Support Obama? No Parking for you!

[aphex]

Well within his right to do so, but doesn't make him any less of an idiot. lol

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/vid....parking.politics.wfmy

 

[Slick5150]

He "takes offense at Mr. Obama running for president"? Wow. What a tool.

 

[jonks]

Whatever, his lot, his sign, 1st amendment. He even said he wasn't enforcing it.

 

[TheSlamma]

To be more politically correct he should have put

"People with 100+ I.Q.'s cannot park here".

Covers the same group of people without being a direct attack

 

[aphex]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma
To be more politically correct he should have put

"People with 100+ I.Q.'s cannot park here".

Covers the same group of people without being a direct attack

http://www.instantrimshot.com

 

[PokerGuy]

Very silly, but well within his rights.

 

[Slick5150]

Originally posted by: jonks
Whatever, his lot, his sign, 1st amendment. He even said he wasn't enforcing it.

Its a good thing he isn't enforcing it, because then he'd be wading into discrimination territory.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma
To be more politically correct he should have put

"People with 100+ I.Q.'s cannot park here".

Covers the same group of people without being a direct attack

Huh. You'd think with IQ's that high there would be more then 10% of them with high school diplomas. I guess geniuses dont need to finish high school eh?

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: jonks
Whatever, his lot, his sign, 1st amendment. He even said he wasn't enforcing it.

Its a good thing he isn't enforcing it, because then he'd be wading into discrimination territory.

I wasn't aware political affiliation was a protected class...

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Slick5150
He "takes offense at Mr. Obama running for president"? Wow. What a tool.

How could one take offense at that?

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: jonks
Whatever, his lot, his sign, 1st amendment. He even said he wasn't enforcing it.

Its a good thing he isn't enforcing it, because then he'd be wading into discrimination territory.

On what grounds? I can't wait to hear this one.

 

[Slick5150]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: jonks
Whatever, his lot, his sign, 1st amendment. He even said he wasn't enforcing it.

Its a good thing he isn't enforcing it, because then he'd be wading into discrimination territory.

On what grounds? I can't wait to hear this one.

It could easily be defined as "unlawful discrimination". If he's providing a business service (I'm assuming these people are paying to park in his lot?), there are laws (that vary from state to state) that define the criteria on which one can and cannot refuse service to someone. The usual age, race, sex, etc.. are always there, but while some states specifically include other things, other states leave it more vague.

I did a quick google search of North Carolina law, and I didn't find much other than this employment discrimination law that does say "discrimination or because of his the employee's age, sex, race, color, national origin, religion, creed, political affiliation, or handicapped handicapping condition as defined by G.S." So if political affiliation is protected in one discrimination law, it isn't hard to imagine an argument being made it applies elsewhere as well. Again, I'm not familiar with NC law on this issue, this was using 30 seconds of research.

But this is also all moot if he doesn't enforce the "policy", which he's apparently not.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: jonks
Whatever, his lot, his sign, 1st amendment. He even said he wasn't enforcing it.

Its a good thing he isn't enforcing it, because then he'd be wading into discrimination territory.

I wasn't aware political affiliation was a protected class...

Only if your a Democrat. You should know that by now! The whole "Everyone is equal, some are more equal then others".

 

[dmcowen674]

I've been saying it all boils down to North Carolina North Carolina North Carolina

and there is no way they will vote Obama.

 

[Moonbeam]

The guy is a vine clinger but I like his vibes. I'd love to be his wife and tell him he can't have any of the food I cook because he supports McSame.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: jonks
Whatever, his lot, his sign, 1st amendment. He even said he wasn't enforcing it.

Its a good thing he isn't enforcing it, because then he'd be wading into discrimination territory.

On what grounds? I can't wait to hear this one.

It could easily be defined as "unlawful discrimination". If he's providing a business service (I'm assuming these people are paying to park in his lot?), there are laws (that vary from state to state) that define the criteria on which one can and cannot refuse service to someone. The usual age, race, sex, etc.. are always there, but while some states specifically include other things, other states leave it more vague.

I did a quick google search of North Carolina law, and I didn't find much other than this employment discrimination law that does say "discrimination or because of his the employee's age, sex, race, color, national origin, religion, creed, political affiliation, or handicapped handicapping condition as defined by G.S." So if political affiliation is protected in one discrimination law, it isn't hard to imagine an argument being made it applies elsewhere as well. Again, I'm not familiar with NC law on this issue, this was using 30 seconds of research.

But this is also all moot if he doesn't enforce the "policy", which he's apparently not.

Political affiliation is not a protected class with regard to business customers. Employer/employee is an altogether different relationship with voluminous state and federal protections provided. You say it's not hard to imagine an argument based on political affiliation discrimination being made elsewhere. If by elsewhere you mean housing laws, state licensing laws, or other heavily regulated areas, then maybe.

But in this circumstance it is very hard to imagine.

 

[Slick5150]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: jonks
Whatever, his lot, his sign, 1st amendment. He even said he wasn't enforcing it.

Its a good thing he isn't enforcing it, because then he'd be wading into discrimination territory.

On what grounds? I can't wait to hear this one.

It could easily be defined as "unlawful discrimination". If he's providing a business service (I'm assuming these people are paying to park in his lot?), there are laws (that vary from state to state) that define the criteria on which one can and cannot refuse service to someone. The usual age, race, sex, etc.. are always there, but while some states specifically include other things, other states leave it more vague.

I did a quick google search of North Carolina law, and I didn't find much other than this employment discrimination law that does say "discrimination or because of his the employee's age, sex, race, color, national origin, religion, creed, political affiliation, or handicapped handicapping condition as defined by G.S." So if political affiliation is protected in one discrimination law, it isn't hard to imagine an argument being made it applies elsewhere as well. Again, I'm not familiar with NC law on this issue, this was using 30 seconds of research.

But this is also all moot if he doesn't enforce the "policy", which he's apparently not.

Political affiliation is not a protected class with regard to business customers. Employer/employee is an altogether different relationship with voluminous state and federal protections provided. You say it's not hard to imagine an argument based on political affiliation discrimination being made elsewhere. If by elsewhere you mean housing laws, state licensing laws, or other heavily regulated areas, then maybe.

But in this circumstance it is very hard to imagine.

Actually, that's not true. California, for example, has a very broad act called the Unruh Civil Rights Act. You can read it here: http://www.ag.ca.gov/publicati...dbook/chapter4.php#unr

It applies "to all business establishments of every kind whatsoever which provide services, goods, or accommodations to the public", and prohibits "all types of arbitrary discrimination, and not just discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, age, disability or medical condition. (78) The Unruh Act also prohibits discrimination based on personal characteristics, geographical origin, physical attributes, and individual beliefs."

Other states have similar language, some specifically referencing political beliefs or affiliation.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: jonks
Whatever, his lot, his sign, 1st amendment. He even said he wasn't enforcing it.

Its a good thing he isn't enforcing it, because then he'd be wading into discrimination territory.

On what grounds? I can't wait to hear this one.

It could easily be defined as "unlawful discrimination". If he's providing a business service (I'm assuming these people are paying to park in his lot?), there are laws (that vary from state to state) that define the criteria on which one can and cannot refuse service to someone. The usual age, race, sex, etc.. are always there, but while some states specifically include other things, other states leave it more vague.

I did a quick google search of North Carolina law, and I didn't find much other than this employment discrimination law that does say "discrimination or because of his the employee's age, sex, race, color, national origin, religion, creed, political affiliation, or handicapped handicapping condition as defined by G.S." So if political affiliation is protected in one discrimination law, it isn't hard to imagine an argument being made it applies elsewhere as well. Again, I'm not familiar with NC law on this issue, this was using 30 seconds of research.

But this is also all moot if he doesn't enforce the "policy", which he's apparently not.

Political affiliation is not a protected class with regard to business customers. Employer/employee is an altogether different relationship with voluminous state and federal protections provided. You say it's not hard to imagine an argument based on political affiliation discrimination being made elsewhere. If by elsewhere you mean housing laws, state licensing laws, or other heavily regulated areas, then maybe.

But in this circumstance it is very hard to imagine.

Actually, that's not true. California, for example, has a very broad act called the Unruh Civil Rights Act. You can read it here: http://www.ag.ca.gov/publicati...dbook/chapter4.php#unr

It applies "to all business establishments of every kind whatsoever which provide services, goods, or accommodations to the public", and prohibits "all types of arbitrary discrimination, and not just discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, age, disability or medical condition. (78) The Unruh Act also prohibits discrimination based on personal characteristics, geographical origin, physical attributes, and individual beliefs."

Other states have similar language, some specifically referencing political beliefs or affiliation.

From the Unruh brochure:

While the Unruh Civil Rights Act specifically lists ?sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition? as protected classes, the California Supreme Court has held that protections under the Unruh Act are not necessarily restricted to these characteristics. The Act is meant to cover all arbitrary and intentional discrimination by a business establishment on the basis of personal characteristics similar to those listed above.

The sentence you snipped after "individual beliefs" listed sexual orientation as the example of a "belief". Religion would also qualify as a "personal belief" but that is a protected class of beliefs. The webpage is editorializing a bit, but you won't find anything in the statute itself that says "or other personal beliefs." The webpage was simply shorthanding religion and sexual orientation as 'beliefs.' The characteristics listed in the law are not remotely related to political affiliation.

I don't think you will be able to find a law anywhere that states businesses cannot discriminate among customers based on political beliefs. The government can not force a private businessperson to do business with a KKK member or a Nazi.

 

[JulesMaximus]

I'd say someone needs to smack some sense into that guy but we all know that's impossible.

Hopefully, he'll die soon.

 

[microbial]

Some people will not and cannot suffer the idea of a black man in America being president. Simple as that.
As an aside, not surprisingly, the Ayers campaign strategy is all about tapping into this racism.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: microbial
Some people will not and cannot suffer the idea of a black man in America being president. Simple as that.
As an aside, not surprisingly, the Ayers campaign strategy is all about tapping into this racism.

There are racists on both sides of the aisle and IMO the Ayers issue being dusted off smacks more of desperation than racism.

Welcome to AnandTech!

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: microbial
Some people will not and cannot suffer the idea of a black man in America being president. Simple as that.
As an aside, not surprisingly, the Ayers campaign strategy is all about tapping into this racism.

There are racists on both sides of the aisle and IMO the Ayers issue being dusted off smacks more of desperation than racism.

Welcome to AnandTech!

It's racism by way of desperation.

The problem with McCain is that he feels that he should win by default.

This is why he comes off angry most of the time.

 

[polarmystery]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Very silly, but well within his rights.

Yup

<---Obama supporter

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I'd say someone needs to smack some sense into that guy but we all know that's impossible.

Hopefully, he'll die soon.

This post pretty much sums up the "tolerance" of the left.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I'd say someone needs to smack some sense into that guy but we all know that's impossible.

Hopefully, he'll die soon.

This post pretty much sums up the "tolerance" of the left.

Yep, one poster speaks for 150 million people. Yur so smrt. Butterbean represents the right, right?