The phrase "a right to exclude" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in legal or property discussions, particularly when referring to ownership rights or privileges associated with property.
Example: "Property owners have a right to exclude others from their land unless there are legal exceptions."
Alternatives: "entitlement to exclude" or "privilege to deny access".
Another is the analytical connection between the California case and the case the court accepted last week on whether the Boy Scouts have a right to exclude gay leaders.
One shudders to think how the Supreme Court's ruling that the Boy Scouts of America have a right to exclude gays will jibe with the identification of the gay gene from the human genome project one day.
In contrast, the United States Supreme Court ruled last Wednesday that the Boy Scouts of America have a right to exclude gays from their ranks because opposition to homosexuality was part of the organization's "expressive message".
"The protections that the First Amendment affords to the internal processes of a political party do not encompass a right to exclude nonmembers from voting in a state-required, state-financed primary election," Justice Stevens said in a dissenting opinion that Justice Ginsburg joined.
(And in the background, of course, is the Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments on whether the Boy Scouts have a right to exclude gay members, some of them touching on religion and morality, the day before the theologians were contacted).
On the technology side, patents provide the owner with a right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering to sell and importing patented inventions.
In contrast, the day's other 5-to-4 decision, holding that the Boy Scouts have a constitutional right to exclude gays, was a disappointing departure from a proud line of high court precedents erasing discrimination in public accommodations.
The United States Supreme Court ruled last June by a 5-4 vothathathehe Boy Scouts of America had a constitutional right to exclude gays because opposition to homosexuality is part of the organization's "expressive message".
The Supreme Court ruled in June by a 5-to-4 vote that the organization had a constitutional right to exclude gays because opposition to homosexuality is part of the organization's "expressive message".
The Supreme Court ruled today by a 5-to-4 vote that the Boy Scouts have a constitutional right to exclude gay members because opposition to homosexuality is part of the organization's "expressive message".
The Supreme Court agreed today to decide, in a closely watched case from New Jersey, whether the Boy Scouts have a constitutional right to exclude gay youths and adults from positions of leadership.
