Is it necessary to advertise "LGBTQ+ friendly"

[Semirhage]

This does not mean they can terminate you for your speech off their platform. Also, they don't but they are required by law to tell you why you were terminated from the service so that you may take legal action if the termination of the service was unjust. A ToS does not trump your consumer rights even if you sign it, a ToS is based off the idea of good faith and that the company has to position both the signee and the cooperation on equal footing.They are taking advantage of the fact that lawyer fees are expensive and that no one wants to be caught in a years-long legal battle.

That's not how freedom of association works at all. Square is free to refuse you as a customer because they don't like your hairdo if they so choose. They're highly unlikely to do this, but they -are- free to do so.

[Vryn]

That's not how freedom of association works at all. Square is free to refuse you as a customer because they don't like your hairdo if they so choose. They're highly unlikely to do this, but they -are- free to do so.

That is how freedom of association works companies can't just not associate with you on anything they need a legitimate reason otherwise it's discrimination. Also, if you are already in a contract with them you also have legal rights as per the signing of that contract and depending on the laws of your region. Freedom of association like every other freedom has it's limits, especially when money is involved.

Square not liking your hairstyle would be considered a protected characteristic and it's illegal to refuse someone based on such grounds. The hairstyle could be cultural, it could be down to ethnicity, it could be the colour all of these are protected even in the US. For example, Square Enix would not be able to ban gingers because they don't like the colour.

[Semirhage]

That is how freedom of association works companies can't just not associate with you on anything they need a legitimate reason otherwise it's discrimination.

That's the exact opposite of how it works, at least in the US. There's a list of reasons that you are legally not allowed to use to refuse service. Any other reason, or no reason at all is fair game. If you file a lawsuit and can prove that the *real* reason they refused you service is on the list of disallowed reasons, then you have a case.

"I don't like your hairdo" could be a veiled way to express racism, yes. If you prove it. They could refuse you service because they don't like your shirt. They could refuse service because they don't like your attitude. They could refuse service because the sky is annoying them and they don't feel like serving someone today. Discrimination isn't the default legal assumption. The burden of proof is on the claimant.

[Vryn]

That's the exact opposite of how it works, at least in the US. There's a list of reasons that you are legally not allowed to use to refuse service. Any other reason, or no reason at all is fair game. If you file a lawsuit and can prove that the *real* reason they refused you service is on the list of disallowed reasons, then you have a case.

"I don't like your hairdo" could be a veiled way to express racism, yes. If you prove it. They could refuse you service because they don't like your shirt. They could refuse service because they don't like your attitude. They could refuse service because the sky is annoying them and they don't feel like serving someone today. Discrimination isn't the default legal assumption. The burden of proof is on the claimant.

I looked it up it depends on the state but federally it's not allowed and some states such as new york explicitly don't allow discrimination against hair. Normal states if it's a refusal of service it cant be based on whether you don't like it oir not. You cant prove a negative. the fact is it doesn't matter if it's veild racism or not a cooperation cannot deny them service. This is different if its

[Vryn]

That's the exact opposite of how it works, at least in the US. There's a list of reasons that you are legally not allowed to use to refuse service. Any other reason, or no reason at all is fair game. If you file a lawsuit and can prove that the *real* reason they refused you service is on the list of disallowed reasons, then you have a case.

"I don't like your hairdo" could be a veiled way to express racism, yes if you prove it. They could refuse your service because they don't like your shirt. They could refuse service because they don't want your attitude. They could refuse service because the sky is annoying them and they don't feel like serving someone today. Discrimination isn't the default legal assumption. The burden of proof is on the claimant.

Yes, in the EU, you cannot deny service based on protected characteristics, and you cant federally in the US either. Some states do allow it, and some states are harsher such as new york, but federally the US does not allow it. So all you have done is prove the local American population in some states, such as Arizona, is filled with savages. You cannot prove a negative, and that's why these protected characteristics are there. It doesn't matter if you were doing it for racist means. No one is calling you a racist, but people are saying you are in breach of a protected characteristic which is illegal, and that's all that matters.

The only time you can is when it would cause harm to the individual, such as age, but even then, our laws against things such as alcohol are pretty lax compared to the US's stupid alcohol, drug, sex etc. laws. Your union is a barbaric embarrassment for the most part and the main reason after 450 years you never became the centre of culture for the rest of the world and even failed to live up to Britain's record at solving world issues such as slavery.