> In a case like this, private property rights are probably more important. It is an entertainment venue, there are plenty of alternatives out there, and entert

> In a case like this, private property rights are probably more important. It is an entertainment venue, there are plenty of alternatives out there, and entertainment is not necessary for society. In principle I see where you're coming from. Nevertheless I disagree in this case. While a property owner should have the right to say who can or cannot use his property I think this becomes a lot more fuzzy when you own a venue, which runs performances open to the public. You can absolutely stipulate conditions upon ticket sales like accepted behavior or actions that a ticket buyer is prohibited from doing (no recordings or no smuggling of your own booze come to mind). I think it's a hell of a lot more sticky if you exclude visitors based on totally arbitrary factors, which I think happened here. If you provide a service, which is generally open to the public, this should come with the obligations not to exclude patrons for capricious or even frivolous reasons.