Not to Godwin (but kind of to Godwin,) the Nazis put plenty of non-Jews into camps, and some Jews even collaborated with Nazi Germany. That doesn't mean the number of Jews persecuted by the Nazis was incidental.
Not trying to get into US politics on HN, but I think my point is clear when it comes to comparing this American situation to the views of non-ethnics in foreign cultures, which was the original OPs argument.
Aren't private businesses in the US allowed to deny access to their premises for any reasons? Seems like a weird thing to get sued over, I think in most places if you own the local, you get to decide who goes there, unless it's a place for government or similar.
I don't think there's any place in America that would be illegal to bar entry based on the presence of tattoos.
I can’t sidestep gender discrimination law by refusing to hire people with long hair, unless the job is something like “wig model” or “Jeff bezos impersonator” where being bald is a bona fide occupational qualification.
Edit: Actually wait
> since if your national origin is the US you're automatically a resident
This isn't true is it? If you're born in the US but you live (100% of the time) elsewhere, you're no longer a resident, are you?
Actually, you fully can discriminate for or against local or state residency. I think national residence would be harder, though to be fair you're absolutely able to not hire non-residents.
Frankly the biggest barrier might be that as actual residents would get mad if you asked for proof, and if you didn't test everyone it would likely be an open-and-shut racial (or maybe national origin if you tested on the basis of accent) case.
That sounds like a immigration/social hierarchy/importance rather than something that matters in discrimination contexts, what exactly you mean with "higher status"?
If a bar bans non-US residents, if a US-citizen+Spanish-residency tries to enter, then it shouldn't matter if they're US citizens or not, because the criteria is residency, not citizenship. Or is there like a priority/order for OK/not OK discrimination criteria?
No? "No Canadians" is ambiguous enough that it could mean citizenship, residency, country you were born in, country you identify most with and so on.
"Canadian Residents" isn't ambiguous (you either have residency or not), and also doesn't seem to be protected at all, only national origin is.
This is why the signs are always phrased as "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone/any person".
As with most things though, this is just the minimum federal regulation and states will handle how far they take it differently. There are jurisdictions that wouldn't touch a "no tattoos" policy with a ten-foot pole at the risk of a lawsuit. While there are others that are more lax.
Definitely not. This kind of discrimination is explicitly prohibited by federal civil rights law (Civil Rights Act 1964). It protects people regardless of their national origin (in addition to their skin color).
Worked great, never had any problems on St. Patricks day.
"You can go to any other bar in the city, just not this one."
Is that supposed to imply that Japan has more culture, or that it needs more protection because it's 10x longer? Even if Japanese culture is 10x longer than American culture, it doesn't necessarily follow that there's less of it. Pop music and hollywood music might not be considered "culture" by snobs, but they're still culture, and arguably more plentiful and pervasive than Japanese culture.
YMMV.
The sign itself is probably protected speech.
As for the policy, it is probably also legal here. Private businesses have broad rights to refuse individual customers without stating a reason.
Fabricating a legitimate business reason to deny service to a particular group of customers is usually trivial, as well. Proving it was fabricated for discriminatory reasons can be difficult.
They don't have to state a reason. The entire foundation of the common law system is to have a court decide intent; not be technically bound by your words.
It would only take showing a continued behavior of denying people in a discriminatory manner (e.g. 10% of your visitors are foreigners, but 95% of the people barred entry are in that group) to fine/sanction/shut down the business.
Yes, I agree. It becomes more difficult to infer intent without a stated reason.
Practically speaking, I think most civil rights lawsuits that are decided in the plaintiff’s favor are very, very explicit cases of discrimination. Someone was called a slur, someone was refused service violently, someone had racist iconography scrawled on their property. Yes, fines and sanctions then. Well, sometimes.
The ones who are clever about it never get to that stage. They don’t put up a sign saying “no foreigners,” they put up a sign saying “we speak english here,” “proud to be an american,” and etc. Confederate flags, military paraphernalia, the usual soft threats against the other.
Foreigners in particular are going to find it very difficult to interact with our justice system. A civil rights case that goes to trial is going to take much longer than the typical tourist visa allows. It’s going to be prohibitively expensive for the typical tourist to procure the services of a skilled lawyer.
These are going to be in places that are not heavily touristed even by other Americans. You're talking about places in the deep south; or in some survivalist community in Wyoming/Montana/etc. Not in Miami, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc.
So there's no one to complain. If someone did, they would most certainly face some legislative action.
> Foreigners in particular are going to find it very difficult to interact with our justice system. A civil rights case that goes to trial is going to take much longer than the typical tourist visa allows. It’s going to be prohibitively expensive for the typical tourist to procure the services of a skilled lawyer.
There's two cases where foreigners would complain:
A) they are on a visa, in which case they have the capability and are available to do so (and tend to be a pretty outspoken group considering the trouble they went through to get the visa in the first place).
B) they are visiting friends/family, in which case the friends/family will complain due to discrimination their loved ones faced.
You're using extreme examples to prove it could happen, because you're being disingenuous (imo). No one is doubting it could happen, racist/exclusionist stuff happens all the time. The people in this thread are saying it's not a norm, and (more importantly) that it's not legal. It's quite easy to prove a trend of discrimination, especially if your bar is clad in known racist/nationalist-adjacent paraphernalia.
Or, in other words, just ask yourself this: there are racists and nationalists in LA, SF, Denver, NY, Miami, Seattle, Dallas, etc....so, if it's so easy to skirt the legislation, why do we not find these sorts of bars in places that people actually go to versus insular communities where people are unlikely to raise a fuss?
It is really hard to dispute the myth that “America” only consists of a few large cities, à la Death Stranding. Unfortunately, the whole country is not as enlightened as LA, SF, and NYC.
International tourism is also not limited to these cities. NPS alone attracts millions each year. Although, I understand the fees for foreign visitors is increasing soon.
All one does is file a complaint with the Justice department (or a local states'). The Justice department is who investigates and sues.
That part is key. If they do state a reason, it could become a civil rights issue. The sign alone might not be enough to make a case, but it's a very good start.
>(a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
Restaurants are considered public accommodation under 42 U.S. Code § 2000a (b)(2).
Could a business lie about why they're discriminating? Yes, but that wouldn't be possible with a sign saying "No foreigners" and eventually, someone will file a title II complaint.
It's such a contrast to USA, where I doubt that such a thing would even be legal. And also the bit about no tattoos. That's lawsuit city.