> > --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com,
> Barry Glazer <b.glazer@> wrote:
> > >
> > > My understanding is that Nevada law allows
> casinos to "trespass" anyone for no reason, as long as it
> isn't discriminatory as to race, ethicity, etc. My
> understanding is that most other states are different.
> >
>
> And just how would one prove the motivation for
> trespassing. It
> could be argued that any non white, not straight, not
> "whatever" person who is barred is barred as a result of
> discrimination.
> And conversely, if I, as a casino owner, decided I wanted
> to
> discriminate, I could easily fall back on this
> law. About the
> only way this could go wrong is if I barred ALL members of
> some
> protected group.
>
> What this means is that the law allowing a business to
> trespass
> for any reason is a bad law.
On Point One above, whether or not someone is trespassed based on non-permissible criteria such as race, etc., is for the courts to determine, with (I think, I'm not a lawyer) burden of proof on the victim in such a case, or on the prosecuting state. If this truly is the basis for trespassing, evidence may be collected to prove this, although perhaps it will be difficult to do so. But that's not where your problem is, you just don't like the law because it allows casinos to trespass, with race / etc. not a factor, without reason. I have not heard you claim that the casinos are using this law to discriminate against such groups when they otherwise could not do so, and in fact, this law does not allow them to do so any more than if it did not exist at all; they could easily claim, without proof or merit, that anyone is intoxicated or disorderly, or (as seems to be the case in your situation) violating the casino's secret or not-so-secret rules about
how one must behave when visiting their facility.
People are tossed out of all kinds of businesses all the time without good reason from their perspective, and often they have no recourse; the casinos at least have a "bad law" to back them up.
On Point Two -- You say this is a bad law. While I agree, intelligent people learn to live in the world as it is, not as they would like it to be. If the speed limit law on a given street is a "bad law", I can't just violate it because that's my opinion, and I can't just file a lawsuit because the police are, from my perspective, over-zealous in enforcing the law, if in fact I was speeding (there is a street in my area where they've made it four lanes and interstate-like, set the limit at 50mph, and then patrol it like crazy for anyone speeding just a little bit -- most of those offended by this figure they're trying to pay for the road, but regardless, I drive the speed limit in this area, which I don't do everywhere). There are lots of "bad laws" out there; failure to comply with them is an option, but at your own risk.
I can whine to others who agree with me, but it's pretty non-productive behavior.
If you think the law is "bad", you have several choices for action that might actually accomplish something. You can intentionally violate it and see if you can beat it in court based on its "bad-ness" - or perhaps it violates some constitutional right that you have and you can actually get this "bad law" tossed out. You might have a good argument that it can be used to discriminate, and maybe you can challenge it on that basis, perhaps in federal court -- but you'd likely need to have a specific instance of likely discrimination disguised as a no-reason trespass.
With this particular law, I think gamblers have tried to challenge it on a number of occasions without success.
You can intentionally violate it and "hope" (??!!) they backroom you and hurt you, or unlawfully detain you, so that you can sue the morons - if you can prove your case. But in fact, short of hurting you, I think they have a fair amount of freedom to enforce a "barring".
Incidentally, if the law were changed to allow them to trespass you with a reason, rather than with no reason, but the reason didn't have to be one that you thought was a "good" reason, you'd pretty much be right back where you are.
There are alternate actions you can take if you choose to abide by the law in the meantime (which means NOT going on the property if they tell you not to do so) - notice that I am selecting the words "abide by" rather than "accept". You can lobby your legislators (if you're a citizen of Nevada) about it and try to get them to change the law, and if they refuse to try, you can get involved in politics and see if you can get other legislators elected who might change it. If you're not a Nevada citizen, you can write letters to the paper and the legislators and the other media and try to stir things up, claiming it's bad for business and bad for Nevada to treat tourists this way (many would agree, although I don't think that will counter-balance the "arguments" for this law in a state like Nevada).
And, as mentioned earlier, you can challenge their right to "trespass" you in other states where the law is different - if it's worth the time and effort to you to do so.
If you argue that none of these things is very likely to succeed, I will again agree with you. But in the real world, these are at least actions directed toward fixing the problem. If you "lose" in your efforts, you will need to decide your next steps, hopefully rationally.
It is NOT productive to complain to people who mostly agree with you already but who are not willing to help you in your efforts (if you choose to lobby or get involved in the electoral process), or who disagree with you, unless you are trying to persuade people to agree with you AND to help you in some action-based effort to fix the "problem".
It is NOT effective to say that this law robs you of your "livelihood" when there are other games of skill and other non-games where skill can be applied to earn money lawfully; if this is the only skill you have, you are in common with hundreds of thousands of one-skilled people who are currently out of a job due to circumstances beyond their control, and without recourse, from their perspective.
Much of what we encounter in the world doesn't seem fair from our personal perspective, and sometimes it is not - but we all need to engage productively in addressing what the world hands us, and do the best we can. Not all of us will do very well in this effort, but at least it's something that has a chance of making a difference in our lives.
Finally, if your only purpose in posting this experience was to let others know that this can really happen, then you HAVE been successful in accomplishing that purpose. But if you had any thought that posting this experience would change the situation for you or others, just that alone is not going to do it.
PS - I also think the income tax law is for the most part a "bad law", and especially the way that some states treat gambling income and losses -- and I expect many on this forum would agree. But I also expect that not too many of us thinks, realistically and in particular, that the tax law regarding gambling will be improved anytime soon.
I choose to comply with that law in order to assure I won't face criminal charges related to violating it, and I report all my gambling winnings and losses in accordance with the law -- but I regularly encounter gamblers, especially poker players and dealers, who openly admit that they do not report, or under-report, their gambling winnings vs losses -- they fail to comply with tax law intentionally, risking criminal charges and jail if this is proven (and we all know the IRS wants to make examples of those who intentionally don't pay their taxes), and remarkably, they talk about it openly -- again, not very smart and not very productive.
--BG
==================
