Public Accommodation

Discussion in 'GA Laws and Politics' started by snwmnx, Jan 23, 2011.

  1. snwmnx

    snwmnx New Member

    15
    0
    0
    So, I have been reading through here and other places a lot lately, and I have a question to pose to the community here.

    Two businesses located in GA:
    1.) Intel
    2.) Carmike Cinema

    Entering #1 armed, someone tells you that you can not be there armed, and asks you to leave. If you do not, then you will be guilty of criminal tresspass. This is a given, as it is private property.

    Entering #2 armed, someone tells you that you can not be there armed, and asks you to leave. Well...this is still private property, but this business is open to the general public. If the business opens its doors to the general public, is it not considered a public accommodation? If that is the case, then how is it that they are able to make you shed your rights upon entrance?

    I'm not saying that I would ever push the issue, or that I would agree with either answer. It is a question based solely on theory. However, the way I understood things to be is that...one doesn't shed constitutionally guaranteed rights when entering an accommodation even if it is on private property.

    References:
    http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/adaqa2.html
    http://www.ada.gov/reg3a.html#Anchor-36104
    Edit: Poor example for #2...corrected this.
     
  2. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,325
    612
    113
    The only time a private business owner cannot discriminate because the business is a "place of public accomodation" is when the discrimination is based on race, religion, color, sex, national origin, disabilty. Maybe family status and marital status too (not sure if that applies outside of the Fair Housing Act).

    If somebody discriminates against you because of who you voted for (as evidenced by the bumper sticker on your car), or if you exercise your firearm rights, or because you have used your rights to sue people in the courts, that's OK.
    They can choose not to do business with you for any of those reasons.

    I wish it were not this way. Private business owners who open their property to the public ought to respect all the rights of citizens unless the way those citizens are exercising those rights are totally and clearly inconsistent with running a profitiable business.

    (For example, consider that the Atlantic Station development in Atlanta-- all the streets and sidewalks are "private property" or so they say. Just like the roads and lands inside an office park or industrial park complex.
     

  3. snwmnx

    snwmnx New Member

    15
    0
    0
    Can McDonald's refuse to serve a group of people wearing nazi paraphernalia?

    I think (read: I am not sure) that they absolutely can not because the ability to behave in the above fashion is protected vis a vis the First Amendment and, as long as the above parties aren't violating any laws, McDonald's would have to service them under the Public Accommodation laws.

    Yet, the clothes and insignia's on their clothing, at least in this case, have nothing to do with:
    1.) Race
    2.) Religion
    3.) Color
    4.) Sex
    5.) National Origin
    6.) Disability

    Now, assuming that the business must service these patrons, then I would question why the 1A is protected while the 2A is ignored....

    However, assuming the business has no mandate to service these patrons, then please excuse my ignorance. =)

    Edit: Spelling / grammar
     
  4. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,325
    612
    113
    what "public accomodation laws" are you speaking of?
    The websites you listed were from the EEOC and one about the Americans with Disabilities Act. The EEOC only concerns itself with employment discrimination (the company discriminating against its own employees, not the customers), and ONLY for certain reasons: sex, race, color, national origin, age (if over 40), religion, etc.
    The ADA is, of course, only about people with actual or perceived serious disabilities.

    I don't know of any law that says private for-profit restaurants that are not taking federal money have to serve NAZIs. (Well, maybe they would have to serve NAZI's, because an anti-NAZI policy would have a disparate impact on members of the white race.... :? )

    P.S. For some background on federal civil rights laws regarding the rights of customers to shop, eat, and rent motel rooms where they like, see the case of:
    Heart of Atlanta Motel vs. United States (U.S. Supreme Court, 1964). The U.S. Attorney General is authorized by Congress to file civil actions in federal District courts over violations of these laws where the victims of discrimination are members of the public (customers, potential customers). If the victims are employees of the business, the EEOC investigates the case and either sues directly or gives the victim a "right to sue" letter that gets them into federal court.
     
  5. CoffeeMate

    CoffeeMate Junior Butt Warmer

    46,427
    9
    0
    Huh?
     
  6. GAGunOwner

    GAGunOwner Active Member

    Banning all Nazis, on its face, sounds race neutral.

    However, in reality 99+% of Nazis are likely to be of the "white race" therefore it could be held as discriminatory to whites.

    I'm not saying I necessarily agree with that but I think that's what he's saying, but I don't want to speak for him.
     
  7. Hock25

    Hock25 New Member

    4,148
    0
    0
    A private business can boot you for what you have on a t-shirt, patch, emblem, whatever. They can also boot you for stench, lack of shirt, shoes, or not wearing a jacket and tie.
     
  8. CoffeeMate

    CoffeeMate Junior Butt Warmer

    46,427
    9
    0
    Okaaay... and what's the "racial breakdown" for gun onwership and/or carry?
     
  9. GAGunOwner

    GAGunOwner Active Member

    I think middle-aged fat white U.S. citizen males are leading the pack.

    And I'll add Christian too.
     
  10. CoffeeMate

    CoffeeMate Junior Butt Warmer

    46,427
    9
    0
    So would an anti-carry policy have a disparate (and therefore potentially discriminatory) impact on middle-aged fat white U.S. citizen males?
     
  11. SYN ACK

    SYN ACK New Member

    441
    0
    0
    Private companies can boot you for just about any reason. I will give an actual example of an instance that happened to me at a Shell gas station. I went in to buy some lottery tickets for my coworkers. I requested the tickets and specifically said to the clerk to make them "Cash Option" for Mega Millions (that's what I was told to buy). The clerk handed me the tickets and they were wrong (no cash option) so I told him that I did not want to purchase these tickets.

    He went back and got either the manager or owner (not sure) who came up and told me that (if I won) I had a choice to take the prize either way. I told him I had never heard of the rules because I do not play lottery and asked him for a copy of the rule book. He went into a rage and accused me of calling him a liar and told me he didn't want my business and to "get out." I told him I would as soon as he gave me my money back. The clerk then handed my money back and I was told to never come back into the store again.

    Stupid reason to get angry in front of a line of customers, but it just shows how :screwy: some people are. I bet a firearm could get someone even more :screwy:
     
  12. phantoms

    phantoms Senior Mumbler

    6,138
    167
    63
    Your carry rights do not trump a private business owners property rights. They are both equal. You are not denied your 2A right by a private business owner telling you that you can not carry into their store. You have a choice of not going into that store.

    It may be open to the public, but it is still a private business. As such they can deny you entry or request you leave for any reason they deem fit. The only time they can't by law, is in the case of a protected class (race, religion, sex, etc.).
     
  13. snwmnx

    snwmnx New Member

    15
    0
    0
    Just to be clear (and I'm picking on your post here): I do not advocate that I think my rights should outweigh anyone elses.

    That said, understand that a store owner may not kick someone out of their store because they are <insert skin color>. They can also not kick someone out for <insert gender>. I was asking if the same logic applied to constitutional rights. Nothing more, and I tried very hard not to imply otherwise.

    I listed the eeoc site simply because it said the same thing as the other 15 tabs I had open. I would say I grabbed the wrong tab when flipping back and forth... However, if you note...they all say the same thing.

    Generally, the ones outlined in the civils rights act. I was asking for clarification as to how, if at all, it applied to your constitutionally guaranteed rights. Thank you for clarification.

    Glad you guys cleared it up for me, though. Was just interested. =)
     
  14. Pandashire

    Pandashire New Member

    282
    0
    0
    Can a business kick you out if they don't like whatever it is you're saying? (1A)

    Can a business require that you submit to a search of your belongings before entering, like concerts and such do pat downs? (4A)

    The reason business can't kick you out because of the color of your skin or what reproductive organs you have is because you do not CHOSE to be born black, white, male, female, etc. You do have a choice, yes people, it's a choice, to carry a firearm or not.
     
  15. Mr_Z

    Mr_Z Member

    535
    0
    16
    I think a key thing to remember here is that the 2nd amendment (and the 1st) apply to rights enumerated that the _government_ cannot infringe (well, not much, anyway!). A private store is not a government entity and is not required to respect your rights.

    No shirt, no shoes, no service. your shirtlessness is just freedom of expression, right? too bad. take a hike. express yourself elsewhere.
     
  16. Owl

    Owl New Member

    2,956
    0
    0
    I get a kick out of threads like this one. Why do so many people think they have the "right" to do anything and everything they want, anywhere they are. I swear if I see one more ignorant person on Facebook say " they are censoring my free speech" I'm going to pull my hair out.

    That said...carry on....

    I'm sure this will only get better. ;) LOL
     
  17. kkennett

    kkennett New Member

    2,139
    0
    0
    Armed citizens are not a protected class, like those of color, gender, etc. Thus, the public accommodation stricture simply do not apply.

    Should they apply is another question. Probably not, really. If you decide to protect those whose carry from ejection, then you probably have to protect those who stink, those who cuss loudly and disruptively, etc. You don't really want to make a restaurant a platform for soapbox preachers to disturb your meal and the owner to have no recourse.
     
  18. NullMatrix

    NullMatrix Member

    712
    0
    16
    Here's the other 1% (NSJAP, Japanese Nazis): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taHD4B8m1wQ