Do Restaurants Have the Unrestricted Right to Refuse Service?
No. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits restaurants from refusing service to patrons on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. In addition, most courts don’t allow restaurants to refuse service to patrons based on extremely arbitrary conditions. For example, a person likely can’t be refused service due to having a lazy eye.
But Aren’t Restaurants Considered Private Property?
Yes, however they are also considered places of public accommodation. In other words, the primary purpose of a restaurant is to sell food to the general public, which necessarily requires susceptibility to equal protection laws. Therefore, a restaurant’s existence as private property does not excuse an unjustified refusal of service. This can be contrasted to a nightclub, which usually caters itself to a specific group of clientele based on age and social status.
So Are "Right to Refuse Service to Anyone" Signs in Restaurants Legal?
Yes, however they still do not give a restaurant the power to refuse service on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. These signs also do not preclude a court from finding other arbitrary refusals of service to be discriminatory. Simply put, restaurants that carry a "Right to Refuse Service" sign are subject to the same laws as restaurants without one.
What Conditions Allow a Restaurant to Refuse Service?
There a number of legitimate reasons for a restaurant to refuse service, some of which include:
Patrons who are unreasonably rowdy or causing trouble
Patrons that may overfill capacity if let in
Patrons who come in just before closing time or when the kitchen is closed
Patrons accompanied by large groups of non-customers looking to sit in
In most cases, refusal of service is warranted where a customer’s presence in the restaurant detracts from the safety, welfare, and well-being of other patrons and the restaurant itself.
I'm speaking about a core, fundamental principle of liberty. You're referring to a law that restricts liberty and violates core private property rights. You're not really strengthening your case.
Liberties in a NATION with PEOPLE in it, do not trump basic civil rights. Liberties have LIMITS to them in certain circumstances.
Sorry. Maybe in a Theocracy your way of thinking can apply. But not in a modern, democratic country.
The private sector is already legally regulated by the state, and businesses are accountable for how they carry out their operations.
Restaurants and stores, even if they're private businesses, qualify as "public accommodations."
As such, discrimination laws apply just as much on private property and to private businesses as they do in any public place.
Whether you post a sign or notice, or whether you choose to discriminate some other way on premises, businesses never have the right to refuse or turn away customers because of their race, gender, age, nationality or religion.
In addition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, several states have their own civil rights legislation designed to prevent discrimination.
In a number of states like California and New York, discrimination based on sexual orientation by private businesses is prohibited by state law.
The clash here is between Liberty of Conscience (protected by the First Amendment) - that is, "religious beliefs", vs. Freedom from Discrimination (protected by the Civil Rights Act.)
Bigots are using "religious beliefs" as an end-run around freedom from discrimination.
But the first few decisions in cases involving same-sex couples have found what?
That businesses do not have the right to refuse service to gay or lesbian customers any more than they do to those of certain races or nationalities.
While folks might have their own beliefs – whether they were simply raised that way or because God told them or whatever, places of public accommodation (even if they are privately run) must be open to all patrons who follow reasonable rules (regarding behavior and dress, for example). Using sexuality as a factor in refusing service is the same as using race, skin colour, gender etc.
Take a couple of businesses that were taken to court....bakeries and flower shops that had regular served gay customers only declined to bake a cake or make a flower arrangement in support of a wedding. They had not been refused service before. A clear line between serving the public and supporting something they disagree with. A gay owned bake shop should and would refuse to make a cake that says "Gay People are Suck" or whatever.
Liberties in a NATION with PEOPLE in it, do not trump basic civil rights. Liberties have LIMITS to them in certain circumstances.
Sorry. Maybe in a Theocracy your way of thinking can apply. But not in a modern, democratic country.
First, I'm not suggesting a theocracy.
Second, you don't seem to understand what rights actually are and are not.
I understand the injurious application of religious beliefs.
That's really all that matters.
Incidentally, it's hilarious that the United States of 2016 is still struggling with this issue, whereas Canada, for instance, hasn't had these problems for years, even decades.
Why are you folks *this* far behind on basic, humanitarian issues?
There is a difference between not discriminating and being forced to abandon ones personal beliefs. This latest movement is yet another and an endless series of attempts to marginalize or suppress Christianity.
For example, take a random mom and pop Christian bakery with a gay couple as customers. Most would not have problems selling items to the couple, but when it comes to endorsing or celebrating that gay union (bake a cake by that bakery, with those names on the cake, in the bakers box), then they have the right to draw a line, if not an obligation. Within their religion and most closely-held beliefs, to make that cake is wrong, and places their own souls at jeopardy for not doing what they believe to be right.
Sure, there are tons of other bakeries, but none cares. They want to force the Christians to do something that is against their beliefs.
I'd like to see this tried in muslim communities. When good ol' Butch and Billybob go to there to order a "wedding" cake and stir up some kind of controversy, it ends up with a couple beheadings.
It's very easy to judge people. We always want justice for others but mercy for ourselves. Why do you think that difference exists?
And therein lies the problem, the moronic positions of so called "Christians". They have absolutely no clue what real Christianity is.
Why are you folks *this* far behind on basic, humanitarian issues?
You're starting to sound pretty ridiculous. Getting a pizza or cake or photographer or DJ for your wedding (gay or straight) is not a "basic, humanitarian issue." In fact, you do a tremendous disservice to true "basic, humanitarian issues" by implying that they are.
I'm just sitting here laughing at the nonsense being defended. This shouldn't even be an issue.
Shows how ridiculously petty Christians are these days
The problem with that "feel good" meme is that Christians already "serve" pizza to gay people, serve cakes to gay people, serve whatever to gay people... The issue is when it comes to endorsing a wedding, gay event, etc. The meme is comparing apples and oranges. My wife bakes for a farmers market and we have plenty of gay customers whom we serve gladly. Endorsing them being gay never comes into the picture as we just conduct a business transaction.
No one is asking you to endorse them being gay. If you conduct business transactions with LGBT folks then you've done well. You and every other believer in a fake man in the clouds are entitled to believe whatever you want. No one is stopping that.
So many problems that make this pithy bumper sticker sentiment a poor comparison to what's being discussed. It also lays bare the thought process of the folks opposing religion freedom: Not getting a cake or pizza or photographer or DJ for their wedding is like a life or death proposition. Sheesh. You just made the argument much weaker.
The point is, believer of fake man up in the clouds, is that people simply do their jobs under much worse circumstances than selling a cake or pizza to much worse people. Just do your job and shut up.
where does it say in Christianity that being gay is wrong?
Only for men. Girl on girl is not addressed except in the regard that women should not wear clothes that resemble men's clothes. Christians say they believe in the Old Testament, where these rules of conduct are found, but mostly only for historical reasons. There are things in the Old Testament that are totally absurd in the context of modern civilization so Christians sort of selectively point to some of the laws as being relevant and totally ignore others. For example men are supposed to wear clothes with four tassels and other such nonsense.
I understand the injurious application of religious beliefs.
That's really all that matters.
Then you have a fairly narrow and limited and ignorant view of "all that matters."
He actually has an understanding of rights and responsibilities pertaining to this issue. You do not.
You are refusing to spell out what you want a right to do as a public-facing, service-business person — a right to discriminate against people on the basis of sexual or gender orientation. Period. Admit it.
An open letter is a good gesture, but if they really want to make a statement, Apple and other big companies would threaten to leave the states in question. What better way to say FU than to take away tax revenue. Since most conservative states want the US to be run 'like a business', why not speak the language of business.
That may follow: those new big server farms have a lot of mobility on where they're constructed . New ones will get placed where Apple feels comfortable doing business.
where does it say in Christianity that being gay is wrong?
Only for men. Girl on girl is not addressed except in the regard that women should not wear clothes that resemble men's clothes. Christians say they believe in the Old Testament, where these rules of conduct are found, but mostly only for historical reasons. There are things in the Old Testament that are totally absurd in the context of modern civilization so Christians sort of selectively point to some of the laws as being relevant and totally ignore others. For example men are supposed to wear clothes with four tassels and other such nonsense.
well yeah I know all that. I was expecting someone else to answer
There is a difference between not discriminating and being forced to abandon ones personal beliefs. This latest movement is yet another and an endless series of attempts to marginalize or suppress Christianity.
For example, take a random mom and pop Christian bakery with a gay couple as customers. Most would not have problems selling items to the couple, but when it comes to endorsing or celebrating that gay union (bake a cake by that bakery, with those names on the cake, in the bakers box), then they have the right to draw a line, if not an obligation. Within their religion and most closely-held beliefs, to make that cake is wrong, and places their own souls at jeopardy for not doing what they believe to be right.
Sure, there are tons of other bakeries, but none cares. They want to force the Christians to do something that is against their beliefs.
I'd like to see this tried in muslim communities. When good ol' Butch and Billybob go to there to order a "wedding" cake and stir up some kind of controversy, it ends up with a couple beheadings.
It's very easy to judge people. We always want justice for others but mercy for ourselves. Why do you think that difference exists?
In the context of your comment I will say this. Catholics believe in the concept of papal infallibility.. Below is definition of this and if you will notice it says ALL Christians not just people that are of the catholic denomination.
"When, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole".
My point to this is in July of last year Pope Francis is quoted as saying “If someone is gay and searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?” In 2013 Pope Francis is quoted as saying " God doesn’t condemn LGBT individuals". So the pope has openly said these things and the people you reference believe that their souls will be placed in jeopardy because they have an obligation to follow what they believe, and not what the church and the pope specifically believe to be correct? It seems folks pick and choose what their beliefs are as necessary to fit their person agenda. That is not ok in my book.
Let's not forget that it wasn't all that long ago that Religious liberty was used to justify racism instead of homophobia.
“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
This is a quote from Judge Leon M Bazile.. from 1958... He was responsible for upholding a ruling that put a mixed couple in jail for violating state law forbidding interracial marriage. The ruling was later overturned by the supreme court.
jcs2305 said: My point to this is in July of last year Pope Francis is quoted as saying “If someone is gay and searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?” In 2013 Pope Francis is quoted as saying " God doesn’t condemn LGBT individuals". So the pope has openly said these things and the people you reference believe that their souls will be placed in jeopardy because they have an obligation to follow what they believe, and not what the church and the pope specifically believe to be correct? It seems folks pick and choose what their beliefs are as necessary to fit their person agenda. That is not ok in my book.
Except the Pope does not represent Southern Baptists or Protestants.
He actually has an understanding of rights and responsibilities pertaining to this issue. You do not.
Clearly not. And if you think he does, then neither do you.
For example, no one has any right to force another person to work for them. That is not a right. You (and others) seem to think it is.
Your left brain is hung up on a verbal formula, preventing you from seeing the larger picture.
A business that serves the public is working for itself (getting paid) by providing a sevice or product. A restaurant in the 1960s South had to accept that it would prepare food and serve the table and wash the dishes for everybody, no matter what their race. A hotel had to do the laundry and prepare the room.
if you call that enslavement, being forced to work for someone you don't want to, you are simply refusing to evolve in your social values and outlook. You are not alone, as these Southern, mostly Republican legislatures show.
But you are being out-evolved by the current younger generations, even by the corporations that Apple stood with against the North Carolina or Georgia legislatures. Like with the segregationists in the century before television, the new media have made your position hopeless, atavistic, the wrong side of evolution.
As a Christian you are supposed to abandon personal beliefs when it comes to other people.
And the doctrines of Christianity are not “personal beliefs”. Turn the other cheek refers exclusively to petty, secular behaviors, not to heresy and sin.
Shows how ridiculously petty Christians are these days
Shows how you know absolutely nothing about the argument.
quadra 610 said:Do Restaurants Have the Unrestricted Right to Refuse Service?
No. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits restaurants from refusing service to patrons...
And that’s wrong, you see, which is sort of the idea here. Both sides agree on this issue. Business should have the right to refuse service to anyone at any time for any reason.
tallest skil said: Business should have the right to refuse service to anyone at any time for any reason.
In your opinion maybe, but not in the opinion of the courts.
In non-public facing businesses you can discriminate for any reason because it can't be proven. For example if you were a house painter and someone asked you for a quote. You go to their location and if you don't want to do the job you just say something like I'm really too busy to do this job. Of course, if you wanted to be polite you could refer them to another house painter. But if you own a restaurant or a hotel, rental car agency, which are public facing businesses, you do not have the right to refuse anyone except on the grounds that they don't comply with reasonable rules such as, don't have shirt and shoes, don't have credit card, don't have a drivers license, etc.
That said I don't disagree with the rational that a baker should not be forced to write a message on a cake that violates his or her religious beliefs. They should simply refer them to another baker. It is not just about gays. I think they could refuse to write "Happy One Year Anniversary of Our Extramarital Affair" as well.
The hypocrisy is striking. Apple happily does business in countries where homosexuality is punishable by execution and says nothing about it because they know it would cost them money.
Your left brain is hung up on a verbal formula, preventing you from seeing the larger picture.
A business that serves the public is working for itself (getting paid) by providing a sevice or product. A restaurant in the 1960s South had to accept that it would prepare food and serve the table and wash the dishes for everybody, no matter what their race. A hotel had to do the laundry and prepare the room.
if you call that enslavement, being forced to work for someone you don't want to, you are simply refusing to evolve in your social values and outlook. You are not alone, as these Southern, mostly Republican legislatures show.
But you are being out-evolved by the current younger generations, even by the corporations that Apple stood with against the North Carolina or Georgia legislatures. Like with the segregationists in the century before television, the new media have made your position hopeless, atavistic, the wrong side of evolution.
Looking past your insults and smug condescension...
This is a simple question: Do I have a right to force you to do business with me?
Just trying to give you an insight into the psychology behind your position, no charge.
You're taking this way too personally. Do you have the right to force me etc.? You have nothing to do with it. The law requires that I don't discriminate against anyone if I'm operating a public-facing service.
Does the gov't. (my society) have the right to require me to not discriminate against you on the basis of your sexual preference, and to offer you the same service that I offer to others? Yes, because society provides the platform that allows me to carry on my public business as a livelihood.
So many problems that make this pithy bumper sticker sentiment a poor comparison to what's being discussed. It also lays bare the thought process of the folks opposing religion freedom: Not getting a cake or pizza or photographer or DJ for their wedding is like a life or death proposition. Sheesh. You just made the argument much weaker.
The point is, believer of fake man up in the clouds, is that people simply do their jobs under much worse circumstances than selling a cake or pizza to much worse people. Just do your job and shut up.
Please name a pizzeria that actually refused someone some pizza because they were gay.
Comments
Liberties in a NATION with PEOPLE in it, do not trump basic civil rights. Liberties have LIMITS to them in certain circumstances.
Sorry. Maybe in a Theocracy your way of thinking can apply. But not in a modern, democratic country.
That's really all that matters.
Incidentally, it's hilarious that the United States of 2016 is still struggling with this issue, whereas Canada, for instance, hasn't had these problems for years, even decades.
Why are you folks *this* far behind on basic, humanitarian issues?
I'm just sitting here laughing at the nonsense being defended. This shouldn't even be an issue.
You are refusing to spell out what you want a right to do as a public-facing, service-business person — a right to discriminate against people on the basis of sexual or gender orientation. Period. Admit it.
well yeah I know all that. I was expecting someone else to answer
A business that serves the public is working for itself (getting paid) by providing a sevice or product. A restaurant in the 1960s South had to accept that it would prepare food and serve the table and wash the dishes for everybody, no matter what their race. A hotel had to do the laundry and prepare the room.
if you call that enslavement, being forced to work for someone you don't want to, you are simply refusing to evolve in your social values and outlook. You are not alone, as these Southern, mostly Republican legislatures show.
But you are being out-evolved by the current younger generations, even by the corporations that Apple stood with against the North Carolina or Georgia legislatures. Like with the segregationists in the century before television, the new media have made your position hopeless, atavistic, the wrong side of evolution.
Stop repeating lies, please.
And the doctrines of Christianity are not “personal beliefs”. Turn the other cheek refers exclusively to petty, secular behaviors, not to heresy and sin.
Shows how you know absolutely nothing about the argument.
And that’s wrong, you see, which is sort of the idea here. Both sides agree on this issue. Business should have the right to refuse service to anyone at any time for any reason.
Because you don’t understand what “humanitarian” issues are, probably. Current Year Man isn’t an example of a good leader.
This isn’t an argument and repeating it won’t make it so. You have no right to violate my freedom of association.
Sounds like you really ought to read up on a topic before commenting on it. Then again, that’s par for the course for you.
We’re talking about Christianity, though.
In non-public facing businesses you can discriminate for any reason because it can't be proven. For example if you were a house painter and someone asked you for a quote. You go to their location and if you don't want to do the job you just say something like I'm really too busy to do this job. Of course, if you wanted to be polite you could refer them to another house painter. But if you own a restaurant or a hotel, rental car agency, which are public facing businesses, you do not have the right to refuse anyone except on the grounds that they don't comply with reasonable rules such as, don't have shirt and shoes, don't have credit card, don't have a drivers license, etc.
That said I don't disagree with the rational that a baker should not be forced to write a message on a cake that violates his or her religious beliefs. They should simply refer them to another baker. It is not just about gays. I think they could refuse to write "Happy One Year Anniversary of Our Extramarital Affair" as well.
You're taking this way too personally. Do you have the right to force me etc.? You have nothing to do with it. The law requires that I don't discriminate against anyone if I'm operating a public-facing service.
Does the gov't. (my society) have the right to require me to not discriminate against you on the basis of your sexual preference, and to offer you the same service that I offer to others? Yes, because society provides the platform that allows me to carry on my public business as a livelihood.