Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski But a restaurant, bar, coffee shop, etc are not public places, they are private establishments.

Public accommodations are, generally speaking, places that provide public services. Title III of the ADA covers businesses and nonprofit service providers that are public accommodations, privately operated entities offering certain types of courses and examinations, privately operated transportation, and commercial facilities. Public accommodations are private entities who own, lease, lease to, or operate facilities such as restaurants, retail stores, hotels, movie theaters, private schools, convention centers, doctors' offices, homeless shelters, transportation depots, zoos, funeral homes, day care centers, and recreation facilities including sports stadiums and fitness clubs. Transportation services provided by private entities are also covered by title III.

Facts
In Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, the Court was faced with a very similar issue. Congress had outlawed discrimination in public accommodations (hotels, restaurants, etc.) in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This law was much like the 1875 law. As in the case of the earlier statute, some businesses refused to serve African Americans. One of these was a motel owner in Atlanta. His business served mostly interstate travelers. He claimed that Congress had exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause by regulating a local private business. He also claimed that the law should be declared invalid under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The Decision
The Supreme Court decision was unanimous. The Court upheld the law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski Public accommodations not public places. When it comes to the legal system words have meaning. My assertion remains correct. Had the original poster used the correct terminology then my argument would have been without merit. However, because the poster did not, my argument remains valid.

Takings Challenges

The Takings Clause is found in the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It provides that private property may not be taken for public use without just compensation. The U.S. Supreme Court held in 1992 that property was to be compensated only if a regulation rendered the property completely valueless. In addition, the opinion stated that even if property is rendered valueless, if the regulation prohibits something that was not "previously permissible under relevant property and nuisance principles", then there can be no taking (Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 1992).

The "takings" argument, with respect to clean indoor air laws, is based on the myth that businesses lose money due to a clean indoor air law. Opponents may state that the value of their business permits will decline and, therefore, the government is taking property without compensation. However, all reputable studies clearly show that clean indoor air laws either result in no change in revenue or cause revenues to increase. Only the studies financed by the tobacco industry have shown a loss.

In 2001, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that "economic harm alone will not suffice as irreparable harm unless the loss threatens the very existence of the movant's business," (Tri-Nel Management, Inc., et al. v. Board of Health of Barnstable, et al., 2001).

In 2002, a court in Montana threw out all claims except the one based on takings in the pending case regarding Helena's smokefree air ordinance.