There are two rights that the courts have traditionally protected, the right to say (or not say) what you want, and the right to be free of discrimination.

In this case, the two rights were in conflict. The court decided that the first one takes precedence.

[–] vacuumflower@vlemmy.net 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's to be free of discrimination by the state, which usually will treat your obligations independently of your rights.

While private discrimination is always something in the grey area. By private discrimination I mean both a banner saying " are not welcome here" and having face control (something quite normal for night clubs, and you'll also pick your tenants if you rent out).

[–] FlowVoid@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago

It's not really a gray area. The Civil Rights Act explicitly prohibits discrimination against protected class by most businesses that are open to the public, like stores, restaurants, bars, and hotels.

If you're not a part of a protected class, or your particular business is not covered by the Civil Rights Act, then you are free to discriminate.

So to take your example, if a bar said "Irish not welcome here" then they would absolutely be violating the law.

The main change recently is that certain businesses that produce original expression, such as web designers, can no longer be covered by the Civil Rights Act because the court thought this would conflict with the First Amendment.