The statute prohibits discrimination by places of public accommodation.
New York has not, based on my admittedly fast research (Westlaw is expensive), ever interpreted the term "creed". However, in 1993 the Minnesota Appeals Court examined several dictionaries in wide circulation and held that the term applied to religious beliefs only. The Minnesota case involved a claim by a municipality that a restaurant owner was discriminating based upon creed when he refused to deliver food to a hospital where abortions were performed, even though he would deliver to other hospitals. The Court rejected the claim when it held that creed applied to religious beliefs. The Court also balanced the owner's right of association against the government's interpretation of creed and held that construing creed to apply to any sincerely held belief would violate the owner's right to choose his associations.
Thus, discriminating based on creed would include, for example, prohibiting Muslims from visiting the mall. It might also include refusing to allow Jewish males to enter the mall because the owner's disapproved of their insistence upon wearing head covering.
The Minnesota Court's cogent reasoning is applicable here. It is important to balance the rights of property owners against the rights of business invitees who are allowed on the property for the purpose of conducting business. Interpreting creed in the manner espoused by Minnesota does this.
Cherry, I do not agree with anything that you said except that we have a great country. We do not, and never have had, majority rule. That's a democracy, also known as mob rule. We are a constitutional republic. Our government functions through elected representatives.
The property owner is a private entity. So long as the discrimination was not based upon a prohibited category as set forth in my prior posts, there is no violation of law. There is also no erosion of individual rights because the rights you speak of never existed in the first place.
Nor do they exist, I suspect, in Canada. I'm fairly certain that I would be asked to leave the Beaver Room at the Queen Elizabeth in Montreal (my favorite restaurant and hotel in Montreal) if I showed up at the height of the dinner hour wearing an obscene T-Shirt, a pair of cutoffs and sneakers.
There is no difference here, except that you symphatize with the attorney. I actually feel less sympathy because he made the first year law student's mistake of assuming that he has the right to do whatever he wants in derogation of others rights, in this case the property owner.
By the way, the only reason I think that this was a silly arrest is that it will generate unfavorable publicity for the mall. I would have let the guy roam around until he became disruptive.
In addition, remember that we only have his side of the story. Upon further reflection, I'm truly curious whether he did do something to bring himself to the attention of security, such as being disruptive, attempting to hand out leaflets, etc.... In such a case the mall has even more justification for booting him.
New York has not, based on my admittedly fast research (Westlaw is expensive), ever interpreted the term "creed". However, in 1993 the Minnesota Appeals Court examined several dictionaries in wide circulation and held that the term applied to religious beliefs only. The Minnesota case involved a claim by a municipality that a restaurant owner was discriminating based upon creed when he refused to deliver food to a hospital where abortions were performed, even though he would deliver to other hospitals. The Court rejected the claim when it held that creed applied to religious beliefs. The Court also balanced the owner's right of association against the government's interpretation of creed and held that construing creed to apply to any sincerely held belief would violate the owner's right to choose his associations.
Thus, discriminating based on creed would include, for example, prohibiting Muslims from visiting the mall. It might also include refusing to allow Jewish males to enter the mall because the owner's disapproved of their insistence upon wearing head covering.
The Minnesota Court's cogent reasoning is applicable here. It is important to balance the rights of property owners against the rights of business invitees who are allowed on the property for the purpose of conducting business. Interpreting creed in the manner espoused by Minnesota does this.
Cherry, I do not agree with anything that you said except that we have a great country. We do not, and never have had, majority rule. That's a democracy, also known as mob rule. We are a constitutional republic. Our government functions through elected representatives.
The property owner is a private entity. So long as the discrimination was not based upon a prohibited category as set forth in my prior posts, there is no violation of law. There is also no erosion of individual rights because the rights you speak of never existed in the first place.
Nor do they exist, I suspect, in Canada. I'm fairly certain that I would be asked to leave the Beaver Room at the Queen Elizabeth in Montreal (my favorite restaurant and hotel in Montreal) if I showed up at the height of the dinner hour wearing an obscene T-Shirt, a pair of cutoffs and sneakers.
There is no difference here, except that you symphatize with the attorney. I actually feel less sympathy because he made the first year law student's mistake of assuming that he has the right to do whatever he wants in derogation of others rights, in this case the property owner.
By the way, the only reason I think that this was a silly arrest is that it will generate unfavorable publicity for the mall. I would have let the guy roam around until he became disruptive.
In addition, remember that we only have his side of the story. Upon further reflection, I'm truly curious whether he did do something to bring himself to the attention of security, such as being disruptive, attempting to hand out leaflets, etc.... In such a case the mall has even more justification for booting him.
