This is a tough call. I think if you are going to conduct a public business, you have no basis for discrimination, and those you discriminate against should have the right to take you to law.
At the same time, I think a restaurant, for example, should have the right to refuse entry to someone barefoot, as such a person, if they step on some glass on the floor, is likely to hold the restaurant responsible (although of course such a suit would be quickly dismissed).
So the ban on discrimination has subtleties and exceptions. As I understand it (not being a lawyer), the one discriminating has a burden to show that the discrimination has valid purpose behind it and is not just reflective of prejudice or whim. This sort of complication makes lots of work for lawyers.
I can see anyone, not just African-Americans, legitimately declining to associate in any way with the KKK, and I can see lawyers coming up with dozens of valid reasons, depending on the details of the case, for this discrimination.
Discrimination against gays is perhaps a little more difficult to justify.
No comments:
Post a Comment