“Queen of the Nile” in Jeopardy

fay of the Nile does not literally mean a woman in a throne nevertheless, one could imagine it as such since it is a well-known(a) hotel and casino which caters a variety of people. The said hotel is known to be owned by DWI and its operations atomic number 18 supervised by the mentioned company. It is located on the Mississippi River waterfront in New Orleans where it attracts visitors and even locals. The Egyptian themed hotels customers are usually of Middle Eastern or Northern African nationals.Recently, there has been an ontogenesis in anti-Arab sentiments that comport demonstrated violence and terrorism to voice out their emotions. The power of the Nile hotel and casino is not an excommunication to this malady. The caution of the said hotel has currently received terrorism and violent threats and has essentially, suffered sackes due to snipers. The management of the hotel and DWI is now in a very tight situation since the threats have been continuously arriving. The pe ople concerned should act immediately or else the Queen of the Nile pull up stakes be enthroned.Legal ImplicationsThe hotel management is now face with the legal issues the situation may bring. The anti-Arab sentiments group wanted the management to restrict the hotels customers to anyone except Arab or Arab-American visitors. Essentially, this is in violation of the Civil Rights proceeding of 1964 where the act grants everyone equal rights to services without discrimination on the springiness of national origin (Civil Rights make believe of 1964). In addition, the Arab and Arab-American customers have asserted that if the hotel does prohibit the entry of the said nationals, they will boycott DWI products and services.Moreover, if the management will file a case regarding the issue, they will probably be denied the exception of the 1964 Act as in the case of two previous lawsuits. First, the Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. who appealed that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was uncon stitutional, lost their lawsuit (Atlanta vs. U.S. et.al.). In this case, the hotel refuses Negro customers and was declared in violation of the act.The same happened with the case of Katzenbach vs. McClung, where Ollies Barbecue limited their dine-in services to white customers. Although in this case, the motor inn first ruled in regard of the business establishment, then the appeal of the other party was welcomed and the judgment was reversed. This might too happen to Queen of the Nile. And truly, the prohibition of customers from a particular nationality which is a form of discrimination is an obvious violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.Ethical ImplicationsEthical issues also arise with the situation at hand. As has been reported, a few guests and employees have already become victims of this violence and terrorism. As long as the safety of the employees and guests is concerned, the management is formally amenable and should have an assurance that security is on top prio rity. It is true that the hotel has already increased its security measures, however, it is also exhibited that these efforts are ineffective.The businesss stability therefore is in jeopardy until such situation has been put together under control. The security of the building is also in danger. Facilities and the architecture may be damaged if terrorist acts extend to rain on the hotels management. Damage of buildings and other facilities may result to a significant loss for the hotel. Moreover, due to the threats encountered by the hotel management, peace and order in the vicinity where the hotel is located is disrupted. This is a very smooth issue on ethics since the residents around the hotel might propose the closure of the hotel which can be the lather that it can get.ConclusionLets analyze the situation the Queen of the Nile is encountering at present. The anti-Arab groups wanted them to get rid of Arab customers with the threat that if they do not do so, violence will b efall them. On the other hand, if they give in to this coerce, the Arab-American Community will boycott their products and services. The management can try to reject the Arab customers and the voilence will sure as shooting cease.However, the people may sue the hotel management and plea for a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If this is the last the management will venture in, then, they should be prepared legally. And I think, they have a good regain to win the case. That is, if they plead that they do not have a choice but to conform to the blackmail since if they dont, peace and order, security and safety of the employees and customers will be compromised.Unlike the previous cases, the management of the Queen of the Nile is faced with terrorism threats which is somehow, a form of disruption of commerce. If the hotel will appeal to the court justice to beset the Civil Rights Act, surely, they will lose, nevertheless, the hotel may appeal to have an exemption to the r ule since the issue was not really a personal matter but rather a security matter where the safety of the customers is in jeopardy. This is the plan I recommended the management to undertake.ReferencesFindLaw for Legal Professionals. 1964, 14 December. Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. vs. United States et.al.Retrieved April 22, 2008, from http//caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=379&page=241FindLaw for Legal Professionals. 1964, 14 December. Katzenbach vs. McClung. Retrieved Aprill 22, 2008 from http//caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=379&invol=294U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 1997, 15 January. Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Retrieved Aprill 22, 2008 from http//www.eeoc.gov/policy/vii.html