Artemis
Artemis
Joined: Nov 20, 2010
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 441
January 22nd, 2015 at 12:51:43 AM permalink
I change my mind.
I'm OK with Corps which pick and choose clienteles. Both insurance companies and casinos have the right to pick and choose customers. They may keep profitable ones and kicked out the rest. But, I'm not OK with a casino supervisor who says counting cards... is like stealing food from a buffet (a foodlifting offense), or video-taping a movie in a cinema (a piracy offense).
1BB
1BB
Joined: Oct 10, 2011
  • Threads: 18
  • Posts: 5339
January 22nd, 2015 at 3:45:45 AM permalink
My concerns are mentioned in the last paragraph. Best of luck, DoctorBJ!
Many people, especially ignorant people, want to punish you for speaking the truth. - Mahatma Ghandi
RS
RS
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
  • Threads: 62
  • Posts: 8607
January 22nd, 2015 at 4:42:58 AM permalink
I hope he does not win the case. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out: if casinos are required to let CCers play, then conditions will without a doubt deteriorate, making the game unplayable (ie: AC)...and these new "can't 86 CCers" laws will spread to other states, where games will also deteriorate.


I want to know what the f*** this guy is thinking. If they can't 86 you, then they'll just flat bet you. And getting flat betted is almost as bad as getting 86'd, since you essentially can't play BJ there anymore (why would you flat bet?).
01000101 01110000 01110011 01110100 01100101 01101001 01101110 00100000 01100100 01101001 01100100 01101110 00100111 01110100 00100000 01101011 01101001 01101100 01101100 00100000 01101000 01101001 01101101 01110011 01100101 01101100 01100110 00101110
zoobrew
zoobrew
Joined: Jan 12, 2015
  • Threads: 13
  • Posts: 309
January 22nd, 2015 at 5:02:25 AM permalink
An even larger issue, is does a private business have any control over their private property. In urban areas every seat in the casino could be filled with a homeless person who couldn't be evicted because its not against the law to sit in a casino seat and not bet.
vendman1
vendman1
Joined: Mar 12, 2012
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 1032
January 22nd, 2015 at 5:43:44 AM permalink
Yeah this suit is just a bad idea. Would be best if it went away.
rdw4potus
rdw4potus
Joined: Mar 11, 2010
  • Threads: 80
  • Posts: 6944
January 22nd, 2015 at 6:27:35 AM permalink
Quote: zoobrew

An even larger issue, is does a private business have any control over their private property. In urban areas every seat in the casino could be filled with a homeless person who couldn't be evicted because its not against the law to sit in a casino seat and not bet.



But, there actually are laws against loitering.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
zoobrew
zoobrew
Joined: Jan 12, 2015
  • Threads: 13
  • Posts: 309
January 22nd, 2015 at 6:52:31 AM permalink
Quote: rdw4potus

But, there actually are laws against loitering.



Actually loitering is not illegal.

In 1992, the city of Chicago adopted an anti-loitering law (Chicago Municipal Code 8-4-015 (1992)) aimed at restricting gang related activity, especially violent crime and drug trafficking.[3] The law, which defined loitering as "remain (ing) in any one place with no apparent purpose," gave police officers a right to disperse such persons and in case of disobedience, provided for a punishment by fine, imprisonment and/or community service. It was ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court of the United States (Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999)) as unacceptably vague and not giving citizens clear guidelines on what the acceptable conduct was.
rdw4potus
rdw4potus
Joined: Mar 11, 2010
  • Threads: 80
  • Posts: 6944
January 22nd, 2015 at 6:59:49 AM permalink
Quote: zoobrew

Actually loitering is not illegal.

In 1992, the city of Chicago adopted an anti-loitering law (Chicago Municipal Code 8-4-015 (1992)) aimed at restricting gang related activity, especially violent crime and drug trafficking.[3] The law, which defined loitering as "remain (ing) in any one place with no apparent purpose," gave police officers a right to disperse such persons and in case of disobedience, provided for a punishment by fine, imprisonment and/or community service. It was ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court of the United States (Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999)) as unacceptably vague and not giving citizens clear guidelines on what the acceptable conduct was.



Are you kidding? One specific law was struck down because it was vague and did not give guidelines on what acceptable conduct was. There are literally (and I DO really actually mean literally) thousands of valid and narrowly construed loitering ordinances in force in cities across the USA.

Edit: though, interestingly, there is no such ordinance in Bensalem, PA. So, I guess if we're specifically limiting ourselves to what Parx can do with respect to limiting access, then they do not have this avenue available to them.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
Scan
Scan
Joined: Sep 9, 2013
  • Threads: 91
  • Posts: 221
January 22nd, 2015 at 9:39:19 AM permalink
In NJ the charge is DEFIANT TRESSPASS. In a nutshell it means if a person is told that they can not enter a place either directly or by a sign etc... And they disregard it they are subject to ARREST.
AcesAndEights
AcesAndEights
Joined: Jan 5, 2012
  • Threads: 67
  • Posts: 4276
January 22nd, 2015 at 3:16:35 PM permalink
My first reaction here echoes the other concerns about degrading conditions. But I have never actually been to AC. The conditions in Vegas aren't all sunshine and daisies these days. Is it really that much worse in AC due to not being able to 86 counters?

It seems like flat-betting accomplishes the same thing. If I'm counting and I get flat bet, I will just stand up and leave.
"So drink gamble eat f***, because one day you will be dust." -ontariodealer

  • Jump to: