since9
Campaign Veteran
Citizens' Rights to Public Accomodation vs Private Property Owners' Rights
The concept of "public accomodation" developed in response to discrimination based on race, sex, and religion. As you can read in the FindLaw article, found here:
Additionally, Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 extended the concept of "public accomodation" to people with disabilities, but in order to qualify, they must have a disability as defined by either statute.
Public accomodation has also long been held by the courts, including the Supreme Court to extend to matters involving the First Amendment's protection of free speech, as well as it's derivative derived in case law, freedom of expression. These extensions have not been carte blanche, however, and some restrictions remain. For example, while businesses cannot prohibit access to the girl with purple hair, or a guy with tatoos, certain businesses, such as a fine dining establishment, can require customers to wear "proper attire." Most golf courses prohibit jeans/denim, and require customers to wear a shirt with a collar, whle most pools prohibit cut-offs.
The reason these restrictions were allowed by the courts is that part of what these businesses offer their customers is a certain atmosphere, or ambience. Allowing unlimited extension of First Amendment rights under the concept of "public accomodation" erodes that ambience and undermines the business' livlihood. In cases of pools prohibiting cutoffs, it's more practical, as the strings from cut-offs tend to wrap themselves around pump shafts next to the seals, and destroy the seals.
Meanwhile, when it comes to Second Amendment issues, both statute and case law, again up to and including at the Supreme Court level, has upheld the rights of private property owners against tresspassing, including the restriction of 2A rights of others on their property, by acting commensurate with local and state laws, namely by simply posting a notice at the entrance or asking someone to leave.
Nothing should supercede our Constitution, except for the only provision allowed by the Constitution itself: A properly ratified Amendment. There's a reason our Constitution is called "The Law of the Land."
Any attempt to undermine or supercede our Constitution by any other means, including case law (where judges can make rulings based more on their opinion instead of statute) opens wide the door for the erosion of the one document upon which our country rests, the cornerstone of our society. It opens wide the door to the erosion of our rights, which may be "superceded," for example, by a UN/EU-sponsored and US government-signed prohibition against handguns.
That is neither acceptable nor is it negotiable. Our Constitution must remain inviolate, as the Law of the Land.
We're in agreement, here!
The concept of "public accomodation" developed in response to discrimination based on race, sex, and religion. As you can read in the FindLaw article, found here:
"Federal law prohibits privately owned facilities that offer food, lodging, gasoline or entertainment to the public from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin."
Additionally, Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 extended the concept of "public accomodation" to people with disabilities, but in order to qualify, they must have a disability as defined by either statute.
Public accomodation has also long been held by the courts, including the Supreme Court to extend to matters involving the First Amendment's protection of free speech, as well as it's derivative derived in case law, freedom of expression. These extensions have not been carte blanche, however, and some restrictions remain. For example, while businesses cannot prohibit access to the girl with purple hair, or a guy with tatoos, certain businesses, such as a fine dining establishment, can require customers to wear "proper attire." Most golf courses prohibit jeans/denim, and require customers to wear a shirt with a collar, whle most pools prohibit cut-offs.
The reason these restrictions were allowed by the courts is that part of what these businesses offer their customers is a certain atmosphere, or ambience. Allowing unlimited extension of First Amendment rights under the concept of "public accomodation" erodes that ambience and undermines the business' livlihood. In cases of pools prohibiting cutoffs, it's more practical, as the strings from cut-offs tend to wrap themselves around pump shafts next to the seals, and destroy the seals.
Meanwhile, when it comes to Second Amendment issues, both statute and case law, again up to and including at the Supreme Court level, has upheld the rights of private property owners against tresspassing, including the restriction of 2A rights of others on their property, by acting commensurate with local and state laws, namely by simply posting a notice at the entrance or asking someone to leave.
Nothing should supercede our Constitution, except for the only provision allowed by the Constitution itself: A properly ratified Amendment. There's a reason our Constitution is called "The Law of the Land."
Any attempt to undermine or supercede our Constitution by any other means, including case law (where judges can make rulings based more on their opinion instead of statute) opens wide the door for the erosion of the one document upon which our country rests, the cornerstone of our society. It opens wide the door to the erosion of our rights, which may be "superceded," for example, by a UN/EU-sponsored and US government-signed prohibition against handguns.
That is neither acceptable nor is it negotiable. Our Constitution must remain inviolate, as the Law of the Land.
We're in agreement, here!
Last edited:
