|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 303
2nd String
|
2nd String
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 303 |
Quote:
"Federal and State law says if the business is open to the public, prohibiting people based on race is illegal. If the man's proposed gentlemen's club was going to be a private club, then an African American historian says he could discriminate."
And here is where the problem is; in the original text of the Civil Rights act, the term 'private' was never clearly defined, purposely. I researched the bill, and the only references or standing that could be had is if the man is taking federal funding, if not, then his business, which is private, isn't a 'public accommodation'. In order for it to be a 'public accommodation', and for him to be penalized is, as the bill states:
Quote:
Section 601 – This section states the general principle that no person in the United States shall be excluded from participation in or otherwise discriminated against on the ground of race, color, or national origin under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance
The confusion comes when you muddle the term 'public'-- if a business or organization is taking federal funds, i.e. public money, then it is considered public. If it's not, then there isn't any way to label it public unless you negate the rights of individuals in the process [i.e. because a citizen wishes to purchase goods from you, that citizen is now public property]. There's no argument on the basis of the commerce clause unless the owner is actively participating in trade with other states. If he is, there may be a case-- if not, then you would have to punish his suppliers, which is unquestionably unconstitutional.
There is a difference between what's political and what's moral. All moral things are political, all political things are not moral. I certainly do not support this man morally, but I certainly support him politically. If he's not allowed to freely express himself on his own property, then neither am I.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718 |
Quote:
In today's military, you are allowed to be gay. But you cannot be openly gay. The reason behind this, in my opinion, is because the emotions involved with being in a sexual relationship can compromise mission accomplishment.
Wrong.
The issue is the bias held against homosexuals by many others. This bias would result in issues that compromise mission accomplishment, safety, security......a myriad of issues. There may be a small portion (very small) that would be effected as you aver, but the reason for being against it is the bias from the majority of those serving who are straight.
Quote:
So why not form infantry battalions that consist only of women?
Because it's dumber than hell????????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 895
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 895 |
Quote:
Prior posted his 'No Negros Allowed' sign after he says he had some problems with black people in the past and needed to make a policy against them.
...
"I'm going to stick to my guns because I think I have the right as a business owner to reject service to anyone. It's not all the black people there are just a few bad ones," Prior says of his problems in the past.
Quote:
Funny thing I heard on talk radio when they were discussing it, this town claims 4000 residents and per the information they quoted, it was something like .013% black... which is 5 people.
Now I'm not one to gossip but...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718 |
Quote:
Now I'm not one to gossip but...
But someone needs a calculator??? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
Wow, I can't believe whether or not he's violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is even a point of contention. Section 201 (b)[2-3] Section 201
(a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accomodation, 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 accomodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action :
...
(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption 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;
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 Case closed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
It's not that simple. The extent that private clubs satisfy the requirements of being deemed a place of public accommodation is a debated issue.
I agree with jackfrosty in that I support his right to exclude, even though I don't agree with the reasoning behind his decision.
Edit: I should clarify that I support the right to exclude if the club is indeed deemed a private club by the court. That's not for me to decide.
Last edited by Adam_P; 12/18/10 04:12 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,075
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,075 |
*self-edited for snarkiness."
nothin' to see here, folks.... carry on.
Last edited by Clemdawg; 12/18/10 05:43 PM.
"too many notes, not enough music-"
#GMStong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,133
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,133 |
Quote:
(a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accomodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
Lol! I'm sure they had strip clubs in mind when they worded this. 
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,649
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,649 |
Quote:
The issue is the bias held against homosexuals by many others. This bias would result in issues that compromise mission accomplishment, safety, security......a myriad of issues. There may be a small portion (very small) that would be effected as you aver, but the reason for being against it is the bias from the majority of those serving who are straight.
Oh I get it, according to you I'm wrong, and the real issue is that some military men/women are biased against gays. Because right now, nobody in the military is biased. - HA!
In case you didn't know, the military is filled with people from all walks of life. Some of these people are biased against Whites,Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians. - Go tour a Marine Corps base and you will find that Black Marines tend to hang out with other Black Marines, and the same can be said for Hispanics and Whites. Some people in today's military are biased, however the governing authority in the military does not tolerate racism of any kind. - If you call somebody a racial slur, you will get punished by your commanding officer. - I saw this happen several times.
Point is, the leaders of today's military have been dealing with bias for quite some time, and they know how to handle it. Bias is something that can be rehabilitated, and the military does a nice job of weeding out people who are biased, rehabilitating them, and making great servicemen/women out of them.
However, the military does not have experience in dealing with sexual relations within combat units. - Why? Because women and men are not allowed to serve together in combat units. Like I noted before, women are not allowed to serve in ground combat units. Why? Because the military does not want sexual relations or emotions to get in the way of mission accomplishment.
Allowing people to be openly gay in the military opens the door for numerous battlefield related issues. Namely, should gay men who are involved in a relationship be allowed to be part of the same unit while on deployment? If the answer is yes, then get ready for all servicemen and women who are romantically involved to want to deploy with their significant other.
I asked :Quote:
So why not form infantry battalions that consist only of women?
You answered: Quote:
Because it's dumber than hell????????
Believe it or not, that's a better argument than most of the others you have presented on here. Rather than make yourself look stupid, you've chosen to make yourself look pigheaded. - Not a bad trade off.
You lose.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,550
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,550 |
Come on Muni.....it is dumb.
Women aren't fighters Thank God.
I am sure there are a good number of women who could clean my clock now, but at 20 or so...not many in the world could, and I wasn't by any means the meanest S.O.B in the platoon.
Just the facts of life....if a man and a woman fight hand to hand, or a platoon of men fight a platoon of women, I bet the men every time assuming the grounds of the fight are even close to equal in so far as weapons used.
Mean wins in fights, and men are meaner than women....not to mention the physical factor.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,532
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,532 |
I'm not a bigot. BUT I do think a business should have a right to refuse service to anyone.
In this case, I've been to a few gentlemen's clubs in both black and white nieghborhoods. Some of the black clubs were a little scary due to gangbanger types. Some of the white clubs were way to redneck due to the trailortrash types. So I see the guys point... don't agree with it but I see it.
Most upscale clubs don't need a policy because they have security that keeps out the riffraff... lol if you can define anyone who goes to these almost bordellos as NON-RiffRaff.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,732
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,732 |
Quote:
Lol! I'm sure they had strip clubs in mind when they worded this.
Probably not but it appears they may have seen how different forms of entertainment may change and evolve over time when they included this part.....
Quote:
(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption 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;
Because when you look at both popular views of strip clubs?
Some say it's some vulgar form of "exhabitionism"
(please clear up if that is an actual word Arch)
The other popular train of thought is that it's some darn good entertainment.
So either way, to me it looks like it's covered.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
Quote:
Some say it's some vulgar form of "exhabitionism"
(please clear up if that is an actual word Arch)
It is - if spelled correctly: exhibitionism.
Carry on. Glad to help. Ask any time. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,732
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,732 |
Thanks Arch!
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,849
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 11,849 |
A lot of bar's down in the south who want to keep blacks out do this instead... They post a sign saying certain types of clothing are not allowed... ie White T-Shirts, Jerseys, Jean Shorts, etc....
That use to ... me off too, but o well.. Just had to put on a polo shirt if I wanted to go in there with some khaki shorts..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955 |
Quote:
Just the facts of life....if a man and a woman fight hand to hand, or a platoon of men fight a platoon of women, I bet the men every time assuming the grounds of the fight are even close to equal in so far as weapons used.
If it's a gun fight, I choose the women. If it's a physical fight, I go with the guys.
Just sayin'.
#gmstrong #gmlapdance
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 658 |
Quote:
Mean wins in fights, and men are meaner than women.
OK, you had up til this. 
Thomas - The Tank Engine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,253
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,253 |
Quote:
Quote:
Mean wins in fights, and men are meaner than women.
OK, you had up til this.
I don't know Peen. I've met some pretty mean wemen in my time. How about that Lorain Bobbitt. How would you like to wake up in the barracks and see her staring at you with a pair of hedge clippers?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718 |
Quote:
Oh I get it, according to you I'm wrong,
Exactly.
You see, I know it's a difficult concept to grasp but that's what we do on here, we present our opinions.
Quote:
In case you didn't know, the military is filled with people from all walks of life.
Thanks. Having served for 10+ years I'm pretty much aware of that.
Quote:
Rather than make yourself look stupid, you've chosen to make yourself look pigheaded. - Not a bad trade off.
You lose.
I served as an Infantry soldier and know what it requires. The idea is dumber than hell, for NUMEROUS reasons that (to the logical thinking person) don't have to be delved into.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,550
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,550 |
Quote:
Quote:
Mean wins in fights, and men are meaner than women.
OK, you had up til this.
Well, you might have a point
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,550
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,550 |
Quote:
Quote:
Just the facts of life....if a man and a woman fight hand to hand, or a platoon of men fight a platoon of women, I bet the men every time assuming the grounds of the fight are even close to equal in so far as weapons used.
If it's a gun fight, I choose the women. If it's a physical fight, I go with the guys.
Just sayin'.
You might have a point as well being most guys are raised to never hit a girl.
if you take that in to a gun fight, you lose.
That said, we are talking in military terms here, not some kitchen fight.
As Shep said, there are numerous reasons....take something as simple as a entrenchment tool. You do a lot of digging holes as a infantry soldier. At times, it's eat a little, sleep even less, and dig holes and fill sand bags the rest of the time.
I don't know if men dig better than women, but if volume of dirt moved in a given time frame factors in......you get it.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 303
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 303 |
Quote:
Wow, I can't believe whether or not he's violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is even a point of contention.
Section 201 (b)[2-3]
Section 201
(a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accomodation, 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 accomodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action :
...
(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption 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;
The Civil Rights Act of 1964
Case closed.
There's a reason why supported by state action is followed by a colon. It asserts that the business in question must be supported by the state and to qualify for that is to accept public funds. If the man is not accepting public funds, then he is not supported by state action and thus not subject to the penalties as defined in this section.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 284
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 284 |
Quote:
Quote:
Wow, I can't believe whether or not he's violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is even a point of contention.
Section 201 (b)[2-3]
Section 201
(a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accomodation, 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 accomodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action :
...
(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption 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;
The Civil Rights Act of 1964
Case closed.
There's a reason why supported by state action is followed by a colon. It asserts that the business in question must be supported by the state and to qualify for that is to accept public funds. If the man is not accepting public funds, then he is not supported by state action and thus not subject to the penalties as defined in this section.
All due respect, you are interpreting the passage incorrectly. The article you're referring to sets out TWO possible conditions for an establishment to be considered public:
Quote:
if its operations affect commerce,
OR (this is the key word).
Quote:
if discrimination or segregation by it issupported by State action
Thus, the first condition means any establishment that affects commerce is considered public. The second condition means any establishment funded by the state is considered public regardless of whether it affects commerce or not.
It does not mean that only establishments that take state money are considered public. An establishment needs to meet only one of the two conditions to be considered public accomodations under the Civil Rights Act.
![[Linked Image from i26.tinypic.com]](http://i26.tinypic.com/30vow7m.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 303
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 303 |
Quote:
Thus, the first condition means any establishment that affects commerce is considered public. The second condition means any establishment funded by the state is considered public regardless of whether it affects commerce or not.
It does not mean that only establishments that take state money are considered public. An establishment needs to meet only one of the two conditions to be considered public accomodations under the Civil Rights Act.
While normally that would appear to be the case in a common-sense interpretation, the language supported by state action applies to both if its operations affect commerce and if discrimination or segregation (which are the basic qualifications for all publicly funded establishments), meaning it would read like this if you were to split them up:
Quote:
if its operations affect commerce. . .supported by State action
which is a reference to the commerce clause,
and
Quote:
if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action
If every establishment that affected commerce belonged to the public, there would be no such thing as private clubs like the person in the OP's article suggested.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955 |
Quote:
You might have a point as well being most guys are raised to never hit a girl.
No, I meant that women are better shots. It's proven we have better hand-eye coordination. My comment had nothing to do with physical fighting.
Quote:
That said, we are talking in military terms here, not some kitchen fight.
Right. And, even in military terms, we are still better shots.
Quote:
take something as simple as a entrenchment tool. You do a lot of digging holes as a infantry soldier. At times, it's eat a little, sleep even less, and dig holes and fill sand bags the rest of the time.
Yes, any physical exercise will usually be "won" by a man, no doubt. However, and I don't mean this the way it's going to sound...many mental exercises will be won by women.
Quite frankly, if I'm in a shootout with the enemy, I would like some of BOTH sexes on my side for different reasons. But hey, I like to spread the love that way.
Edited to add....I am not saying one sex is smarter or stronger than the other, but I think the days of shoving women into the kitchen are far over and we aren't given enough credit for even our physical strength. I would take G.I. Jane over some wimpy guy any day of the week...and you probably should, too. And, I would probably take the wimpy guy over the weak, mousy woman, so all things are equal in my mind.
Last edited by DawgMichelle; 12/19/10 10:54 AM.
#gmstrong #gmlapdance
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 284
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 284 |
Quote:
If every establishment that affected commerce belonged to the public, there would be no such thing as private clubs like the person in the OP's article suggested.
Your last premise is essentially true, but you draw the opposite conclusion. There are almost no such discriminatory private clubs because the definition of a private club under the Civil Rights Act is so murky and the provisions discussed above have such wide discretion.
Your interpretation suggests that only publicly-owned establishments are constrained by the Civil Rights Act. This is plainly not true and never has been. I don't know how else to put it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 284
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 284 |
Maybe this will help. This is the rest of the Title, in which the two conditions are defined separately, and not with "under the support of State action" applied to each, as you suggest:
Quote:
(c) Operations affecting commerce; criteria; “commerce” defined
The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this subchapter if
(1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b) of this section;
(2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b) of this section, it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers of a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce;
(3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b) of this section, it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and
(4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b) of this section, it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, “commerce” means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.
(d) Support by State action
Discrimination or segregation by an establishment is supported by State action within the meaning of this subchapter if such discrimination or segregation
(1) is carried on under color of any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation; or
(2) is carried on under color of any custom or usage required or enforced by officials of the State or political subdivision thereof; or
(3) is required by action of the State or political subdivision thereof.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 303
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 303 |
Quote:
Your interpretation suggests that only publicly-owned establishments are constrained by the Civil Rights Act. This is plainly not true and never has been. I don't know how else to put it.
Of course it does. If that were not true, there would be no limitations on the state. An example if it were not true: churches who oppose marrying two people of the same gender would be discrimination, which is not the case because the church is privately owned and thus has the political freedom to conduct itself as it pleases. The same goes for the owner of this club. The reasons that kick-started the civil rights movement had to do with public discrimination i.e. public transportation, public education facilities. It never applied to private facilities because they aren't publicly owned, meaning Person X who may be discriminated against is not supporting that facility and thus has no share in how it's conducted.
Quote:
(2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b) of this section, it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers of a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce;
The requirements for it to be a public establishment is stated right here; the commerce clause. It states in both (b)'s: serves or offers to serve interstate travelers and other products which it sells, has moved in commerce (i.e. between states), and then it clarifies itself in (4):
Quote:
For purposes of this section, “commerce” means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.
In section (d) it further clarifies that the one discriminating cannot be public property or public officials i.e. both funded publicly:
Quote:
is carried on under color of any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation
Quote:
is carried on under color of any custom or usage required or enforced by officials of the State or political subdivision thereof
Quote:
is required by action of the State or political subdivision thereof.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
I think (c)(4) is most pertinent here, as it says that commerce for purposes of this act must be among the several States. So, is this establishment affecting interstate commerce? That's a question that has to be answered.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 284
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 284 |
Quote:
Quote:
Your interpretation suggests that only publicly-owned establishments are constrained by the Civil Rights Act. This is plainly not true and never has been. I don't know how else to put it.
Of course it does. If that were not true, there would be no limitations on the state. An example if it were not true: churches who oppose marrying two people of the same gender would be discrimination, which is not the case because the church is privately owned and thus has the political freedom to conduct itself as it pleases. The same goes for the owner of this club. The reasons that kick-started the civil rights movement had to do with public discrimination i.e. public transportation, public education facilities. It never applied to private facilities because they aren't publicly owned, meaning Person X who may be discriminated against is not supporting that facility and thus has no share in how it's conducted.
Again, this is factually incorrect. I won't spend more time explaining it because it's right in the text of the law:
Quote:
Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this subchapter 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.
I don't really know what else to say. Clearly the government does not own "inn[s], hotel[s], motel[s], or other establishment[s] which provides lodging to transient guests," just like it doesn't own restaurants, movie theaters, or any of the other types of establishments (sports arenas excluded) that are explicitly defined as public accommodations by the Civil Rights Act.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Every one of those establishments that you've listed (except, perhaps, restaurants) implicitly supports interstate commerce, though. Supporting interstate commerce is a requirement for an establishment to be deemed a place of public accommodation under the Act.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 284
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 284 |
I fully understand that. While it may have gotten away from the original article, I was only disputing jackfrosty's statement that the Civil Rights Act does not apply to privately-owned establishments. I made no statement as to whether or not this guy's gentleman's club would be considered as affecting interstate commerce. I don't know enough about the facts of the case to offer such an opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Ok. I was just commenting on your statement that they're explicitly defined as such, because they're only explicitly defined if the criterion of serving interstate commerce is satisfied. Just hoping to avoid confusion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 303
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 303 |
Quote:
I fully understand that. While it may have gotten away from the original article, I was only disputing jackfrosty's statement that the Civil Rights Act does not apply to privately-owned establishments.
It doesn't apply to privately owned businesses; there has been multiple cases, especially the Civil Rights Cases, that state the Civil Rights Act is only applicable when the action of the State is behind the discrimination. If not, it does not apply to the individual person or their private business; an individual person can discriminate as they wish, and depending on the premises, the consequences will follow.
The only case against this would be the commerce clause (case law examples here and here), which requires there to be a form of commerce among the several states. However, regulating for discrimination's sake was ruled unconstitutional. Using the commerce clause to regulate discrimination if it reasonably affects interstate commerce isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,732
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,732 |
Unfortunatly these "private clubs" that exclude people based on race are more common than you may think.
Right here in Ohio in Bellefontaine, a small town, they have two Elks clubs. One Elks club is all white and no black were ever approved to join.
So, they openned another Elks club in that town. One is commonly called the "White Elks club" while the other one is commonly called the "Black elks club"
The difference is the black club doesn't care what color you are and while I lived there I was a member of that one.
But it made me really start to think and many private clubs I had belonged to previously had a strictly white membership. I had never given it much thought until I lived in bellefontaine and this example was so blatent.
I no longer belong to any private clubs since moving back to Dayton....
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,511
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,511 |
Quote:
It's disturbing that people still feel this way. Legal or not it is disgusting and I hope his business goes under.
perfect post... I agree 100%... we are all part of the Human Race... their are idiots of every color and creed...
<><
#gmstrong
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum No Negro's Allowed Sign at
Wisconsin Establishment
|
|
![[Linked Image from i.ibb.co]](https://i.ibb.co/6WV79RV/Browns-Coach-Sig.png)
