Not so fast. If a commercial property is generally open to the public, but a particular individual is barred from entering that property, there had better be a legitimate reason for doing so. Discrimination, normally a neutral word, obviously cannot be based upon the race, religion, etc., etc., of the individual barred. For that reason, I'm surprised that the action of the police in such cases has not been challenged in the courts. It would seem that the owner of the property would have to show cause.
Harry
Harry, my views are not mainstream, perhaps. I'm not expressing what I think the law says, but what I think is right. I believe property owners have an absolute right to decide who may access their property. It is irrelevant, in my mind, whether or not the property is commercial and generally open to the public, or closed to the public, or non-commercial. The law in the US and much of the world violates the rights of property owners when it prevents them from exercising their own discretion about who may enter their property, in my view.
I do not like most kinds of discrimination, especially when it is based on characteristics that I regard as unimportant, like race, religion, sexual orientation or identity, national origin, language, citizenship, age, possession and use of a camera, and so forth. On the other hand, discriminating against troublemakers, gang members, crooks, theives, and vagabonds doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
Whether anyone else likes it or not, whether it is legal or not, I am convinced that a property owner has a right to determine how his property is used, and by whom.
