Anonymous wrote:
I personally think it *should* be legal for small business that is offering a non-essential service to discriminate by race, sex, sexual orientation, etc.. Not because I think racism is great, but because ultimately people should be allowed to choose who they spend their time with.

Greyhound buses are non-essential services (plenty of alternatives to travel). They used to have a whites-only section on the bus. You think that's OK? The Freedom Riders would disagree (and Rosa Parks too, though she was on a city bus not an intercity bus).

Anonymous wrote:
I personally think it *should* be legal for small business that is offering a non-essential service to discriminate by race, sex, sexual orientation, etc.. Not because I think racism is great, but because ultimately people should be allowed to choose who they spend their time with.

Country clubs are a non-essential service. So you thikn it's OK for them to offer it to whites only?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would you want to go to a class that’s created for marginalzied people of color if you are not part of that group?

My question was about the legality of offering classes that excluded one or two racial groups.

Way to make assumptions. To answer your question, I am part of the “marginalized people of color” and one class that would work for me and my White husband, isn’t available to him.

And as a marginalized person of color, I would be offended if there was a class that was not open to me. But it appears to be legal, so I’ll either not take the clawearing.

t until one opens up that works for our schedule.

I know this an unpopular thing to say but I’m also a “marginalized person of color” whose group is under some scrutiny at the moment. I’m not a fan of this type of segregation either. Either we are fully a part of society or we are not. My preference is that we are. That said, I don’t think it’s illegal.

Op here and that’s how I feel too. I believe it’s actually detrimental to have ‘well meaning’, but segregated classes. But what do I know, I’m just a “marginalized person of color”. I’ll just sit back read the room and let the white people tell me what’s best for me. They know best.

It's doubtful this class you reference is being led by a white person. To my point above about "safe spaces", what I see and read about is minorities choosing options that segregate them for their own comfort. The class instructor might also feel there could be some social benefits. Like if people feel that white people are always telling them what to do then...

It's a class.... someone is going to tell everyone what to do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would you want to go to a class that’s created for marginalzied people of color if you are not part of that group?

My question was about the legality of offering classes that excluded one or two racial groups.

Way to make assumptions. To answer your question, I am part of the “marginalized people of color” and one class that would work for me and my White husband, isn’t available to him.

And as a marginalized person of color, I would be offended if there was a class that was not open to me. But it appears to be legal, so I’ll either not take the clawearing.

t until one opens up that works for our schedule.

I know this an unpopular thing to say but I’m also a “marginalized person of color” whose group is under some scrutiny at the moment. I’m not a fan of this type of segregation either. Either we are fully a part of society or we are not. My preference is that we are. That said, I don’t think it’s illegal.

Op here and that’s how I feel too. I believe it’s actually detrimental to have ‘well meaning’, but segregated classes. But what do I know, I’m just a “marginalized person of color”. I’ll just sit back read the room and let the white people tell me what’s best for me. They know best.

It's doubtful this class you reference is being led by a white person. To my point above about "safe spaces", what I see and read about is minorities choosing options that segregate them for their own comfort. The class instructor might also feel there could be some social benefits. Like if people feel that white people are always telling them what to do then...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not legal, I'm surprised by the number of people who think it is. Businesses that offer services to the general public cannot deny services to a customer based on his or her race. The bakery/gay customer case is a different issue, I won't bore anyone with specifics.

No, please do bore us with the specifics. I want to know how it is different,

The baker claimed it violated her free speech and freedom of religion rights because the baking of a cake was “expression”. It’s bonkers.

Stop right there. It wasn't "just a cake" it was to be a custom artistic design.

Yeah, like every other wedding cake. The baker didn't object to the design they were asking for, she objecting to making a cake for a same-sex wedding. Two straight people could have ordered a cake with the exact same specs and she would have made it.

That's part of it. It was a custom cake that was going to take hours of time. Should a Palestinian baker be forced to make a custom bar mitzvah cake decorated with lots of Stars of David and Hebrew writing that they otherwise don't sell and haven't made before?

You can make up all kinds of straw men in your head, but the owner didn't object to the design they wanted; he objected to making a cake for a same-sex wedding. Having been to some same-sex weddings, their cakes looked just like straight people's cakes. They are decorated with ribbons and flowers and whatnot, not religious symbols.

Because the custom cake is participating in the wedding and martiage ptocess, which was against her religion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not legal, I'm surprised by the number of people who think it is. Businesses that offer services to the general public cannot deny services to a customer based on his or her race. The bakery/gay customer case is a different issue, I won't bore anyone with specifics.

No, please do bore us with the specifics. I want to know how it is different,

The baker claimed it violated her free speech and freedom of religion rights because the baking of a cake was “expression”. It’s bonkers.

She was happy to sell non custom cakes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a crafting class. They offer several courses, but one of the classes specifically says it is “for black, indigenous, and people of color.”

Are they covered because they are offering the same class that is open to all races?

Doesn't sound like they are excluding anyone. It sounds like the group will be focused on a particular art form born out of need that arose from crafters being historically excluded by white crafters (which is a true history). So you would be allowed to go, but understand that they will be talking about a legacy you don't share, and working on styles that are not a part of your personal ethnic history, which is fine, but you should go in understanding the reason the group has formed and the history and purpose of the art they are doing. It arises out of a legacy of supression. Also, it is arguably a form of personal introspection and serves a socially therapuetic purpose for a condition you do not suffer from -- so going would be a bit like a tea totaler attending AA, or an abuser attending a sewing circle of dometic violence surviors.

If you go in with a mind hell-bent on claiming your own victimhood, I'd suggest a dfferent form of therapy instead.

If you are in a music class learning classical music is it ok if it's a "legacy you don't share"? Is that the purpose of art?

Or a ballet class (white euro art form) or tap class (african american art form) or flamenco dancing, country line dancing, yoga...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not legal, I'm surprised by the number of people who think it is. Businesses that offer services to the general public cannot deny services to a customer based on his or her race. The bakery/gay customer case is a different issue, I won't bore anyone with specifics.

No, please do bore us with the specifics. I want to know how it is different,

DP. The cake one also involved freedom of speech and religion issues. The gay couple wasn't just trying to buy a cake off the shelf, they wanted to baker to write some kind of message on the cake that was against the baker's religious belief (I don't remember specifically). Just refusing to sell them an already made plain cake probably would have been illegal.

The baker was more like an artist and the couple wanted the artist to design a custom cake. It was decided that they could not force an artist to do that. A cake from their catalogue would have been different.

Exactly. Just like if I walked into an artist's studio/gallery and asked them to paint me a painting of somethign they didn't want to paint. They can turn down that custom work request. However, if they have paintings for sale in the shop, they can't deny to sell it to me because of my race or orientation.

So in this example the class is in the catalogue and they are telling people of the wrong hue that it's not for them solely based on race, it's hard to argue that's ok. Maybe a work around is to just have a group of people create a "private class" that isn't otherwise open to anyone not in the private group because they have filled all these spots.

Correct.

Anonymous wrote:They listed it as meant for those people. You can still sign up and go. They won't turn you away but you'll feel odd.

This. I sent my kid to an extracurricular STEM program that was targeted at African-American youth but did not have any exclusionary language. He enjoyed himself, was kindly treated, and got a sense of what it's like to be a minority kid.

If your motives are sincere, it's likely you would be kindly treated. Sincere motives involve seeking to learn from others. Not just because you feel like you should be able to go anywhere. Let people have their safe spaces. Social pressures can be wearying.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not legal, I'm surprised by the number of people who think it is. Businesses that offer services to the general public cannot deny services to a customer based on his or her race. The bakery/gay customer case is a different issue, I won't bore anyone with specifics.

No, please do bore us with the specifics. I want to know how it is different,

DP. The cake one also involved freedom of speech and religion issues. The gay couple wasn't just trying to buy a cake off the shelf, they wanted to baker to write some kind of message on the cake that was against the baker's religious belief (I don't remember specifically). Just refusing to sell them an already made plain cake probably would have been illegal.

They had sold them plain cakes before with no issue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would you want to go to a class that’s created for marginalzied people of color if you are not part of that group?

My question was about the legality of offering classes that excluded one or two racial groups.

Way to make assumptions. To answer your question, I am part of the “marginalized people of color” and one class that would work for me and my White husband, isn’t available to him.

And as a marginalized person of color, I would be offended if there was a class that was not open to me. But it appears to be legal, so I’ll either not take the class or wait until one opens up that works for our schedule.

Interesting choice for you to jump straight to ‘legality’ questions. You could have asked if a non person of color would be welcome, you could have asked how best to approach the offerer of the class….

You chose to go straight for the ‘stick’ that legality implies. Thats a bigger assumption than I made.

Read the room OP, in this climate organizations are getting sued for even attempting to serve minority populations. Your question doesn’t exist in a vacuum.

The question for me was whether or not it’s legal to offer a class only to certain racial groups while excluding others.

So this business or any business can say we’re offering this class only to whites. They can’t because that’s illegal. I’m asking this question about legality. I didn’t call them out, I didn’t post who they were, I’m asking anon.

Why do you think that is illegal? It's actually not.

It actually is illegal to do that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would you want to go to a class that’s created for marginalzied people of color if you are not part of that group?

My question was about the legality of offering classes that excluded one or two racial groups.

Way to make assumptions. To answer your question, I am part of the “marginalized people of color” and one class that would work for me and my White husband, isn’t available to him.

And as a marginalized person of color, I would be offended if there was a class that was not open to me. But it appears to be legal, so I’ll either not take the class or wait until one opens up that works for our schedule.

Businesses discriminating by race is not legal in the USA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this part of a school or just some rando offering classes in her business? Because a business is allowed to offer products to whomever they want.

It is a brick and mortar business, it’s been around for a long long time.

Then yes, they are totally allowed to do that.

I’m honestly surprised.

Remember the case when the bakery owner refused to bake a cake for a gay couple? The Supreme Court said that was ok.

They would bake for the gay couple.

They wouldn't participate in the wedding by baking the wedding cake.

2 different things.

Anonymous wrote:It’s a crafting class. They offer several courses, but one of the classes specifically says it is “for black, indigenous, and people of color.”

Are they covered because they are offering the same class that is open to all races?

I would say that white, peach, cream and blush are colors.

Not a constitutional scholar (I am a lawyer but just not familiar enough with the law here to weigh in on that) but I do have an opinion on this from a broader, non legal perspective.

I personally think it *should* be legal for small business that is offering a non-essential service to discriminate by race, sex, sexual orientation, etc.. Not because I think racism is great, but because ultimately people should be allowed to choose who they spend their time with. I am a woman. If some man was like "I want to sell beer but only to men," I would think that was dumb and sexist but also wouldn't care that much because I wouldn't want to patronize a business owned by someone who hated women that much. Since beer is not essential and likely sold other places anyway, I just wouldn't care. You do you, dummy.

I thought this for the gay marriage/baker case too. I get that of course it would feel bad to be told that the baker you had tried to hire didn't agree with your marriage or your sexual orientation. But would it feel better if the baker who hates you because your gay made the cake for your wedding? I would want everyone I hired for my wedding to be tolerant of the marriage itself, simply due to not wanting bad vibes. Rather than try to force the bakery to make my cake, I'd find another solution.

So based purely on my personal opinion and not grounded in any legal argument, I think it's fine for a crafting store to decide to offer a class just for people of certain races. I might be annoyed if it's a class that sounded interesting to me but I wasn't of the right race, but I also wouldn't want to attend a class where everyone there wanted to be around people of the same race and I was another race because I don't like feeling unwelcome in that way. So forcing them to invite me seems counterproductive.