I find it entirely reasonable to base those things on something less arbitrary than numerical age.
You mean Krazy Glue?
Heh.
Not to hijack the hijack, but am I the only one that thought it would be cool to attach a laser designator to the camera. I would think that having a red laser dot appear on one’s chest would at least give that person a moment of pause. If not, maybe the next step would be a paintball gun.
If you want to start a thread about whether those should be restricted by numerical age, be my guest. But what you’re doing here is like justifying segregated schools by pointing to the existence of segregated lunch counters and water fountains, as if discrimination in one area automatically excuses discrimination in other areas.
I’m intrigued by the notion that using cameras cuts down the use of cameras 
I don’t believe it would be illegal. There are, as near as I can tell, two federal laws dealing with discrimination based on age.
The first is the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, which says that, in most cases, but not all, it’s illegal to discriminate against people over 40 in hiring, promotion, compensation, etc. That law obviously wouldn’t apply here.
The second is the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, which makes it illegal to exclude, on the basis of age, people from programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance. That also probably doesn’t apply here, unless it’s a federally funded nightclub.
So, unfortunately for him, our hypothetical senior citizen doesn’t have a ground of action when the doorman won’t let him into Studio 54.
My mistake. You’re right.
State laws might apply, though. For instance, Oregon prohibits age discrimination against customers 18 or older, but makes exceptions for the drinking age and offering special rates to customers 55 and up. I couldn’t find a list of states with laws prohibiting age discrimination in public accommodations, but after some searching it looks like at least California, Illinois, Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island have them.
New York City does too, so our hypothetical senior citizen does indeed have a ground of action when the doorman won’t let him into Studio 54, unless the club has received an exemption.
Before I bought my house I lived in an apartment complex that was childfree. Of course, they couldn’t advertise that, but there were no children. All of the apartments were very nice one bedrooms and in our state each child needs their own bedroom. Plus the apartments were “luxury priced” so it didn’t lend itself to most single parents. I’m sure couples with children wanted more room.
It was nice. No kids running around making noise outside of your apartment! I moved around a bit when I was in college so I’ve lived in many apartments and it was easily the quietest apartment I ever had.
There’s correlation in other areas too. Places where CCTV cameras have become rampant are also known for their unfriendly attitude towards people taking photos. :rolleyes:
Men in their twenties are more disruptive than teenagers. They are always the ones yelling at the screen and at their friends.
This is probably because, once they become adults, they want to put that distinction to full use and test their boundaries. Teenagers are better behaved.
Banning a class of people for behavior they have not committed is a good thing, don’t get me wrong, but it is poorly aimed in this instance.