Being white, I'm trying to think up a scenario where I'd be offended if I were in the waiter's position. Best I can think of is the patron asked only to be served by women, excluding males. Or nudists. The hotel would put me at the dish washing station out of sight if I refused to go 'round naked.
I would be offended if the patron was like "oh can we get someone more attractive" or " can we get someone who is in better shape"
Those are things that would bother me (not that I am ugly.. far from it but I could stand to lose my delightful beergut)
White devil, blonde devil, white piece of shit, redneck, blanquito . . . .
Still. Don't care.
Words are different than actions. News at 11.
I think his point is racial slurs against caucasians dont have any teeth to them, they lack that painful history as other racial slurs.
No his point was, since I'm not offended by white racial slurs directed at me, you shouldn't expect to be able to sue your company for disallowing you to do your job because of your skin color.
Which is terribly retarded.
Burtletoy on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Institutional racism leads to... Less work for me.
So, you are sticking to this argument, for why this is somehow a good thing?
Ross is saying he's developed a pretty thick callus to racial slurs and he's not a victim of institutional racism. Considering how he's defended this position three times now, he might also be thinking that people living their lives surrounded by slurs would develop an even thicker callus, making them less sensitive and this waiter guy is faking being hurt, but that's just me guessing
The customers were clearly assholes and deserved to have their requested denied (and perhaps asked to leave). The institution had a choice to placate the customers and protect their bottom line or just look the other way. I can see a higher-up saying "this is wrong and will bite us in the ass," and then booting the customers. A lower-level employee (which in my mind, is probably who was involved here, but I don't know for certain) is probably more likely to roll their eyes, enter into the computer "these guys are racist pricks" and move on with their lives.
Does the waiter have a right to be angry? Hell yes. I guess I'm just putting myself in the shoes of the person that made the decision. It's not an easy one to make, because either way you're pissing people off. In hindsight, I'm sure what I'd do. But I've had a lot of time to think about it, and it's possible that the person making the decision had only a few seconds to think, and had other problems to take care of as well.
Then again, I know that this isn't how our legal system works. Good intentions don't count for much. All things considered, I guess I grudgingly support the waiter's position.
His point being, that working less is a good thing so you skin color being a deciding factor in the ammount of work you do is a good thing for those lucky black guys that never get to do any work.
Unfortunately his point falls flat in the face of logic, namely that most people work jobs in order to, ya know, survive in the world, not because someone is holding a gun to their head forcing them to do it. I mean, if I was forced to do work, or was being paid hourly/salary (which is NOT where waiters in resturants make their money, btw) sure sitting on the side and watching someone else serve the bigots might be nice. But that isn't the reality of the situation.
So I'm going to go get a massage. If they ask me my preference for a male or female masseuse when I make the appointment, can they be sued for sexual discrimination?
I see Ross's point to a degree, I wouldnt want to serve some racist douchebag, I see that as a good thing, the problem is the establishment should have denied there "request" from the get go.
darkmayo on
Switch SW-6182-1526-0041
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Institutional racism leads to... Less work for me.
So, you are sticking to this argument, for why this is somehow a good thing?
Ross is saying he's developed a pretty thick callus to racial slurs and he's not a victim of institutional racism. Considering how he's defended this position three times now, he might also be thinking that people living their lives surrounded by slurs would develop an even thicker callus, making them less sensitive and this waiter guy is faking being hurt, but that's just me guessing
Basically, I lump demand-side patronage racism into the same category as crazy cultural or religious practices. As long as it's not affecting me, I just don't care, even if it's directed at me. Demanding that the racists are forced into a situation they don't want isn't going to solve the problem.
The hotel guests didn't want minorities waiting on them. They didn't ask for the minorities to be fired, or not look them in the eye, or to not share their air, so I don't see what the issue is. Whether or not the hotel honored such a ridiculous request is the only issue here, not how the staff member was "discriminated" upon.
Does the waiter have a right to be angry? Hell yes. I guess I'm just putting myself in the shoes of the person that made the decision. It's not an easy one to make, because either way you're pissing people off. In hindsight, I'm sure what I'd do. But I've had a lot of time to think about it, and it's possible that the person making the decision had only a few seconds to think, and had other problems to take care of as well.
This is why employee training exists. I bet all the supervisors/managers at that Ritz-Carlton have been trained on how to properly handle sexual harassment claims, there's no reason they shouldn't have received training (or at least a memo) on why they're not allowed to discriminate by race in determining work assignments. This is pretty basic HR-101 stuff.
But it wouldn't really be that out of line to say that "racism is worse when it's against minorities," though I think statement might be overly broad. To be a bit more specific, I think there are good reasons still in living memory why I can say cracker and honky in this post but I can't say n*****.
How many advantages can one person have? I’m a white man, you can’t even hurt my feelings. What can you really call a white man that really digs deep? Hey cracker ... oh ruined my day. Boy shouldn’t have called me a cracker, bringing me back to owning land and people what a drag.
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Notice how there's no exception for "if a customer asks."
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Notice how there's no exception for "if a customer asks."
so going back to my massage example, asking or granting me my preference is illegal?
Whether or not the hotel honored such a ridiculous request is the only issue here, not how the staff member was "discriminated" upon.
You do know those are the same thing, right?
They are not at all the same thing.
The waiter wasn't singled out for discrimination. At best, he has a case for a class action suit against all racists, everywhere.
First, all racists everywhere are not this waiter's boss.
Second, it's actually better for Ritz-Carlton if the waiter was singled out for discrimination. Ritz-Carlton can explain that away as the isolated actions of a rogue manager, and promise stricter standards and increased training in the future. The alternative is the waiter was but 1 employee among many affected by Ritz-Carlton's systematic institutionalized discrimination, that he is notable not because he was discriminated against but because he was the first to protest the discrimination.
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Notice how there's no exception for "if a customer asks."
so going back to my massage example, asking or granting me my preference is illegal?
In certain circumstances, yes, it could be. Places that offer services like massages know that they inherently tread the fine line that you've pointed out, and take steps to ensure that they are complying with the law. What happened here seems a lot less thought-out and a lot more reckless.
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Notice how there's no exception for "if a customer asks."
so going back to my massage example, asking or granting me my preference is illegal?
The massage parlor shouldn't ask, any more than they would ask if you wanted a Jewish or Buddhist masseuse.
If you were to request a specific female masseuse, there would be no problem with the massage parlor complying. As long as your request is just "I want an appointment with Jennifer" and not "I want an appointment with Jennifer because she's a heterosexual female white Baptist who isn't handicapped or a veteran."
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Notice how there's no exception for "if a customer asks."
so going back to my massage example, asking or granting me my preference is illegal?
The massage parlor shouldn't ask, any more than they would ask if you wanted a Jewish or Buddhist masseuse.
If you were to request a specific female masseuse, there would be no problem with the massage parlor complying. As long as your request is just "I want an appointment with Jennifer" and not "I want an appointment with Jennifer because she's a heterosexual female white Baptist who isn't handicapped or a veteran."
According to the letter of the law up there it would be illegal for me to get a masseuse vs. a masseur. I've never been to a massage parlor, but if a masseur walked in I'm pretty sure I'd request a masseuse instead, and I'm pretty sure they'd go along with it. Same as going to a doctor for a physical and requesting a male nurse before I drop trau (which I no longer do, but when I was an insecure teenager I did).
The massage example is not appropriate because people can have legitimate non-sexist reasons for wanting a certain gender masseuse. Modesty, for instance. Or religious reasons. Maybe it just makes them uncomfortable, and it would defeat the entire purpose of a massage if they couldn't specify a gender of masseuse.
As a society, we don't recognize a legitimate rationale for only wanting to be served by a white waiter. It's just not an apt comparison.
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Notice how there's no exception for "if a customer asks."
so going back to my massage example, asking or granting me my preference is illegal?
The massage parlor shouldn't ask, any more than they would ask if you wanted a Jewish or Buddhist masseuse.
If you were to request a specific female masseuse, there would be no problem with the massage parlor complying. As long as your request is just "I want an appointment with Jennifer" and not "I want an appointment with Jennifer because she's a heterosexual female white Baptist who isn't handicapped or a veteran."
According to the letter of the law up there it would be illegal for me to get a masseuse vs. a masseur. I've never been to a massage parlor, but if a masseur walked in I'm pretty sure I'd request a masseuse instead, and I'm pretty sure they'd go along with it. Same as going to a doctor for a physical and requesting a male nurse before I drop trau (which I no longer do, but when I was an insecure teenager I did).
Quoting laws piecemeal is a dangerous exercise because most laws assign very specific definitions to almost every meaningful word in the statute. (Hint: what does the statute define an "employer" as?)
The massage example is not appropriate because people can have legitimate non-sexist reasons for wanting a certain gender masseuse. Modesty, for instance. Or religious reasons. Maybe it just makes them uncomfortable, and it would defeat the entire purpose of a massage if they couldn't specify a gender of masseuse.
As a society, we don't recognize a legitimate rationale for only wanting to be served by a white waiter. It's just not an apt comparison.
That discomfort is sexism. It's a massage, not sex. The person touching you is doing a job for a purpose, so there's no reason to prefer one gender of hands over the other. I, personally, would be uncomfortable with having a dude give me a rub-down and will admit it's due to sexism (or possibly gender bias; I can never remember which applies to sexual orientation). The motivating factors may be different but it is literally no different from discrimination based on any other classification. Would it make it okay for someone to request a Jewish waiter because they don't trust gentiles to handle their food? Or a white waiter because black people being in close proximity makes them nervous?
If you were to request a specific female masseuse, there would be no problem with the massage parlor complying. As long as your request is just "I want an appointment with Jennifer" and not "I want an appointment with Jennifer because she's a heterosexual female white Baptist who isn't handicapped or a veteran."
And she gives good handjobs.
Come on. Everyone was thinking it.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
The massage example is not appropriate because people can have legitimate non-sexist reasons for wanting a certain gender masseuse. Modesty, for instance. Or religious reasons. Maybe it just makes them uncomfortable, and it would defeat the entire purpose of a massage if they couldn't specify a gender of masseuse.
As a society, we don't recognize a legitimate rationale for only wanting to be served by a white waiter. It's just not an apt comparison.
That discomfort is sexism. It's a massage, not sex. The person touching you is doing a job for a purpose, so there's no reason to prefer one gender of hands over the other. I, personally, would be uncomfortable with having a dude give me a rub-down and will admit it's due to sexism (or possibly gender bias; I can never remember which applies to sexual orientation). The motivating factors may be different but it is literally no different from discrimination based on any other classification. Would it make it okay for someone to request a Jewish waiter because they don't trust gentiles to handle their food? Or a white waiter because black people being in close proximity makes them nervous?
There are some people whose religion forbids them being touched by a person of the other sex unless it's their spouse. So you're saying it would be inappropriate for them to request a certain gender?
Are you next going to argue that having separate restrooms is similarly inappropriate? The fact is that there are certain taboos that society accepts, even if they fit the definition of discrimination. Many things involving gender fit in that category.
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Notice how there's no exception for "if a customer asks."
so going back to my massage example, asking or granting me my preference is illegal?
The massage parlor shouldn't ask, any more than they would ask if you wanted a Jewish or Buddhist masseuse.
If you were to request a specific female masseuse, there would be no problem with the massage parlor complying. As long as your request is just "I want an appointment with Jennifer" and not "I want an appointment with Jennifer because she's a heterosexual female white Baptist who isn't handicapped or a veteran."
According to the letter of the law up there it would be illegal for me to get a masseuse vs. a masseur. I've never been to a massage parlor, but if a masseur walked in I'm pretty sure I'd request a masseuse instead, and I'm pretty sure they'd go along with it. Same as going to a doctor for a physical and requesting a male nurse before I drop trau (which I no longer do, but when I was an insecure teenager I did).
Quoting laws piecemeal is a dangerous exercise because most laws assign very specific definitions to almost every meaningful word in the statute. (Hint: what does the statute define an "employer" as?)
Fuck if I know. The general consensus in this thread seems to be that it's okay for a customer to request a different service performer (masseuse, waiter, salesman, whatever) without stating a reason, but if you state a reason based on a protected class it becomes illegal. I'm certainly not a lawyer so I have no idea if this is true, but it sounds stupid to me. It leaves businesses forced to turn away customers on the basis of providing a service that they would otherwise be willing to perform (switching your waiter) because the reason you requested it was wrong. Yeah you're a dick for asking and they should probably just tell you to go away, but it seems bizarre to me that the line of legality is so narrow.
I mean, that law doesn't appear, to me, to apply at all in either case (restaurant or massage parlor). It says you can't deny them employment or change the terms of their employment or fire them based on a protected classification. Swapping waiters or masseuses isn't doing that. Waiters get assigned to different tables all the time for all manner of reasons, so it's not a change of employment condition, I wouldn't think. Presumably the same is true for massage parlors.
There's definitely an exception which allows for things like movie casting to be unencumbered by discrimination law, and I suspect that massage or nursing (or anything else that involves close physical contact, for that matter) would probably fall under such an exception, for gender/sexual preference discrimination at least. If you asked me, I'd say fuck 'em: I bet your average homophobe would learn more from a vigorous massage delivered by an enormous gay weightlifter than any amount of sensitivity training could ever provide.
The massage example is not appropriate because people can have legitimate non-sexist reasons for wanting a certain gender masseuse. Modesty, for instance. Or religious reasons. Maybe it just makes them uncomfortable, and it would defeat the entire purpose of a massage if they couldn't specify a gender of masseuse.
As a society, we don't recognize a legitimate rationale for only wanting to be served by a white waiter. It's just not an apt comparison.
That discomfort is sexism. It's a massage, not sex. The person touching you is doing a job for a purpose, so there's no reason to prefer one gender of hands over the other. I, personally, would be uncomfortable with having a dude give me a rub-down and will admit it's due to sexism (or possibly gender bias; I can never remember which applies to sexual orientation). The motivating factors may be different but it is literally no different from discrimination based on any other classification. Would it make it okay for someone to request a Jewish waiter because they don't trust gentiles to handle their food? Or a white waiter because black people being in close proximity makes them nervous?
There are some people whose religion forbids them being touched by a person of the other sex unless it's their spouse. So you're saying it would be inappropriate for them to request a certain gender?
Are you next going to argue that having separate restrooms is similarly inappropriate. The fact is that there are certain taboos that society accepts, even if they fit the definition of discrimination. Many things involving gender fit in that category.
In those cases, they have a legitimate and protected reason for their request.
The law isn't solely about actions. Motive is a large factor sometimes in determining whether someone committed a crime or not.
The massage example is not appropriate because people can have legitimate non-sexist reasons for wanting a certain gender masseuse. Modesty, for instance. Or religious reasons. Maybe it just makes them uncomfortable, and it would defeat the entire purpose of a massage if they couldn't specify a gender of masseuse.
As a society, we don't recognize a legitimate rationale for only wanting to be served by a white waiter. It's just not an apt comparison.
That discomfort is sexism. It's a massage, not sex. The person touching you is doing a job for a purpose, so there's no reason to prefer one gender of hands over the other. I, personally, would be uncomfortable with having a dude give me a rub-down and will admit it's due to sexism (or possibly gender bias; I can never remember which applies to sexual orientation). The motivating factors may be different but it is literally no different from discrimination based on any other classification. Would it make it okay for someone to request a Jewish waiter because they don't trust gentiles to handle their food? Or a white waiter because black people being in close proximity makes them nervous?
There are some people whose religion forbids them being touched by a person of the other sex unless it's their spouse. So you're saying it would be inappropriate for them to request a certain gender?
Are you next going to argue that having separate restrooms is similarly inappropriate? The fact is that there are certain taboos that society accepts, even if they fit the definition of discrimination. Many things involving gender fit in that category.
I didn't say that the sexism was necessarily wrong, just that it is sexism. "Oh, it's not sexism, it's religion" isn't a valid protest. It's still sexism, it's just religious sexism.
The massage example is not appropriate because people can have legitimate non-sexist reasons for wanting a certain gender masseuse. Modesty, for instance. Or religious reasons. Maybe it just makes them uncomfortable, and it would defeat the entire purpose of a massage if they couldn't specify a gender of masseuse.
As a society, we don't recognize a legitimate rationale for only wanting to be served by a white waiter. It's just not an apt comparison.
This.
Its not illegal to specify certain conditions if they are pertinent to the job at hand. An employer could be looking for female models for a photo shoot and would not be considered sexist for discluding males. An employer might be looking for spanish speaking individuals, and would not be considered racist for ending up with a majority of employees of latino descent. In this situation, the relevant qualifier, race, is inconsequential to the job at hand. Thus discriminating based on race is illegal.
If you were to request a specific female masseuse, there would be no problem with the massage parlor complying. As long as your request is just "I want an appointment with Jennifer" and not "I want an appointment with Jennifer because she's a heterosexual female white Baptist who isn't handicapped or a veteran."
And she gives good handjobs.
Come on. Everyone was thinking it.
Seriously though, it's pretty rich that we're all bickering over whether massage parlor employees are getting fucked metaphorically by gender discrimination when our legal system apparently isn't even capable of keeping them from getting fucked literally. By banning prostitution we've created a huge problem by forcing these women to deal with and effectively become criminals, which would be a tautological non-argument if it weren't for the fact that the law apparently has no other effect on prostitution except to hand the business to the underworld. But, of course, our politicians desperately demand the appearance of being "tough on crime" and here in America there's always a huge following ready to support you so long as you promise to punish the sluts.
Institutional racism leads to... Less work for me.
So, you are sticking to this argument, for why this is somehow a good thing?
Ross is saying he's developed a pretty thick callus to racial slurs and he's not a victim of institutional racism. Considering how he's defended this position three times now, he might also be thinking that people living their lives surrounded by slurs would develop an even thicker callus, making them less sensitive and this waiter guy is faking being hurt, but that's just me guessing
Basically, I lump demand-side patronage racism into the same category as crazy cultural or religious practices. As long as it's not affecting me, I just don't care, even if it's directed at me. Demanding that the racists are forced into a situation they don't want isn't going to solve the problem.
And in so doing violate the Civil Rights Act. If this forum were not anonymous, we would most likely be obligated to report this admission to the FBI.
The hotel guests didn't want minorities waiting on them. They didn't ask for the minorities to be fired, or not look them in the eye, or to not share their air, so I don't see what the issue is. Whether or not the hotel honored such a ridiculous request is the only issue here, not how the staff member was "discriminated" upon.
The request request was for the employee to be discriminated against. You are quite literally saying that an assassination has nothing to do with murder as long as the assassin is getting paid because the assassination was a costumer request.
The hotel should have refused them service when they made the request, and refunded their money. Clearly the request is blatantly impossible and illegal. Heck, it's a request so insane that I have trouble even believing it's real.
It's most definitely impossible if they're Brits staying in the US and their complaint is "foreign accent".
Everyone would have a foreign accent.
Pretty stupid, innit?
EDIT
Some of you folks seem to be forgetting that private businesses are private businesses. People ask for and refuse service by people for whatever reason. It's usually kept private and no one knows. It's perfectly legal for someone to be racist, it's a problem when you act on it.
It's not so much that it happened, its more or less that it happened and everyone knew about it. The hotel manager basically told everyone that "Persons X won't be serving Persons Y because they're black".
Technically, I think that the Supreme Court ruled that discrimination is allowed if there's a performance aspect. i.e., big busted females at Hooters. And if that's the case, then the whole "no colored people" thing might also apply.
OTOH, it might be different if this type of discrimination isn't included or implied in the job description, and the employee didn't have a reasonable expectation of this when he took up the job.
Technically, I think that the Supreme Court ruled that discrimination is allowed if there's a performance aspect. i.e., big busted females at Hooters. And if that's the case, then the whole "no colored people" thing might also apply.
OTOH, it might be different if this type of discrimination isn't included or implied in the job description, and the employee didn't have a reasonable expectation of this when he took up the job.
Yeah, you caught it. It's only material performance; Civil rights laws would be toothless if that exception extended to racist restaurant patrons' subjective ideas of what constitutes performance.
So you're saying racism is worse when its against minorities? I'm pretty sure in the law it doesn't say minorities cannot be segregated by race but everyone.
I cant view the video at work but isnt that whole bit about how slur against white people dont really work? I dont think he is saying that since it doesnt work on whitey it shouldnt work on any ethnicity?
Posts
I would be offended if the patron was like "oh can we get someone more attractive" or " can we get someone who is in better shape"
Those are things that would bother me (not that I am ugly.. far from it but I could stand to lose my delightful beergut)
I think his point is racial slurs against caucasians dont have any teeth to them, they lack that painful history as other racial slurs.
No his point was, since I'm not offended by white racial slurs directed at me, you shouldn't expect to be able to sue your company for disallowing you to do your job because of your skin color.
Which is terribly retarded.
They're still cases of patients (i.e. customers) not wanting help from certain staff members because of racial prejudice.
I personally feel that while that's pretty stupid, it's no sweat off my back to oblige them. Less work for me.
So, you are sticking to this argument, for why this is somehow a good thing?
Ross is saying he's developed a pretty thick callus to racial slurs and he's not a victim of institutional racism. Considering how he's defended this position three times now, he might also be thinking that people living their lives surrounded by slurs would develop an even thicker callus, making them less sensitive and this waiter guy is faking being hurt, but that's just me guessing
Does the waiter have a right to be angry? Hell yes. I guess I'm just putting myself in the shoes of the person that made the decision. It's not an easy one to make, because either way you're pissing people off. In hindsight, I'm sure what I'd do. But I've had a lot of time to think about it, and it's possible that the person making the decision had only a few seconds to think, and had other problems to take care of as well.
Then again, I know that this isn't how our legal system works. Good intentions don't count for much. All things considered, I guess I grudgingly support the waiter's position.
Unfortunately his point falls flat in the face of logic, namely that most people work jobs in order to, ya know, survive in the world, not because someone is holding a gun to their head forcing them to do it. I mean, if I was forced to do work, or was being paid hourly/salary (which is NOT where waiters in resturants make their money, btw) sure sitting on the side and watching someone else serve the bigots might be nice. But that isn't the reality of the situation.
Basically, I lump demand-side patronage racism into the same category as crazy cultural or religious practices. As long as it's not affecting me, I just don't care, even if it's directed at me. Demanding that the racists are forced into a situation they don't want isn't going to solve the problem.
The hotel guests didn't want minorities waiting on them. They didn't ask for the minorities to be fired, or not look them in the eye, or to not share their air, so I don't see what the issue is. Whether or not the hotel honored such a ridiculous request is the only issue here, not how the staff member was "discriminated" upon.
If those words are coming from one's employer then they aren't kosher either.
This is why employee training exists. I bet all the supervisors/managers at that Ritz-Carlton have been trained on how to properly handle sexual harassment claims, there's no reason they shouldn't have received training (or at least a memo) on why they're not allowed to discriminate by race in determining work assignments. This is pretty basic HR-101 stuff.
You do know those are the same thing, right?
They are not at all the same thing.
The waiter wasn't singled out for discrimination. At best, he has a case for a class action suit against all racists, everywhere.
Relevant:
It isn't his choice to start a class action lawsuit. That would be up to the lawerys/other people wanting to join a class action suit.
Now explain to me how "hotel honoring discriminatory request" is different from "being discriminated against" cause I don't see it.
so going back to my massage example, asking or granting me my preference is illegal?
First, all racists everywhere are not this waiter's boss.
Second, it's actually better for Ritz-Carlton if the waiter was singled out for discrimination. Ritz-Carlton can explain that away as the isolated actions of a rogue manager, and promise stricter standards and increased training in the future. The alternative is the waiter was but 1 employee among many affected by Ritz-Carlton's systematic institutionalized discrimination, that he is notable not because he was discriminated against but because he was the first to protest the discrimination.
In certain circumstances, yes, it could be. Places that offer services like massages know that they inherently tread the fine line that you've pointed out, and take steps to ensure that they are complying with the law. What happened here seems a lot less thought-out and a lot more reckless.
The massage parlor shouldn't ask, any more than they would ask if you wanted a Jewish or Buddhist masseuse.
If you were to request a specific female masseuse, there would be no problem with the massage parlor complying. As long as your request is just "I want an appointment with Jennifer" and not "I want an appointment with Jennifer because she's a heterosexual female white Baptist who isn't handicapped or a veteran."
According to the letter of the law up there it would be illegal for me to get a masseuse vs. a masseur. I've never been to a massage parlor, but if a masseur walked in I'm pretty sure I'd request a masseuse instead, and I'm pretty sure they'd go along with it. Same as going to a doctor for a physical and requesting a male nurse before I drop trau (which I no longer do, but when I was an insecure teenager I did).
As a society, we don't recognize a legitimate rationale for only wanting to be served by a white waiter. It's just not an apt comparison.
Quoting laws piecemeal is a dangerous exercise because most laws assign very specific definitions to almost every meaningful word in the statute. (Hint: what does the statute define an "employer" as?)
That discomfort is sexism. It's a massage, not sex. The person touching you is doing a job for a purpose, so there's no reason to prefer one gender of hands over the other. I, personally, would be uncomfortable with having a dude give me a rub-down and will admit it's due to sexism (or possibly gender bias; I can never remember which applies to sexual orientation). The motivating factors may be different but it is literally no different from discrimination based on any other classification. Would it make it okay for someone to request a Jewish waiter because they don't trust gentiles to handle their food? Or a white waiter because black people being in close proximity makes them nervous?
Come on. Everyone was thinking it.
Rigorous Scholarship
There are some people whose religion forbids them being touched by a person of the other sex unless it's their spouse. So you're saying it would be inappropriate for them to request a certain gender?
Are you next going to argue that having separate restrooms is similarly inappropriate? The fact is that there are certain taboos that society accepts, even if they fit the definition of discrimination. Many things involving gender fit in that category.
Fuck if I know. The general consensus in this thread seems to be that it's okay for a customer to request a different service performer (masseuse, waiter, salesman, whatever) without stating a reason, but if you state a reason based on a protected class it becomes illegal. I'm certainly not a lawyer so I have no idea if this is true, but it sounds stupid to me. It leaves businesses forced to turn away customers on the basis of providing a service that they would otherwise be willing to perform (switching your waiter) because the reason you requested it was wrong. Yeah you're a dick for asking and they should probably just tell you to go away, but it seems bizarre to me that the line of legality is so narrow.
I mean, that law doesn't appear, to me, to apply at all in either case (restaurant or massage parlor). It says you can't deny them employment or change the terms of their employment or fire them based on a protected classification. Swapping waiters or masseuses isn't doing that. Waiters get assigned to different tables all the time for all manner of reasons, so it's not a change of employment condition, I wouldn't think. Presumably the same is true for massage parlors.
In those cases, they have a legitimate and protected reason for their request.
The law isn't solely about actions. Motive is a large factor sometimes in determining whether someone committed a crime or not.
I didn't say that the sexism was necessarily wrong, just that it is sexism. "Oh, it's not sexism, it's religion" isn't a valid protest. It's still sexism, it's just religious sexism.
This.
Its not illegal to specify certain conditions if they are pertinent to the job at hand. An employer could be looking for female models for a photo shoot and would not be considered sexist for discluding males. An employer might be looking for spanish speaking individuals, and would not be considered racist for ending up with a majority of employees of latino descent. In this situation, the relevant qualifier, race, is inconsequential to the job at hand. Thus discriminating based on race is illegal.
Seriously though, it's pretty rich that we're all bickering over whether massage parlor employees are getting fucked metaphorically by gender discrimination when our legal system apparently isn't even capable of keeping them from getting fucked literally. By banning prostitution we've created a huge problem by forcing these women to deal with and effectively become criminals, which would be a tautological non-argument if it weren't for the fact that the law apparently has no other effect on prostitution except to hand the business to the underworld. But, of course, our politicians desperately demand the appearance of being "tough on crime" and here in America there's always a huge following ready to support you so long as you promise to punish the sluts.
And in so doing violate the Civil Rights Act. If this forum were not anonymous, we would most likely be obligated to report this admission to the FBI.
The request request was for the employee to be discriminated against. You are quite literally saying that an assassination has nothing to do with murder as long as the assassin is getting paid because the assassination was a costumer request.
It's most definitely impossible if they're Brits staying in the US and their complaint is "foreign accent".
Everyone would have a foreign accent.
Pretty stupid, innit?
EDIT
Some of you folks seem to be forgetting that private businesses are private businesses. People ask for and refuse service by people for whatever reason. It's usually kept private and no one knows. It's perfectly legal for someone to be racist, it's a problem when you act on it.
It's not so much that it happened, its more or less that it happened and everyone knew about it. The hotel manager basically told everyone that "Persons X won't be serving Persons Y because they're black".
OTOH, it might be different if this type of discrimination isn't included or implied in the job description, and the employee didn't have a reasonable expectation of this when he took up the job.
Yeah, you caught it. It's only material performance; Civil rights laws would be toothless if that exception extended to racist restaurant patrons' subjective ideas of what constitutes performance.
Listening to white people insist that racial slurs don't bother them is like listening to the statistic on how 9/10 people enjoy gang bangs.
I've never owned a person and the only land I own I do because my grand father dragged himself out of poverty.
So I don't really see how Louis CK is relevant to me at all.