How do you know?

[Kai Onca]

Wrongly accused of doing what?

Being a straight person in the store and being kicked out because store assumed they were gay. Or straight person being with the gay person and both get denied service. what happens next?

Most people dont care about it as they want anyones business and great relationship with the community but there are always others. In my mothers town in Michigan the only small store for 8 miles around has a crabby owner who still in business when half of town avoid her but there is those who cant and have to go to that store. There are circumstances that will only give a person only choice to go to that store if that crabby lady banned a so called gay person with no car to get food from store, that person will ahve to find a ride elsewhere.

 

[caz12]

seems to me people looking for prejudice when not there and they only be happy when they think it is just so they can say LOOK AT ME I IN GAY COMMUNITY PLEASE THROW STONES AT ME SO I CAN TELL THE WORLD YOU MEAN TO ME..gets on wick.Gay people going through horrors in other countries maybe that should be screamed out about not some gay bloke in nice suit

 

[Reba]

Being a straight person in the store and being kicked out because store assumed they were gay. Or straight person being with the gay person and both get denied service. what happens next?

I think we're missing the point here.

It's not a crime or discrimination to misidentify someone as straight or gay.

It could be a crime or discrimination to refuse service to someone or to mistreat someone (customer or co-worker) based on straightness or gayness, whether or not the person is actually straight or gay or simply perceived to be.

The legal element is the refusal of service itself, NOT in whether or not the person is really gay or just rumored/assumed/perceived to be.

There are no tax dollars being spent to sort out who looks gay or not.

Most people dont care about it as they want anyones business and great relationship with the community but there are always others. In my mothers town in Michigan the only small store for 8 miles around has a crabby owner who still in business when half of town avoid her but there is those who cant and have to go to that store. There are circumstances that will only give a person only choice to go to that store if that crabby lady banned a so called gay person with no car to get food from store, that person will ahve to find a ride elsewhere.

If and when that happens, you can start a new thread about that lawsuit.

Even then, it would have nothing to do with being a "so-called" gay person (whatever that may be).

 

[whatdidyousay!]

I think we're missing the point here.

It's not a crime or discrimination to misidentify someone as straight or gay.

It could be a crime or discrimination to refuse service to someone or to mistreat someone (customer or co-worker) based on straightness or gayness, whether or not the person is actually straight or gay or simply perceived to be.

The legal element is the refusal of service itself, NOT in whether or not the person is really gay or just rumored/assumed/perceived to be.

There are no tax dollars being spent to sort out who looks gay or not.


If and when that happens, you can start a new thread about that lawsuit.

Even then, it would have nothing to do with being a "so-called" gay person (whatever that may be).

Kai Onca started this thread and should be able to talk about anything she want.

 

[Kai Onca]

I think we're missing the point here.

It's not a crime or discrimination to misidentify someone as straight or gay.

It could be a crime or discrimination to refuse service to someone or to mistreat someone (customer or co-worker) based on straightness or gayness, whether or not the person is actually straight or gay or simply perceived to be.

The legal element is the refusal of service itself, NOT in whether or not the person is really gay .

Yeah. Refusual of service is the point....on the grounds theyre gay when they are not.

So you agree its legal issue then ?

 

[DeafDucky]

Kai Onca started this thread and should be able to talk about anything she want.

maybe but any poster should also be aware that they need to accept that others can and will comment on whatever they say. Kai Onca doesn't own the thread just because she started it.

 

[Reba]

Yeah. Refusual of service is the point....on the grounds theyre gay when they are not.

So you agree its legal issue then ?

No.

Refusal of service on the grounds that the business doesn't serve gay customers can be a legal issue, yes.

Whether or not the customer is really gay or not is not relevant.

It's the same principle for the refusal of service for any reason that is forbidden by civil rights laws. It doesn't matter if the customer is really in that protected category or not. That's how sting operations are conducted.

The basis of the offense is what the business person believes that customer is and the action he takes as a result; it's not what the customer actually is.

Suppose two people go into a hotel, and they're signing to each other without speaking. Suppose the desk clerk refuses to provide them with required ADA accommodations for their room even though he believes the two people are deaf. Is he in violation even if the two people are actually hearing people working undercover to catch ADA violators? Yes.

The trick with your scenario is whether or not the business person states the reason for refusing service. If the business person states, "I refuse to serve gay people" then he is in violation of the law whether or not the customer is actually gay. If he doesn't state that, or gives some other reason, then the customer has no proof of the reason.

I suppose the customer could ask the business person, "Why are you refusing me? Do I look gay to you?"

But, as was posted, it is your thread. If it's your experience in your community that straight people are being falsely accused of being gay, and that's a problem, then I'm sorry. I'm afraid that's an issue outside the scope of the law.

BTW, Hubby was born and raised in MI, so I'm not a stranger to that climate.

 

[soutthpaw]

Here is a scary thought.