Comment by TimorousBestie
1 day ago
> 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.
Individuals don't have to file a lawsuit for discrimination by public accommodations nor do they need to stick around for a trial.
All one does is file a complaint with the Justice department (or a local states'). The Justice department is who investigates and sues.
> 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.
These are going to be in places that are not heavily touristed even by other Americans. You're talking about places in the deep south; or in some survivalist community in Wyoming/Montana/etc. Not in Miami, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc.
So there's no one to complain. If someone did, they would most certainly face some legislative action.
> 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.
There's two cases where foreigners would complain:
A) they are on a visa, in which case they have the capability and are available to do so (and tend to be a pretty outspoken group considering the trouble they went through to get the visa in the first place).
B) they are visiting friends/family, in which case the friends/family will complain due to discrimination their loved ones faced.
You're using extreme examples to prove it could happen, because you're being disingenuous (imo). No one is doubting it could happen, racist/exclusionist stuff happens all the time. The people in this thread are saying it's not a norm, and (more importantly) that it's not legal. It's quite easy to prove a trend of discrimination, especially if your bar is clad in known racist/nationalist-adjacent paraphernalia.
Or, in other words, just ask yourself this: there are racists and nationalists in LA, SF, Denver, NY, Miami, Seattle, Dallas, etc....so, if it's so easy to skirt the legislation, why do we not find these sorts of bars in places that people actually go to versus insular communities where people are unlikely to raise a fuss?
1 reply →
>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.