Kyle Anderson told me that a store could require customers to wear purple pants if it wanted to?


7 Answers

  • 1 month ago

    I might suggest that you stop hanging out with Kyle for a while.

  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    Sounds like Kyle Anderson is a right-wing extremist afraid to admit he is homosexual.

  • DON W
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    Seems silly, but yes.  There are still "hot" nightclubs that select who on line to admit, based on their outfits and good looks.  Look overly plain or with some extra pounds on your waist, forget about being admitted.  As long as they don't discriminate based on a protected factor, such as race or color, they can get away with it, at least in the U.S.

  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    Kyle Anderson OWNS you...lock, stock, and barrel.

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • 1 month ago

    Sort of.  As long as the prohibition or restriction applies equally to all and does not concern groups defined in legislation as being free of any right to restriction in any practical way, then the private business does posses that right.  Might not be good business, but it is a right.

    The conflict can arise (and has arisen) when the supposed universal restriction is really only going to affect a protected group, even if that group is not directly and openly targeted.  For example, it would be considered discrimination based on gender if the restriction excluded bra-wearers or forced people to wear jock straps.  Not obvious to me that enforcing purple pants could be interpreted as targeting a protected group or belief.  It might in some circumstances though.

    It does get a bit open to legal argument when dealing with "Public" commerce rather than private or semi-private clubs.  In the US, the Supreme Court has allowed some restrictive acts on the part of public commerce but disallowed other restrictive acts.

    The main issue with masks (which is, I am sure, where this comes from) is that masks are seen as a need to ensure public health, so the imposition is based on a right that supersedes the normal rights of individuals. The rights of many individuals to be minimally exposed to a contagious disease outweighs the right of the one individual to spread that disease (if one could even argue that as a right), basically.

    The old "Public good" laws.  the government has the right, within reason, to declare what is in the public good and to allow, and even impose, certain restrictions to that end.  The argument lies in the "within reason" part.  What is "within reason" as a practical matter?

  • Audrey
    Lv 6
    1 month ago

    Technically, yes it could. They probably wouldn't get a lot of business, bit the could.

  • 1 month ago

    Places of busses have dress codes very often 

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.