“Queen of the Nileâ€� does not literally mean a woman in a throne; nevertheless, one could imagine it as such since it is a well-known hotel and casino which caters a variety of people. The said hotel is known to be owned by DWI and its operations are 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 hotel’s customers are usually of Middle Eastern or Northern African nationals.Recently, there has been an increase in anti-Arab sentiments that have demonstrated violence and terrorism to voice out their emotions. The Queen of the Nile hotel and casino is not an exception to this malady. The management of the said hotel has currently received terrorism and violent threats and has essentially, suffered losses 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 people concerned should act immediately or else the Queen of the Nile will be “enthronedâ€�.Legal ImplicationsThe hotel management is now faced with the legal issues the situation may bring. The anti-Arab sentiments group wanted the management to restrict the hotel’s customers to anyone except Arab or Arab-American visitors. Essentially, this is in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 where the act grants everyone equal rights to services without discrimination on the ground of national origin (Civil Rights Act 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 unconstitutional, 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 Ollie’s Barbecue limited their dine-in services to white customers. Although in this case, the court first ruled in favor of the business establishment, then the appeal of the other party was welcomed and the judgment was reversed. This might also 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 responsible and should have an assurance that security is on top priority. It is true that the hotel has already increased its security measures, however, it is also exhibited that these efforts are ineffective.The business’s stability; therefore is in jeopardy until such situation has been put under control. The security of the building is also in danger. Facilities and the architecture may be damaged if terrorist acts continue to rain on the hotel’s 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 delicate issue on ethics since the residents around the hotel might propose the closure of the hotel which can be the worst that it can get.ConclusionLet’s analyze the situation the Queen of the Nile is encountering at present. The anti-Arab groups wanted them to reject Arab customers with the threat that if they do not do so, violence will befall them. On the other hand, if they give in to this blackmail, the Arab-American Community will boycott their products and services. The management can try to reject the Arab customers and the voilence will surely 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 decision the management will venture in, then, they should be prepared legally. And I think, they have a good chance 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 don’t, 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 attack the Civil Rights Act, surely, they will lose, nevertheless, the hotel may appeal to have an exemption to the rule since the issue was not actually 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   Â
