[Next Message in Time] | [Previous Message in Time] | [Next Message in Topic] | [Previous Message in Topic]

Message ID: 21694
Date: Thu Oct 5 22:36:20 BST 2000
Author: Kimes, Dean W.
Subject: RE: [eqbards] OT: A Warning...


LOL

-----Original Message-----
From: Wallace Elliott [mailto:dbe@...]
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 3:24 PM
To: eqbards@egroups.com
Subject: RE: [eqbards] OT: A Warning...


If the barber tells you it's OK to recite,
can the McDonalds down the road refuse service?
Teien

-----Original Message-----
From: sentto-160851-21718-970780356-dbe=nwark.com@...
[mailto:sentto-160851-21718-970780356-dbe=nwark.com@...]
On Behalf Of mike.langlois@...
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 4:03 PM
To: eqbards@egroups.com
Subject: RE: [eqbards] OT: A Warning...



This is a tad mixed. While you are certainly correct about
race/gender/etc, every private club (which represents a subscription
service like EQ), or business is allowed a no shoes/no service type clause.
The First Amendment cannot be invoked to allow you to recite erotic poetry
at your local barbershop.

The barber can throw you out of his establishment. Now, the law WILL allow
you to recite the same poetry in a public forum, such as the street
outside. That's not private property.

G

===============Original Text=======================

Not true. The Supreme Court has long upheld that private establishments
may
not refuse service to people on the basis of race, color, creed, sex, age,
or beliefs. They have long ago expanded this to include exercise of one's
right of Free Speech. (The "Fire!" exclusion not included).

There are exceptions to this naturally.

In one notable case in point in Florida, a man was refused service in a
prominent restaurant because he wrote a controversial column in a local
magazine. The man sued the restaurant and lost, but was upheld on appeal
to
the federal district court of appeals on the basis of discrimination. The
argument on the side of the restaurant was that having the man as a
customer
offended their other customers because they knew what he had written and
that writing offended them. The court upheld that this was not sufficient
reason to bar him from an otherwise public place, nor to refuse him
service.

Wish I could remember the exact case from my law class but unfortunately
that was 12 years ago.



Please send submissions for the eqbards newsletter to lol@...
with the subject submissions.




Please send submissions for the eqbards newsletter to lol@...
with the subject submissions.