Hacker News Reader

Comment by jude- | Hacker News Reader

Under the current anti-discrimination laws, political affiliation is not a protected class. Religion, race, sexuality, etc., however, are.

View on HN

Interesting, I didn't know that. So a business can actually deny a service depending on political affiliation.

Of-course this can be challenged in the courts. Well, unless, it's protected by 230.

Anything can be challenged in the courts. And I believe there are some (limited, mainly religious based) exceptions that are pretty recent. But there is nothing that protects the political beliefs of a person as this isn’t a protected class. Protected classes protect things people are, not what they think.

Trying to conflate 230 here is disingenuous and has no role in a strictly business decision about whether of not a business has to accept a customer.

The answer depends on what state and city the business is located in.

Political affiliation is a protected class in some states[0].

California[1], for example, also prohibits discrimination on gender identity, ancestry, sexual orientation, AIDS/HIV status, medical condition, political activities or affiliation, veteran status, or status as a stalking victim.

[0] https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/discrimin...

[1] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/california-employmen...

Neither of those linked sets if laws apply to customers. Only to employees.

Meaning I can post a sign "No Trump Voters Allowed" on my restaurant?

Sure thing. Right next to the commonplace "no shirt, no shoes, no service" and "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" signs.

Political affiliation is a protected class in California[0] but this may be legal in some states.

[0] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/california-employmen...

That's only for employers discriminating against employees. It doesn't apply to customers -- a business can almost always refuse to do business with you, for almost any reason. Example: you can get thrown out of a restaurant for not adhering to a dress code.

Good catch! I'm not sure what I was thinking.

I did some further searches; Madison, Wisconsin[0] and DC[1] forbid discrimination on political affiliation in public accommodations.

[0] https://library.municode.com/wi/madison/codes/code_of_ordina...

[1] https://ohr.dc.gov/protectedtraits

So as we soon as we pass law making it a protected class, that argument will be null and void, correct?

Great, I cannot wait!

I wouldn't hold your breath.

That's alright, I'm sure you would have said the same to civil rights advocates in the '60s, too.

Except, the civil rights advocates in the 1960's would have agreed with me. Denying business to racist institutions, starting with the Montgomery bus system, is how they got started.

> So as we soon as we pass law making it a protected class, that argument will be null and void, correct?

For business discrimination in general, maybe.

For specifically constraining the expressive freedom of media (including social media) businesses, quite plausibly not, because a statute designating a protected class can't negate other people’s First Amendment rights, since the Constitution is superior to statute law.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com