discrimination in public places

[cbg]

I have no problem with that. I'm not the one arguing with you.

 

[>Charlotte<]

At least they turned a troll's thread (which I'm pretty sure this was) into an intelligent debate. That's always good.

 

[justalayman]

Jerk my chain and I'll still support the Civil Rights Act being enforced by the government.

which was never the point here. It is the use and definition of a word or term, that you know very well, can be critical to any situation. Such a situation is why Clinton was not guilty of the charges against him in his impeachment. He did not have sexual relations with the chubby chick even though she did fellate him. The exact definition of a word or term is critical to the law and your use of the term "public establishment" is not an accurate term when attempting to describe a privately owned establishment that offers some accommodations to the general public.

 

[tranquility]

The exact definition of a word or term is critical to the law and your use of the term "public establishment" is not an accurate term when attempting to describe a privately owned establishment that offers some accommodations to the general public.

It is a completely accurate term and is used interchangeably with public accommodation in Senate reports, Supreme Court cases, at least three Circuits' cases and myriad district court cases.

However, "private establishment" does have a meaning (As long as were going to exact definitions.) In the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 2000a (e)):

(e) Private establishments
The provisions of this subchapter shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b) of this section.

With one court case's [US v. Trustees of Fraternal Order of Eagles, 472 F. Supp. 1174] listing of some relevant definitional cases as:

The burden of proof rests on the defendants to substantiate their claim that the Eagles Club is a private club within the meaning of § 2000a(e). Nesmith v. Young Men's Christian Association of Raleigh, North Carolina, 397 F.2d 96, 101 (4th Cir. 1968). In making this factual determination, courts have considered a number of factors: (a) the selectiveness of the group in the admission of members, Tillman v. Wheaton-Haven Recreation Ass'n, 410 U.S. 431, 93 S.Ct. 1090, 35 L.Ed.2d 403 (1973); Nesmith v. Young Men's Christian Association of Raleigh, North Carolina, supra; (b) the degree of membership control over internal governance, Daniel v. Paul, 395 U.S. 298, 89 S.Ct. 1697, 23 L.Ed.2d 318 (1969); United States v. Jordan, 302 F.Supp. 370 (E.D.La.1969); (c) whether the organization advertises to attract members, Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160, 172 n. 10, 96 S.Ct. 2586, 49 L.Ed.2d 415 (1976); (d) whether the organization made insubstantial changes in its prior operation in order to avoid the impact of civil rights legislation, Cornelius v. Benevolent Protective Order of Elks, 382 F.Supp. 1182 (D.Conn.1974); and (e) the use of club facilities by non-members, Cornelius v. Benevolent Protective Order of Elks, supra; Williams v. Rescue Fire Co., 254 F.Supp. 556 (D.Md.1966).

I believe that the most important factor in determining whether a club is in fact private is the process which the club actually uses in selecting its members. Courts have consistently held that where a club or facility is generally open to a broad range of the public, the club or facility does 1176*1176 not fall within the exemption of § 2000a(e). See e. g., Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160, 172 n. 10, 96 S.Ct. 2586, 49 L.Ed.2d 415 (1976); Tillman v. Wheaton-Haven Recreation Ass'n, 410 U.S. 431, 93 S.Ct. 1090, 35 L.Ed.2d 403 (1973); Olzman v. Lake Hills Swim Club, Inc., 495 F.2d 1333, 1336 (2d Cir. 1974); Smith v. Young Men's Christian Association of Montgomery, Inc., 462 F.2d 634, 648 (5th Cir. 1972); Nesmith v. Young Men's Christian Association of Raleigh, North Carolina, 397 F.2d 96, 102 (4th Cir. 1968).

Note the title of section (e) and look at the underlying cases before saying this is irrelevant because the court used the term "club".

For me, I will rely on the current law's interpretation of the terms regarding public accommodation (in establishments) over the erroneous one. Especially when the use of "private establishment" (when considered from the point of view of ownership rather than how the law is interpreted) as used by current libertarian thinkers is intended to limit the government's power to enforce the Civil Rights Act.

I lean towards libertarian thinking as I tend to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I find many of their ideas to be important to the current societal debate and read extensively on them. However, the use of the phraseology you chose (Although I like the one you ended up with, "privately owned establishment that offers some accommodations to the general public" as that would not conflict with enforcement under the act.) pointed to part of the extreme nature of some libertarian theories. I am most glad to see you do not hold to those theories.

 

[You Are Guilty]

As an aside, just about any of the zillion cases against the US Power Squadron will have a fascinating discussion of "public v. private". (I have not kept score, but USPS seems to lose this argument much more than they win).

 

[justalayman]

as used by current libertarian thinkers is intended to limit the government's power to enforce the Civil Rights Act.

again you show your prejudice. I have said nothing concerning the limitations of the enforcement of the Civil Rights Act or any other law. I have clearly stated it is enforceable on both private and public establishments that provide accommodations to the public.

You simply seem to want, as you always do, take umbrage with my comments based on some extreme, and generally incorrect, interpretation of my statements.

 

[tranquility]

I believe it started with a "minor quibble". It was only when you insisted you were correct, in contradiction to fairly standard usage in the courts, was where I began to try to ferret out the reason why. At some point I supposed you were actually making a policy argument and referenced where I felt that argument was sourced in more than one occasion. Since there was no contradiction, even though you certainly show the ability to contradict, I assumed it true.

While I doubt I "always" take umbrage based on an extreme interpretation of your comments I do sincerely apologize for doing so here. I have great respect for you contributions to the forum and enjoy having a foil for the times we differ.

 

[justalayman]

=tranquility;2705180] Since there was no contradiction, even though you certainly show the ability to contradict, I assumed it true.

don't take my lack of response as acceptance of the statement. I merely figured enough was enough. (and I had to go cook dinner for me and the wife)

While I doubt I "always" take umbrage based on an extreme interpretation of your comments I do sincerely apologize for doing so here. I have great respect for you contributions to the forum and enjoy having a foil for the times we differ.

damn!! I simply figured you didn't like me for some reason. This is an epiphany on par with the similar moment shared with latigo not long ago.

I'm moved.

 

[Hot Topic]

Somebody said something about Confederate flags?