Hacker News Reader

Comment by overcast | Hacker News Reader

This Latino place down the street serves the best rice and beans ever, they also wont server you if you're wearing pants falling off your ass(literal sign). The 7-11 won't serve you unless you're wearing a shirt, and shoes. Businesses can server whoever the hell they want.

View on HN

Your statement is quite ignorant. There is a massive difference between business-specific dress codes (both of your examples), and discrimination based on the way a person was born.

Inadequate clothing is not a protected class under the Civil Rights Act. Hence there are major legal differences between refusing to serve a person because they are black, and refusing to serve a person because they are shirtless.

Sexual orientation is also not a protected class under the Civil Rights Act. Hence the topic.

So if a person stops being gay while they’re in the bakery, do they get a cake?

Everything you just described as criteria for refusal was by personal choice.

Religion is a personal choice, and protected. Sexual orientation is not protected by law.

They could have gotten a cake if they had been willing to get one that didn't specifically express the homosexual nature of the wedding. The baker had no problem selling them a generic cake, the issue was that he didn't want to make a cake that expressed a message he disagreed with.

No they can't. Exposing your ass and being shirtless aren't protected classes. You can't refuse service because someone is black, because it is a protected class.

Pants falling down your ass isn't a protected class, so that's not really a fair argument.

Those rules are based on behavior within the establishment, rather than who you are.

How I wear my clothes, is a part of who I am correct? What if baggy pants is part of my religion?

If baggy pants is part of your religion, I'd imagine that means you're free to argue it in court.

So a sign that says "No black people here" is totally fine?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com