Square bans the use of its service for debt collection. The ruling says doing so is a violation of civil rights.
Does this actually strengthen rights for minorities or does it dilute those right by including bill collectors under the law?
Edit: as pointed out below, I am extrapolating from a ruling on standing an implication that has not explicitly been decided one way or another. I have done this so strongly that what I posted in the second sentence above is essentially false. I'll leave it as full disclosure of my error.
The court did not rule on whether civil rights were violated, only that they have standing to bring their case:
our opinion does not preclude Square from disputing White’s factual allegations. ... Nor do we express any view on whether a defendant violates the Act by discriminating on the basis of occupation or on White’s adequacy as a representative for a class of bankruptcy attorneys excluded from Square’s services. The question of an individual plaintiff’s standing under the Unruh Civil Rights Act is distinct from the question of that plaintiff’s ability to serve as a representative for a class of allegedly aggrieved individuals.[0]
> Finally, the court declined to address whether occupational discrimination is covered by the Unruh Act or if White was an adequate representative to support the class action
I believe that any payment processor should be prohibited from denying any legal business its services. Its a restraint of trade and should not be permitted.
Does this actually strengthen rights for minorities or does it dilute those right by including bill collectors under the law?
Edit: as pointed out below, I am extrapolating from a ruling on standing an implication that has not explicitly been decided one way or another. I have done this so strongly that what I posted in the second sentence above is essentially false. I'll leave it as full disclosure of my error.