AFAIU, he says he doesn’t - he says that he turned that one guy away because he and his friends were too loud.
But let’s take a hypothetical. Let’s say there is a bigoted restaurant owner who really doesn’t like some ethnic group - let’s call them Z. He doesn’t refuse to serve them. But he has anti-Z posters on his walls, has anti-Z slogans put up, and tells interviewers that he really hates Z and wishes they wouldn’t come to his restaurant.
What does CRA do about such a business owner? And what do you think should be done, in terms of legislation, about him?
Provided he serves Zs the same as non-Zs and treats them with respect person to person, and providing his employees do likewise, and providing his customers aren’t allowed (by him) to disrespect or harass Zs, then he probably isn’t actively discriminating nor creating a discriminatory environment, and nothing should be done. But just how inflammatory are his posters? Are they hate speech? Do they themselves create a discriminatory atmosphere? If so, then his establishment may be effectively discriminatory even while he himself is able to claim to be acting in a non-discriminatory manner. It can be the “I’m not touching you!!!” scenario of kids in the back seat of the car.
I was thinking of the parallel with the “hostile work environment” argument, which I believe employees have used to successfully pursue lawsuits, even if they were not necessarily direct, individual targets of abuse.
If that works for employees, seems to me it ought to work for patrons too.
Don’t the laws under discussion here fall under the “places of public accommodation” umbrella? Whatever their fine points may be, it seems a reasonable concept that no one entering such a place, in the absence of any untoward behavior on their part, should have to be subjected to an atmosphere that singles them out for offense that is not visited equally upon all who enter.
To me, that would encompass a range that runs from racially charged posters to deliberately targeted poor service.
“The restaurant’s official t-shirt makes it clear that a ‘faggot’ isn’t welcome in James’s establishment. It also calls the place a n*****-free-zone, and threatens violence against Muslims, Democrats, and members of many minority groups.”
Exactly my thought. And your extrapolation from there is also where I would go.
That said, the pictures you posted don’t IMHO quite reach the hate speech level. But if others actually declare a fag-free and a n-free zone, and promises of violence, well, that seems pretty hateful to me.
The words “fag-free zone” do not declare a fag-free zone? And wouldn’t you say that government prosecuting someone for displaying offensive slogans is against the first amendment?
From what I understand, the CRA can’t do anything about this hypothetical owner. And if he’s not actually rejecting Z customers, then he shouldn’t be prosecuted.
And the point of the CRA, as I understand it, isn’t to protect minorities from assholery by assholes. It’s to make sure that they have the same rights to conduct business, to travel, to eat, to stop at a hotel, etc., as everyone else. And this hypothetical asshole isn’t restricting any of these rights. But if he turns them away because they’re Z, then he is, and he should be prosecuted.
That’s not what Dan said. He said the pictures I linked to didn’t rise to hate speech. I couldn’t find a photo of the “fag-free zone” T-shirt or poster (can’t remember which it was, but I did see it when the story first broke).
There is a difference, seems to me, between a “slogan” and a statement of policy. One is thought, the other is action. If you have a “zone,” you’ve established something real, even if it’s just a space within your place of business.
That the owner is being deliberately provocative and over-the-top to make a political point of some sort should not matter in this case. It still pretty clearly rises to the “hostile environment” standard for me.
So if this hypothetical owner displays a sign that says “N****s not welcome here,” but serves a black customer anyway if he comes in, then he’s in the clear?
Seems like a very thin line that would separate the above sign from a “Whites only” one.
Not blind, just bad memory. What i meant to say is I couldn’t find a photo of whatever this guy has that vents his spleen against N****s and others you seem so concerned that he be able express his free-speech hatred (which could easily translate into action at any moment) for. My apologies.
Legally, from my understanding, yes. Although such a sign might violate other laws or local ordnances against disorderly conduct, or something like that.
Apparently in the workplace lawsuits I alluded to earlier, it did.
Were you on the asshole employers’ side in those cases as well?
How about if you line out your beliefs on that score? An employee, whose work is exemplary, has never taken any action on the job to call it into question. His/her employer persists in making loud and very public racist/homophobic/ethnic slur-type comments.
The employer’s free-speech right to be a dick is far more worthy of protection here…right? The remedy is for the employee to find another job, right? It’s on him/her, right?
Because that’s a far more equitable solution than to tell the employer to be a dick on his own time in a bar somewhere — where people can at least reasonably walk away from him without penalty — rather than in front of people who are helping his company prosper…right?
Yes I am. But at least in those instances you can make some case that the employee is somewhat coerced to be in that environment. Finding another restaurant is much, much easier than finding another job.
Ah I see you do understand the difference (as in “at least reasonably walk away” part). If you do, why are giving the workspace lawsuits as something comparable?
