[quote]roguevampire wrote:
It is illegal to discriminate against anyone on the basis of appearance. [/quote]
No, it’s not.
You can’t discriminate against a “protected class” based on a person being (or percieved to being) part of a protected class.
The protected classes are: sex, race, religion, national origin, veterans, sometimes age, and sometimes disability.
I suppose you could find out if this had a disparet impact on men and possibly veterans, but it would be a stretch.[/quote]
This is your first post on T-Nation, and you already have a spelling error. It’s supposed to be “perceived”, not “percieved”. Welcome to T Nation, asshole.
[/quote]
[quote]roguevampire wrote:
It is illegal to discriminate against anyone on the basis of appearance. [/quote]
No, it’s not.
You can’t discriminate against a “protected class” based on a person being (or percieved to being) part of a protected class.
The protected classes are: sex, race, religion, national origin, veterans, sometimes age, and sometimes disability.
I suppose you could find out if this had a disparet impact on men and possibly veterans, but it would be a stretch.[/quote]
This is your first post on T Nation, and you already have a spelling error. It’s supposed to be “perceived”, not “percieved”. Welcome to T Nation, asshole.
[/quote]
LOL! Funniest post of the week!
[/quote]
I’m the funniest motherfucker of all time.
[quote]roguevampire wrote:
It is illegal to discriminate against anyone on the basis of appearance. [/quote]
No, it’s not.
You can’t discriminate against a “protected class” based on a person being (or percieved to being) part of a protected class.
The protected classes are: sex, race, religion, national origin, veterans, sometimes age, and sometimes disability.
I suppose you could find out if this had a disparet impact on men and possibly veterans, but it would be a stretch.[/quote]
This is your first post on T-Nation, and you already have a spelling error. It’s supposed to be “perceived”, not “percieved”. Welcome to T Nation, asshole.
[/quote]
[quote]roguevampire wrote:
It is illegal to discriminate against anyone on the basis of appearance. [/quote]
No, it’s not.
You can’t discriminate against a “protected class” based on a person being (or percieved to being) part of a protected class.
The protected classes are: sex, race, religion, national origin, veterans, sometimes age, and sometimes disability.
I suppose you could find out if this had a disparet impact on men and possibly veterans, but it would be a stretch.[/quote]
This is your first post on T-Nation, and you already have a spelling error. It’s supposed to be “perceived”, not “percieved”. Welcome to T Nation, asshole.
[/quote]
Yes, t-mag is not conducive to iphones.
But spelling aside, the merits of my post are correct.
Oh, I also now see, why, despite having ordered $1000s of products here over the years, I’ve never noticed the forums.
[quote]roguevampire wrote:
It is illegal to discriminate against anyone on the basis of appearance. [/quote]
No, it’s not.
You can’t discriminate against a “protected class” based on a person being (or percieved to being) part of a protected class.
The protected classes are: sex, race, religion, national origin, veterans, sometimes age, and sometimes disability.
I suppose you could find out if this had a disparet impact on men and possibly veterans, but it would be a stretch.[/quote]
As was pointed out earlier, there are many instances of protection that aren’t listed in those classes. Just cause its not listed, doesn’t mean your not protected. You really can’t be discriminated on age, cause its very easy to lie about it.
Race can also mean appearance. each race has a certain look to them, right? that can also go to bodybuilders, who have a certain look.
[quote]roguevampire wrote:
It is illegal to discriminate against anyone on the basis of appearance. [/quote]
No, it’s not.
You can’t discriminate against a “protected class” based on a person being (or percieved to being) part of a protected class.
The protected classes are: sex, race, religion, national origin, veterans, sometimes age, and sometimes disability.
I suppose you could find out if this had a disparet impact on men and possibly veterans, but it would be a stretch.[/quote]
This is your first post on T-Nation, and you already have a spelling error. It’s supposed to be “perceived”, not “percieved”. Welcome to T Nation, asshole.
[/quote]
I gave him a pass on that one, as it is correct, if used in the latin context. I don’t want to be overbearing. He’s still a fucking asshole though.
You missed “disparate.”[/quote]
[/quote]
Fucker can BS on a bit o’ Latin but can’t quote properly? SHAME!
I think it’s funny that people like RV actually believe discrimination in ALL FORMS is illegal. First of all, it’s a private club. Private clubs get all kinds of leeway in terms of membership discrimination. You know there are things like “beautiful people” clubs in every major city in the US, right?
Even thirdruffian’s incorrect on what private clubs can discriminate on. Augusta National golf club doesn’t allow women to be members TO THIS DAY. That’s clearly discrimination based on sex, and absolutely legal. Not tasteful, but legal. The protected classes rules don’t apply. I’m surprised I’m the first one to point this stuff out, 2 pages into this thread.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Claim you worshiped the iron then.
But our current “protections” go far beyond those categories in other areas. You can’t put up a sign saying “no retards” even though that doesn’t fall into those categories either.[/quote]
That would fall under disability protections (mental disability). The Americans with Disabilities Act was amended a couple years ago to give “disability” a very broad definition, so there isn’t even a strict burden of proof to show that a disability is severely restricting. Any business with “No Retards” would be surely and swiftly sued, and for good reason.
Also FYI, I know the “worship the iron” was a joke, but claims of religious discrimination have to be qualified to show that the “religion” meets a certain standard and that the complainant is a devout follower.
they should be sued simply for taking away the squat racks, not being aloud to deadlift, promoting the 1/4 bench press and forcing every mofo unto a machine. Discrimination against the iron! prepare anus planet fitness, prepare.
[quote]roguevampire wrote:
It is illegal to discriminate against anyone on the basis of appearance. [/quote]
No, it’s not.
You can’t discriminate against a “protected class” based on a person being (or percieved to being) part of a protected class.
The protected classes are: sex, race, religion, national origin, veterans, sometimes age, and sometimes disability.
I suppose you could find out if this had a disparet impact on men and possibly veterans, but it would be a stretch.[/quote]
This is your first post on T-Nation, and you already have a spelling error. It’s supposed to be “perceived”, not “percieved”. Welcome to T Nation, asshole.
[/quote]
I gave him a pass on that one, as it is correct, if used in the latin context. I don’t want to be overbearing. He’s still a fucking asshole though.
You missed “disparate.”[/quote]
[/quote]
Fucker can BS on a bit o’ Latin but can’t quote properly? SHAME!
[/quote]
Their should also be a comma between “disparate impact on men” and “and possibly veterans”. You people are illiterate buffoons if you didnt’ catch that one. Fucking assholes,
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
I think it’s funny that people like RV actually believe discrimination in ALL FORMS is illegal. First of all, it’s a private club. Private clubs get all kinds of leeway in terms of membership discrimination. You know there are things like “beautiful people” clubs in every major city in the US, right? Even thirdruffian’s incorrect on what private clubs can discriminate on. Augusta National golf club doesn’t allow women to be members TO THIS DAY. That’s clearly discrimination based on sex, and absolutely legal. Not tasteful, but legal. The protected classes rules don’t apply. I’m surprised I’m the first one to point this stuff out, 2 pages into this thread.[/quote]
Commerical gyms are not “private clubs” under the applicable laws.
“Private clubs” require member control of club operations, close selectivity of the membership selection process, whether substantial membership fees are charged, whether the entity is operated on a nonprofit basis, and the extent to which the facilities are open to the public.
In short, “private clubs” are country clubs, masonic groupes, etc.
A commercial gym opened to make money fails the test.
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
I think it’s funny that people like RV actually believe discrimination in ALL FORMS is illegal. First of all, it’s a private club. Private clubs get all kinds of leeway in terms of membership discrimination. You know there are things like “beautiful people” clubs in every major city in the US, right? Even thirdruffian’s incorrect on what private clubs can discriminate on. Augusta National golf club doesn’t allow women to be members TO THIS DAY. That’s clearly discrimination based on sex, and absolutely legal. Not tasteful, but legal. The protected classes rules don’t apply. I’m surprised I’m the first one to point this stuff out, 2 pages into this thread.[/quote]
Some of us are intentionally not dignifying this pathetic thread with serious answers.
He won’t be suing anyone, he said it would take a SERIOUS lifter.[/quote]
Oh, your right, im not a serious lifter. lol bhaahahahahahahahaha[/quote]
Shut the fuck up and give us more gold. Pontificate about the virtues inherent in the use of a bidet, or perhaps a long discourse on the availability of Asian spices in West Europe in the 17th century. Would it kill you to ramble on aimlessly about egg protein versus milk protein and the body’s ability to synthesize the two? Are you such a serious lifter that you’re above praising recent efforts in the wide world of pharmaceutical engineering to create HGH that doesn’t make your forehead grow like a Grape Ape?
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
I think it’s funny that people like RV actually believe discrimination in ALL FORMS is illegal. First of all, it’s a private club. Private clubs get all kinds of leeway in terms of membership discrimination. You know there are things like “beautiful people” clubs in every major city in the US, right? Even thirdruffian’s incorrect on what private clubs can discriminate on. Augusta National golf club doesn’t allow women to be members TO THIS DAY. That’s clearly discrimination based on sex, and absolutely legal. Not tasteful, but legal. The protected classes rules don’t apply. I’m surprised I’m the first one to point this stuff out, 2 pages into this thread.[/quote]
Some of us are intentionally not dignifying this pathetic thread with serious answers.[/quote]
[quote]jacob-1310 wrote:
they should be sued simply for taking away the squat racks, not being aloud to deadlift, promoting the 1/4 bench press and forcing every mofo unto a machine. Discrimination against the iron! prepare anus planet fitness, prepare. [/quote]
you give all meatheads a bad name. Aloud? I think you meant allowed, cuntmuscle.
[quote]jacob-1310 wrote:
they should be sued simply for taking away the squat racks, not being aloud to deadlift, promoting the 1/4 bench press and forcing every mofo unto a machine. Discrimination against the iron! prepare anus planet fitness, prepare. [/quote]
you give all meatheads a bad name. Aloud? I think you meant allowed, cuntmuscle.[/quote]
