118
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Adkml@hexbear.net 16 points 4 months ago

This is what I and every person I willingly drink with would do.

"Thanks fuck you, see you tomorrow. Can't wait for you to have to explain what about my attire isn't straight so you're not running up against false advertising claims by not giving us a free beer everyday."

Also this really seems like about the easiest slam dunk ever for discrimination against a protected class but I assume lgbtq people aren't a protected class in whatever windswept sithole this is in.

[-] piccolo@hexbear.net 9 points 4 months ago

I think federally at least sexuality is a protected characteristic, but I don't think the courts in Idaho would respect that so you'd need to have the funds to appeal it up a few levels

Btw the ruling to make sexuality a protected characteristic was an incredibly rare Gorsuch W where he ruled that discriminating based off of sexual orientation was discriminating based off of sex (i.e. if you refuse service to Jim because Jim dates Bob, but you wouldn't refuse service to Jane because Jane dates Bob, then that's implicitly discrimination based off of sex)

this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2024
118 points (100.0% liked)

chapotraphouse

13497 readers
1022 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank

Dunk posts in general go in the_dunk_tank, not here

Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from the_dunk_tank

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS