About those people suing businesses that won't serve them...

This forum is for discussion of politics, diplomacy, law, and justice
User avatar
Jered
Posts: 7859
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:30 am

About those people suing businesses that won't serve them...

Post by Jered »

I've done some reading on the issue, and have come up with a few answers if you need them:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
And...I found a US Supreme Court Case that delivers the meaning of involuntary servitude:
This case concerns the scope of two criminal statutes enacted by Congress to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment. Title 18 U.S.C. § 241 prohibits conspiracy to interfere with an individual's Thirteenth Amendment right to be free from "involuntary servitude." Title 18 U.S.C. § 1584 makes it a crime knowingly and willfully to hold another person "to involuntary servitude." We must determine the meaning of "involuntary servitude" under these two statutes.
"Involuntary servitude consists of two terms."

"Involuntary means 'done contrary to or without choice' -- 'compulsory' -- 'not subject to control of the will.' "
"Servitude means '[a] condition in which a person lacks liberty especially to determine one's course of action or way of life' -- 'slavery' -- 'the state of being subject to a master.'"
Looking behind the broad statements of purpose to the actual holdings,
we find that, in every case in which this Court has found a condition of involuntary servitude, the victim had no available choice but to work or be subject to legal sanction.
In Clyatt v. United States, 197 U. S. 207 (1905), for example, the Court recognized that peonage -- a condition in which the victim is coerced by threat of legal sanction to work off a debt to a master -- is involuntary servitude under the Thirteenth Amendment. Id. at 197 U. S. 215, 197 U. S. 218. Similarly, in United States v. Reynolds, 235 U. S. 133 (1914), the Court held that "[c]ompulsion of . . . service by the constant fear of imprisonment under the criminal laws" violated "rights intended to be secured by the Thirteenth Amendment."
Absent change by Congress, we hold that, for purposes of criminal prosecution under § 241 or § 1584, the term "involuntary servitude" necessarily means a condition of servitude in which the victim is forced to work for the defendant by the use or threat of physical restraint or physical injury, or by the use or threat of coercion through law or the legal process. This definition encompasses those cases in which the defendant holds the victim in servitude by placing the victim in fear of such physical restraint or injury or legal coercion.

...and that is why I despise people who sue private businesses who refuse to serve them.
The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.
User avatar
Netpackrat
Posts: 13983
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:04 pm

Re: About those people suing businesses that won't serve them...

Post by Netpackrat »

You're just a racist homophobe bigot...
Cognosce teipsum et disce pati

"People come and go in our lives, especially the online ones. Some leave a fond memory, and some a bad taste." -Aesop
User avatar
dfwmtx
Posts: 1443
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:04 pm

Re: About those people suing businesses that won't serve them...

Post by dfwmtx »

I also use the same argument against people who advocate free healthcare. "So you want to enslave everyone in the healthcare industry from the lowliest hospital janitor to the highest paid surgeon?" Shuts them up pretty quick (or gets them correcting themselves and saying they meant single-payer/government-funded healthcare).
"Arms are honor; slaves have neither."

"I am Chaos, I am alive...and I tell you that you are free!" -Eris Discordia
User avatar
HTRN
Posts: 12397
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 3:05 am

Re: About those people suing businesses that won't serve them...

Post by HTRN »

Except that if you want to do business in the US, you have to abide by the various federal and state commerce codes. You dont get to say no to a customer based on gender, religion, race or (increasingly) sexual orientation.
HTRN, I would tell you that you are an evil fucker, but you probably get that a lot ~ Netpackrat

Describing what HTRN does as "antics" is like describing the wreck of the Titanic as "a minor boating incident" ~ First Shirt
User avatar
Vonz90
Posts: 4731
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:05 pm

Re: About those people suing businesses that won't serve them...

Post by Vonz90 »

HTRN wrote:Except that if you want to do business in the US, you have to abide by the various federal and state commerce codes. You dont get to say no to a customer based on gender, religion, race or (increasingly) sexual orientation.
Traditionally these only applied to public accommodations. The latest attempts are trying to expand that way outside its normal boundaries.
User avatar
FelixEstrella
Posts: 2744
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 9:00 pm

Re: About those people suing businesses that won't serve them...

Post by FelixEstrella »

Vonz90 wrote:
HTRN wrote:Except that if you want to do business in the US, you have to abide by the various federal and state commerce codes. You dont get to say no to a customer based on gender, religion, race or (increasingly) sexual orientation.
Traditionally these only applied to public accommodations. The latest attempts are trying to expand that way outside its normal boundaries.
Then how can hanging a "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" sign be legal?
"Luck is where you find it—but to find it you have to look for it" -- Eugene Fluckey.
Blogspot
picsig
Greg
Posts: 8486
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:15 pm

Re: About those people suing businesses that won't serve them...

Post by Greg »

FelixEstrella wrote:
Vonz90 wrote:
HTRN wrote:Except that if you want to do business in the US, you have to abide by the various federal and state commerce codes. You dont get to say no to a customer based on gender, religion, race or (increasingly) sexual orientation.
Traditionally these only applied to public accommodations. The latest attempts are trying to expand that way outside its normal boundaries.
Then how can hanging a "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" sign be legal?
No shirt, no shoes no service?
Maybe we're just jaded, but your villainy is not particularly impressive. -Ennesby

If you know what you're doing, you're not learning anything. -Unknown
Sanity is the process by which you continually adjust your beliefs so they are predictively sound. -esr
User avatar
First Shirt
Posts: 4378
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 11:32 pm

Re: About those people suing businesses that won't serve them...

Post by First Shirt »

In Alabama, you can hang a "No shirt, no shoes, no service" sign and it's okay. But if you don't have the sign on the entrances, clearly visible, you can't enforce that rule.
But there ain't many troubles that a man caint fix, with seven hundred dollars and a thirty ought six."
Lindy Cooper Wisdom
Greg
Posts: 8486
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:15 pm

Re: About those people suing businesses that won't serve them...

Post by Greg »

First Shirt wrote:In Alabama, you can hang a "No shirt, no shoes, no service" sign and it's okay. But if you don't have the sign on the entrances, clearly visible, you can't enforce that rule.
Clearly racist and unconstitutional. (Yes that's sarcasm.)

But it's an objective requirement that does not mention race in any way?

Disparate impact. Checkmate.

With that evil little doctrine in the lefty toolbox, you can't ever say no to a member of a protected class. Just wait.
Maybe we're just jaded, but your villainy is not particularly impressive. -Ennesby

If you know what you're doing, you're not learning anything. -Unknown
Sanity is the process by which you continually adjust your beliefs so they are predictively sound. -esr
User avatar
HTRN
Posts: 12397
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 3:05 am

Re: About those people suing businesses that won't serve them...

Post by HTRN »

FelixEstrella wrote:
Vonz90 wrote:
HTRN wrote:Except that if you want to do business in the US, you have to abide by the various federal and state commerce codes. You dont get to say no to a customer based on gender, religion, race or (increasingly) sexual orientation.
Traditionally these only applied to public accommodations. The latest attempts are trying to expand that way outside its normal boundaries.
Then how can hanging a "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" sign be legal?
You can refuse to serve somebody because of their behavior, hygiene, or manner of dress. You can't refuse because of religion, gender, race, religion and in some states, sexual orientation. The fun parts when said individual has issues in both the former or the latter.
HTRN, I would tell you that you are an evil fucker, but you probably get that a lot ~ Netpackrat

Describing what HTRN does as "antics" is like describing the wreck of the Titanic as "a minor boating incident" ~ First Shirt
Post Reply