discrimination in public places

[mariela1983]

New Jersey - When I went out to a restaraunt there was a teddy picker game with a confederate flag pair of dice, I was deeply offended by this and am considering seeking legal action, is this possible ?

 

[racer72]

The confederate flag has not been banned and is legal to display in all 50 states. Your choice to is not patronize the establishment anymore. Don't ever go to Alabama or Mississippi, you will really be deeply offended. Confederate flags are everywhere.

 

[mariela1983]

I do understandf it is legal, but, it is also a very widely known logo of people who are racist. And for that matter this is a public establishment, and I am pretty sure there is some type of law against displaying things like that in a public place.

 

[cbg]

And you would be wrong.

 

[tranquility]

It's not illegal to be racist. It's not illegal to advertise that you are racist. It is not illegal to be racist and to advertise you are racist in a public establishment.

It is illegal to discriminate based on race in a public establishment. Having a prize which some segment of society believes is racist does not rise to the level of discrimination.

 

[justalayman]

I do understandf it is legal, but, it is also a very widely known logo of people who are racist. And for that matter this is a public establishment, and I am pretty sure there is some type of law against displaying things like that in a public place.

no, this is not a public establishment. It is a private establishment that provides a service to the general public. As long as they didn't discriminate against patrons based on the protected groups as established by law, they can display what you have said they are.

Now, there is a point which hate crimes come into play such as the folks that post a burning cross on their yard but in general, the 1st amendment allows people to display, and even attest to, their racism.

 

[Tex78704]

The confederate flag still flaps in the wind at the State House in South Carolina, despite the fact a lot of folks are offended by it and have been trying for years to take it down. So other than boycotting, as was done with very limited success in S.C. the past, there is not a heck of a lot that can be done.

 

[tranquility]

Minor quibble, but it is a public establishment.

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964)
(HEART OF ATLANTA MOTEL, INC. V. UNITED STATES, 379 U. S. 241 :: Volume 379 :: 1964 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez)

The Senate Commerce Committee made it quite clear that the fundamental object of Title II was to vindicate "the deprivation of personal dignity that surely accompanies denials of equal access to public establishments."

and

"(b) The remedies provided in this title shall be the exclusive means of enforcing the rights based on this title, but nothing in this title shall preclude any individual or any State or local agency from asserting any right based on any other Federal or State law not inconsistent with this title, including any statute or ordinance requiring nondiscrimination in public establishments or accommodations, or from pursuing any remedy, civil or criminal, which may be available for the vindication or enforcement of such right."

With the definitions of what the act covered:

There are listed in § 201(b) four classes of business establishments, each of which "serves the public" and "is a place of public accommodation" within the meaning of § 201(a) "if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action." The covered establishments are:

"(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 . . . [not here involved];"

"(3) any motion picture house . . . [not here involved];"

"(4) any establishment . . . which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or . . . within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment . . . [not here involved]."

 

[justalayman]

then I shall quibble a bit more:

42 U.S.C. §2000a(b)

(b) Each of the following establishments is a place of public accommodation within 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 any such covered establishment.

42 U.S.C. §2000a

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

If you notice, the law defines "a place of public accommodation" as being an establishment which is open to the public in some manner. It does not define "public establishment". While you can cite all you want where the term "public establishment" is used, I will not accept their laziness by not using the legally defined terminology in their statement as the term of "public establishment" to be included in the law concerned. Their laziness does not change the law and the law clearly addresses places of public accommodation and not public establishments.

for a bit of support from other sources:
13-3102 - Misconduct involving weapons; defenses; classification; definitions

2. "Public establishment" means a structure, vehicle or craft that is owned, leased or operated by this state or a political subdivision of this state.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

I will not accept their laziness by not using the legally defined terminology in their statement as the term of "public establishment" to be included in the law concerned. Their laziness does not change the law and the law clearly addresses places of public accommodation and not public establishments.

You realize the "they" you are referring to, whose view you will not accept, is the Supreme Court of the United States?

 

[justalayman]

You realize the "they" you are referring to, whose view you will not accept, is the Supreme Court of the United States?

Yes I do and I'm not very happy with them for being this lacking in their precision. I expect more of the high nine.

 

[tranquility]

Let me get this straight. You feel the Supreme Court, (And, at least.) the 4th, 5th and 8th circuit courts, numerous district courts and the Senate are wrong? (And/or lazy.)

You and Ron Paul must be very close friends.

 

[justalayman]

Let me get this straight. You feel the Supreme Court, (And, at least.) the 4th, 5th and 8th circuit courts, numerous district courts and the Senate are wrong? (And/or lazy.)

You and Ron Paul must be very close friends.

so, you must believe the law is wrong.

 

[tranquility]

Here I was giving you the credit of thinking you knew how the law works. I must have been mistaken.

I mean really. When the Senate findings creating the law and the Supreme Court decision recognizing it and numerous circuits agreeing and numerous federal district courts saying the same thing, I'm thinking that *is* the law. The Supremes, 4th, 5th, 8th and district courts are not usually "lazy". I recognize many in the government are, but, courts give reasons for their decisions.

Differ with them in a logical way and we can hold a discussion regarding if I "believe the law is wrong". Until then, you are just putting out a quirky opinion about the way you feel the law should be. (Or, say.)

Just because your man may make the point, does not make it true beyond some theoretical point. Good luck with that.

 

[justalayman]

The courts did not define "public establishment" in the citations you provided and in the citation that does go to definitions, it defines an establishment open to offer accommodations to the public and clearly does not address the term "public establishment".

So, if you want to claim your point to be correct, you will have to present something that actually defines the term "public establishment" and not simply uses it, in my opinion erroneously, but even more so, in a way that would actually define the term. In the sections it is used that you present, it could mean many things. It could actually be used to mean "public establishment" in the terms I showed that Arizona defines the term. Title II also applies to such "public establishments" as well as private establishments that offer accommodations to the public.