California restaurant asks neo-nazis to leave. ACLU sues for discrimination.

[Taco John]

Some Strange Consequences of Public Accommodations Laws

David Bernstein • May 25, 2010 7:39 pm

All the discussion of Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act has obscured the fact that public accommodations laws, especially at the state and local level, have expanded way, way, beyond their original purpose of ensuring that previously excluded minorities are served in restaurants, hotels, and the like. This has happened more via aggressive judicial interpretation of the language of these laws than from the laws themselves, which were phrased to not infringe unduly on private behavior.

For example, the Boy Scouts of America v. Dale case involved the courts of New Jersey declaring that the membership policies of the Boy Scouts violated the state’s ban on discrimination in places of public accommodation. This even though the membership policies of the Boy Scouts are clearly not a “place,” the Boy Scouts of America is not an “accommodation” in the the usual sense of the word, and the membership policies of private organizations are not “public.” (Chapters 7 & 8 of my You Can’t Say That! book deal with the use and abuse of public accommodations laws. Since the book is now available used on Amazon for literally a penny, interested readers have little excuse not to buy it.)

Besides that, the decline of the principle that a business owner has at least some right to exclude what he deems undesireables has led to some very bizarre cases, none more so than the one described below, which a VC commenter alerted me to.

Here’s the story, from a VC post from 2006:

There is a German restaurant called the Alpine Village Inn, in Torrance California. A group of four neo-Nazis went there to eat, each wearing a lapel pin with a swastika on it. The management asked them to take off the lapel pins. They refused. The management asked them to leave. They refused. The management called the police, who arrested them.

Then, remarkably, the Southern California ACLU gets involved, and sues the restaurant for calling the police on the Nazis! This much I’ve confirmed from media accounts. According to the commenter who first alerted me to this story, “the defendants’ insurer eventually settled following unsuccessful pretrial challenges to the complaint, believing they could not prevail under California law!”

The lawsuit was brought under California’s Unruh Act, which provides that “all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.” The California courts have held that the protected classes delineated by the Act are not exclusive; the Act also protects arbitrary discrimination by a business establishment based on similar characteristics to the above. Apparently, the insurer thought that “political views” was sufficiently similar to “religion” that the courts would likely rule against the insured. (This was, after all, the Rose Bird Court, which issued a series of absurdly broad and illogical rulings under the Unruh Act; in one of those opinions (Isbister) Bird personally gratuitously insulted a little old lady who donated money to a Boys’ Club as one of the “select few” who wish to be “insulated from the 20th century” because the Boys’ Club didn’t admit girls.)

There are several remarkable things about this story, which occurred in 1986. First, the ACLU of Southern California represented the Nazis, yet, at least by the late 1980s, this local ACLU branch was known as a vigorous proponent of hate speech regulations. How to square that circle, I don’t know. Perhaps the organization had a sudden and dramatic leadership shift. Perhaps the local ACLU leaders saw this as “discrimination based on ideology in public accommodations” and somehow didn’t notice it was also the suppression of hate speech. Perhaps they just had their heads up their behinds.

Second, why was the ACLU concerned about the rights of the Nazi patrons, but not the owners? Why didn’t the owners have a right to send a message that they disapprove of Naziism?

Third, even accepting the absurd premises apparently underlying this lawsuit, that the Unruh Act somehow protects Nazis from discrimination in public accommodation, where was the discrimination here? The restaurant didn’t refuse to serve the Nazis, it simply refused to serve them so long as they were turning the restaurant into a forum for promoting their Nazi views by wearing swastikas. A restaurant couldn’t discriminate against Satanists, does that mean they are required to let the Satanists wear T-shirts showing Jesus being tortured by a gleeful Lucifer?

Fourth, under current hostile environment law, the restaurant could get in serious trouble for not ordering the Nazis to stop wearing the swastikas. Tolerating swastika-wearing patrons would be considering by some to be the creation of an “illegal hostile public environment” for Jews, Gypsies, and others.

If you’re familiar with my views on such issues, you know that I don’t think the restaurant owners can or should be forced to censor the Nazis’ expression of their views (unless the owners censor all points of view except Naziism, which could then be seen as their way of getting around the law and excluding Jews), but I also don’t think that the Nazis can or should have the right to impose their speech on the unwilling owners of the restaurant, who are acting not only on their own behalf, but as agents for their patrons.

Anyway, my jaw just dropped open when I read about this case, and it hasn’t closed yet.

How did a civil rights principle meant to aid African Americans and others who suffered grievous discrimination for generations come to protect the “right” of Neo-Nazis to parade their Nazi wardrobes in a privately owned restaurant against the wishes of management? The short answer is that legislation and its interpretation doesn’t develop from a coherent set of moral principles, but instead based on who is able to persuade the legislatures and the courts to adopt the principles they prefer. The principle involved in Alpine Village case appears to be hostility to the rights of private property owners, not “civil rights.”

http://volokh.com/2010/05/25/some-st...odations-laws/

[Taco John]

If precedent matters, these guys have $55 million dollars coming to them.

[That One Guy]

Hahaha... good article.

Once again, we see people wanting speech limited to what they want to see. Unfortunately with a law though, it just doesn't work that way.

And I'm also happy to see over the last 5 years or so, it seems the ACLU has really gotten away from just being a tool for the minorities. They now seem to come into play when any rights are infringed on and that is good to see. My opinion on them has changed a lot as that has occured.

[Spider]

The ACLU also defended Rush Limbaugh over his medical records on that Oxi -contin thing .....That one guy , you never paid attention if that what you think about being tool for the minority , the ACLU went to bat and won against the state of Wisconsin over preachers right to preach in a park .............. What I dont get is why people lip off about things they dont know about How ****ing hard is it to google , learn something , then comment ..........for the love of tebow you retard , the ACLU defends everything involving Civil liberties and your right .....From Rush Limbaugh to NAMBLA .......

[That One Guy]

Originally Posted by Spider

The ACLU also defended Rush Limbaugh over his medical records on that Oxi -contin thing .....That one guy , you never paid attention if that what you think about being tool for the minority , the ACLU went to bat and won against the state of Wisconsin over preachers right to preach in a park .............. What I dont get is why people lip off about things they dont know about How ****ing hard is it to google , learn something , then comment ..........for the love of tebow you retard , the ACLU defends everything involving Civil liberties and your right .....From Rush Limbaugh to NAMBLA .......

The article stated above said that the local ACLU as of the late 80s was a proponent of hate speech regulation. There was a time and, surely, they didn't reverse their posture on it overnight.

Quit being an idiot and rambling for stupidity's sake. Whether they've changed only in the last 5 years (doubtful) or if it were a gradual thing that I really noticed in the last 5 years, so be it. Either way, same end result. They weren't always, they now are defenders of everyone equally. I applaud that.

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by Spider

The ACLU also defended Rush Limbaugh over his medical records on that Oxi -contin thing .....That one guy , you never paid attention if that what you think about being tool for the minority , the ACLU went to bat and won against the state of Wisconsin over preachers right to preach in a park .............. What I dont get is why people lip off about things they dont know about How ****ing hard is it to google , learn something , then comment ..........for the love of tebow you retard , the ACLU defends everything involving Civil liberties and your right .....From Rush Limbaugh to NAMBLA .......

Right on point, rep

[mizzoutigers]

ACLU is the worst organization ever created and needs to be dissolved.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by That One Guy

The article stated above said that the local ACLU as of the late 80s was a proponent of hate speech regulation. There was a time and, surely, they didn't reverse their posture on it overnight.

Quit being an idiot and rambling for stupidity's sake. Whether they've changed only in the last 5 years (doubtful) or if it were a gradual thing that I really noticed in the last 5 years, so be it. Either way, same end result. They weren't always, they now are defenders of everyone equally. I applaud that.

you are an idiot ............. seriously ........instead of acting like you have a clue , why dont you and the other bedwetters do something constructive and figure out a way to pin this to Obama ........

[Spider]

Originally Posted by mizzoutigers

ACLU is the worst organization ever created and needs to be dissolved.

typical bedwetter , See I think NAMBLA is the worst , but you guys on the right do have a long standing tradition of Pedophilia and homosexuality .......

[That One Guy]

Originally Posted by Spider

you are an idiot ............. seriously ........instead of acting like you have a clue , why dont you and the other bedwetters do something constructive and figure out a way to pin this to Obama ........

Undoubtedly you'd find a way to pin it to bush first. You're all more refined in that ability.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by That One Guy

Undoubtedly you'd find a way to pin it to bush first. You're all more refined in that ability.

having a hard time keeping up I see

[Hogan11]

Spider is right, the ACLU represents them all and doesn't care about the group in question, they are there to protect the civil rights of individuals/groups no matter how vile they may be. People who get down on them are like those who get down on law enforcement....you know, they're dirt until they need them, then it's a different story.

This is hardly the first time the ACLU represented Nazi's. I realize a lot of people here weren't around for the whole march on Skokie IL circus, but that needs to be checked out if not. The results were hilarious in that the leader of the Nazi's at the time was actually later found to be ethnicly Jewish and a pedophile.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by Hogan11

Spider is right, the ACLU represents them all and doesn't care about the group in question, they are there to protect the civil rights of individuals/groups no matter how vile they may be. People who get down on them are like those who get down on law enforcement....you know, they're dirt until they need them, then it's a different story.

This is hardly the first time the ACLU represented Nazi's. I realize a lot of people here weren't around for the whole march on Skokie IL circus, but that needs to be checked out if not. The results were hilarious in that the leader of the Nazi's at the time was actually later found to be ethnicly Jewish and a pedophile.

no this just happened in the last 5 years ...ask that one guy .....
But yeah defending Nazi's had to be a hard pill to swallow........... I thought defending rush Limbaugh was the bottom of the barrel .... this Nazi thing has to be dayum close

[barryr]

Yes, I feel better the ACLU has decided to defend more groups of people instead of their usual, and oh yes, defending NAMBLA is so wonderful as well. An organization promoting men to rape children, it's so heartwarming the ACLU worries about their rights.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by barryr

Yes, I feel better the ACLU has decided to defend more groups of people instead of their usual, and oh yes, defending NAMBLA is so wonderful as well. An organization promoting men to rape children, it's so heartwarming the ACLU worries about their rights.

and to think they would even defend some one like you .......

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by barryr

Yes, I feel better the ACLU has decided to defend more groups of people instead of their usual, and oh yes, defending NAMBLA is so wonderful as well. An organization promoting men to rape children, it's so heartwarming the ACLU worries about their rights.

They are defending rights, not particular people. Either everyone has the right to free speech, or no one does.

It takes a lot more integrity and courage to defend a right universally than to only defend the rights of people you agree with and like, especially when blowhards like yourself are so eager to attack them simply for working in your interest.

[Taco John]

What about the rights of the restaurant owner?

[That One Guy]

Originally Posted by Taco John

What about the rights of the restaurant owner?

It's clear society today has said the restaurant owner waived those rights when it became a public establishment.

[BroncoLifer]

Originally Posted by mizzoutigers

ACLU is the worst organization ever created and needs to be dissolved.

Nah, the Nazis are a worse organization.

[barryr]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

They are defending rights, not particular people. Either everyone has the right to free speech, or no one does.

It takes a lot more integrity and courage to defend a right universally than to only defend the rights of people you agree with and like, especially when blowhards like yourself are so eager to attack them simply for working in your interest.

Yes, defend the rights of those that want to molest and rape children. How noble of the ACLU.

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by barryr

Yes, defend the rights of those that want to molest and rape children. How noble of the ACLU.

What part of "they're defending the right to free speech, not the idea" don't you understand? Everyone, no matter how vile their opinion, has the legal right to express that opinion. If we, as you seem to want, only defend the right of people to express an opinion we agree with, then the foundation of free speech starts to crumble.

[cutthemdown]

You can't tell people to leave until they do something disruptive. Just wearing a swastika not enough. I agree with them suing and winning.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by barryr

Yes, defend the rights of those that want to molest and rape children. How noble of the ACLU.

free speech rights goes right over your head .......color me shocked

[Spider]

Originally Posted by Taco John

What about the rights of the restaurant owner?

what about him ?

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by Taco John

What about the rights of the restaurant owner?

Every mature, adult member of society understands that the payment for being part of a society is that you follow the social contract (sometimes implied, but often made concrete with laws) of that society, a contract which limits the rights of the individual in favor of the good of society. This is a universal quality of all societies.

Now, you may not agree that this particular clause of CA society is reasonable, but the majority in CA do. If this owner longer agrees to the social contract of his part of CA, he should probably consider either trying to change it or not doing business in CA. But, if he chooses to status quo, he should follow the law.

But more to the point of this particular law:
Imagine you went to Oakland in your car tweaked out in Broncos color, logos, etc. and no one would sell you gas because they were all Raider's fans. Who would be harmed more? You not being able to buy gas, or the business owners if they were compelled by law to sell you gas?