Are you a lawyer with experience handling these kinds of cases? "This is a RACIST establishment ..." sounds like a defamatory statement to my naive ears when it is made without any fact behind it.
In this case, the two definitions and their purposes would be:
Definition 1. "One not actively working to create equal outcomes for non-white groups (even simply being neutral/disinterested is racist in this definition)". This is the definition of racist in the popular How to Be an Antiracist. This would be used to attach the word to the target.
Definition 2. "One directly and intentionally harming people of non-white races out of conscious and deliberate hatred". Basically the KKK definition. This is the implication that's attached to the target, after definition 1 is used to "stick" the word onto the target.
It's an amazing "stick and stab" tactic that, somehow, we haven't yet developed cultural antibodies against.
But what annoys me is that class is now equated with race. There are millions of poor whites in America who are not nor ever will be privileged.
I would be surprised if this reframing is accepted by enough of the population for a court to accept it.
The entire premise is ludicrous but it’s shocking how many just adopt that line of thinking without any critical thought.
“If you’re not actively fighting against illegal rhino poaching, you are a literally a poacher. It’s not enough to simply “not poach”. You must actively go around physically stopping other poachers.”
Point being you can’t just pick one pet issue and proclaim that anyone who isn’t actively involved in irradiating that issue is necessarily complicit in the issue. There are just too many causes one might be interested in.
Nice. I have heard the term motte and bailey used to describe that tactic.