www.ditl.org

Well, technically, because of the nature of it, it could be a hate crime, or at least severe discrimination.

Nickswitz wrote:Well, technically, because of the nature of it, it could be a hate crime, or at least severe discrimination.

I think in the US there still actually has to be a crime committed for it to be a hate crime. I'm given to understand things are a bit looser elsewhere.

How would they prove it's discrimination? If it's a private party, they've no reason to invite her or any of the others.

Somewhat. Except for the fact that she was told it was somewhere else. So it's not illegal that she wasn't invited, but that she was blatantly lied to. It may be difficult to prove intent, but I'm sure that there's a good gay right's group that could pull it off.

Again, I'm going to agree with Cenc. Who the hell would want to hang out with assh*les like that anyways?

Sionnach Glic wrote:How would they prove it's discrimination? If it's a private party, they've no reason to invite her or any of the others.

Nick's right. Technically, there is no legal requirement to allow any particular person on private property - when I managed retail stores, for example, I could legally refuse entry to anyone at a whim... so long as it was clear that it wasn't motivated by protected prejudice. However, I wouldn't think it would be too much of a stretch to show that the intent was to screw this chick over. In a civil suit, that intent could well be all that's needed.

Mikey wrote:

Sionnach Glic wrote:How would they prove it's discrimination? If it's a private party, they've no reason to invite her or any of the others.

Nick's right. Technically, there is no legal requirement to allow any particular person on private property - when I managed retail stores, for example, I could legally refuse entry to anyone at a whim... so long as it was clear that it wasn't motivated by protected prejudice. However, I wouldn't think it would be too much of a stretch to show that the intent was to screw this chick over. In a civil suit, that intent could well be all that's needed.

So, basically, you could refuse entry to white males, so long they gave no indication of also being gay?

sunnyside wrote:So, basically, you could refuse entry to white males, so long they gave no indication of also being gay?

Doubt it - I expect racist and sexist discrimination is also prohibited.

Captain Seafort wrote:

sunnyside wrote:So, basically, you could refuse entry to white males, so long they gave no indication of also being gay?

Doubt it - I expect racist and sexist discrimination is also prohibited.

You misunderstand. Discriminating against straight white males is the only thing that isn't racist or sexist.

Yes it is. Discrimination s either side of the equation. You can be equally racist towards a white male as a black female.

To add to that. if you are equally discriminatory to both of them your actually not being discriminatory...

sunnyside wrote:

Captain Seafort wrote:

sunnyside wrote:So, basically, you could refuse entry to white males, so long they gave no indication of also being gay?

Doubt it - I expect racist and sexist discrimination is also prohibited.

You misunderstand. Discriminating against straight white males is the only thing that isn't racist or sexist.

Nickswitz wrote:Yes it is. Discrimination s either side of the equation. You can be equally racist towards a white male as a black female.

To add to that. if you are equally discriminatory to both of them your actually not being discriminatory...

I believe that was sarcasm... I know I've been known to observe, "No, no, reverse discrimination is ok!" sarcastically

Yeah, I have too, I've also heard it said completely seriously. Which is incredibly sad.

Captain Seafort wrote:

sunnyside wrote:So, basically, you could refuse entry to white males, so long they gave no indication of also being gay?

Doubt it - I expect racist and sexist discrimination is also prohibited.

As long as I didn't refuse them on the grounds of being white or male. It's a technical nicety, and one which is rarely applied because of the general debasement into "he said, she said" and the sympathetic cast that the aggrieved often takes on in court.

Basicaly, as long as you aren't blatant that you're not serving them because of skin colour/sexuality/whatever, there's nothing they can do.

Nickswitz wrote:Yeah, I have too, I've also heard it said completely seriously. Which is incredibly sad.

Most people realize that discrimination is universal and can against anyone. However the part people probably mean seriously is "Good luck taking it to court."