So Brewer hires people who are black and white, male and female. She encounters a business where all the employees are white men. And people are accusing Brewer of being racist and sexist.
If you want to insult me, take it to the Pit.
Would you prefer “Negress”?
Excuse me, but the preferred nomenclature is obviously nigra. Duh.
Are you suggesting that right wing news sources might not be entirely truthful? You are guilty of wingism.
No, that’s not even remotely close to what I said.
I don’t think that first statement is correct. If I’m shopping for a Lawfirm, there’s nothing improper about picking one with a racially diverse group of partners over an all white firm. This women can make the same type of decision when deciding what company to purchase lumber from. Discrimination in employment and public accommodations is different, of course.
What exact U.S. law regarding b2b sales for non-government funded private businesses states anything like this?
The evidence supplied by the OP doesn’t show that Ms. Brewer is sexist or racist. It shows that she thinks the suppliers she deals with are sexist and racist. She’s accusing them of discrimination in hiring and advancement.
Perhaps not, but that’s not what Murf said. He said it’s a free country and she could “do business with the people she prefers” That is not true. You cannot do business with anyone you want, as you cannot discriminate against them for being a part of a suspect class.
His statement is exactly the claim made by libertarians who want to repeal the Civil Right Act. He didn’t limit his claim to businesses–not that the Civil Rights Act makes such a distinction either.
The rest of my post specifically goes on to explain how this may not be relevant to the current issue. And my subsequent post goes on to note that she’s not claiming to stop doing business with anyone. So I do not understand why I am getting crap for this.
“You cannot do business with anyone you want, as you cannot discriminate against them for being a part of a suspect class.”
That is news to me. You seem to be saying that I have to evaluate the workforce of any business I deal with before the law allows me to do business with them. That is, I would have to somehow determine whether a store is part of a suspect class and use that information to decide whether I can not shop there. It doesn’t sound practical.
Yes, it does. Title II of the CRA is limited to “public accommodations,” which has never been interpreted to cover the sort of transaction we’re discussing here. If Brewer had been negotiating a group rate for Sam’s Club business travel with Sheraton, the title still wouldn’t apply since it only prohibits the accommodation itself from discriminating.
Title VII covers only employment relationships, and is not relevant here. None of the other titles cover private behavior at all.
So are you saying - serious question - that the law that says that Business “A” cannot refuse to allow me as a customer because of my race does not apply to Business “A” refusing to allow another business as a supplier based on race? Not saying that is what is happening in this case, but you piqued my curiosity.
Yup. That is not to say that there may not be other laws that require Business A to select suppliers without regard for race, but the CRA does not and as far as I am aware no federal law does (at least for businesses that are not federal contractors).