Should commercial ventures and estates in SL be allowed to discriminate?

[Paul Hexem]

12 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

When they decided to sell their goods from a private home/place of business they entered into a contract with society, and so society should have some say in what they are doing. For example, would you allow them to put poison into their goods just because they're doing it from a place they own?  Of course not...because when they decide to sell and benefit from society they need to accept some regulation from that society, because this is the fair thing to do -- both parties need some control here.

That's a silly comparison though. Poisoning people is very different than saying "Hey, I don't want you on my property, you have to leave, no sale for you."

Regulating safety is fine, but once you start telling people who they need to allow on their property, you're starting to violate their rights.

Whether we like it or not, commercial/business property is private property.

[Nalytha]

2 minutes ago, Pamela Galli said:

I appreciate that you have gone to all this trouble to learn bits of Christian history, but it is a vast subject and you are confused about a lot of stuff, and not just the things I have responded to. 

That tends to happen when you vomit what you've scrambled to learn in just a few minutes on the internet in order to look like an expert. 

[Love Zhaoying]

1 hour ago, Phil Deakins said:

In a page of posts, such as this one, mouse over the name or pic of the person you want to ignore. A box opens. In the middle of the bottom, there's an option to ignore the user.

Got it! I kept trying to do it from their profile instead of from a post.

[Solar Legion]

16 minutes ago, Gadget Portal said:

That's a silly comparison though. Poisoning people is very different than saying "Hey, I don't want you on my property, you have to leave, no sale for you."

Regulating safety is fine, but once you start telling people who they need to allow on their property, you're starting to violate their rights.

Whether we like it or not, commercial/business property is private property.

Like it or not the only businesses allowed to discriminate are those that are Members Only or similarly "private" types and even then they barely get away with it on a technicality.

Any business open to the public has to follow the law where discrimination is concerned - the only potential exception to this revolving around businesses based within a person's home and even then the regulations prohibit discrimination.

That is simply the way it is - don't like it? Well bully for you! Welcome to the 21st Century.

ETA: All of that being said, where Second Life is concerned, at the end of the day it is Linden Lab that gets to set the rules on this and other matters - no matter how much we may like or dislike such a thing.

Those rules may or may not follow real world examples and we just have to deal with it.

Edited January 5, 2018 by Solar Legion

[Luna Bliss]

18 minutes ago, Gadget Portal said:

34 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

When they decided to sell their goods from a private home/place of business they entered into a contract with society, and so society should have some say in what they are doing. For example, would you allow them to put poison into their goods just because they're doing it from a place they own?  Of course not...because when they decide to sell and benefit from society they need to accept some regulation from that society, because this is the fair thing to do -- both parties need some control here.

That's a silly comparison though. Poisoning people is very different than saying "Hey, I don't want you on my property, you have to leave, no sale for you."

Regulating safety is fine, but once you start telling people who they need to allow on their property, you're starting to violate their rights.

Whether we like it or not, commercial/business property is private property.

Private property does not/should not trump every consideration. I know Libertardians think it should, but they're wrong. Once an individual or business decides to use their property to benefit from society they need to be subject to SOME control from that society.
The issue is not about an individual they may hate 'standing' on their property and whether they have the right to remove them from said property -- the issue is about the goods and services society needs. They made a choice to enter into this contract with society when they decided to sell to it, and yes they then need to give up some of their freedom due to that choice. 

[Snugs McMasters]

17 minutes ago, Nalytha said:

21 minutes ago, Pamela Galli said:

I appreciate that you have gone to all this trouble to learn (--insert topic here---), but it is a vast subject and you are confused about a lot of stuff, and not just the things I have responded to. 

That tends to happen when you vomit what you've scrambled to learn in just a few minutes on the internet in order to look like an expert. 

Yeah, but that doesn't stop Maddy, does it?

At least I get to see her scramble.

[Ceka Cianci]

I'll just put this part here..If anyone feels like reading the rest at the link ,here it is

The Legal Rights of a Business to Ban a Person From Their Property

 

Property Owners' Rights

Private property is any property owned by private persons and not by the government or reserved for public use. Private property includes buildings and real estate as well as objects and intellectual property. People who own property have the right to manage it and control it. A store, for example, is private property. Offering merchandise for sale implies an invitation to enter, but the store owner is entitled to ban someone from coming in. The person could be a suspected shoplifter or a troublemaker, or he can be banned for any reason, as long as it is not based on bias against a federally protected class of people.

Edited January 5, 2018 by Ceka Cianci

[Luna Bliss]

1 hour ago, Qa Boa said:

In the case of a publicly-accessible commercial venture, then the laws against discrimination apply and in the U.S. sexual orientation is not among those criteria (gender and skin color is, but nothing regarding behavior and sexual orientation is a behavior).

As a side note, it looks like there are some avenues one could pursue:

Federal Law

Although federal laws protect people from workplace discrimination on the basis of sex, race, national origin, religion, age, and disability, there is no federal law that specifically outlaws workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the private sector. (Federal government workers are protected from such discrimination.) In recent years, however, some courts have been willing to extend protection to gay and lesbian employees by holding that they were victims of illegal "sex" discrimination for not living up to gender-based stereotypes. Based on these cases, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)—the agency that enforces federal antidiscrimination laws—has taken the position that sexual orientation discrimination is necessarily a form of sex discrimination because it involves gender-based stereotypes of how men and women should behave and with whom they should be in romantic relationships. The EEOC is accepting and processing sexual orientation discrimination claims from employees, and in 2016, it filed its first two sexual orientation discrimination lawsuits on behalf of LGBT employees.

Whether sexual orientation is protected under federal law is a complicated and unsettled area of the law, which will ultimately be up to the courts to decide. For now, however, the EEOC is accepting and pursuing sexual orientation discrimination claims.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/sexual-orientation-discrimination-rights-29541.html

[Love Zhaoying]

16 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

I'll just put this part here..If anyone feels like reading the rest at the link ,here it is

The Legal Rights of a Business to Ban a Person From Their Property

 

Property Owners' Rights

Private property is any property owned by private persons and not by the government or reserved for public use. Private property includes buildings and real estate as well as objects and intellectual property. People who own property have the right to manage it and control it. A store, for example, is private property. Offering merchandise for sale implies an invitation to enter, but the store owner is entitled to ban someone from coming in. The person could be a suspected shoplifter or a troublemaker, or he can be banned for any reason, as long as it is not based on bias against a federally protected class of people.

This makes sense, as it supports the "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" signs.

[Luna Bliss]

48 minutes ago, Gadget Portal said:

That's a silly comparison though. Poisoning people is very different than saying "Hey, I don't want you on my property, you have to leave, no sale for you."

That was a silly, hyperbolic comparison yes, but your lack of awareness as to what takes place during discrimination by labeling it as "hey, I don't want you on my property, you have to leave, so sale for you" is equally silly, and abusive due to your lack of empathy for people who are discriminated against.

[Solar Legion]

Oh for the love of ...

Here we go again.

[Love Zhaoying]

8 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

That was a silly, hyperbolic comparison yes, but your lack of awareness as to what takes place during discrimination by labeling it as "hey, I don't want you on my property, you have to leave, so sale for you" is equally silly, and abusive due to your lack of empathy for people who are discriminated against.

Epiphany: Discrimination is also a form of poison!

[Theresa Tennyson]

1 hour ago, Gadget Portal said:

That's a silly comparison though. Poisoning people is very different than saying "Hey, I don't want you on my property, you have to leave, no sale for you."

Regulating safety is fine, but once you start telling people who they need to allow on their property, you're starting to violate their rights.

Whether we like it or not, commercial/business property is private property.

Actually I'd imagine a large percentage of businesses operate out of property that they don't own. Who should have the right to control who visits the property - the actual property owner or the operator of the business? And what if they disagree?

[Ceka Cianci]

15 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Actually I'd imagine a large percentage of businesses operate out of property that they don't own. Who should have the right to control who visits the property - the actual property owner or the operator of the business? And what if they disagree?

Most places like that have those things in a lease or contract they both agree upon before they get the ball rolling,as long as it's within the law.

Some places the property owner only owns the outside or has control of the outside of the building,where the person who owns the business owns and has control of the inside of the building.

A lot of strip malls and fast food places do the last one..

[Madelaine McMasters]

10 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

Most places like that have those things in a lease or contract they both agree upon before they get the ball rolling,as long as it's within the law.

Some places the property owner only owns the outside or has control of the outside of the building,where the person who owns the business owns and has control of the inside of the building.

A lot of strip malls and fast food places do the last one..

This reminds me of a small strip mall near me that was purchased by a property developer apparently new to retail. He exercised his right over the mall's exterior look, requiring all tenants to adopt the same green and yellow (go Packers!) color scheme and font for their signage. The result was an inability to recognize any of the store brands in the mall. Everything was unfamiliar and looked the same. That's one way to prevent discrimination.

I told my (at the time) hubby that the mall would fail within a few years. He disagreed (and is a Packer fan).

Last summer I went kite flying in the field that was once that mall.

Not all discrimination is bad.

[Paul Hexem]

1 hour ago, Ceka Cianci said:

I'll just put this part here..If anyone feels like reading the rest at the link ,here it is

The Legal Rights of a Business to Ban a Person From Their Property

 

Property Owners' Rights

Private property is any property owned by private persons and not by the government or reserved for public use. Private property includes buildings and real estate as well as objects and intellectual property. People who own property have the right to manage it and control it. A store, for example, is private property. Offering merchandise for sale implies an invitation to enter, but the store owner is entitled to ban someone from coming in. The person could be a suspected shoplifter or a troublemaker, or he can be banned for any reason, as long as it is not based on bias against a federally protected class of people.

This is the correct answer, yes. A business owner can make you leave for almost any reason, such as "I don't like you, your face is stupid."

They cannot put up a sign that says "No [protected class] allowed."

What makes for good debate is who or what should be on that list of protected classes.

 

1 hour ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Actually I'd imagine a large percentage of businesses operate out of property that they don't own. Who should have the right to control who visits the property - the actual property owner or the operator of the business? And what if they disagree?

36 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

Most places like that have those things in a lease or contract they both agree upon before they get the ball rolling,as long as it's within the law.

Some places the property owner only owns the outside or has control of the outside of the building,where the person who owns the business owns and has control of the inside of the building.

A lot of strip malls and fast food places do the last one..

As someone that's worked security in a mall in the past, that's easy to answer. The individual store owner can ban you, but you're still allowed in the rest of the mall and other stores. If the mall owner bans you, you're banned from the entire property. The tenant can request that you be banned from the mall, and that's up to the mall owner.

 

Now, as far as SL as concerned, I think it's been answered a few times but got lost in all the off topic nonsense.

There are no protected classes in SL. SL is avatars, not people. However, if you're overtly racist or something with your parcel, LL is liable to ban you. Probably.

[Ceka Cianci]

21 minutes ago, Gadget Portal said:

This is the correct answer, yes. A business owner can make you leave for almost any reason, such as "I don't like you, your face is stupid."

They cannot put up a sign that says "No [protected class] allowed."

What makes for good debate is who or what should be on that list of protected classes.

 

As someone that's worked security in a mall in the past, that's easy to answer. The individual store owner can ban you, but you're still allowed in the rest of the mall and other stores. If the mall owner bans you, you're banned from the entire property. The tenant can request that you be banned from the mall, and that's up to the mall owner.

 

Now, as far as SL as concerned, I think it's been answered a few times but got lost in all the off topic nonsense.

There are no protected classes in SL. SL is avatars, not people. However, if you're overtly racist or something with your parcel, LL is liable to ban you. Probably.

The thread seemed to have drifted to mostly RL that, I figured that's where we were still at..

As far as SL,I'll stick with my very first post of the thread.

Just to add: As far as federally protected class of people,wouldn't it be in the constitution who those people are?

 

found a list..Not sure if it's the whole list,but this is what they had in a few places I checked.

Federal protected classes include:

• Race.
• Color.
• Religion or creed.
• National origin or ancestry.
• Sex.
• Age.
• Physical or mental disability.
• Veteran status.
• Genetic information.
• Citizenship.

Edited January 5, 2018 by Ceka Cianci

[Ceka Cianci]

49 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

This reminds me of a small strip mall near me that was purchased by a property developer apparently new to retail. He exercised his right over the mall's exterior look, requiring all tenants to adopt the same green and yellow (go Packers!) color scheme and font for their signage. The result was an inability to recognize any of the store brands in the mall. Everything was unfamiliar and looked the same. That's one way to prevent discrimination.

I told my (at the time) hubby that the mall would fail within a few years. He disagreed (and is a Packer fan).

Last summer I went kite flying in the field that was once that mall.

Not all discrimination is bad.

I was raised by a Bear fan,so yea..I'm gonna send you a Chicago Bears kite now to fly over that field..

hehehe

[Drake1 Nightfire]

On 12/31/2017 at 2:02 PM, BilliJo Aldrin said:

Or this one.

Suppose  I run a Las Vegas wedding chapel, should I be able to put up a sign that says "marriage is between a man and a woman only, so we don't do gay marriages"

Seeing as there are many many actual churches that refuse to marry gay people.... That being said, marriage is a legal contract. You can't actually GET married in a church without a JP in the US. 

[Innula Zenovka]

3 hours ago, Qa Boa said:

If it is a shared place or entity: meaning we ALL contribute in some way; for the government, it's the paying of taxes, for example, there should be zero discrimination. In the case of a publicly-accessible commercial venture, then the laws against discrimination apply and in the U.S. sexual orientation is not among those criteria (gender and skin color is, but nothing regarding behavior and sexual orientation is a behavior).

However, when it comes to private entities, locations, etc: the one who owns it has every right to "discriminate" in any way they see fit, including those criteria the law forbid in public places. So here is my hypothetical: If I pay for a sim and I say you may not come into it because your nose is too big and you have green eyes then get lost.

@OP: You have it right that my private home or property is mine to control. It is the same in SL: Linden Lab is the government. If I rent a sim from them then I have full ownership control over it. It's the same thing if you rent an apartment in RL, the landlord has no say over your access control. Even if you own your home: you do not. Stop paying the taxes on it and see what happens.

I see what you mean but I am really not sure that RL legal analogies are helpful here.    

I would simply say that RL laws apply to people sitting at their keyboards using SL.   Inside SL, it's LL's Terms of Service that count, not any jurisdiction's criminal or civil code.   

So, people can discriminate pretty much how they want when it comes to avatars accessing regions or parcels they own, regardless of whatever anti-discrimination laws are in force in the RL jurisdiction in which they live.    Similarly,  LL can choose to ban particular activities as it sees fit, despite the fact they may well be lawful in the resident's home jurisdiction.

 

[Love Zhaoying]

12 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

I see what you mean but I am really not sure that RL legal analogies are helpful here.    

I would simply say that RL laws apply to people sitting at their keyboards using SL.   Inside SL, it's LL's Terms of Service that count, not any jurisdiction's criminal or civil code.   

So, people can discriminate pretty much how they want when it comes to avatars accessing regions or parcels they own, regardless of whatever anti-discrimination laws are in force in the RL jurisdiction in which they live.    Similarly,  LL can choose to ban particular activities as it sees fit, despite the fact they may well be lawful in the resident's home jurisdiction.

 

I've come to the position that in SL, people can basically do what they want.  The thread devolved into a discussion of whether discrimination is "right". 

[Nalytha]

Since furries aren’t a protected class in the United States, should they be allowed to be discriminated against in Second Life?

(rhetorical)

[Nalytha]

20 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

The thread devolved into a discussion of whether discrimination is "right". 

Or maybe it evolved. 

[Paul Hexem]

3 minutes ago, Nalytha said:

Since furries aren’t a protected class in the United States, should they be allowed to be discriminated against in Second Life?

(rhetorical)

Yes.

Even the protected classes don't apply in SL, really.

[Luna Bliss]

7 minutes ago, Nalytha said:

Since furries aren’t a protected class in the United States, should they be allowed to be discriminated against in Second Life?

(rhetorical)

I would not discriminate...I would slice 'em up and throw them in my virtual oven just like any other RL animal....