I just realized:
We now (thankfully) have a generation who has never seen an empty restaurant with little “Reserved” signs on them.
“No, is isn’t because you’re _____ that we can’t seat you, it’s because all these tables (and the stools at counter, too) are reserved”.
And I am thankful that some do not know of anti-miscegenation laws.
I would like a cite on your claim that “This is what most do”. I would presume that most small business owners welcome any chance to make profits. That there are a few fanatics that make the news does not give anyone the right to condemn a whole group, especially when its “nearly impossible to prove”.
I’m presuming he/she meant:
“This is what the majority of those businesses that want to reject certain customers do.”
Not:
“This is what the majority of existing businesses do.”
I’m thankful that we’ve gotten to the point where it’s possible for people not to know of such laws.
But I don’t want people to actually not know about them. Those who are ignorant of the past, etc…
Some have been denied as with Richard Butler of the Aryan Nations, some sadly have been acknowledged.
I think “most” refers to “most small business who want to discrimiinate”, as opposed to “most all small business owners”. If they WANT to discriminate they will use an excuse like “I’m already overbooked” rather than explain how your skin color makes you revolting to them.
The first line and second lines are basically correct. The rest is iffy.
First, specific performance is not available as a remedy in tort at all. It’s available only in contract actions, and only for conveyance of unique items (real estate is always considered unique, but it could also include grandma’s heirloom ring or an original work of art, etc.)
Discrimination cases are sometimes called “statutory torts”, but they’re really an entirely separate body of law.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that we are talking about a contract action (caterer enters into contract to provide services, then refuses later on) specific performance will not be granted anyway. Specific performance is (almost) never available as a remedy for breach of a personal services contract.
To answer the OP’s question, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits race discrimination by the following businesses:
[QUOTE=42 U.S. Code § 2000a]
(b) Establishments affecting interstate commerce or supported in their activities by State action as places of public accommodation; lodgings; facilities principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises; gasoline stations; places of exhibition or entertainment; other covered establishments
Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this subchapter if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
(4) any establishment
(A)
(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or
(ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and
(B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.
[/QUOTE]
Catering services are not engaged in the business of selling food for consumption “on premises”, so they can discriminate as much as they like so far as federal law is concerned. Most states have broader race discrimination statutes, however.
Sidebar: I’m struck by how limited a listing that is, compared to the breadth of public services and accommodations which are covered by Canadian human rights laws
If they hate some one they probably don’t care what they do to them. They are breaking the law anyways by discrimination not serving them.
Can you give some examples?
Well, there are other federal antidiscrimination laws which basically extend the provisions of the CRA into other zones (such as the Equal Housing Act.) I just didn’t mention any of them because I can’t see any which might conceivably apply to an off-site catering service.
There are also state laws which do (though my state’s doesn’t.) It’s easier for the states to pass this sort of legislation because they don’t have to find authority for it.
In the Canadian Human Rights Act, here’s the main section dealing with public services and accomodations:
That only applies to to accomodations or services coming under federal jurisdiction, but the provincial laws are all very similar. For instance, here’s the Ontario provision:
These terms, “Accommodation” and “services” have been interpreted very broadly by the courts. As a general rule, if you’re in business, you’re covered by these requirements, either federal or provincial. It’s not the shopping list approach in the US federal provision quoted by Really Not All that Bright.
Are you trying to say US is not that good on laws on discrimination?
This being GQ, I would venture to say Northern Piper is merely remarking that Canadian anti-discrimination laws are broader.
If someone really was intent on refusing such service, undoubtedly they would find some benign reason to refuse service. It would be more fun to analyse this if the facts were that it was a disabled, interracial, same sex, aged, (fill in religion here) couple requesting the service.
I’m assuming that “interracial” means black man/white woman?
I wonder how many of the people who have an issue with that do not have an issue with the other one we see the most (at least around here), which is white man/Asian woman. :dubious:
In 1978, an American preacher in South Korea told me that the Bible prohibits inter-racial marriage and thus no such marriages are permitted in his church. IIRC, the denomination was the Church of the Brethren.
Bob Jones University prohibited interracial dating (much less marriage) on (purported) Biblical grounds until 2000, when it got George W. Bush in trouble. Bob Jones Sr. was an :evangelical Methodist"; I presume his views are not widely held among Methodists today. See recent thread on the policy.
The US has very good anti-discrimination laws. The federal statute listed earlier takes a narrower approach than the Canadian federal Act, but as RNATB comments, that’s likely due to constitutional restraints on the federal Congress’ legislative powers. I’m not in a position to comment on how that federal law interacts with state laws, which appears to be another difference from the Canadian approach.
Given the huge fight* over each and every word in that Act, it is actually a large list.
(the courts, IIRC, later expanded the definition of “interstate” past the point the bigots were hoping to exploit by saying “My business does not do business across State lines, so I’m not bound”.