Casinos should have the right to bar perceived advantage players from playing

Just to stoke the fire a bit. I believe that private businesses have the right to discriminate on the basis of race, gender or sexual orientation. Should they? Depends on their clientele. I should have the right to say "No blacks" but then the next day I'll have Jesse Jackson and half the NAACP of Washington on my doorsteps... which for 95% of people out there would be a bad thing. These days only a few places in the country could get away with any of this broad-based discrimination.

Card counting is a completely different story though... these are people who the business believes are not abiding by the rules that the casino places on a game that they provide. What's next? Require bars to blood test people before they can't serve them anymore alcohol? I mean you can't legally prove someone is drunk until you have a blood sample.

Quote: ruascott

Good question. I assumed that this would just be a state ruling. I don't see how the US Supreme Court would have jurisdiction over state gambling regulations.

It is a state deal. Remember Ken Uston?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Uston
He is the reason why Atlantic City casinos can NOT ban a player because of card counting.

Property Brief Uston v. Resorts International Hotel, Inc.HERE

Quote: ahiromu

Just to stoke the fire a bit. I believe that private businesses have the right to discriminate on the basis of race, gender or sexual orientation. Should they? Depends on their clientele. I should have the right to say "No blacks" but then the next day I'll have Jesse Jackson and half the NAACP of Washington on my doorsteps... which for 95% of people out there would be a bad thing. These days only a few places in the country could get away with any of this broad-based discrimination.

I think this was the position Rand Paul took in an interview a couple months ago that got him all sorts of hot water. Your essential argument is standard libertarian philosophy that the market will self-police itself into doing the "right thing." Of course, history proved that this didn't happend in certain parts of the US, so the Federal Gov't eventually stepped in.

Quote: JerryLogan

I'm still trying to determine who's ever been banned for gambling, with verifiable documentation other than "I've been banned because I'm an advantage player and I beat the pants off those guys" or "I heard so-and-so was banned for counting cards". Is there any proof, or do we just take someone's or someone's friend's word for it because of perceived reputation and that's all there is to it.

I myself want to see it to believe it.

Here are some documented cases to consider:
http://www.bj21.com/advantageplay/lawandtaxes/patronabuselinks.shtml

This guy was detained at the Clark County Detention Center for 4 days:
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2004/Nov-08-Mon-2004/opinion/25191641.html

This casino admitted that they had banned video poker winners:
http://casinogambling.about.com/library/weekly/aa120202.htm

Quote: 7craps

It is a state deal. Remember Ken Uston?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Uston
He is the reason why Atlantic City casinos can NOT ban a player because of card counting.

But that case never went past New Jersey. I don't think any of these cases would ever make it to US Court level because the gaming corporations would be afraid of having some far-reaching judgement come down, so they'll never appeal it that far. Now if Indiana decides in favor of Hyatt and somehow the plaintif convinces the SCOTUS to take the case...then wow, that will have some crazy implications.

Quote: ruascott

I think this was the position Rand Paul took in an interview a couple months ago that got him all sorts of hot water. Your essential argument is standard libertarian philosophy that the market will self-police itself into doing the "right thing." Of course, history proved that this didn't happend in certain parts of the US, so the Federal Gov't eventually stepped in.

Private civil rights watch dog groups didn't have much power yet then...even if the Civil Rights Act gets repealed things wouldn't go back to how they were before it was passed.

Quote: ruascott

I think this was the position Rand Paul took in an interview a couple months ago that got him all sorts of hot water. Your essential argument is standard libertarian philosophy that the market will self-police itself into doing the "right thing." Of course, history proved that this didn't happend in certain parts of the US, so the Federal Gov't eventually stepped in.

Actually there were laws mandating separate facilities for blacks. That's government action at the state level, not a free market at all.

And as has been said, attitudes have changed a great deal since the 60s.

Exactly, it's the same problem I have with Title 9. It is absolutely ruining "minor" men's sports such as volleyball (A personal favorite). Since major schools have to have a football team which subsequently pays for the majority of women's sports and minor men's (not basketball) they are forced to have a lot of women's teams without a men's equivalent. I know that nowadays the U of Washington would at least keep women's softball/volleyball/crew since they pay for themselves. The fact is that football requires an abnormally large amount of scholarships and provides money for the rest of these sports, it should be given a handicap or some kind of a free pass when it comes to scholarship limits and equality.

Quote: Headlock

I believe that just like any privately owned business, a casino should have the right to refuse service to anyone.

Including, say, lunch counters that prohibit Negroes?

Quote: SanchoPanza

Including, say, lunch counters that prohibit Negroes?

It just goes to show how these words can be taken out of context, or put in whatever context the reader is predisposed to take. I am not a professional writer. Nor am I racist, nor do I discriminate in any way.

The context was advantage players, specifically card counters. I believe that any casino should have the right to bar any person they suspect of being a card counter. And I equate that right to my own as a business owner; if I don't want to do business with a particular person, I have the right to choose not to do business with that person.

BTW, how many posters here are unemployed and drawing unemployment benefits?