Proprietrix
Posts: 756
Joined: 7/15/2005 From: Ohio/West Virginia Status: offline
|
The property owner analogy is faulty is in the description of private property. There is a difference between private property (MY HOME) and private property used for public use (The mall). If one wants to speak to property rights, they must first have an understanding of the law of which they speak. The right to arbitrary discrimination does not come with property rights if said property is intended for public use. Public access gaurantees the right to non-discriminatory practice. Many city ordinances are written as such: "Types of discrimination that are prohibited by private owners of land or venues established for public use, excluding public venues in which membership is assigned for participation, include: Any discrimination by reason of race, color, creed, class, national origin, religion, sex, age, marital status, physical or mental handicap, personal appearance, sexual preference, family responsibilities, matriculation, political affiliation, prior arrest or conviction record or source of income." Your city/state may vary in the wording. If the city in NC has a similar ordinance, unless the mall requires a membership for admittance, they cannot legally ask someone to leave based on appearance. It doesn't matter if every single consumer in that building is offended. It doesn't matter if a 99% majority finds it to be unreasonable for the setting. It doesn't matter if there were 1,000 children looking. If they were asked to leave based on any condition covered by the ordinance, it is illegal discrimination.
_____________________________
IMO, IMHO, YMMV, AFAIK, to me, I see it as, from my perspective, it's been my experience, I only speak for myself, (and all other disclaimers here).
|