Comment by HelloMcFly
1 day ago
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.
Sure, but you can instantly go put on some shoes and a shirt if necessary.
So it would be legal to bar non-US residents then? "Residency" seems different from all the criteria's you listed.
Residency inherently includes national origin, since if your national origin is the US you're automatically a resident.
Yeah, but the opposite isn't true, my national origin can be Swedish but I can reside in Spain, so banning by residency isn't banning by national origin, seems like a way to ban foreigners (non-residents).
Edit: Actually wait
> since if your national origin is the US you're automatically a resident
This isn't true is it? If you're born in the US but you live (100% of the time) elsewhere, you're no longer a resident, are you?
6 replies →
Sometimes I believe one can also face legal trouble for unreasonably banning things strongly correlated with a protected characteristic.
I can’t sidestep gender discrimination law by refusing to hire people with long hair, unless the job is something like “wig model” or “Jeff bezos impersonator” where being bald is a bona fide occupational qualification.