Arkansas woman to be banned from Walmart for racist remarks - what?

[Steve_S]

Just now, Running Gator said:

Legally, that falls under the prohibition against national origin discrimination.    I do not personally agree with it, I think a company should be able to discriminate in any way, shape or form they choose. 

I don't know if that would apply to consumers, only to potential applicants, and I'm fairly sure that it would only be illegal to reject an applicant for having an arabic accent, not for only being able speaking arabic, as such a thing is an unreasonable expectation for an employer to overcome. I'd welcome being proven wrong on this, because it seems at least partially ambiguous, but from what I can tell with a plain reading, it would only apply to potential employees, not potential consumers.

[Running Gator]

Just now, wingnut- said:

 

I know exactly what it says, they are not allowed to make a law restricting free speech.  The SCOTUS has set a precedent that the law of the land overrides private entities from violating the law within the land.

Please provide the case where SCOTUS did such a thing with regards to a private entity restricting the speech of those either using the business or working for the business. 

[wingnut-]

1 minute ago, Running Gator said:

Please provide the case where SCOTUS did such a thing with regards to a private entity restricting the speech of those either using the business or working for the business. 

 

They haven't heard a case specifically in regards to freedom of speech, but they have ruled against membership restrictions, and personnel restrictions as violations, this is a precedent that has been established and would be applied in the same manner.

[Running Gator]

2 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

 

They haven't heard a case specifically in regards to freedom of speech, but they have ruled against membership restrictions, and personnel restrictions as violations, this is a precedent that has been established and would be applied in the same manner.

This is just not accurate.  Anti-discrimination laws have never been applied to or restricted only to the government.  There is no equivalent in the Constitutions about discrimination as there is freedom of speech.

[wingnut-]

3 minutes ago, Running Gator said:

This is just not accurate.  Anti-discrimination laws have never been applied to or restricted only to the government.  There is no equivalent in the Constitutions about discrimination as there is freedom of speech.

 

Are membership restrictions and employee restrictions not rules set by those private entities?  Did the SCOTUS not specifically rule against those rules?  Is freedom of speech not found in the Bill of Rights?  The law is to be applied even handed, the SCOTUS cannot say in one breath that their rules are a violation and in the next breath say that they are not.  Their rules are subject to the law of the land.

[Running Gator]

1 hour ago, wingnut- said:

 

Are membership restrictions and employee restrictions not rules set by those private entities?  Did the SCOTUS not specifically rule against those rules?  Is freedom of speech not found in the Bill of Rights?  The law is to be applied even handed, the SCOTUS cannot say in one breath that their rules are a violation and in the next breath say that they are not.  Their rules are subject to the law of the land.

Why yes, the freedom of speech is found in the bill of rights.  And that is what makes it different than laws like anti-discrimination laws. 

You see, the Bill of Rights is all about limiting the power of the government, not of the individual.  

This is why SCOTUS can enforce discrimination laws on individuals, but not freedom of speech.  

The law of the land is that nobody can discriminate and that the government cannot infringe on your free speech.   To force the free speech part onto individuals would actually be in direct contrast to the law of the land.

[LadyKay]

4 hours ago, wingnut- said:

 

I'm saying they have the right to refuse her because of the disturbance she was causing, not because they don't agree with the words coming out of her mouth.

I think that is why they did it. So why all this talk about free speech on here? 

[Bill16652]

15 hours ago, wingnut- said:

 

What the first amendment is stating is that Congress cannot restrict the freedom of speech, this freedom applies anywhere on American soil.  About 10 years ago here in Michigan there was an incident involving a family.  They took a weekend camping excursion along a popular river here.  On their journey they were in close proximity to a group of young men that continually used profane and explicit language in their presence.  They appealed to the young men to stop on account of their young children that were with them, but the young men refused and got even more vulgar in response.  The couple complained to the DNR who fined the young men.  The young men took their case all the way to the Supreme Court of Michigan (which by the way was majority conservative), and the young men won their case.  The court stated that it was a violation of their 1st amendment right and a 130 year old law was wiped off the books, just like that.

So now here in this state, one can use any kind of language they want in public, and there is nothing anyone can do about it.  If you think it can't happen in your state just wait and see when the opportunity presents itself.  Of course now the federal government has deemed certain words as hate crimes, but they don't apply to everyone equally.  The establishment understands that you can't simply take freedom from people, not without a fight, but if you can get them to give it up themselves, the sky is the limit.  People should be careful what they give away, eventually they are going to take something you don't want to give up and it will be too late.

God bless

Right on

[LadyKay]

I think you are allowed to say what you want in a store. You just can't scream it at other shoppers. 

[wingnut-]

8 hours ago, Running Gator said:

Why yes, the freedom of speech is found in the bill of rights.  And that is what makes it different than laws like anti-discrimination laws. 

You see, the Bill of Rights is all about limiting the power of the government, not of the individual.  

This is why SCOTUS can enforce discrimination laws on individuals, but not freedom of speech.  

The law of the land is that nobody can discriminate and that the government cannot infringe on your free speech.   To force the free speech part onto individuals would actually be in direct contrast to the law of the land.

 

Exactly, the Bill of Rights empowers individuals, and those rights extend to every corner of this nation.  That is precisely why the founders guaranteed those rights.  The government has already infringed on the rights of public establishments, repeatedly.  Restaurants and bars can no longer allow people to smoke in them, not by choice, but by law.  Private clubs cannot restrict membership requirements, not by choice, but by law.  Private clubs cannot restrict leadership positions, not by choice, by law.  And when someone in your state decides to push their right to curse in a restaurant if they want to, you will find that this too will be allowed by law.

Removing someone from a business has guidelines by law as well, ladykay posted them.  None of them restrict speech other than if you are harassing employees or other customers.  A few other exceptions would be hate speech or anything that could be construed as threatening which would get you labeled as a terrorist, and under the Patriot Act they have all sorts of latitude.