It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Restaurants Right To Refuse Service During COVID or in general

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2021 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Earlier today I posted a thread on a restaurant in Texas that asked a couple who had masks on to leave their business.

The source story talks about how a restaurant asked a couple to remove their masks and upon refusing to do so the restaurant management asked the couple to leave effectively relying on the "Right To Refuse Service" approach. Here is a link to that that thread for those interested in it: www.abovetopsecret.com...



As people replied to that it got me thinking about what is actually covered by that right to refuse service. What is legal ? What does the law say and go figure its confusing and up to interpretation in many cases.

I found this article to be a good starting point to doing some research so for each of the quotes used below I have the same source linked at the end.

" ... Do Restaurants Have the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone?

While there are a few exceptions under some state laws, the answer is usually no. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits restaurants from refusing service to patrons based on race, color, religion, or national origin. In other words, restaurants do not have a constitutional right to refuse service. However, this law does not protect those from discrimination based on sexual orientation. ...
"

In the original thread I mentioned people referenced that the restaurant was a private place so the owner could make up whatever rules he wanted. Available information doesn't seem to agree with that on the surface:

"But Aren’t Restaurants Considered Private Property?

Any establishment that involves a large amount of public money is considered a public place. This would include places like public parks or recreational centers. However, privately-owned restaurants and bars are an exception to the rule. They are also considered public places by most legal definitions because the public is invited into the establishment.

A ‘Public Place’ is an enclosed area where the public is invited or which the public is permitted including, but not limited to, banks and other financial institutions, schools, college buildings, public conveyances, recreational facilities, lounges, taverns, and bars, The best way to analyze whether somewhere is a public or private place is to ask if you can enter without an invitation if you can it’s a public place on the other hand if you cannot then it is probably private.

While restaurants are considered places of public gathering the primary purpose of a restaurant is to sell food to the general public, which requires susceptibility to equal protection laws.A restaurant’s existence as private property does not excuse an unjustified refusal of service. A restaurant is much different than a country club or a nightclub, which usually caters itself to a specific group of clientele based on and social status.


So what about those signs that so many restaurants have posted about being able to refuse service to anyone?

"So Are “Right to Refuse Service to Anyone” Signs in Restaurants Legal?

Right to refuse signs came into popularity back in the 1960s and were used by establishment owners to prevent various customers from entering their establishments. Today, the right to refuse service signs are legal; however, they have not been born on the restaurant’s rights to deny customers based on a protected class.

In other words, right to refuse service signs are in place to visually make a statement but have no effect on the rights of the owner of the restaurant and do not give a restaurant the power to refuse service based on race, color, religion, or national origin. These signs also do not stop a court from finding additional arbitrary refusals of service to be discriminatory. To conclude, the law on restaurants with a right to refuse sign applies equally to those that do not have them."


www.legalmatch.com...


Lots of info to take in there but none of that really seems to address how COVID has changed that info any.


This article has some general sections on this topic during COVID which is broken up into the following two sections

1. Can I deny customers who won’t wear a mask or social distance?
2. Can I require employees or customers to be vaccinated against COVID-19?

Does your business have the right to refuse service to customers? = www.insureon.com...

This article also has a good amount of info on service refusal during COVID

Trade group: Restaurants absolutely can refuse service to diners who won’t wear masks = www.journal-news.com...


After reading all that there seem to be two clear things as defined by US Law that not everyone may know with everything else falling into different interpretations :

1. Are Restaurants Private Property? Yes, restaurants are definitely private property. However, when someone opens a restaurant or bar, they take on certain responsibilities. They have opened a place of public accommodation. Since the whole purpose of their business is to sell food (or alcohol when legal) to the general public, the general public must be defined and that general public is protected by certain laws

2. Restaurants Cannot Refuse Service Based on Discrimination The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits restaurants from refusing service based on race, color, religion, or national origin. Beyond this, if a restaurant refuses service to someone because of a reason not explicitly outlined, the courts would have to decide. However, it is unlikely any court would uphold a restaurant’s right to refuse service for any arbitrary, and thus likely discriminatory, reason. If you were refused service because you had a disfiguring scar, this would certainly be discriminatory


Links I used to get info


Do Restaurants and Bars Have the Right to Refuse Service? = culinarylore.com...:do-restaurants-have-the-right-to-refuse-service/
Restaurant’s Right to Refuse Service Law = www.legalmatch.com...
Does your business have the right to refuse service to customers? = www.legalmatch.com...
Trade group: Restaurants absolutely can refuse service to diners who won’t wear masks = www.journal-news.com...



posted on Sep, 22 2021 @ 06:38 PM
link   
If stores had the right to refuse service based on race . . .

it would promote the startup of small business that catered to that race.

If a business owner wants to damage his profits he the idiot should be be allowed to.

Too many people have the idea that a business is somehow "special" and the service or products offered cannot be delivered anywhere else.
edit on 22-9-2021 by sraven because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2021 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: opethPA

Well,

Jackasses will be jackasses regardless of their cause or justification.

Those are just excuses to engage in their jackassery.



posted on Sep, 22 2021 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: opethPA

It's weird how individual liberty was so imperative when mask policies were being enforced, but now the individual liberty to wear a mask for personal protection is dismissed.

But watch now how nobody really cares because the forum majority is anti-mask and therefore quietly accepts this restaurant's practices.

edit on 22-9-2021 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2021 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: opethPA

Basically, if you're a straight white male you can be refused service for any reason at all, or really even for no reason whatsoever.

If you refuse service to anyone else, it becomes slightly trickier. It can still be done, but they do need to have somewhat more of a reason, otherwise they are risking 'offending' people and possibly losing business.


I haven't yet read the original thread you were referring to, but I feel it's safe to assume they were white.



posted on Sep, 22 2021 @ 06:43 PM
link   
It comes to this: either nobody should be permitted to refuse service based on a patron's [presence|absence] of a mask, or everybody should be permitted to refuse service based on a patron's [presence|absence] of a mask.

Someone in your earlier thread made a valid point, which is this mask business has been a very helpful development for criminals, who can now operate in anonymity with a legitimate excuse to walk around concealing their faces. This has been noted with no small amount of disappointment by shop owners, bank tellers and pedestrians at malls here in Connecticut.

Are you pitching the argument that restaurants should be able to deny service for patrons without a mask, but should NOT be able to deny service to patrons wearing a mask?



posted on Sep, 22 2021 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Honest answer:

If an establishment wants to require a mask, then that's their business. If an establishment wants to not wear a mask, then that's their business too. If a business wants to kick patrons out for wearing a mask...well, that's pretty stupid, but that's their business also.

If businesses want to push customers away...oh well, let them. It's their business.

I'm not going to get mad over it, either way.

Enjoy your brisket!



posted on Sep, 22 2021 @ 06:50 PM
link   
It's easy, if a restaurant can choose (if not mandated) to deny service for wearing no mask, it should be okay to have it the other way round too.

Although I don't see a reason refusing masked people other than out of spite the same I see no reason to mandate vaccinations because the state and politicians call for it.

To give some context about my post, I am still untamed as in, I did not get the vaccine and I dislike masks, I will wear them at the required places and times, if it's law, though.



posted on Sep, 22 2021 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

I have been wondering ever since this mask mandate crap first began, if stores have had higher rates of shoplifting.

If some places were experiencing a rise, would the MSM be talking about it? Probably not.


I would think that answer would be an obvious yes, but I really don't know.



posted on Sep, 22 2021 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm




It's weird how individual liberty was so imperative when mask policies were being enforced, but now the individual liberty to wear a mask for personal protection is dismissed.


Please post evidence how mask protect the wearer against inhaling droplets that are smaller than the fabric.

I thought it's the other way around, well I guess one day like this, other day like that, just how the narrative fits.



posted on Sep, 22 2021 @ 06:53 PM
link   
What happened to " no shoes, no shirts " = no service ?



posted on Sep, 22 2021 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: opethPA

It's weird how individual liberty was so imperative when mask policies were being enforced, but now the individual liberty to wear a mask for personal protection is dismissed.

But watch now how nobody really cares because the forum majority is anti-mask and therefore quietly accepts this restaurant's practices.


No ma'am I think you have it bass ackwards.

You lot ("stop being selfish!", "you're going to kill gramma!", "just 2 weeks of discomfort to flatten the curve!", "no mask, no service!") are the ones that seem to be reneging on your philosophy, i.e. OBEY, RESPECT MUH AH-THORI-TIE, MY STORE MY RULES.

The other shoe is apparently not fitting so nicely.

For the record, I think if people appropriately social distance and use good hygiene habits, rationale adults should have the choice to mask or not mask.

This has been going on in Asian cultures for years and years: if you're filling unwell, YOU wear a mask to keep from spreading YOUR germs. Makes perfect sense to me.

This sensible practice has been latched onto by the "RESPECT MUH AH-THORI-TIE" gang and perverted into something it's not meant to do, in other words, protect healthy people from circulating germs around them, which as others have said, only very specific masks for lab/health care settings do, not a piece of fabric.



posted on Sep, 22 2021 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Let’s see…masks are something akin to other wearable items such as scarves, shirts, shoes. I have seen numerous restaurants and stores with signs declaring “no shirt, no shoes, no entry”. So is it the type of wearable clothing that is the determining factor? Why can businesses stop me from entering if I’m bare footed? Flip flops are ok?
Also, as far as discrimination goes, how does one know the reason for the limits placed on entry to the establishment?



posted on Sep, 22 2021 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: BrokenCircles
a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

I have been wondering ever since this mask mandate crap first began, if stores have had higher rates of shoplifting.

If some places were experiencing a rise, would the MSM be talking about it? Probably not.


I would think that answer would be an obvious yes, but I really don't know.





The psychopaths running the media 100% would NOT report on such statistics, if this is indeed was the case, which I don't know one way or another.

We are witnessing never before seen standards of indoctrination, propaganda and a willingness to embellish the narrative, twist facts, or outright lying by omission from MSM.

They will stoop to any and all measures to feed the masses the narrative they want to get across, as they interpret it.



posted on Sep, 22 2021 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Zrtst




Why can businesses stop me from entering if I’m bare footed? Flip flops are ok?

Barefoot is often considered to be unhygienic, especially in places where foot (correction) food is served. I won't allow you to walk into my shop barefoot, if I notice I will throw you out politely and tell you to come back with foot gear that is safe.

Because if someone runs into a leftover metal chip or similar, this can happen, I am responsible for it.

Very seldom it's discrimination and very often it has purpose. Like noble restaurants or restaurants with higher standards, they will loose customers if they allow bathing suits inside.
edit on 22.9.2021 by ThatDamnDuckAgain because: food not foot



posted on Sep, 22 2021 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: SleeperHasAwakened

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: opethPA

It's weird how individual liberty was so imperative when mask policies were being enforced, but now the individual liberty to wear a mask for personal protection is dismissed.

But watch now how nobody really cares because the forum majority is anti-mask and therefore quietly accepts this restaurant's practices.


No ma'am I think you have it bass ackwards.

You lot ("stop being selfish!", "you're going to kill gramma!", "just 2 weeks of discomfort to flatten the curve!", "no mask, no service!") are the ones that seem to be reneging on your philosophy, i.e. OBEY, RESPECT MUH AH-THORI-TIE, MY STORE MY RULES.

The other shoe is apparently not fitting so nicely.

For the record, I think if people appropriately social distance and use good hygiene habits, rationale adults should have the choice to mask or not mask.

This has been going on in Asian cultures for years and years: if you're filling unwell, YOU wear a mask to keep from spreading YOUR germs. Makes perfect sense to me.

This sensible practice has been latched onto by the "RESPECT MUH AH-THORI-TIE" gang and perverted into something it's not meant to do, in other words, protect healthy people from circulating germs around them, which as others have said, only very specific masks for lab/health care settings do, not a piece of fabric.


Don't know what you mean by "you lot" as I've been quite happily conducting all my daily business without mask or vaccine for the last 6 months or longer. On the other hand, for the last 6 months or longer I've seen dozens of topics posted about constitutional rights and basic liberties being protected from the fascist state officials, and now I'm seeing everyone immediately shut up because a masker was treated with what can only be described as prejudice... because it's one of those darned liberal commie Biden types who got the boot. We have no idea why but apparently wearing a mask now makes you dangerous or intolerable within this specific business, just weeks after the call to protect our civil liberties from unethical business policies. It's called a double standard and it's very revealing.



posted on Sep, 22 2021 @ 07:05 PM
link   
How are you going to eat with a mask on?

Somebody is playing games.

Take your mask off. This aint Halloween



posted on Sep, 22 2021 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Two points that you expanded on :

Constitutionality : Yes . There are seven factors that cannot be discriminated against . Nothing more.
Private business : only declared as public due to many folks using them . Nothing to do with whether it is a PRIVATE business or not.

No shirt. No shoes . No service .That's all you had to think about BEFORE you posted .

And there is the rest of the story .
Period

edit on 9/22/21 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2021 @ 07:07 PM
link   
LOL....

Didn't get the answers you wanted in the original thread?

Yes....they have the right to refuse service. It is a private business.

If you don't like their rules then don't go there. It is that simple.



posted on Sep, 22 2021 @ 07:11 PM
link   
I'd also wonder your thoughts on the US border. Do you allow illegal activity or do they get a pass?

And this is actual law.




top topics



 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join