TexasCHLforum.com

srothstein wrote:

Target1911 wrote:is there anything in law that says he MUST give the class to someone he doesn't want to?

I think so. He can discriminate against political beliefs all he wants. But he cannot legally refuse service against someone on the basis of their membership in one of the protected classes. These include gender, race, color, religion, previous servitude, age (if over 40), and disability.

He can be sued in federal court if he actually does refuse to teach someone the class solely because they are Islamic.

Of course I could be wrong, but I am basing that on my understanding of the current state of civil rights laws and memory of the famous Georgia case where the restaurant three blocks from the highway was ruled to be engaged in interstate commerce since it could serve someone who had driven in from another state. This is well outside my normal areas I deal with, so there is a fair chance of my being wrong.

The Civil Rights Act is the recourse people have, but only if he actually refuses to teach someone.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

srothstein wrote:

Target1911 wrote:is there anything in law that says he MUST give the class to someone he doesn't want to?

I think so. He can discriminate against political beliefs all he wants. But he cannot legally refuse service against someone on the basis of their membership in one of the protected classes. These include gender, race, color, religion, previous servitude, age (if over 40), and disability.

He can be sued in federal court if he actually does refuse to teach someone the class solely because they are Islamic.

Of course I could be wrong, but I am basing that on my understanding of the current state of civil rights laws and memory of the famous Georgia case where the restaurant three blocks from the highway was ruled to be engaged in interstate commerce since it could serve someone who had driven in from another state. This is well outside my normal areas I deal with, so there is a fair chance of my being wrong.

The Civil Rights Act is the recourse people have, but only if he actually refuses to teach someone.

Chas.

Charles,

Under which Title of the Civil Rights Act would someone have recourse against him?

From what I see, a person teaching a CHL class in his private business does not fall under the Civil Rights Act.

Title I - Prohibits discrimination in voter registration.
Title II - Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private."
Title III - Prohibited state and municipal governments from denying access to public facilities on grounds of race, color, religion or national origin. His classroom is not a "public facility".
Title IV - Regards desegregation of public schools. Again, his classroom is not a public school.
Title V - Expands the Civil Rights Commission
Title VI - Prevents discrimination by a government agency which receives Federal funds.

The only thing I could see would be Title VI, which is a bit of a stretch. I suppose someone could argue that he is licensed by the DPS, and the DPS (I assume) is a recipient of Federal funds, therefore he is acting as an agent of the DPS in his capacity of a CHL instructor and, thus, is subject to the Civil Rights Act. Again, a bit of a stretch.

Now, if the State of Texas has as a requirement to receiving and maintaining the instructor license a requirement to not discriminate based on race, color, religion, or national origin, I could see the State pulling the license, but I really don't see how the Federal law would apply.

Its "lose". Lose. Lose. One "o". When discussing guns and such, " loose" can have an opposite meaning than "lose".

Kythas wrote: Title II - Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private."

I ain't no lawyer, but I could see the Feds stretching the legal definition of the portion highlighted above to include this guy's actions ... after all, a Texas CHL is now available to "non-resident" applicants, so a Muslim from Minnesota could fly down for the weekend and attempt to take the class from this guy and be denied, thus infringing his rights ...

wouldn't be the first time Feds have used a lOOse (big double OO for rm9792's benefit ) definition of the interstate commerce clause

NOOOO! Not the double OO!

kjolly wrote:Looks to me like it was just in good fun. Hate to see him loose his license. Knowing Mason I doubt there are any other CHL instructors close to the area.

Good fun? Really?

rm9792 wrote:Its "lose". Lose. Lose. One "o". When discussing guns and such, " loose" can have an opposite meaning than "lose".

That's also true when discussing women.

KingofChaos wrote:

kjolly wrote:Looks to me like it was just in good fun. Hate to see him loose his license. Knowing Mason I doubt there are any other CHL instructors close to the area.

Good fun? Really?

You know. Like burning crosses.

wconn33 wrote:As I said over on TGT he can say whatever he wants, it is what he does that matters.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

If that's true he can post signs saying blacks aren't allowed in his store as long as he doesn't enforce the rule? And if no blacks come in then he's not breaking the law because he didn't refuse service based on race?

I don't think that's correct but IANAL.

He is currently under investigation by the DPS (NPR aired the piece).

I'm not sure I understand his prejudice exactly. Is he against non-Christians, Arabs, and Muslims, or non-Christian-Arabs, and Muslims? He should have been clearer.

Kythas wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

srothstein wrote:

Target1911 wrote:is there anything in law that says he MUST give the class to someone he doesn't want to?

I think so. He can discriminate against political beliefs all he wants. But he cannot legally refuse service against someone on the basis of their membership in one of the protected classes. These include gender, race, color, religion, previous servitude, age (if over 40), and disability.

He can be sued in federal court if he actually does refuse to teach someone the class solely because they are Islamic.

Of course I could be wrong, but I am basing that on my understanding of the current state of civil rights laws and memory of the famous Georgia case where the restaurant three blocks from the highway was ruled to be engaged in interstate commerce since it could serve someone who had driven in from another state. This is well outside my normal areas I deal with, so there is a fair chance of my being wrong.

The Civil Rights Act is the recourse people have, but only if he actually refuses to teach someone.

Chas.

Charles,

Under which Title of the Civil Rights Act would someone have recourse against him?

From what I see, a person teaching a CHL class in his private business does not fall under the Civil Rights Act.

Title I - Prohibits discrimination in voter registration.
Title II - Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private."
Title III - Prohibited state and municipal governments from denying access to public facilities on grounds of race, color, religion or national origin. His classroom is not a "public facility".
Title IV - Regards desegregation of public schools. Again, his classroom is not a public school.
Title V - Expands the Civil Rights Commission
Title VI - Prevents discrimination by a government agency which receives Federal funds.

The only thing I could see would be Title VI, which is a bit of a stretch. I suppose someone could argue that he is licensed by the DPS, and the DPS (I assume) is a recipient of Federal funds, therefore he is acting as an agent of the DPS in his capacity of a CHL instructor and, thus, is subject to the Civil Rights Act. Again, a bit of a stretch.

Now, if the State of Texas has as a requirement to receiving and maintaining the instructor license a requirement to not discriminate based on race, color, religion, or national origin, I could see the State pulling the license, but I really don't see how the Federal law would apply.

I believe it's Title II, but that's not my area of practice. Commercial businesses cannot refuse to "trade" with someone because they are in a protected class.

Chas.

bayouhazard wrote:

wconn33 wrote:As I said over on TGT he can say whatever he wants, it is what he does that matters.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

If that's true he can post signs saying blacks aren't allowed in his store as long as he doesn't enforce the rule? And if no blacks come in then he's not breaking the law because he didn't refuse service based on race?.

Correct. There are still thousands of real property deeds that bar transfer of the property to "non-whites." Those provisions are not unlawful, but they cannot be enforced.

I should note again that this is not my area of practice and the law may have changed since I last "studied" this issue in one of my continuing legal education seminars.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

bayouhazard wrote:

wconn33 wrote:As I said over on TGT he can say whatever he wants, it is what he does that matters.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

If that's true he can post signs saying blacks aren't allowed in his store as long as he doesn't enforce the rule? And if no blacks come in then he's not breaking the law because he didn't refuse service based on race?.

Correct. There are still thousands of real property deeds that bar transfer of the property to "non-whites." Those provisions are not unlawful, but they cannot be enforced.

I should note again that this is not my area of practice and the law may have changed since I last "studied" this issue in one of my continuing legal education seminars.


Chas.

I see these deeds andIsubdivision restrictions/covenants quite often in my work, mostly pre-1950's.

DPS has nothing to do with fee for class.Just charge them $2000 for class,then fail them for continuing safety violations.