The PGA tour vs. Martin case has been quite interested might I add. There have been a plethora of great arguments on both sides for both issues. Arguments such as whether Casey Martin’s disability warrants an adjustment to the rules of Golf at the highest level. Or by allowing Martin the use of a golf cart provides him an advantage and would fundamentally alter the nature of the tournament. Or the fact that Title 3 covers any person who is present at a place of public accommodation, whatever he or she is doing there, whether they are a customer, an employee or an independent contractor. Those are just a few of the best arguments presented in the PGA tour vs. Martin case.
To begin with, the question presented by Justice Scouter early in the argument asking H. Bartow III “Why doesn't it literally fall within that quite easily?” referring to those who have paid their 3,000 dollars and have gotten two references should enjoy the privilege of competing at this place of public accommodation. This very question I believe was most helpful because it forced Bartow to start there and try to explain why he feels as though Martin is receiving an act of good and service opposed to exercising a privilege. The most relevant question was asked by Justice Breyer when Mr. Farr was making the case that because what Respondent in fact does for a living is something that other people do for recreational purposes or part of educational purposes. So Justice Breyer asked “So, given the purpose of