Business says it doesn’t serve anyone who is armed

  • flop_leash_973@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    1 year ago

    If its legal for someone to hypothetically not create a wedding announcement website for gay people because she doesn’t want to serve those kinds of people, then there should be nothing wrong with not wanting to serve armed cops.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-web-designer-refused-work-sex-weddings-rcna68629

    Baking food and making coffee could be argued to be every bit as “creative” as a website can be if the lawyer is good enough.

    • Rediphile@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 year ago

      One is outright discrimination based on sexual orientation. The other is simply a policy applied to all patrons.

      It should absolutely be legal to say ‘no shoes no service’ or ‘has gun no service’ even if it was not legal to discriminate based on sexual orientation/race/gender/etc. They aren’t at all the same thing.

      • ColorcodedResistor@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        unless you have a bouncer with a wand and proper pat down experience. the patrons will just conceal and not tell you. plenty of places say no guns. but a sign is nothing more than that.

        • cristo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          Esperanto
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not in San Fran they wont. They let criminals run rampant but wont let anyone without Trump money get through the concealed carry permit process. Bruen should have fixed that but who knows if Cali will actually listen with Newsom putting that constitutional amendment to neuter the 2nd amendment out there.