banned, barred or you can't play bj

[johndoe]

The owner of any business has, and should have, the absolute right to decide who to do business with, and who not to do business with. There's nothing particularly radical about that, and no one has the "right" to patronize any private business whatsoever.

If I owned, say, a salad bar or buffet restaurant, and someone was "abusing" it and causing me to lose profits, I'd be well within my rights to ban them. Same thing for the abuse of generous return policies, etc. I don't see what the big issue is with this.

 

[sagefr0g]

The owner of any business has, and should have, the absolute right to decide who to do business with, and who not to do business with. There's nothing particularly radical about that, and no one has the "right" to patronize any private business whatsoever.

If I owned, say, a salad bar or buffet restaurant, and someone was "abusing" it and causing me to lose profits, I'd be well within my rights to ban them. Same thing for the abuse of generous return policies, etc. I don't see what the big issue is with this.

it wouldn't be a big issue save for the lack of protection of the patron.
sure most times protection of the patron isn't needed as the nature of business has built in normal ways that make such protection unnecessary, however, just me maybe, the law as it is leaves the door open for patron abuse. i lived through the days of white's only sorta stuff in restaurants, bathrooms and the like. makes me think patrons need the playing field evened a bit as far as the trespass law goes.

 

[zengrifter]

The main thing is that card-counting, in particular is NOT fair to the house. The game of BJ is ONLY fair when the house has the advantage. Card-counting creates an unfair advantage for the player.

As a business any casino should and must have the right to exclude anyone for any reason. zg

 

[johndoe]

it wouldn't be a big issue save for the lack of protection of the patron.
sure most times protection of the patron isn't needed as the nature of business has built in normal ways that make such protection unnecessary, however, just me maybe, the law as it is leaves the door open for patron abuse. i lived through the days of white's only sorta stuff in restaurants, bathrooms and the like. makes me think patrons need the playing field evened a bit as far as the trespass law goes.

OK, but none of that is really relevant to the issue of AP's and casinos. If you're barred, it's because you're unprofitable, not because you're whatever race they don't happen to like. I doubt that kind of protection is really necessary these days, especially in casinos.

 

[mathman]

The use of the right to refuse tavern law by casino's allows them to provide service only to those they can fleece. Casino's are advertised and marketed by selling the fact you can win however they ban informed and intelligent players to make sure their customers are losers. That in itself is not right. If your buffet offers an all you can eat format and a customer is capable of eating four times the normal amount so be it. That's the chance you took offering the all you can eat option. Realistically you will make up for that on the other 99% of your customers though, the same as casino's do on the less talented players that far outweigh a winning AP. A winning player is good advertising and they should be using us for that rather than banning us. There are not many people that have what it takes to be winners at the game of Blackjack. There are plenty that think they do but not many that actually do. The casino's should think about that. 99% of the so called counters are bigger losers than the average players, it takes talent and discipline to be a winner at this game...JtMM

 

[sagefr0g]

OK, but none of that is really relevant to the issue of AP's and casinos. If you're barred, it's because you're unprofitable, not because you're whatever race they don't happen to like. I doubt that kind of protection is really necessary these days, especially in casinos.

at least one lone individual may tend to disagree, Mr. Donovan:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/10300903lmb.pdf

 

[johndoe]

at least one lone individual may tend to disagree, Mr. Donovan:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/10300903lmb.pdf

Huh? He's not claiming he's being thrown out for his race, is he?

 

[aslan]

I thought you CC have this pat down already. The casino would tell you "we don't like your style of play". What is arbitary about this?

So you hire a lawyer and what arguements do you want him to make .Meanwhile it would cost you plenty in legal and court cost. Evidence to be presented in court. No hearsay, sworn affidavits, witness, citing precedent cases, etc. Prove the casino is arbitary. Your hypothsis may work. Perhaps some rich guy with money to burn can try this If it can be done why hasn't it been done already.

If I did challenge a trespass, I doubt I would hire a lawyer. If the judge cannot figure out if the business is being arbitrary or unreasonable, what's the point of argumentation? I just don't think it's a difficult issue. If the business does not lie, I]ll abide be whatever decision the judge makes. If the business does lie, the judge can determine whether he believes they are in fact lying. If the judge is crooked, all the lawyers in the world would not prevail.

 

[aslan]

In America tresspass at the casino will soon be overturned when done for a reason not associated with criminal activity,,it will very soon be replaced with flat betting a person,,,good-by to tresspass.

And for the record, casinos are very public places and must abide by the great Constitution of the U.S.A.

This is much like the TSA issue,,the more you accept the more they will take from you.

CP

I agree that it should be overturned. The fact that Vegas supported the casino's right to bar entry for no good reason seems to me like a bias in favor of the big casino operators. I can see the case for flat-betting a customer, but not for trespassing them if they've done nothing illegal.

The property may be private, but I agree the casino is a very public place. When you offer goods or services to the general public, you should have a good reason for discriminating against someone, for example, disturbing the peace or cheating. What kind of country would it be if store owners were allowed to forbid entry to all left-handed people, or all blondes, or all people with IQs above 100, or all fat people. We are already protected against racial, religious and gender discrimination, but we should in fact be protected against any arbitrary or unreasonable discrimination.

 

[aslan]

The owner of any business has, and should have, the absolute right to decide who to do business with, and who not to do business with. There's nothing particularly radical about that, and no one has the "right" to patronize any private business whatsoever.

If I owned, say, a salad bar or buffet restaurant, and someone was "abusing" it and causing me to lose profits, I'd be well within my rights to ban them. Same thing for the abuse of generous return policies, etc. I don't see what the big issue is with this.

What you mentioned was a reasonable ban, that is, banning someone for "abusing" your buffet. When it comes to banning someone because they are black or female or Muslim, we already have laws so that you cannot have what you call an "absolute" right to decide who to do business with. So long as your ban is reasonable, I agree with you. In other cases, I have no problem with a court overturning your ban.

 

[mathman]

What we need to do is get "intelligence level" added to the federal and states civil rights laws. That would make it illegal to ban players under the tavern right to refuse law based on their intelligence level. That could be snuck in based on the other way around, lower intelligence, but if worded correctly it could be used for higher intelligence also. It would take a court case or two but it could work....JtMM

What kind of country would it be if store owners were allowed to forbid entry to all left-handed people, or all blondes, or all people with IQs above 100, or all fat people. We are already protected against racial, religious and gender discrimination, but we should in fact be protected against any arbitrary or unreasonable discrimination.

Agreed!....JtMM

 

[aslan]

The main thing is that card-counting, in particular is NOT fair to the house. The game of BJ is ONLY fair when the house has the advantage. Card-counting creates an unfair advantage for the player.

As a business any casino should and must have the right to exclude anyone for any reason. zg

I would amend that to "...any reasonable reason." Race, religion and gender are already protected. All other unreasonable barrings are subject to court determination.

 

[Mr. T]

johndoe
The owner of any business has, and should have, the absolute right to decide who to do business with, and who not to do business with. There's nothing particularly radical about that, and no one has the "right" to patronize any private business whatsoever.

If I owned, say, a salad bar or buffet restaurant, and someone was "abusing" it and causing me to lose profits, I'd be well within my rights to ban them. Same thing for the abuse of generous return policies, etc. I don't see what the big issue is with this.

I think this is a very close comparison with the casinos. If someone is abusing the salad bar and the owner bars him it means the owner deem it is not in his interest to do business with the person. It is the same story with CC in the casinos. The casino deem it is not in their interest to do business with the CC.

What you mentioned was a reasonable ban, that is, banning someone for "abusing" your buffet. When it comes to banning someone because they are black or female or Muslim, we already have laws so that you cannot have what you call an "absolute" right to decide who to do business with. So long as your ban is reasonable, I agree with you. In other cases, I have no problem with a court overturning your ban.

Aslan, it has nothing to do with the ban being "reasonable". It is a matter of whether the owner deem it is in his interest to do business with the person. It is his "absolute" right to decide unless doing so he is breaking any existing law like the civil rights law, race and religion law, handicap law,etc.

 

[sagefr0g]

Huh? He's not claiming he's being thrown out for his race, is he?

pretty much it was for his mental ability.

 

[Machinist]

hhhmmm

Not to stir the pot.........But i know of a few that were sort of trespassed on this here site... Ken has every right to do as he wishes.........its his site .....he owns it...
Frog i have been trespassed for playing machines........numerous times.......MMMM most of the stuff back a dozen years ago wasnt rocket science.....Simple stuff....Some easier than the mm machines.....
The bastards just do it!!!! Now this was in Nevada.......so you dont have a prayer in the courts....hell less than a prayer......
Like you alluded to with Kenny Uston.........I kinda hope things dont change....it's a wonderful cat and mouse game.........Kinda keeps the weak" Mouses out of the House's" so to speak..
AAAhhh what the hell do i know !!!!!!:laugh::laugh:

Machinist

 

[aslan]

I think this is a very close comparison with the casinos. If someone is abusing the salad bar and the owner bars him it means the owner deem it is not in his interest to do business with the person. It is the same story with CC in the casinos. The casino deem it is not in their interest to do business with the CC.




Aslan, it has nothing to do with the ban being "reasonable". It is a matter of whether the owner deem it is in his interest to do business with the person. It is his "absolute" right to decide unless doing so he is breaking any existing law like the civil rights law, race and religion law, handicap law,etc.

Oh, but it does, and their are many case precedents that prove so. The courts have and will continue to rule against arbitrary and unreasonable barring from businesses which deal with the public at large. Can you imagine a poor person in a small town being refused to enter the local grocers to purchase necessary milk, eggs, meat and bread because he dressed shabbily?

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.
So Are “We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone” Signs in Restaurants Legal?

Yes, however they still do not give a restaurant the power to refuse service on the basis of race, color, religion, or natural origin. These signs also do not preclude a court from finding other arbitrary refusals of service to be discriminatory. Simply put, restaurants that carry a “Right to Refuse Service” sign are subject to the same laws as restaurants without one.
What Conditions Allow a Restaurant to Refuse Service?

There a number of legitimate reasons for a restaurant to refuse service, some of which include:

• Patrons who are unreasonably rowdy or causing trouble
• Patrons that may overfill capacity if let in
• Patrons who come in just before closing time or when the kitchen is closed
• Patrons accompanied by large groups of non-customers looking to sit in
• Patrons lacking adequate hygiene (e.g. excess dirt, extreme body odor, etc.)

In most cases, refusal of service is warranted where a customer’s presence in the restaurant detracts from the safety, welfare, and well-being of other patrons and the restaurant itself.
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/restaurants-right-to-refuse-service.html

 

[Dyepaintball12]

I was talking to a prominent Casino Consultant and he said legally they are not supposed to "kick you out" unless you are causing a disturbance, loitering, etc...

They can of course legally ban you from blackjack but they are NOT supposed to ban you from the property just for that. They do though.

 

[Mr. T]

Oh, but it does, and their are many case precedents that prove so. The courts have and will continue to rule against arbitrary and unreasonable barring from businesses which deal with the public at large. Can you imagine a poor person in a small town being refused to enter the local grocers to purchase necessary milk, eggs, meat and bread because he dressed shabbily?

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.
So Are “We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone” Signs in Restaurants Legal?

Yes, however they still do not give a restaurant the power to refuse service on the basis of race, color, religion, or natural origin. These signs also do not preclude a court from finding other arbitrary refusals of service to be discriminatory. Simply put, restaurants that carry a “Right to Refuse Service” sign are subject to the same laws as restaurants without one.
What Conditions Allow a Restaurant to Refuse Service?

There a number of legitimate reasons for a restaurant to refuse service, some of which include:

• Patrons who are unreasonably rowdy or causing trouble
• Patrons that may overfill capacity if let in
• Patrons who come in just before closing time or when the kitchen is closed
• Patrons accompanied by large groups of non-customers looking to sit in
• Patrons lacking adequate hygiene (e.g. excess dirt, extreme body odor, etc.)

In most cases, refusal of service is warranted where a customer’s presence in the restaurant detracts from the safety, welfare, and well-being of other patrons and the restaurant itself.
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/restaurants-right-to-refuse-service.html

Try telling this to Ken on what he can and cannot do with his public message board.

 

[aslan]

Try telling this to Ken on what he can and cannot do with his public message board.

Haha!

Ken's board does not cater to the public at large, but to a subset of the public, advantage players. He has a perfect right to limit the subject matter on the board.

 

[Mr. T]

what's weird about that, is as i'm reading it a case just recently went before the Indiana supreme court. a case a card counter won in a lower court on the basis that he shouldn't be thrown out for using his brain, but the casino appealed it and then the casino won the case in the supreme court on the basis of any private property owner's right to invoke trespass for what ever reason. at least that's pretty much how i understood from my limited reading.
just me maybe, but if my understanding is anywhere close to correct then that was a ludicrous slaughter of justice.
it's understandable that private property owners should have the right to protect themselves, i have no problem with that. but let's have some justice and fairness with respect to their actions when they take some measure to protect themselves. private property owners conducting public business should not have the right to restrict their patron's right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness if such protection is arbitrary, unreasonable, paranoid and not justifiable.
edit: all that said, i'd still hate to see the over turn of things as they are as it would likely mean we'd have AC conditions all across the land.

There are several threads on the Donovan case in Indiana in this website. The news paper articles in this high profile case are no longer available.

As I read it this is not so much about private property owners right but the judges were ruling with what is in the Casino Control Act in Indiana.

As you know the AC Casino Act makes it illegal to disbar a gambler for CC. The Nevada Act is silent on this. So the casinos have to revert to using the property owners right to disbar CC.

In the case of Indiana the Supreme court rule CC is illegal in Indiana although the Casino Act there is also silent on CC. This new " interpretation' of the casino law have wide implication for all the other states enacting casino laws.
So there are now 3 versions of the casino laws in the states.

1 -In AC CC is not illegal
2- In Nevada where the law is silent on CC and hence the property has to use his property right to disbar CC
3- In Indiana where the Supreme Court ruled that in the casino act CC is illegal.

Here is a thread you may want to look at

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=19609