App Based Discrimination

[Equality4all]

The app EatOkra provides a service.

The app provides a service to food businesses ("Business-customers"), by listing them in their app, and provides a second service to prospective customers ("Customers") that wish to buy food, displaying those listings to them.

Customers can be any creed.

Business-customers can only exist of one specific race.

Is this legal? Am I missing something or doesn't the civil rights act of 1964 disallow something like this?

[flyingron]

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.

[Equality4all]

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.

[flyingron]

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.

[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.

[flyingron]

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

[Equality4all]

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.

[pg1067]

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.

[flyingron]

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...

[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.