Spring Break
Search the Archives
Abstract:
Jilani column draws strong criticismsZaid Jilani, In his Feb. 28 column, says, "Iran has never been an aggressor in its existence." How are we to define aggressor? During the Jimmy Carter White House vacation, Tehran students seized the American embassy in '79 until day one of President Reagan's administration....
Originally posted byBill
Chris, quite frankly you're wrong. First of all, a bar, or any other private business for that matter, cannot have "whatever policy it wishes regarding who it serves." There are definite limits to how they can exclude. A business cannot refuse service to a customer based on race, religion, sex, or a number of other protected categories. Go ask a law professor, if you care to verify all this.
Second of all: If a case were ever made, and fully pursued, out of one of these clubs' refusal to admit someone for wearing a backwards hat or jewelry around their neck, a court might very well find that the club was discriminating against a certain race through it's "dress code." If the plaintiff can show that there is no reason for the exclusion of jewelry on men and backwards caps other than to keep a certain race of people out of your establishment, then the bar will almost certainly lose. And you know what, Chris? I can't think of any rational reason to exclude male jewelry and backwards caps from my establishment. It certainly wouldn't keep out any more guns or knives. I guess it would keep black people, who wear such clothing with far greater frequency than whites, out though. Geez, that dress code sounds kinda racist to me when I step through it logically like that.
I'll give you this, Chris. The policy to exclude blacks from the bars probably isn't based on anything as malicious as white supremacy. It's more likely based on the fact that a violent incident occurred at a bar mostly attended by blacks a couple of years ago, and the antiquated thought that black people are just naturally more violent than white people, so that if you keep blacks out of your neighborhood or establishment, you'll have fewer problems with violence and other criminal activity. But the fact is, Chris, that's still pretty damned racist.
Bill
posted 3/02/07 @ 9:30 AM EST
Second of all: If a case were ever made, and fully pursued, out of one of these clubs' refusal to admit someone for wearing a backwards hat or jewelry around their neck, a court might very well find that the club was discriminating against a certain race through it's "dress code." If the plaintiff can show that there is no reason for the exclusion of jewelry on men and backwards caps other than to keep a certain race of people out of your establishment, then the bar will almost certainly lose. And you know what, Chris? I can't think of any rational reason to exclude male jewelry and backwards caps from my establishment. It certainly wouldn't keep out any more guns or knives. I guess it would keep black people, who wear such clothing with far greater frequency than whites, out though. Geez, that dress code sounds kinda racist to me when I step through it logically like that.
I'll give you this, Chris. The policy to exclude blacks from the bars probably isn't based on anything as malicious as white supremacy. It's more likely based on the fact that a violent incident occurred at a bar mostly attended by blacks a couple of years ago, and the antiquated thought that black people are just naturally more violent than white people, so that if you keep blacks out of your neighborhood or establishment, you'll have fewer problems with violence and other criminal activity. But the fact is, Chris, that's still pretty damned racist.