why are you going to a foreign country? Are you an invasive species or an inquisitive bumblebee?
> It's such a contrast to USA, where I doubt that such a thing would even be legal.
The sign itself is probably protected speech.
As for the policy, it is probably also legal here. Private businesses have broad rights to refuse individual customers without stating a reason.
Fabricating a legitimate business reason to deny service to a particular group of customers is usually trivial, as well. Proving it was fabricated for discriminatory reasons can be difficult.
No. It is most definitely illegal here. It would violate Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 42 U.S. Code § 2000a:
>(a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
Restaurants are considered public accommodation under 42 U.S. Code § 2000a (b)(2).
Could a business lie about why they're discriminating? Yes, but that wouldn't be possible with a sign saying "No foreigners" and eventually, someone will file a title II complaint.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000a
> Private businesses have broad rights to refuse individual customers without stating a reason.
They don't have to state a reason. The entire foundation of the common law system is to have a court decide intent; not be technically bound by your words.
It would only take showing a continued behavior of denying people in a discriminatory manner (e.g. 10% of your visitors are foreigners, but 95% of the people barred entry are in that group) to fine/sanction/shut down the business.
> They don't have to state a reason. The entire foundation of the common law system is to have a court decide intent; not be technically bound by your words.
Yes, I agree. It becomes more difficult to infer intent without a stated reason.
Practically speaking, I think most civil rights lawsuits that are decided in the plaintiff’s favor are very, very explicit cases of discrimination. Someone was called a slur, someone was refused service violently, someone had racist iconography scrawled on their property. Yes, fines and sanctions then. Well, sometimes.
The ones who are clever about it never get to that stage. They don’t put up a sign saying “no foreigners,” they put up a sign saying “we speak english here,” “proud to be an american,” and etc. Confederate flags, military paraphernalia, the usual soft threats against the other.
Foreigners in particular are going to find it very difficult to interact with our justice system. A civil rights case that goes to trial is going to take much longer than the typical tourist visa allows. It’s going to be prohibitively expensive for the typical tourist to procure the services of a skilled lawyer.
3 replies →
>without stating a reason
That part is key. If they do state a reason, it could become a civil rights issue. The sign alone might not be enough to make a case, but it's a very good start.