Well Robert, my experiences in Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and other Muslim countries were nothing but positive. I was treated with respect and dignity.

One thing that I personally think is VERY important in this case is precisely what you stated yourself above, what you would do in this case. As an ordinary citizen I would do the same, make the reports to the appropriate authorities. One thing I would DEFINITELY do even as an ordinary citizen, is not what the above people did who defended her. When arguing with a bigoted person refusing service based on race, religion or other reasons, you will get NO WHERE arguing the morality of such an issue. One must remember, the (staged) culprit in this bakery incident BELIEVED he could get away with this. What truly shocks me about all the defenders of her is that not one of them brought the fact up that the law was being broken. Aren’t Americans after all these years, our yearly celebrations of MLK, AWARE of what he and others won with their long hard struggle? Don’t people know that separate water fountains and lunch counters and refusal of services is not allowed for Arabs/Muslims either?

The law IS on the victims side. It is beyond wonderful to stand up for someone who is being racially attacked, but it is HIGH TIME that the citizens of this country know their own AND other’s civil rights. If anyone was driving by seeing a woman raped, HOPEFULLY they would call the police, make a RUCKUS and do something themselves if safe to do so to intervene. When one witnesses civil rights violations it is no less important to get involved. So personally, if I were there, I would have spoken up immediately and cited the law. Since I live in California, I would have NO problem citing CA Civil Code 52 which prohibits the incitement of discrimination in public accomodations as was the case of the thumbs up guy (BTW, several European countries have similar laws) I would take my cell phone, call the police, and the local district attorney’s office, and all other entities which might have authority.

And last on the list of entities to call,the most important to get involved, I would call the local office of CAIR (who is included in the follow up post to this one, How Are Muslims Treated in the US Part 2.) CAIR provides attorneys in such situations. http://www.cair.com/

There ARE civil rights laws to protect EVERYONE in America, be aware of them and USE THEM in your fight for your own rights AND others.

Hey you are correct that I am an attorney so good guess. What I would do, and I have been confronted with similar cases involving black and latino friends and clients, I would probably speak up for the women. Express my view and then report the buisness to the labor comission, better buisness bureau and the district attorney. I would also take the case, if the woman wanted me too, since I do civil litigation at the moment (trying to become a public defender) and take the bastard through the ringer. About the folks who cheered on the fella, I would express my opinion, but I still wouldn’t want to silence them. I always believe more speech is better then less, my opinion personally.

Also, as a card carrying member of the ACLU, I do believe RAV and Bradenburg are not only cool but important cases. They allow for individuals to say things that are unpopular and not be prosecuted. Read the ordinance in RAV, it also mentions anti-Semetic language. How vague is that. Is what we say on this site criticizing Israel and Zionist thought anti-Semetic? Could be in some judges and juries eyes. So, since our opinions are unpopular in a certain county in a certain state, we could be prosecuted for that if the defendant’s conviction was upheld then our rights may be in jeporady. A while ago it was unpopular to be against the war in Iraq, could we be persecuted for incitement if we held a rally stating that we must stop the War at any cost, even through civil disobidence? Yes we could if the Supreme Court didn’t overturn the defendant’s conviction in Bradenburg. So yeah, I think those cases are cool and look beyond the facts of a case to the legal reasoning sometimes. If we do not defend the rights of the despicable, how long till the righteous lose those rights too.

Peace

Just one fact here. I live in California, which enacted some of the earliest and strongest civil rights laws. The first and most revolutionary for it’s time, the Unruh Act (1959) which predated the federal Civil Rights Act. Here are sections 51 and 52 (those parts pertaining to the above instance)

Unruh Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code Section 51)

The Unruh Civil Rights Act provides protection from discrimination by all
business establishments in California, including housing and public
accommodations, because of age, ancestry, color, disability, national origin,
race, religion, sex and sexual orientation.
http://www.disabilityaccessinfo.ca.gov/lawsregs.htm#unruh_rights_act

Unruh Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code 52-in part)

(a) Whoever denies, aids or INCITES a denial, or makes any discrimination or
distinction contrary to Section 51, 51.5, or 51.6, is liable for each and every
offense for the actual damages, and any amount that may be determined by a jury,
or a court sitting without a jury, up to a maximum of three times the amount of
actual damage but in no case less than four thousand dollars ($4,000), and any
attorney’s fees that may be determined by the court in addition thereto,
suffered by any person denied the rights provided in Section 51, 51.5, or 51.6.

(b) Whoever denies the right provided by Section 51.7 or 51.9, or aids, INCITES,
or conspires in that denial, is liable for each and every offense for the actual
damages suffered by any person denied that right and, in addition, the
following:

(1) An amount to be determined by a jury, or a court sitting without a jury, for
exemplary damages.

(2) A civil penalty of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) to be awarded to
the person denied the right provided by Section 51.7 in any action brought by
the person denied the right, or by the Attorney General, a district attorney, or
a city attorney. An action for that penalty brought pursuant to Section 51.7
shall be commenced within three years of the alleged practice.

(3) Attorney’s fees as may be determined by the court.

(c) Whenever there is reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of
persons is engaged in conduct of resistance to the full enjoyment of any of the
rights described in this section, and that conduct is of that nature and is
intended to deny the full exercise of those rights, the Attorney General, any
district attorney or city attorney, or any person aggrieved by the conduct may
bring a civil action in the appropriate court by filing with it a complaint. The
complaint shall contain the following:
http://law.onecle.com/california/civil/52.html

The above info was cited to me by my dear friend Pat Barry who successfully fought the first Supreme Court workplace sexual harassment case and won. http://www.enotes.com/supreme-court-drama/meritor-savings-bank-v-vinson
She has seen the above tape, and stated that IF it were a real case, she would civily sue the bakery worker on behalf of the victim as well as the thumbs up man under the Unruh Act.

But that isn’t even the point here, our country HAS laws banning discrimination. And SUPPOSEDLY we have morals which stand for justice or all regardless of race of religion. We are also SUPPOSEDLY (according to many, but not myself) a CHRISTIAN nation. For someone to offer up the case of a cross-burner who got off (R.A.V. v. St. Paul) and another KKK member who got off (Bradenburg v. Ohio) as “cool” is really beyond the scope of my comprehension.

Peace

If someone comes in to buy something and is belligerent and unruly, you have the right to ask him or her to leave but on the other hand, you cannot refuse to sell to someone because of his or her race, religion or national origin. You can not put a sign in your window that says you refuse to serve certain groups of people. If you own a bar, you can refuse to serve people who are already intoxicated but you can not refuse to serve Italians for example. On the same score, you can not remove blacks that become unruly while letting whites stay no matter how boisterous they become. The rules you make must pertain to everyone or you open yourself up to a lawsuit.

On the other hand, that does not mean you can not open a hair salon that is predominantly for black women as long as you do not refuse service to other groups who may wish to use that shop. After all, some women from other ethnic groups may wish to use the shop just for a hair cut or style without needing the special treatments that the texture of a black womans hair needs. Its important to understand all of the issues surrounding potential discrimination lawsuits in order to avoid them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_Discrimination_Act_1975
Racial Discrimination Act of 1975:

Racial discrimination occurs under the Act when someone is treated less fairly than someone else in a similar situation because of their race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin. Racial discrimination can also occur when a policy or rule appears to treat everyone in the same way but actually has an unfair effect on more people of a particular race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin than others.

It is against the law to discriminate in areas such as:

* Employment (section 15) - eg when seeking employment, training, promotion, equal pay or conditions of employment;
* Land, housing or accommodation (section 12) - eg when buying a house or when renting;
* Provision of goods and services (section 13) - eg when buying something, applying for credit, using banks, seeking assistance from government departments, lawyers, doctors and hospitals, or attending restaurants, pubs, entertainment venues;
* Access to places and facilities for use by the public (section 11) - eg when trying to use parks, libraries, government offices, hotels, places of worship, entertainment centres, hire cars;
* Advertising (section 16) - eg advertising for a job stating that people from a certain ethnic group cannot apply;
* Joining a trade union (section 14).

The Act also prohibits offensive behaviour based on racial hatred (racial vilification) (section 18C)

TITLE II–INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION (Civil Rights Act 1964)

SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:

(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;

(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the

premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;

(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and

(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.
http://www.dotcr.ost.dot.gov/Documents/YCR/CIVILR64.HTM