Rec-league player cross-checked from behind. Cross-checker suspended 30-days, player assaulted banned from arena for life.

[gxc999 7]

Suing is going to make the victim look like a dick if he gets back in the league, he's in a really tough position either way. However, the negative press might make the owner change his mind. Legally, the owner can ban whoever he wants under federal law unless it's a decision based on race. Though there could be state law giving more protection to others, a victim of a private tort is not and will not be in a protected or suspect class.

[JR Boucicaut 3801]

LOL kinda like MSH and when we ban people..."this is a public forum" always seems to be the argument...um...no...

[gxc999 7]

LOL kinda like MSH and when we ban people..."this is a public forum" always seems to be the argument...um...no...

Yeah, but you guys are racist, you discriminate against black posters

[iceNsteel 0]

Denying service to anyone you want, and denying service to anyone you want who is not a member of a protected class is substantially different. 75% of Americans are part of a protected class.

You can still deny them service, you just cannot do so because they are a member of a protected class. I.E. you can deny a black guy services because you don't like his shoes, you just can't deny him service because he's black.

Side note: I happen to be meeting my father-in-law for dinner tonight, and he was a NY state judge for some time; i will ask him about this, and follow up. It is not so clear cut as you make it, as I mentioned the rink might be privately owned, but for various reasons cannot take the actions it has. Will get back to the board on this...

Sorry dude, but phony appeals to unverified authority do not make up for the fact you have no fricking idea what you're talking about.

[nystromshairstylist 14]

Sorry dude, but phony appeals to unverified authority do not make up for the fact you have no fricking idea what you're talking about.

I know this is an anonymous forum, but is this where some people get to act like idiots?

I ALREADY said i was uncertain, but some aspects of what was claimed did not seem to jive with what I do know from prior legal work, as well as NY State regulations. I did not make a "phony appeal to unverified authority", I have a family member who was a State judge for years who I will ask for clarity, READ MY POST. If I was mistaken, big deal, this is not my area of expertise.

Unlike SOME people, I do not need to attack others personally on public web forums to try to make myself feel better....

EDIT: I started perusing the web on this issue for the State of California, and came across this act:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_Civil_Rights_Act

Part of what I've been waiting to clarify with my relative is touched upon by this act, such as Ladies Night, etc.

Further reading:

http://www.gaebler.com/When-Restaurants-Can-Choose-Not-to-Serve-a-Customer.htm

" Clearly, the law does not allow a business to arbitrarily exclude a prospective customer. In order for courts to determine what constitutes arbitrary discrimination, the court will examine whether the action taken by a business owner is reasonable and for good cause. Good cause is established when there is evidence of improper, illegal or immoral conduct by the customer that occurs on-premises and that is contrary to the public's welfare or morals. To determine whether a customer's conduct is "contrary to the public welfare," the patron's actions must be evaluated and found to be harmful and undesirable.

In some cases, this will be based on what the local community perceives to be immoral. The courts actually look to the particular local community to decide what the standards are to determine whether or not good cause has been established for the denial of service.

The community's definitions and standards of appropriate moral behavior constantly change and adapt according to the current views of the public. Based on this constant change, the courts must judge each situation on a case-by-case basis, looking at the behavior of the individual within the context of current social norms."

--------------------------

So clearly, it is not as cut and dried as some posters would like it to believe, which is why in an area like this, it is better to not speak with authority on an area that can be intrepreted differently in different states.

[nystromshairstylist 14]

Here is probably the best write-up that I've found via a cursory web search:

http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equal-rights/right-refuse-service

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone Because of Appearance, Odor or Attitude?

LEANNE PHILLIPS - OCT 2007

Is it a violation of your civil rights for a business to refuse to serve you because of the way you look, the way you smell, or the way you act? The answer is...it depends.

The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which precludes discrimination by businesses on the basis of disability.

In addition to the protections against discrimination provided under federal law, many states have passed their own Civil Rights Acts that provide broader protections than the Federal Civil Rights Act. For example, California's Unruh Civil Rights Act makes it illegal to discriminate against individuals based on unconventional dress or sexual preference.

In the 1960s, the Unruh Civil Rights Act was interpreted to provide broad protection from arbitrary discrimination by business owners. Cases decided during that era held that business owners could not discriminate, for example, against hippies, police officers, homosexuals, or Republicans, solely because of who they were.

In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service. For example, in a recent case, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their "colors," or patches, which signified club membership. The court held that the refusal of service was not based on the club members' unconventional dress, but was to protect a legitimate business interest in preventing fights between rival club members.

On the other hand, a California court decided that a restaurant owner could not refuse to seat a gay couple in a semi-private booth where the restaurant policy was to only seat two people of opposite sexes in such booths. There was no legitimate business reason for the refusal of service, and so the discrimination was arbitrary and unlawful.

In one more complicated case, a court held that a cemetery could exclude "punk rockers" from a private funeral service. A mother requested that the funeral service for her 17-year-old daughter be private and that admission to the service be limited to family and invited guests only. The cemetery failed to exclude punk rockers from the service. The punk rockers arrived in unconventional dress, wearing makeup and sporting various hair colors. One was wearing a dress decorated with live rats. Others wore leather and chains, some were twirling baton-like weapons, drinking, and using cocaine. The punk rockers made rude comments to family members and were generally disruptive of the service.

Ironically, the funeral business had attempted to rely on the Unruh Civil Rights Act, claiming that if they had denied access to the punk rockers, they would have been in violation of the Act. But the court held that the punk rockers' presence had deprived the deceased person's family of the services of the business establishment, which were meant to provide comfort to grieving family members. On that basis, the court stated that the funeral business could have legitimately denied access to the punk rockers.

It's interesting to note that while it is unlawful to refuse service to certain classes of people, it is not unlawful to provide discounts on the basis of characteristics such as age. Business establishments can lawfully provide discounts to groups such as senior citizens, children, local residents, or members of the clergy in order to attract their business.

Like many issues involving constitutional law, the law against discrimination in public accommodations is in a constant state of change. Some argue that anti-discrimination laws in matters of public accommodations create a conflict between the ideal of equality and individual rights. Does the guaranteed right to public access mean the business owner's private right to exclude is violated? For the most part, courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations outweighs the individual liberties involved.

-----------------------------------------------------------

And another:

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/restaurants-right-to-refuse-service.html

Does a Restaurant Have the Unrestricted Right to Refuse Service to Specific Patrons?

No. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits restaurants from refusing service to patrons on the basis of race, color, religion, or natural origin. In addition, most courts don’t allow restaurants to refuse service to patrons based on extremely arbitrary conditions. For example, a person likely can’t be refused service due to having a lazy eye.

But Aren’t Restaurants Considered Private Property?

Yes, however they are also considered places of public accommodation. In other words, the primary purpose of a restaurant is to sell food to the general public, which necessarily requires susceptibility to equal protection laws. Therefore, a restaurant’s existence as private property does not excuse an unjustified refusal of service. This can be contrasted to a nightclub, which usually caters itself to a specific group of clientele based on age and social status.

-----------------------------------------------------------

These were the issues I recalled, but could not detail as well as these sites. Since the establishments are OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, they are susceptible to the Unrah Act and other state laws which prevent arbitrary exclusions.

[Fisticuffs 0]

You can still deny them service, you just cannot do so because they are a member of a protected class. I.E. you can deny a black guy services because you don't like his shoes, you just can't deny him service because he's black.

Maybe, maybe not. You could probably exclude him because you don't like wing tips. If you decide that he isn't welcome in your store because you don't like Timberlands, a court could find that you are implicitly excluding a protected class (if there is an indication that the shoes you dislike are worn predominantly by people of a protected class). Banks tried that back in the day. They said, we don't write mortgages on properties in XXXXX zip code. Well, those zip codes happened to be minority neighborhoods more often than not, and the courts ruled against the banks, even though they didn't exclude a protected group, they just didn't write mortgages for people who lived in crappy neighborhoods (which frankly, sounds like a pretty good policy for a bank that wants to get repaid), it turns out bad neighborhoods tend to have a higher number of minority residents.

[Chadd 916]

I might as well stop the poo flinging at this point