Harrahs treated me like I'm a potential terrorist tonight - Page 4

Quicksilvre · #31 08-20-2005, 06:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There is without a doubt something more to this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to say discrimination is impossible in this case, but something somewhere in this story rings untrue.

youtalkfunny · #32 08-21-2005, 01:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, the girls I was with have no idea why I was asked to leave, and neither did the security guard at the door.

[/ QUOTE ]

The girls didn't no why, Security didn't know why.

But nowhere in your post did you suggest that YOU didn't know why.

You suggested that you did nothing more than drink lemonade.

Is there more to it than that? Not just this visit, but previous visits?

Richard Tanner · #33 08-21-2005, 03:28 AM

Broadway,
I don't know if you've read my above reply to you, but in your legal searches look up the Right to Refuse Serivce Act that I mentioned, it should clear up alot regaurding this matter.

Cody

Chimp · #34 08-21-2005, 06:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]

No gambling is not a pubulic accomodation,

[/ QUOTE ]

The casino itself, with its restaurants and shops, would certainly fall under the civil rights act. Are you saying that the gaming sections of the casino are exempt? Do you have a citation? I find this difficult to believe.

And to the poster who keeps bringing up some state's right-to-refuse-service law....that is irrelevant. The federal law would trump it. The only issue is whether, under federal law, certain areas of the casino can discriminate because they are not considered public accomodations, unlike the restaurants and bars.

Chimp · #35 08-21-2005, 07:18 AM

Answered my own question. You were wrong. I was right. I love it when that happens. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

"We hasten to add that we do not suggest that our holding means that the casinos have carte blanche in dealing with their patrons and they do not suggest otherwise. For example, both federal and state discrimination laws would be implicated if casinos discriminated among their patrons on the basis of their inclusion in protected groups." Doug Grant, Inc. v. Greate Bay Casino Corp., 232 F.3d 173, at n.7 (3d Cir. 2000)

megabit · #36 08-21-2005, 04:30 PM

Hmmm, many have commented but the OP hasn't said a word since the 1st post. Sniff, sniff is that troll I smell?

Richard Tanner · #37 08-21-2005, 05:31 PM

I'm the one who was refering to the Right to Rufuse Service Act, and my question to you is how is what the casino has done qualify as discrimination under the rights NV's Act grants.
If they can't utilize the Act, which allows them to refuse action to any patron for any reason, because of Federal Law, then why have it. More to the point, how do we know that they barred him for any illegal reason. They could've thought he looked like someone in the Griffin Book, and if so wouldn't need to explain it to him, all that's needed is an explaination that they don't want him on the property.
I'm not professing to know any of the answers to the above, and as you seem to have more legal training, or at least more interest in legal research, than I do, hopefully you can get me some of these answers.

Cody