discrimination in public places

[stealth2]

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 ?

Sigh... it's people like this that make me embarrassed to admit I'm from Jersey...

 

[BOR]

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 ?

How were you "injured/damaged"? I know you pose this Q to the board, but I personally, as others see, you have not been injured, at least under any legal theory I know.

Since there is NO statutory violation to analyze as possibly creating a Cause of Action, we must turn to Tort law.

As Professor Prosser stated, (Prosser and Keeton on Torts);

"For Every Wrong, the Law Provides a Remedy".

This Maxim however is not accurate 100% and the law does not deal with trivialites.

It served to bring out the best in a Civil litigator.

You may have been offended, but the law does not permit any "remedy" here with your facts.

 

[cbg]

JAL and Tranq; before I send you two to your rooms, is either one of you actually trying to say that the poster has a legal cause for suit?

If so, please clarify on what basis and what her legal damages are.

If not, what are you arguing about?

 

[BOR]

JAL and Tranq; before I send you two to your rooms, is either one of you actually trying to say that the poster has a legal cause for suit?

If so, please clarify on what basis and what her legal damages are.

If not, what are you arguing about?

The debate is one of a definition and OR phraseology concerning public accomodation/public establishment rights and services and denial due to race, religion, etc., which is centered off topic, and NO, they are not saying the poster has a COA, directly the opposite.

 

[tranquility]

If not, what are you arguing about?

BOR is completely correct:

The debate is one of a definition and OR phraseology concerning public accomodation/public establishment rights and services and denial due to race, religion, etc., which is centered off topic, and NO, they are not saying the poster has a COA, directly the opposite.

'Twas said by the OP:

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.

To which I agreed (in part):

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

After which was a statement made by Justalayman (In response to the OP's use of the term):

no, this is not a public establishment. It is a private establishment that provides a service to the general public.

I had a minor quibble with the private establishment theory and the claim that it is not a public establishment. Although the law used public accommodation as the main term, the senate committee, the Supreme Court, at least three Circuit courts and many district court cases all use the term public establishment. It was merely a clarification of the law in that there are such things as private establishments where the same rules would not apply. (Runyon v. McCrary, 427 US 160 footnote 10):

These cases do not raise the issue of whether the "private club or other [private] establishment" exemption in § 201 (e) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. § 2000a (e), operates to narrow § 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. As the Court of Appeals implied, that exemption, if applicable at all, comes into play only if the establishment is "not in fact open to the public . . . ." 42 U. S. C. § 2000a (e). See 515 F. 2d 1082, 1088-1089. Both Bobbe's School and the Fairfax-Brewster School advertised in the "Yellow Pages" of the telephone directory and both used mass mailings in attempting to attract students. As the Court of Appeals observed, these "schools are private only in the sense that they are managed by private persons and they are not direct recipients of public funds. Their actual and potential constituency, however, is more public than private. They appeal to the parents of all children in the area who can meet their academic and other admission requirements. This is clearly demonstrated in this case by the public advertisements." Id., at 1089.

People sometimes read these threads after a search and I was just trying to clarify.

 

[justalayman]

[=cbg;2704844]JAL and Tranq; before I send you two to your rooms, is either one of you actually trying to say that the poster has a legal cause for suit

No, not at all. They have no claim.

If not, what are you arguing about?

It's the same as always. Tranq likes to try to prove me wrong. Sometimes I am, sometimes I'm not. This was merely concerning a definition of a term v. how that term, that has not actually been defined, has been used in various court opinions.

 

[stealth2]

JAL and Tranq; before I send you two to your rooms, is either one of you actually trying to say that the poster has a legal cause for suit?

If so, please clarify on what basis and what her legal damages are.

If not, what are you arguing about?

cb - it's a pissing match.

 

[tranquility]

Perhaps so. However, after one has read the development of the law regarding civil rights, one would find the fact if a place is public place or a private one is a very important.

A key "defense" is to claim the place is a private club of some sort.

 

[justalayman]

the problem is; you are using the term public v. private in terms of access, which is also how the term was used in the opinions you cite. I am not arguing that point.

The point is my statement was dealing with public v. private ownership. For some reason, in your fervor to engage me in a dispute, you seemed to have ignored that. Instead, you jumped to your "public establishment" as being defined as being synonymous with an establishment, whether publicly or privately owned, that provides accommodations to the public.The establishment in question is a private establishment in terms of ownership and due to that, they are allowed many rights a public (as in "publicly owned") establishment is not necessarily allowed to do. A public establishment is bound by rules and laws that cannot be imposed upon a private establishment regardless of whether it provides public accommodations or not.

so, you can have a private or public establishment that provides accommodations to the general public. Each of those must abide by the civil rights laws in place. You can also have private or public establishments that do not provide accommodations to the general public. The private establishment is not bound by those same civil rights laws, in general, while the public establishment is still bound by those laws, in general, as there really is no such thing as a private publicly owned establishment. Due to the ownership by the public, even if the use is restricted, they still do not have the right to discriminate as stated within the civil rights laws in place.

 

[cbg]

cb - it's a pissing match.

Perhaps we should just hand them each a ruler?

 

[justalayman]

Perhaps we should just hand them each a ruler?

that was hilarious. Made my day.

but, actually I believe a pissing match has nothing to do with size. I believe it is based on an animals effort to apply scent and mark their territory. My dogs are funny to watch. I have 3 males dogs and when I let them out, they will all urinate. Then they kind of run around finding where the other males have urinated and they then mark over that with their urine. With 3 males all trying to cover the scent of the others, it can get quite comical.

 

[cbg]

Well, regardless of anything else, I've found that two alpha human males will be more concerned about size than scent. But to each his own.

 

[tranquility]

Sigh. I completely understand the point of your first post was a libertarian argument regarding ownership. I understand the position as recently espoused by Rand Paul that while the Civil Rights Act is "settled", he suggested "he does view federal regulation of private business on matters of racial discrimination as fundamentally unconstitutional." That's why I brought up the point as a minor quibble. A minor quibble based on the LEGAL CONTEXT OF THE THREAD.

To those who think the sole purpose here for me is to measure things (distance, length or whatever), know the discussion is more than mere window dressing of a word. It is a core philosophical difference regarding Civil Rights.

 

[cbg]

Tranq, you know that I have nothing but respect for either you or JAL. But when I see the two of you going at it hammer and tongs, sometimes I can't resist jerking your respective chains.

 

[tranquility]

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