“[Title II] proscribes any and all efforts to deny one ‘the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodation’ of that place because of discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin.”
How later courts described this case
- “[Title II] proscribes any and all efforts to deny one ‘the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodation’ of that place because of discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin.”
- neighborhood bar qualified as “place of entertainment” although it was unlike the establishments cited in the statute
- liberally interpreting Civil Rights Act of 1964
- jukebox, shuffleboard and pool table
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*753 JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge
(concurring):
I concur fully in the result and the excellent opinion of Judge Simpson for the Court. I add again, only by way of emphasis, how sterile is the dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim based upon the pleadings. Now this case has to go back for an ascertainment of facts which are probably uncontra-dicted on the practices of this particular neighborhood bar. Having asserted with such vigor — and with all propriety under the law — that it was not covered since it did not have to afford its entertainment to persons without regard to race, it is highly unlikely that the establishment will now come in and attempt to prove that after .all they had never violated the law at all even as we have held.
The facts could readily have been reduced to an uneontradicted form — in all likelihood — by affidavits and counter-affidavits, stipulations and the like for summary judgment. Then we could have decided the case once and for all on what the facts really are, not what the lawyers say they are.
The shortest way through is often the longest way around. This is another case to add to the growing list of this misspent judicial energy. See, Cook & Nichol, Inc. v. Plimsoll Club, 5 Cir., 1971, 451 F.2d 505, 506 ; Haines v. Kerner, 1972, 404 U.S. 519 , 92 S.Ct. 594 , 30 L.Ed.2d 652 ; Conley v. Gibson, 1957, 355 U.S. 41 , 78 S.Ct. 99 , 2 L.Ed.2d 80 ; Barber v. M/V “Blue Cat,” 5 Cir., 1967, 372 F.2d 626 ; Cruz v. Beto, 1972, 405 U.S. 319 , 92 S.Ct. 1079 , 31 L.Ed.2d 263 [1972]; Madison v. Purdy, 5 Cir., 1969, 410 F.2d 99 , on appeal after remand, 1971, 440 F.2d 338 ; Campbell v. Beto, 5 Cir., 1972, 460 F.2d 765 [1972].