His win is a direct result of the Supreme Court’s decision in a pivotal LGBTQ+ rights case.

  • Catma@lemmy.world
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    So in your example Black people have no right to a service if the location does not wish to serve them? If the next closest location is a days drive away so be it? Maybe they just need to go live closer to those services?

    • Kbobabob@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      8 months ago

      Yes. As a business owner they can refuse business to anyone. They also have to deal with any fallout as a result of such a racist policy.

      • Donjuanme@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        There should be some class of protections, maybe some civil code of rights or something…

          • TauZero@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            only pertain to hiring of individuals

            Not true. Title II of Civil Rights Act (1964) prohibits discrimination in public accomodations (such as hotels and restaurants or other establishments that serve the public), as affirmed by the Supreme Court to be enforceable in for example Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. (1964).

            • Kbobabob@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              I’m happy to be proven wrong. I just don’t understand why they seem so lenient when there’s discrimination regarding religion or sexual orientation.