Business says it doesn’t serve anyone who is armed

  • Rediphile
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    1 year ago

    One is outright discrimination based on sexual orientation. The other is simply a policy applied to all patrons.

    It should absolutely be legal to say ‘no shoes no service’ or ‘has gun no service’ even if it was not legal to discriminate based on sexual orientation/race/gender/etc. They aren’t at all the same thing.

      • cristo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        Esperanto
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not in San Fran they wont. They let criminals run rampant but wont let anyone without Trump money get through the concealed carry permit process. Bruen should have fixed that but who knows if Cali will actually listen with Newsom putting that constitutional amendment to neuter the 2nd amendment out there.