RE: Our kickin' sitchyashun

["Tom Hansen" <thansen@moscow.com>]

I assume that most restaurants conspicuously post a sign that reserves them
the right to refuse service to anyone.  If a customer is being heckled by
other customers, the proprietor may refuse to serve those customers.

You would also have to consider other extenuating and mitigating
circumstances that may have precluded authorities (as well as the
proprietor) from taking certain actions.

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ed [mailto:eevans@moscow.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 6:46 PM
> To: vision2020@moscow.com
> Subject: Re: Our kickin' sitchyashun
>
>
> I don't know about that.. What if a bunch of Aryans heckled a
> Jewish guy out
> of a diner? Legal? Maybe so.
>
> Cheers,
> -Ed Evans
>
> On Thursday 26 September 2002 17:27, Sunil Ramalingam wrote:
> > Lucy,
> > If you look to Idaho Code 67-5902(5) for the definition of
> person, it reads
> > "Person" includes an individual, association, corporation, joint
> > apprenticeship committee, joint-stock company, labor union, legal
> > representative, mutual company, partnership, any other legal or
> commercial
> > entity, the state, or any governmental entity or agency;
> >
> > I believe the Act applies to employers and proprietors, not individuals
> > such as the diners in a restaurant.  While in the Bertollini example the
> > diners were rude, I doubt they are liable under the Act.
> >
> > However, I urge you not to take my word for this, and should
> you choose to
> > heckle a fellow diner, do not claim that I said it would be
> okay.  This is
> > just an estimate, and your results may vary.
> >
> > Sunil Ramalingam
> >
> > From: "Lucy Zoe" <lucyzoe@moscow.com>
> >
> > >Reply-To: <lucyzoe@moscow.com>
> > >To: <vision2020@moscow.com>
> > >Subject: RE: Our kickin' sitchyashun
> > >Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 16:28:13 -0700
> > >
> > >Ron wrote:
> > >As I understand it, the proprietor didn't evict him-- the other diners
> > >just
> > >gave him a hard time verbally until he left (exercised their free
> > >speech?).
> > >
> > >Lucy says:
> > >You'll notice Ron, that the ACT doesn't say For a *proprietor,*
> > >it says For a *person.*  Therefore, it doesn't really make a difference
> > >*who* denies another individual according to the Act.
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
> > http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
>