Based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, they cannot discriminate for any reason that is a protected status. However, they can makeup any reason for not serving them. That means some racist asshole could say they aren’t serving the black customer because they were rude or some other made up shit. Thankfully, your political stance is not a protected status.
Well they could do that a few times. But if someone really wanted to press the issue I am sure they could use the pattern of behavior to establish that he is indeed kicking out due to race.
Right. The various Civil Rights Acts in establishing proteted classes in placed of public accommodation and associated case law created a standard whereby there does not need to be, for example, an explicit “No blacks!” sign out front. A demonstrated pattern of refusing to serve black customers was sufficient to run afoul of the laws.
In fact, the discriminatory effect doesn’t even need to be intentional. If the end result of a policy results in a discriminatory result, it too is a violation of the law. For instance, where I grew up down south, whenever you went indoors you took your hat off. It’s respectful and such. Imagine a dining establishment that turned this custom into a steadfast rule – no one is seated while wearing a hat. Seems reasonable right? Everyone is treated the same! Until you refuse to serve a Sikh customer because they refuse to remove their turban. Now you’re discriminating against someone because of their religion, and there’s no overarching reason (safety, health, etc.) that a person can’t eat and wear a turban at the same time.
This is a bad take. When we, society, allow you to register as a business, we form an agreement. Part of that agreement is that you follow certain rules. We make those rules to better society.
Some rules are things like pay taxes, or don’t sell outdated food. Some rules are there to make sure anyone can shop there, without discussion.
Those rules are important because it’s very possible for a small number of business owners to make a group of people’s lives very difficult, especially out in rural areas where people don’t have a lot of options.
For a concrete example, let’s say Pfizer cures cancer. Do you want them to be able to say they won’t sell to Christians? You can’t just “go elsewhere”. But now this is allowed.
The much more dangerous part of this ruling is that the supreme Court ruled on a case where there was no standing. A lot of people don’t realize that having standing is one of the cornerstones of our legal structure. Now, in theory, any idiot could sue for any dreamed up scenario and have a much better chance of winning in court.
There are already regulations on discrimination. You cannot be discriminated against for your religious beliefs. However, Pfizer could choose not to service rapists. In which case, want the cure for cancer? Don’t rape. Having the option to not service someone based on their actions is very different than not servicing them because of who they are. If someone is being a dick to your employees, you should have the right to kick them out. Based on what you’re saying, you think no matter how much of an asshole they are, the employees should put up with it and be their personal assistant.
Society needs to codify these rules into law though otherwise bad actors break those rules. When a right wing activist supreme court removes these protections, people get hurt. But, a store like this isnt doing this to hurt people, it’s to make a statement that the far-rights own discrimination can backfire on them. It’s a form of protest and a statement, not true bigotry. Its like using the flying spaghetti monster tactic to push legislation to be more strict on religion. These people are trying ro show that regulation on business to prevent denying goods and services is important for everyone, not just minorities the the right hates.
You’re right in that the current state of the country does not actually reflect the ideals it professes to be based on, and this Supreme Court ruling is proof of that.
Tracking sites are lagging behind a bit, but so far lemmy.world is attracting the majority of new users since the reddit API shutdown.
The other big instances like lemmy.ml and beehaw.org are super slow today even though they’re barely taking on new users. My hunch is people are scouting different lemmy instances and settling for lemmy.world because it’s the most stable at the moment.
I love it. I want him to kill it. I despise the cesspool of hate that is twitter today. Cant wait for a twitter movie/docuseries “Where did we go wrong?”. Same goes for Reddit
Yes. However you can install a PWA (progressive web app) via chrome and firefox (perhaps other browsers but those are the ones I use). The PWA allows you to use lemmy when logged into your instance of choice and it acts like a mobile app. To install, go yo your instance in a browser, then check our options. For chrome, it says add to home screen. I believe firefox it says install app. https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/4ddba9db-456a-460d-9736-ff166e30c85d.png
Personally I feel that what Reddit has been using for nearly 20 years was successful because it worked, the negativity that inevitably comes with large groups of people was the only issue and a lot of Lemmy users think it’s the basic systems that worked.
Karma added a little boost to activity and engagement, while upvote/downvote helped curate content at a site wide level.
The value of these made up points is directly correlated with the size of the overall group and the larger Lemmy grows, the more it will have the same issues, it’s just a matter of how long we get to enjoy this environment before it outgrows us etc.
The only important thing is that while we still can, we try to reinforce to people that the vote itself is matter of quality and appropriateness to the community the comment/post is in, as apposed to whether the thing is liked etc.
I havent looked at code, so i can only guess. Just before you looked at it, i clicked downvote. I realise my mistake and unclick/click it again. The local server we’re browsing on (Server A) sends the downvote to the server the post was made on(Server B), but it also temporarily adjusts it local figure for a while until it can refresh from the server the post was made on. Last it knew server B had a tally at 0 downvotes, so it goes negative. (If Server A had a downvote figure of 4, the same process would have shown 3 to you)
It registered, I see the downvote. The reason you don’t see downvotes on most comments is that most people here don’t give them out for no reason, so there just aren’t any to display.
Pretty sure the negative downvotes weren’t intentional manipulation, my best guess was some cross-federation code interacting weirdly. Though it’s fixed now anyway, you responded to a comment that was 17 days old.
I love it. I want him to kill it. I despise the cesspool of hate that is twitter today. Cant wait for a twitter movie/docuseries “Where did we go wrong?”. Same goes for Reddit
lemmy.world
Oldest