Re: App Based Discrimination
For those who aren't aware, EatOkra is an index of black-owned restaurants. By business customers, he means those who would advertise on the site.
Nope, the Civil Rights act of 1964 does not universally say you can't discriminate on basis of race. It specifically covers certain areas (notably employment and public accommodations).
Sorry Mr. "White Victim," you're not going to get SBO sites shutdown.
Re: App Based Discrimination
I am aware of what it is, which is why I asked if it was legal.
is it too much of a problem to ask a question on a legal forum, without racist connotations thrown at me?
Like maybe you could, not assume my race? It sounds like you have a discriminatory problem yourself. Which brings me to their Instagram and Facebook, which they use to bully people who accuse them of the discriminatory practice...
1, it is denying its service based on race
2. It is an index based on owners race, which is public, and can be used for good and bad
3. Someone is going to get ruled by their decision making process as "not black enough". For example, if I was a sous chef aiming at opening a food truck. How black do i have to be? Do I have to submit genealogy tests? My family ancestry? Will I get removed if I am deemed "not black enough"?
4. Next we have the facebook and instagram pages, where they ridicule and shame anyone who calls the practice discriminatory (which sounds like a bill of rights chap 203 violation to me) as accusers cant be subjected to cyber bullying over a discriminatory practice.
5. This service provides a discriminatorily filtered list, of businesses that are listed under chapter 201.
In my eyes, things like this are a step BACKWARDS in the ways of civil rights and equality. And it all seems to be fueled by the algorithms in facebook news feed creating an echo chamber where it reinforces what your beliefs are based on your likes.
Re: App Based Discrimination
I was explaining the app for the benefit of the other readers.
You asked about the 1964 act. I answered that.
Just because it lists things that are public accommodations doesn't make it one itself, any more than the yellow pages are healthcare providers because it lists doctors.
Re: App Based Discrimination
If this is legal, thats alarming. It would seem that one can be made for any race then. I'll wait to hear from a few people that didn't call me names though.
Re: App Based Discrimination
Quote:
Quoting
Equality4all
If this is legal, thats alarming. It would seem that one can be made for any race then. I'll wait to hear from a few people that didn't call me names though.
You didn't ask if I thought it was legal. You asked if it was a violation of a particular law. That it is not. You can argue whether it is a good policy or not, but it's not a violation of the law you quoted.
I apologize for implying you were a racist. I might give you some background information that may help you understand the sense of the law on this: https://repository.jmls.edu/cgi/view...text=lawreview
Re: App Based Discrimination
Yes, I asked if it was legal and then asked if I was missing something because I thought this was covered by the 1964 civil rights act law. You must have skipped over that part while creating your reply.
Re: App Based Discrimination
Quote:
Quoting
flyingron
Nope, the Civil Rights act of 1964 does not universally say you can't discriminate on basis of race. It specifically covers certain areas (notably employment and public accommodations).
I disagree with this. Imagine if an advertising agency refused to take clients who were Chinese, Japanese and of other east Asian descent. Or if Sony required users of the Playstation Network to prove they are "non-white." How is that any different from the app that's been described? Why do you think the app isn't a "place of public accommodation"? I'm not saying it's crystal clear, and I'm not going to take the time to research it, but it wouldn't surprise me to find out that this sort of thing has yet to be litigated, and it wouldn't at all surprise me to find most courts ruling that apps are "places of public accommodation."
If you believe you have been victimized by this sort of discrimination, at least consult with a local attorney.
Re: App Based Discrimination
The Act defines place of public accomodation. There's no way you can fit an "app" into it. There may be subsequent laws or decisions that make such discrimination legal, but the law he quoted is NOT it.
(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the
premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.
The 1964 isn't the end all of civil rights legislation. It covers public accommodation and employment and a few other things, but it took additional laws to further outlaw discrimination such as the later Fair Housing Act/Civil Right Act of 1968, etc...
Re: App Based Discrimination
Stop reporting "racism" in this thread. You are not the victim of racism. Your civil rights are not being violated - not by Ron's snarky comment, not by the existence of the app. Knock it off.
Re: App Based Discrimination
Quote:
Quoting
Equality4all
In my eyes, things like this are a step BACKWARDS in the ways of civil rights and equality.
Under our legal system all discrimination by persons/entities other than the government is legal unless there is some law that expressly prohibits the discrimination involved. One law that prohibits some types of discrimination is the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But that Act does not bar the discrimination described here. No federal law does. And to my knowledge no state law would prohibit this particular instance of discrimination either, though it's possible that perhaps one or more states do. I can understand wanting to eliminate all instance of race discrimination but new legislation would be needed to bar what this app is doing, perhaps an amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Quote:
Quoting
pg1067
I'm not saying it's crystal clear, and I'm not going to take the time to research it, but it wouldn't surprise me to find out that this sort of thing has yet to be litigated, and it wouldn't at all surprise me to find most courts ruling that apps are "places of public accommodation."
The problem with this particular case is that the service, as I understand it, is simply a listing of black owned businesses. It therefore doesn't meet the definition in the Act of the sorts of things that are public accommodations. In my research of the cases on this the courts look to see if the establishment, whether a brick and mortar or online, fit within one of the boxes, if you will, that the statute lays out as places of public accommodation. I don't see anywhere in that list of places that would fit a simple listing of black owned businesses. Moreover, many courts have held that virtual only businesses simply don't meet the requirement for a place of public accommodations under the Civil Rights Act (CRA):
“Whether an entity qualifies as a ‘place of public accommodation’ can be a fact-intensive inquiry, because establishments ‘differ markedly in their operations.’ ” Denny v. Elizabeth Arden Salons, Inc., 456 F.3d 427, 431 (4th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nesmith v. YMCA of Raleigh, N.C., 397 F.2d 96, 98 (4th Cir. 1968)). Twitter is correct that a number of courts have concluded that companies which provide online services exclusively do not fall under the ambit of Title II's prohibition against discrimination in places of “public accommodation” as that definition is limited to businesses which operate out of physical facilities. See e.g. Noah v. AOL Time Warner, Inc., 261 F. Supp. 2d 532, 541 (E.D. Va. 2003), aff'd, No. 03-1770, 2004 WL 602711 (4th Cir. Mar. 24, 2004) (“[A]s the relevant case law and an examination the statute's exhaustive definition make clear, ‘places of public accommodation’ are limited to actual, physical places and structures, and thus cannot include chat rooms, which are not actual physical facilities but instead are virtual forums for communication provided by AOL to its members.”); see also Ebeid, No. 18-CV-07030-PJH, 2019 WL 2059662, at *6 (“Facebook is not a public accommodation covered by Title II.”).
Wilson v. Twitter, No. 3:20-CV-00054, 2020 WL 3410349, at *7 (S.D.W. Va. May 1, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, No. CV 3:20-0054, 2020 WL 3256820 (S.D.W. Va. June 16, 2020). The magistrate goes on to note that under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) courts have found some virtual businesses to be places of public accommodation, but the language of the ADA is slightly different from the CRA. Might the courts evolve to extend the ADA rulings to the CRA and include virtual only businesses within the scope of public accommodation? Perhaps they will. But even if they do, they still must find that the virtual businesses fall in one of those boxes that describes a place of public accommodation.
Re: App Based Discrimination
Quote:
Quoting
Moderator
Stop reporting "racism" in this thread. You are not the victim of racism. Your civil rights are not being violated - not by Ron's snarky comment, not by the existence of the app. Knock it off.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism
I apologize for having to correct you, as you are a moderator, however Ron's prejudicial statement, that automatically assumed I was "mr. White victim" was ABSOLUTELY racist according to Merriam Webster dictionary, and others.
Thanks for trying to shame me into not standing up against racism in use.
Quote:
Quoting
Taxing Matters
Under our legal system all discrimination by persons/entities other than the government is legal unless there is some law that expressly prohibits the discrimination involved. One law that prohibits some types of discrimination is the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But that Act does not bar the discrimination described here. No federal law does. And to my knowledge no state law would prohibit this particular instance of discrimination either, though it's possible that perhaps one or more states do. I can understand wanting to eliminate all instance of race discrimination but new legislation would be needed to bar what this app is doing, perhaps an amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The problem with this particular case is that the service, as I understand it, is simply a listing of black owned businesses. It therefore doesn't meet the definition in the Act of the sorts of things that are public accommodations. In my research of the cases on this the courts look to see if the establishment, whether a brick and mortar or online, fit within one of the boxes, if you will, that the statute lays out as places of public accommodation. I don't see anywhere in that list of places that would fit a simple listing of black owned businesses. Moreover, many courts have held that virtual only businesses simply don't meet the requirement for a place of public accommodations under the Civil Rights Act (CRA):
“Whether an entity qualifies as a ‘place of public accommodation’ can be a fact-intensive inquiry, because establishments ‘differ markedly in their operations.’ ” Denny v. Elizabeth Arden Salons, Inc., 456 F.3d 427, 431 (4th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nesmith v. YMCA of Raleigh, N.C., 397 F.2d 96, 98 (4th Cir. 1968)). Twitter is correct that a number of courts have concluded that companies which provide online services exclusively do not fall under the ambit of Title II's prohibition against discrimination in places of “public accommodation” as that definition is limited to businesses which operate out of physical facilities. See e.g. Noah v. AOL Time Warner, Inc., 261 F. Supp. 2d 532, 541 (E.D. Va. 2003), aff'd, No. 03-1770, 2004 WL 602711 (4th Cir. Mar. 24, 2004) (“[A]s the relevant case law and an examination the statute's exhaustive definition make clear, ‘places of public accommodation’ are limited to actual, physical places and structures, and thus cannot include chat rooms, which are not actual physical facilities but instead are virtual forums for communication provided by AOL to its members.”); see also Ebeid, No. 18-CV-07030-PJH, 2019 WL 2059662, at *6 (“Facebook is not a public accommodation covered by Title II.”).
Wilson v. Twitter, No. 3:20-CV-00054, 2020 WL 3410349, at *7 (S.D.W. Va. May 1, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, No. CV 3:20-0054, 2020 WL 3256820 (S.D.W. Va. June 16, 2020). The magistrate goes on to note that under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) courts have found some virtual businesses to be places of public accommodation, but the language of the ADA is slightly different from the CRA. Might the courts evolve to extend the ADA rulings to the CRA and include virtual only businesses within the scope of public accommodation? Perhaps they will. But even if they do, they still must find that the virtual businesses fall in one of those boxes that describes a place of public accommodation.
Thats a good answer, but these are cases earlier than even the tax now levied almost throughout the whole country on digital services like buying a $1.99 pack in candy crush, also before FAANG started abusing its protections. I have a feeling if there isn't case law that defines this as illegal yet, there will be soon. There would be mass protests if this app was listing white owned businesses only. Heaven help the wise guy that creates one if this picks up. Somebody will certainly stir the pot and force a reaction out of the country over this. Probably before November too.
It just doesnt make sense to me why someone would not make a TOTAL index, and toplist black owned, or give support and highlights to them a different way, if the intention was not also to disinclude non black.
For the record, the largest nationality I am, of the ten or so i am mixed up with, is Spanish. I do object to being called a "white victim" as that refers to me having "white privilege" which is also taking the leap that because I am voicing this issue, I must be white with something against blacks, and nothing could be farther from the truth. My religion is Jewish on top of that. As I've seen the BLM movement combine with the BDS movement and preach holocaust denial, it alarms me to see segregation moving further towards division with apps like this. That is why I brought it up. And created an account for bringing it up, so that people with the knee jerk reaction like ron, that I must be anti black, cannot destroy my life for asking a question.
Re: App Based Discrimination
Quote:
Quoting
Equality4all
I have a feeling if there isn't case law that defines this as illegal yet, there will be soon.
The problem is that the courts lack the power to define what is illegal. That is the job of Congress and the state legislatures. There needs to be a statute that makes it illegal. To the extent that some part of such a statute is unclear, the courts have the task to interpret the statute the best they can based on what they think the legislature intended. That gives the courts only so much room to work with. They have to take the statutes as they are, not what they might like them to be. So it may be that what is needed here is to get Congress to amend the law to make this kind of thing illegal, subject to the concerns I raise next.
It occurs to me that even if Congress did pass a statute making this illegal that in this instance that statute would fail on First Amendment grounds. As I understand it, all this app does is list Black owned businesses. Consider the case of a newspaper constructing a listing of Black owned businesses as a service for readers who would like to show support for such businesses in this BLM environment. A law that would prohibit the newspaper from printing such a list or that would dictate to it what businesses it must list in its article would amount to government regulation of speech and thus that law would be unconstitutional in that context. The newspaper has the right to express its support for Black owned businesses by making people aware of them. This app seems to be no different than that, except its listing is not in a newspaper but rather in the form of an app. As a result, I think there may well be significant First Amendment concerns in prohibiting the app publisher from doing what it is doing.
Re: App Based Discrimination
Yes, while it does take advertisements, I don't think you need to be black to advertise. It does accept listings submissions for free from anywhere, but obviously limits them to black-owned business. I agree with TM.
There's no "Business Customer" as eq4all is alleging.