Yes, this is Nevada, where the rules don't seem to apply, but
discrimination is still
discrimination, regardless of the underlying reasons. Yes, people will the
casinos
have the right not to serve anyone. It's easy to say, but is it
constitutional?
According to the law, discriminations with different underlying reasons are
NOT the same. That is, a business cannot discriminate based on certain
enumerated factors (race, religion, etc). Otherwise, they are free to
discriminate, as evidenced by the omnipresent "We reserve the right to
refuse service to anyone" signs.
According to common sense also, discrimination is absolutely necessary. If
we didn't discriminate red from green, we'd get into a traffic accident damn
quick. If I didn't discriminate in how I play against different players in
poker (that is, play differently against an unfamiliar player based solely
on his appearance), I'd be giving up a great deal.
There's every reason for certain businesses to discriminate based on various
factors, if these factors are relevent to the business in question. Of
course some types of discrimination are irrelevent or inefficient, as
appearance is sometimes NOT correlated with intelligence or integrity etc
etc. But it's far far better for such decisions to be made businesses,
rather than forced by the government.
The constitution, thank God, limits the powers of the GOVERNMENT. It doesn't
limit the rights of individuals to do business etc (though state & federal
laws of course can). Harrah's & Caesars are not threats to my life &
liberty. Even Coast Casinos aren't such a threat. But the government is. So
I'm 10,000 times happier seeing casinos & other businesses act as they
please, rather than allowing the government more power to control them & us.
Stuart (RandomStu)
···
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Are Vp players ever barred?