holding that amusement park was covered because, among other reasons, parents are “people watchers”, and go to the park to watch their kids “perform” in kiddie rides and ice skating rinks
How later courts described this case
- holding that amusement park was covered because, among other reasons, parents are “people watchers”, and go to the park to watch their kids “perform” in kiddie rides and ice skating rinks
- holding that an amusement park was a “place of enjoyment, fun and recreation, and thus [was] a place of entertainment”
- “We are unable to agree with those concepts which would prefer, or those which would demand, that the Civil Rights Act be narrowly construed ... We find that the phrase ‘place of entertainment’ as used in 201(b)(3) includes both establishments which present shows, performances and exhibitions to a passive audience and those establishments which provide recreational or other activities for the amusement or enjoyment of its patrons.”
- “We do not read [Title II] with narrowed eye but with open minds attuned to the clear and strong purpose of the Act, namely, to secure for all citizens the full enjoyment of facilities described in the Act which are open to the general public.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
RIVES, Circuit Judge, with whom Circuit Judges DYER and SIMPSON join
(dissenting):
The judicial function is to determine not what the law should be, but what Congress, after hearings, conflict, compromise and change, finally enacted into law. That decision should be influenced neither by the appealing facts of this particular case nor by other factual situations in which the Congress may have had reason to believe that forced association in participant amusements might arouse antagonism or conflict, for the same statute must apply to the broad spectrum of eases which includes both extremes. The law which Congress intended to enact seems to me to be carefully and correctly - stated in the able *354 opinion of the district court which finds ample support in the legislative history documented in the appendix to this Court’s opinion on original hearing. Being convinced that the judgment of the district court should be affirmed, I respectfully dissent.