All the while said same Oligarchs, Corporations and Banks are robbing the 99% blind.

Look no further than this when the PTB's stance on any issue: If it costs the 1 percent any money, they'll either openly oppose it, or they'll attempt to bury it by distracting the 99 percent by keeping them barking up the wrong tree.

You actually have to have discrimination to bring a discrimination suit. Just putting a sign in the window itself isn't discrimination, if they never actually deny service based on a protected characteristic.

Doesn't the first one imply the second?

Or a sign that says, "Shoplifters will be skinned alive."

As long as you don't actually do any of those things, you're fine.

The same applies here. I bet the owner knows this, and doesn't have the stones to actually deny service, because he knows it would be a slam-dunk case.

"Muslim-free zone" can be taken as a threat, depending upon who posts it. Do you disagree?

And unless Pot Pot has opened a gun store, I think we're safe.

Or belonged to a group that engaged in hate crimes against the same? Are there any circumstances under which "Muslim free zone" posting could an imputed threat? Isn't this something that should be verified before one concludes that a denial of service violation is necessary?

I guess this comes down to burden-shifting. Normally, the First Amendment protects speech, but not Hate Speech. Who has the burden of showing potential harm in this sort of case?

In any event, standing is required for a case.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/standing

for civil rights violation or even arrest for violation of criminal code. It all depends upon the circumstances, who makes the threat, how the threat is made, previous history, whether that person is armed, etc.

"Hate Speech", e.g., threatening behavior, even symbolic acts such as signs and edifices, has most certainly been prosecuted as a criminal violation under federal and most state law.

It has neither the reasonableness nor the specificity to pass the sniff test. And no amount of backstory piling on will make that happen.

There is no federal 'hate speech' statute. If you want to take a collection of things and call it 'hate speech' in your mind, feel free. But the rest of us who know what legislation has been proposed as 'hate speech' will disagree.

I don't know what the personal history of the shop owner is, but if he could be shown to have been involved personally or as part of a group in hate crimes or violence against Muslims, I would say, this might be an act of intimidation that could be actionable.

I believe that this is a case of display with the intent to intimidate a specific group where, like a noose or burning cross, the court has upheld bans of some symbolic acts amounting to "hate crime" as constitutional: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/states-move-to-add-nooses-to-list-of-outlawed-symbols

"No shirt, no shoes, no service." (OR I'LL KEEL YOU WIT MAH GUNZ!)

No.

If the KKK meets at a house of a member and burns a cross, it doesn't fall under that law. Nooses are the same in that hanging one on your own property isn't illegal. The intimidation relies on it appearing in public spots or on a victims property.

It's a fine line the laws draw.

even want to go there.

Believe me, should those standard be applied equally the results would be negative for Muslims.

That's the point, here.

Davis' refusal gave them standing as plaintiffs to sue.

So long as he doesn't deny service, he hasn't broken the law.

We do not have an overtly authoritarian and racist party in control of the government and we do not have national legislation (yet) that overtly discriminates against muslims.

We do not have Muslims being removed from their jobs en masse as a matter of law, then removed from their homes and put into ghettoes, and having all their property and assets absconded by the government. Nor are the totality of mosques being destroyed by large government-sponsored troops. And certainly not the later things that happened: the death camps, etc.

But it is something we have to guard against, for sure. Should a demagogue such as Trump be elected (I put nothing past historical oddity), we could be in serious, serious jeopardy. The president's speech tonight should hopefully go a long way to restoring a touch of sanity ... though I fear it will fall on deaf ears for a portion of American society. Fortunately, they are still a minority, though a loud and significant one.

that I am not despairing about the way in which many are being misled.

The darkly humorous side of me thinks all that's missing is Trump writing a book about his own struggles.

Just have a Muslim man go in and attempt to purchase something. If the owner refuses, you now have a clear and simple case.

Every law or act challenged in court began with someone being denied or arrested. To legalize contraception in Connecticut, the Director in Conn. of Planned Parenthood opened a birth control clinic, served 10 customers and was then arrested, convicted, and fined for violating the Comstock Act. The case was appealed to the SCOTUS and won, ending bans on Contraceptive devices and recognizing the Right to Privacy in US law.

They need to go in and be denied service because of their protected class, then they would have standing and a lawsuit would be a slam dunk.

service.

I'm pretty sure that if a Muslim did show up and was refused service, the suit would succeed and the court would issue an injunction.

that allows open discrimination against millions of LGBT Americans in housing and employment and services already. You always have. You just don't care about us. Not a second thought. But straight religious people who had nothing happen to them at all, oh mercy it's the second coming of Hitler.
Double fucking standards demonstrate biases.

Part two: know your history Barney's Beanery edition...read the section called 'History of Discrimination'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney's_Beanery