Yes, it depends. Courts have extended discrimination protection to arbitrary discrimination.

http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equal-rights/right-refuse-service

So thanks. As usual, your pedantry falls flat.

That's the link I posted. The point is, all of those decisions come under state law, not federal law. (And not every state has those). The Federal civil rights act has not been interpreted to prohibit arbitrary discrimination.

So thanks. As usual, your ignorance stands tall.

One mistaken pundits opinion does not a fact make, Putin. The restaurant did not violate the Civil Rights Act. It violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. The article even states that is what the government brought suit against GC under. So that columnists opinion is fill of shit and you were still wrong in saying the Civil Rights Act covers arbitrary discrimination. It covers no such thing. Even the ADA doesn't cover arbitrary discrimination. It covers a pretty clear (but expansive and expanding) set of disabilities. One of which is *not*, unfortunately, color blindness (as an aside).

Please engage in arbitrary discrimination at your business and good luck when you have to deal with the courts.

I went to Curves the other day cause they have such a good rate and they had the audacity to tell me "No men allowed". Maybe I should take them to court for discrimination.

"Please engage in arbitrary discrimination at your business and good luck when you have to deal with the courts."

Oh I'm sorry, is this what you turn to instead of a legal argument when you've been thoroughly refuted?

Thoroughly refuted? No, sorry, courts have fairly consistently ruled against arbitrary discrimination, whatever the text of the law says.

http://verdict.justia.com/2013/03/06/is-veganism-a-religion-under-anti-discrimination-law

Anyway this was the outcome of that suit.

http://www.law360.com/articles/478582/hospital-settles-religious-bias-suit-over-veganism

" Thoroughly refuted? No, sorry, courts have fairly consistently ruled against arbitrary discrimination, whatever the text of the law says. "

Ruled? This is just a denial of a motion to dismiss, and by a district court no less. Moreover, the link doesn't discuss any case law. Where is the evidence you claim of courts "fairly consistently rul[ing]" against arbitrary descrimination?

So, the court actually made *no* decision in that suit. Yet you try to use it to say the courts held that the claim of veganism somehow confirmed the courts viewing the Civil Rights Act as applying to arbitrary discrimination? I hope you didn't write your masters thesis with that same lack of intellectual integrity.

Why the hell do religious rights trump gay rights? Sexual orientation is inherent to the best of evidence, while religion is merely a lifestyle choice

"Why the hell do religious rights trump gay rights? Sexual orientation is inherent to the best of evidence, while religion is merely a lifestyle choice"

This is not a question of rights trumping rights.

Gay people have a right to live their lifestyle. But they (like everybody) lack a right to force others to serve them against their wishes.

Business owners do not have a right to tell other people how to live their lives. But they do have a right to serve whom they want, just like everybody. (Yes, there are narrow exceptions to this principle from the CRA act -- race, etc.)

So there is no right being "trumped," because you don't have a "right" to have a business serve you in the first place.

Who cares if it's a district court? A federal court ruled that discrimination on the basis of veganism merited consideration, on the basis of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The hospital was sufficiently bear-ish about their chances that they settled with the plaintiff. This flies in the face of your claim that courts have narrowly interpreted the act to only apply to explicitly defined cases in the text.

"Where is the evidence you claim of courts "fairly consistently rul[ing]" against arbitrary descrimination?"

See cases of trait discrimination, grooming, and dress code covered under Title VII of the civil rights act.

For example Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (which protected trans people); Gordon v. Continental Airlines; Frank v. United Airlines; Fagan v. National Cash Register; Carroll v. Talman Savings & Loan; O'Donnell v. Burlington Coat Factory; EEOC v. Sage Reality Corp.

OK, Putin, the first couple are straight sex-discrimination cases (different regulations for women employees); and Fagan v. NCR, the court actually ruled against the plaintiff, holding there was no civil rights violation.

I'm not going to be spammed into reading endless case law all night, as you paste endless lists of cases that may or may not be relevant.