Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Tennessee yarn shop asks 'women's movement' supporters to shop elsewhere [View all]politicat
(9,808 posts)79. Actually, per EEOC, retail is also a public accomodation. And the KY Civil Rights Act.
https://www.eeoc.gov/facts/adaqa2.html
This is specifically ADA related, but retail has generally been ruled a public accomodation in the case law for both civil rights and ADA.
Then there's the Kentucky Civil Rights Act, which defines store as a public accomodation, too.
http://kchr.ky.gov/reports/Documents/Brochure/Public%20Accommodations%20Brochure.pdf
This is specific to civil rights.
There are four states whose public accomodation statute is vague enough that retail may not be included; Kentucky is not one of those four. (Nebraska, Wyoming, Missouri and Virginia.) Everywhere else includes retail.
She's not a wholesaler; she's retail. She's not a private knitting club that supports itself on yarn sales; she's open to the public. She's not a religious institution. Yarns, hooks and needles are not controlled substances.
So the question becomes -- is she discriminating against a protected class? Maybe. She's not refusing all women, just a substantial portion. (How would she handle men who knit/crochet coming into her store for pink yarn? That would be the defining factor.) From her perspective, she may be discriminating on the basis of religion, in that she's attempting to exclude those who do not conform to her social-cultural-religious behaviors and trying to create an environment that privileges one group over another. And she definitely falls under the arbitrary language, which was inserted specifically so that undefined characteristics could not be applied as a means of discriminating while asserting plausible deniability. There were incidents in the 70s of women being refused service for wearing pants; those were considered violations of the gender clause. (Sorry, I don't have a citation; I do know my grandmother was one of the complainants, and it was state level, though not Kentucky.)
She actually has a remedy that doesn't involve forbidding anyone from her premises -- stop carrying pink yarn or remove it from the shelves. Don't take special orders. If she sponsors open knitting or stitch and bitch, discontinue them. (Which are equally as likely to hurt her business, but those are the legal remedies that don't rise to the level of flashing her ass.) Instead, she took the passive-aggressive route, and is Streisand Effecting herself. Can't say I have much sympathy. At least she made it easy to identify a bigot.
Q. What are public accommodations?
A. A public accommodation is a private entity that owns, operates, leases, or leases to, a place of public accommodation. Places of public accommodation include a wide range of entities, such as restaurants, hotels, theaters, doctors' offices, pharmacies, retail stores, museums, libraries, parks, private schools, and day care centers. Private clubs and religious organizations are exempt from the ADA's title III requirements for public accommodations.
This is specifically ADA related, but retail has generally been ruled a public accomodation in the case law for both civil rights and ADA.
Then there's the Kentucky Civil Rights Act, which defines store as a public accomodation, too.
http://kchr.ky.gov/reports/Documents/Brochure/Public%20Accommodations%20Brochure.pdf
The Kentucky Civil Rights Act states that a public accomodation, resort or amusement includes any place such as a store, restaurant, hotel, motel, professional or other office, or other establishment, either licensed or unlicensed, which supplies goods or services to the general public.
This is specific to civil rights.
There are four states whose public accomodation statute is vague enough that retail may not be included; Kentucky is not one of those four. (Nebraska, Wyoming, Missouri and Virginia.) Everywhere else includes retail.
She's not a wholesaler; she's retail. She's not a private knitting club that supports itself on yarn sales; she's open to the public. She's not a religious institution. Yarns, hooks and needles are not controlled substances.
So the question becomes -- is she discriminating against a protected class? Maybe. She's not refusing all women, just a substantial portion. (How would she handle men who knit/crochet coming into her store for pink yarn? That would be the defining factor.) From her perspective, she may be discriminating on the basis of religion, in that she's attempting to exclude those who do not conform to her social-cultural-religious behaviors and trying to create an environment that privileges one group over another. And she definitely falls under the arbitrary language, which was inserted specifically so that undefined characteristics could not be applied as a means of discriminating while asserting plausible deniability. There were incidents in the 70s of women being refused service for wearing pants; those were considered violations of the gender clause. (Sorry, I don't have a citation; I do know my grandmother was one of the complainants, and it was state level, though not Kentucky.)
She actually has a remedy that doesn't involve forbidding anyone from her premises -- stop carrying pink yarn or remove it from the shelves. Don't take special orders. If she sponsors open knitting or stitch and bitch, discontinue them. (Which are equally as likely to hurt her business, but those are the legal remedies that don't rise to the level of flashing her ass.) Instead, she took the passive-aggressive route, and is Streisand Effecting herself. Can't say I have much sympathy. At least she made it easy to identify a bigot.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
79 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Tennessee yarn shop asks 'women's movement' supporters to shop elsewhere [View all]
pstokely
Jan 2017
OP
If I was running a business I wouldn't want to have to make a decision like that.
brush
Jan 2017
#57
Good Conservative Christian women would never do anything so...independent.
Crash2Parties
Jan 2017
#29
I think making sure no one buys any yarn or for that matter, anything from her store
tavalon
Jan 2017
#15
Actually, per EEOC, retail is also a public accomodation. And the KY Civil Rights Act.
politicat
Jan 2017
#79
She must own the building her shop is in. How can a yarn shop afford to lose customers?
KittyWampus
Jan 2017
#8
Not in TN, but if I was I'd be letting her know I'm happy to take my business elsewhere
Thekaspervote
Jan 2017
#11
Can anyone creative photoshoppers come up with a knit white hood for Trump's head??
adigal
Jan 2017
#25
I believe you have to open an Imagur or Photobucket account - upload there, then you can post
bettyellen
Jan 2017
#67
Hi, you need to have the photos on another site, like Photobucket or something
uppityperson
Jan 2017
#70
This is amusing. If Trump owned the shop he'd double the stock, double the price and cash in.
Vinca
Jan 2017
#42
Her business has links to outside USA sites for the world knitting community. I hope she enjoys
chelsea0011
Jan 2017
#54
Right there with you, this is like talking about the ants who were killed at Hiroshima. n/t
rzemanfl
Jan 2017
#76
Why is Elizabeth Poe running a business instead of cooking and cleaning at home ?
In_The_Wind
Jan 2017
#72