Senator Booted From Restaurant Over 'Homophobic' Views

canary... that was a REALLY hilarious comment! Thanks for the laugh. Big votr up.

Magic... that one too!

And it's too bad people like you don't understand that viewpoint discrimination is just as wrong as any other kind of discrimination. If we continue to surpress thought, we will soon be no better than the North Koreans. You would go ballistic and probably sue if a Republican bartender 86'd you because he didn't like liberals. No wait, a Republican probably wouldn't be dumb enough to do that because he realizes he is business to make money, not to chase away customers he doesn't like.

And it's too bad people like you don't understand that viewpoint discrimination is just as wrong as any other kind of discrimination. If we continue to surpress thought,

Nope, it's not. The constitution is clear in that we can't discriminate based on race, creed, sexual orientation or national origin not because someone is a hateful homophobe.

In your case for example, I sure as hell would refuse you service if I owned a restaurant, based on your pro-rape stand.

And it's too bad people like you don't understand that viewpoint discrimination is just as wrong as any other kind of discrimination

What??? That's ridiculous!!! One's point of view is something that can change (and we often hope that it does it he case of ignorance) as opposed to the characteristics of those "protected classes" in American law:
Race
Color
Religion
National origin
Age
Sex
Disability status
Familial status
Veteran status
Genetic information
Religion and familial status don'tt quite fit the "unchangeable" characteristic, but religion is backed up in the BoR and familial status applies specifically to housing.

Can I "discriminate" against someone because of his or her stupidity? That might depend on HOW I discriminate, but try taking a case to court on the basis of being wronged because of your point of view and I assure you that you'll get a lecture about a frivolous lawsuit as the case is dismissed for lack of merit and you are laughed out of court.

And from a personal perspective, I discriminate against these who hold viewpoints I oppose every day. I am even legally free to point out their ignorance and/or stupidity.

Can I "discriminate" against someone because of his or her stupidity? That might depend on HOW I discriminate, but try taking a case to court on the basis of being wronged because of your point of view and I assure you that you'll get a lecture about a frivolous lawsuit as the case is dismissed for lack of merit and you are laughed out of court.

I could not have put it better myself, more wordy perhaps, but not better. It's nice to meet someone with some reasoning skills.

And from a personal perspective, I discriminate against these who hold viewpoints I oppose every day. I am even legally free to point out their ignorance and/or stupidity.

And bigotry too.

Absolutely on the bigotry issue, Andrew. I have a personal zero tolerance rule on that one. As much as I want to think bigotry is related to stupidity and ignorance, I've come to understand that it is also due to a sense of "privilege" in some people; a distorted view that some inherent characteristics make certain individuals better than others. How ridiculous!

Absolutely on the bigotry issue, Andrew. I have a personal zero tolerance rule on that one. As much as I want to think bigotry is related to stupidity and ignorance, I've come to understand that it is also due to a sense of "privilege" in some people; a distorted view that some inherent characteristics make certain individuals better than others. How ridiculous!

Most definitely!!!! Like Christians who think they're the only ones who know the "truth" so they eagerly await the end but not just because they're being supposedly "saved" but because instead, they wanna make a spectator sport of seeing the non-believers get sent to the pit. Hateful SOB's most of them.

So then Oom...

By your superior logic...

A dress code would be "discriminatory" against people that do not own a collared shirt or a necktie?

The false outrage never fails to amuse the @!$%# out of me...

fail (yet again)

she is treading on shaky ground by discriminating against someone based on their political views.

No she's not.

Protection from discrimination does not extend to idiots. Unless IDIOT is an ethnicity now.

She has every right to toss that moron out of her place of business.

There's nothing the senator can do about it, dim-witted bigots aren't one of the groups protected from discrimination. Nothing the restaurant owner did violated the rights of the homophobic moron, unlike everything the senator does to violate the rights of the LGBT community.

So when restaurant owners turn away Democrats now for being pro-gay, y'all gonna be ok with that?

No she's not.

Protection from discrimination does not extend to idiots. Unless IDIOT is an ethnicity now.

She has every right to toss that moron out of her place of business.

Because you say so? So discrimination is okay for some, but not for others, as long as it's YOUR opinion that's being protected?

Funny thing is, I agree with you, but I happen to agree that people have a right to their own property, no exceptions.

So when restaurant owners turn away Democrats now for being pro-gay, y'all gonna be ok with that?

Perfectly. Know your constitutional rights and exercise them whenever you want to.

Aside from that, you're more than welcome to put a sign out in front of your business that says Democrats aren't welcomed. You can choose to lose money and go out of business whenever you want.

To be perfectly honest with you as far as I'm concerned, it would be doing me, and my personal agenda, a tremendous favor.

There are two big problems:

1. This is a false equivalency that you are alluding to. There is no double standard between tossing out an idiot and tossing out someone for the color of their skin because those two things are not remotely the same.

2. It was a different time in the 1920's with the CRA was passed.

The country was over run by domestic terrorism hate groups. Like it or not, that's exactly what the Klan was.

Even people who were not bigots had to turn away minorities because they were afraid of violent (and deadly) reprisals from well organized gangs of thugs.

The CRA presented a way to make an end run around a great deal of violence, blood shed and make it much harder for hate groups to keep black persons oppressed.

You may not have been alive during the civil rights era, or you may not have been living in an area that was overrun by entrenched networks of organized hate bigots.

The cemetary where most of my family lies in repose is filled with two things: My relatives and a large portion of the local KKK during that time period.

They even took up public offerings at the church. I was told by members of my own extended family that if I so much as flirted with a minority person of any kind, they would kill both of us. They weren't just making empty threats.

The strangle hold they had on that community was no different than the hold kept on communities across the united states.

The CRA forcing businesses to open their doors to minority persons forced people to interact, it made it easier for the bigots to be identified and dealt with.

That's no small thing.

Like I said I'm not familiar with civil rights laws, so I have another question based on some of your responses.

This man does not belong to a protected class so it's different.

Is the only UN-protected "class" white males? Is there an official list somewhere of the "protected" classes? If the senator had been a woman who was spouting off anti-homosexual rhetoric on a TV program and was refused service by the restauranteur, then would the senator have a case?

So the country club that turns away certain segments of society from becoming members would be lambasted for doing similar actions as this restauranteur......But, let's say this country club claims that the person was refused membership because of his political views (even though it's probably for his ethnicity), but the country club CLAIMS it's for his political views. It that okay with you guys?

Some (above) argued that it is hypocritical to exclude democrats because they might be pro-gay when not allowing people to do the same for republicans being anti-gay.

The problem with the analogy is that the republicans would, in this case, be against civil rights and advocating hatred, distrust and spreading actual lies. Then, when called out on it (like Bachmann's retardation-HPV-vaccine link) they say "just saying what I heard". If what you heard is wrong, and you spread it because you didn't research it, then it makes YOU the liar.

Is the only UN-protected "class" white males?

No. You cannot be discriminated against by race. Period. That means white too.

There doesn't need to be a list, all races are covered.

If the senator had been a woman

In this instance, he was not removed because of his gender. He was removed because of his offending remarks.

There is however a prohibition against gender discrimination in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Let's say this country club claims that the person was refused membership because of his political views (even though it's probably for his ethnicity), but the country club CLAIMS it's for his political views.

If it was because of his political views, then its perfectly legal to do.

HOWEVER, if it can be proven in a court of law that it was due to ethnic bigotry, then they did so illegally.

It that okay with you guys?

Can you clarify this question?

If you are saying if it is OK with me (or the law) that someone skirt the CRA by feigning different motives, then NO. It is not.

If you are asking if it is OK to remove a person for some part of their political beliefs or personal character, then OF COURSE.

Chris-735081:

you're more than welcome to put a sign out in front of your business that says Democrats aren't welcomed.

I wasn't really going for a party line issue here, how about if the sign said "No pro-gay people allowed"? I bet people would flip the hell out.

Is the only UN-protected "class" white males?

Ha, it's like some white males think "they" aren't a member of a race but everyone esle is.

Spike, I certainly wouldn't agree with the passive-aggressive approach that you spoke of. If you serve cops, and you don't like cops, what would you do, spit on their hamburger? I know it happens, but it isn't right.

Chris, thanks for explaining the legal parameters of discrimination laws. Some still don't get it, but you obviously do.

cannonballer, you ask:

So when restaurant owners turn away Democrats now for being pro-gay, y'all gonna be ok with that?

I'm not okay with it, except that if it was me, I would be okay with it, because if the restaurant owner is bigoted or against civil rights, I wouldn't patronize his restaurant anyway. From a legal standpoint, I'm okay with it because it wouldn't be illegal to my knowledge. If the sign just said NO DEMOCRATS, I'd be fine with that, too, because it would probably be bankrupt before too long, and the food wouldn't be too fresh in the meantime. If it said NO REPUBLICANS, same answer. If it said NO BIGOTS, I'd be fine with that because the bigots would still go there, but they would keep their bigoted views to themselves. If it said NO GAYS, their asses would get sued off and they would be out of business soon also. Have I coverered all the possible permutations?

My, we have a lot of armchair attorneys in here tonight, don't we? Too bad there's nobody we can bill for $300 an hour. Chris, where did you get your law degree, and how is it you have time to go on the Vine? /sarcasm

The reality is that the law varies from state to state. My husband once called the local human rights commission when he was thrown out of a bar for making an antiunion remark. He was told the bartender was definitely in the wrong, but he decided not to waste his time making an issue out of something that petty. I know that if I was a local, I would boycott that restaurant, not out of the gay issue, but out of the freedom of speech issue.

I know that if I was a local, I would boycott that restaurant, not out of the gay issue, but out of the freedom of speech issue.

And you'd lose.

No, Oom, the reality is that this is federal law, and that the refusal of service could be considered illegal:

In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service. For example, in a recent case, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their "colors," or patches, which signified club membership. The court held that the refusal of service was not based on the club members' unconventional dress, but was to protect a legitimate business interest in preventing fights between rival club members.

http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equal-rights/right-refuse-service

For example, in a recent case, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission

Did you miss the "had no discrimination claim" part?

trm:

Not "missed"

ignored.

They shoot themselves in the foot like that at every turn, and then gloat about it.

I think Martha should run against the Idiot. She would win hands down.

Oh Gray, I love your fantasy. Sadly, neocons fantasize about a world without liberals.

Being an A-hole is not a protected class.

Anti-discrimination laws extend only to protected classes... race, sex, national origin, etc.

Prove it, Counselor.

Prove it, Counselor.

I am not an attorney nor do I play one on the Vine, but this is pretty clear and easy for those with any bit of common sense about the American legal system.

Protected class is a term used in United States anti-discrimination law. The term describes characteristics or factors which can not be targeted for discrimination and harassment. The following characteristics are considered "Protected Classes" and persons cannot be discriminated against based on these characteristics:
Race - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1866
Color - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
Religion - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
National origin - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
Age (40 and over) - Federal: Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Sex - Federal: Equal Pay Act of 1963 & Civil Rights Act of 1964
Familial status (Housing, cannot discriminate for having children, exception for senior housing)
Disability status - Federal: Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation Services of 1973 & Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Veteran status - Federal Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974
Genetic information - Federal: Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

And yes, while that was from Wikipedia, it is factual information, not "legal advice."

So the burden now shifts to YOU to prove that there are other anti-discrimination laws that protect people outside/beyond these classes. BTW, that will need to be found in FEDERAL statutes, because it is a federal issue.

These SOB want a right to work state, and bust the unions. So, I think this lady is correct in serving who she wants in her restaurant.

I doubt the restaurant owner opposes him for his Union views. I doubt she is welcoming a Union into her restaurant.

Why not make a scene? He had no compunction about sharing his bigoted views. Why should she hesitate to make her pro-civil rights position known in her own restaurant? If I had a chance to use a stupid bigot against the forces of bigotry, I would do it. It's hard to imagine a better way of fighting bigotry than to expose a bigot at his lowest point. When your opponent lowers his guard, it's the best time to punch.

Why not make a scene?

When a business owner refuses service to someone over political views it is not needed for them to yell it out and encourage the joint to boo them. Why not encourage the bar to spit on the person too?

Refusing a person's business is the owner's right. However, just because you disagree with a person's views and are offended by them does not mean you should mock them and encourage the other patrons to do the same.

Other times it will be the owner giving the boot to a senator that supports gay marriage. Would it be right for the owner to refuse service, start to mock him, yell to the crowd what he voted for and dramatically throw them out?

It's called class. Tell the guy you don't want his business and not to come back. Nothing wrong with that. Causing a scene, yelling to the restaurant why this person offends you and how you're throwing them out is a little out of line. There is a place for community ostracism, I'm not sure the owner yelling it out to the joint is the best way.

I am a professional, liberal, single widow who will not do business of any kind with a business who has Fox news on the big tube, customers are sitting around calling the President an N, conspiracy talk about how the country has never been this bad before, and random hate talk about fags,flags, and Muslims. Unfortunately, in the area I live in this is getting sparser and sparser. I don't have to be thrown out of a neocon restaurant or business, I will leave on my own and never frequent the place again. I doubt they miss my business, and lots of their customers are on the government teat and probably won't vote anyway, except out of rage and hate.

I predict that neocon restaurant owners will turn the other cheek and throw out liberals...

That would be fine with me--I don't want to give them any money anyway. :-)

I am a professional, conservative, married person who will not do business of any kind with a business who has MSNBC on the big tube, customers are sitting complaining that any and all criticism of the president MUST be rooted in racsim, naive talk about how the country has never been better than now, and random hate talk about the military and Christians. Fortunately, in the area I live, businesses like these are getting sparser and sparser. I don't have to be thrown out of a socialist restaurant or business, I will leave on my own and never frequent the place again. I doubt they miss my business, and lots of their customers are on the government teat and probably won't vote anyway, except out of rage and hate.

Now go ahead an villify my post as divisive while hoilding hers up as an example.

Why would anyone villify your position, just as liberals have every right to choose not to be bombarded with false information and hypocrisy from Faux News you have every right to not desire to watch MSNBC. That's the benefit of living in a free country. What you don't have is the right to insist that others don't have the same rights as you do just because they're of a differing lifestyle, religion, race, creed, or sexuality.

Alpha, where do you live, maybe we could just trade places? Glad you read my post.

Gahanna Ohio.

What you don't have is the right to insist that others don't have the same rights as you do just because they're of a differing lifestyle, religion, race, creed, or sexuality.

I am going to assume that you were using "you" in the general sense, because I have CERTAINLY not insisted on any such idea. Also, way to suggest that Fox is biased (which it is) while not suggesting MSNBC is biased (which it is.)

Yes, the you was a general "you" and not any person in particular. And as for your claim that Faux News isn't biased, like anyone believes that utter nonsense other than those brainwashed by watching it constantly.

Ummmm, where do I claim that Fox News isn't biased? I said:

way to suggest that Fox is biased (which it is)

How about reading the post before getting all indignant. I flat out said that it was biased. I was merely stating that MSNBC is also biased.

AlphaTrion posted this comment:

I am a professional, conservative, married person who will not do business of any kind with a business who has MSNBC on the big tube, customers are sitting complaining that any and all criticism of the president MUST be rooted in racsim, naive talk about how the country has never been better than now, and random hate talk about the military and Christians. Fortunately, in the area I live, businesses like these are getting sparser and sparser. I don't have to be thrown out of a socialist restaurant or business, I will leave on my own and never frequent the place again. I doubt they miss my business, and lots of their customers are on the government teat and probably won't vote anyway, except out of rage and hate.

What Alphatrion did was to take another newsvine member's post (Lola - Ohio) and change specific words in her comments. From my perspective, Alphatrion was attempting to neutralize her remarks and to make it appear that his outrage was based on a similar ethical standard as hers.

This is a classic neocon tactic to use their opponents words against them. Note, he added little to the discussion. It is a diversionary tactic.

Read George Lakoff's works and you will begin to understand how neocons are not only rewriting history but redefining the etymology of words. For example, they love to say America is a Republic when in reality it is a democratic republic. (see Thom Hartmann -- article http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2010/03/usa-democracy-or-republic).

Personally, I find this approach disingenuous.

Actually what I did was point out that people on Newsvine scream about partisanship while participating in it themseves. I used her own words, slightly changed, to show that you would be outraged (and you have just proven my point by getting all indignant and calling it a neocon tactic) if the situation were reversed.

is "indignant" on your word-a-day calendar for today?

Hurry and get some use out of it... Day's almost over!

For example, they love to say America is a Republic when in reality it is a democratic republic

Do us a favor - recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

is "indignant" on your word-a-day calendar for today?

Thanks for the laugh, Don'tcha!

is "indignant" on your word-a-day calendar for today?

No, it is just the best word to describe how smug, liberal, pseudo-intellectuals act.

I am sorry AlphaTrion, just where in my post did you find indignation?

For example, they love to say America is a Republic when in reality it is a democratic republic.

Actually, we are a constitutional republic, not a democratic republic.

ErinNJ:

Actually, we are a constitutional republic, not a democratic republic.

Erin, I provide a source for my belief that we are a democratic republic. Could you provide a source for your belief that we are a constitutional republic? I am always open to new information. Thanks.

Susan, the simple fact that we are governed by a Constitution, which is the foundation of our laws and government, is proof enough.

I am sorry AlphaTrion, just where in my post did you find indignation?

Really? Your entire post smacks of it.

Also, a progressive radio talk show host is hardly an unbiased "source."

AlphaTtrion: Thom Hartmann is much more than a "radio talk show host." He is a businessman, he is an author of several books, he is a Thomas Jefferson scholar, he is a trained psychologist and more. But, I will let you research that.

AlphaTrion: If my comments smack of indignation, what do yours smack of?

Erin, many countries have constitutions, how does that make it a republic?

Susan, think of the Pledge of Allegiance: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which stands..."

Honestly, did you even go to civics class?

A constitutional republic is a state in which the head of state and other officials are representatives of the people and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over all of its citizens. Because the head of the state is elected, it is a republic and not a monarchy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic

Erin, I was not looking for a fight. Yes, I did take civics class and many other classes. But, that was many years ago and in that class, I was encouraged to think for myself.

My comments are observations. My comments stem from my own perspective. I am not an historian but I do try to read many authors, topics and perspectives.

I have also taken classes in communication. Communication is difficult but in order for communication to be somewhat successful, people in conversation need to share or understand the definitions of the words being used before a conversation can progress.

I am concerned that some people have decided to drop the word Democracy when they speak of our form of government -- which I believe is a constitutionally-limited representative democratic republic. In shorthand, I believe we are a Democracy.

I agree Steven of Coulterville.

But the bigger issue is, what is an anti-gay senator doing in a gay-friendly part of town and a restaurant frequented by gay people with gay wait-staff?

Sounds like a closet case looking to do a little recognizance on the side.

Frank...Not according to Rand Paul.

JJM, agreed-it's their right to refuse service. But remember that's a two way street.

Last I heard being a homophobe isn't a "protected class" as far as discrimination goes, kind of like being gay.

Frank...

Not according to ANYBODY.

He was denied service because the owner thinks he is an @!$%#, not because he was black, or old, or handicapped, etc. etc. etc.

If someone comes into my bar and is a douchebag, It is well within my rights to tell him that I do not want his business and ask him to leave the place... ("douchebag" is NOT a protected class)

This type of discrimination is ilegal and they should have their license removed.

Actually, no it's not. But thanks for playing.

Frank Gruden, one should not go around making statements on what is legal and what is not when they have no @!$%#ing idea what they are talking about. Actually, that could get a person sued in some circumstances.

Actully the restaurant should have a sign up saying they have been put out of busness. This type of discrimination is ilegal and they should have their license removed.

Yup they can. They can refuse service to anybody they want as long as it's not on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation or national origin.

I'm sure there were white peeps at the restaurant so that rules race out.

I'm sure there was at least one Christian at the restaurant so that rules religio out too.

I'm sure there were both gays and straight at the restaurant because just because it's known as a gay restaurant doesn't mean only gays patron it, not to mention there's people who are bi too, so that rules sexual orientation out.

And lastly I'm sure there were many Americans at the restaurant so I'm sure there was no discrimination based on national origin.

That leaves... drums please...... no service for homophobes!!!

This type of discrimination is ilegal and they should have their license removed.

No it's not. You can refuse service to a person because of political views.

If a business owner down South refused service to Obama supporters would it be considered acceptable discrimination based on politics or racial discrimination because it would effectively eliminate Blacks from dining there?

You mean something like Allen West's rant about how liberals should get the hell out of the country?

Ummm ... No. I mean like when a business owner is raked over the coals for refusing to serve someone with a progressive agenda. How you made the leap from that to your comment is beyond me.

Ummm ... No. I mean like when a business owner is raked over the coals for refusing to serve someone with a progressive agenda.

Fine. No problem. I'm sure the owner will be very upset by all of the gay-basher business she'll be losing at her restaurant. (but I'd be willing to bet she sees a surge in business)

Why don't you ask how the people on Fox "news" blog feel about this story? Had the tables been turned, they'd be high-fiving each other and boasting about how they'll all start frequenting this restaurant because of how the owner stood up to the dirty libbie.

Why don't you ask how the people on Fox "news" blog feel about this story?

Because I don't frequent that blog. You're probably right though, they would be high fiving each other. I am always amused when a neutral comment is blasted as evil right wing propaganda.

Why don't you ask how the people on Fox "news" blog feel about this story?

Because I don't frequent that blog. You're probably right though, they would be high fiving each other. I am always amused when a neutral comment is blasted as evil right wing propaganda.

It's the restaurant owner's right to refuse service to anyone.

WRONG. A restaurant is considered a place of public accommodation, and cannot legally refuse to serve anyone without good reason, such as being abusive/disruptive, or not paying for his/her food.

You liberals remember that when a "protected class" member gets refused service.

You conservatives should remember whose ass will be grass if you discriminate, especially against someone in a protected class. HINT: it won't be the victim's!

And aids affects homosexuals vastly more than hetrosexuals. It's science. Not their fault; it's biology.

Really? Then how do you explain that 85% of all new HIV/AIDS cases worldwide are among heterosexuals? THAT'S science.

I guess it's not your fault that you are so misinformed; it must be biology.

Show me one instance of a business owner being convicted for refusing service. (didn't think so) If it were the case, the guy in this story would have a case.

It's their right. You might not like it. But that's probably because you're not a strategic thinker; you fire on emotion, not logic.

Link for your bs claim of 85%? The CDC doesn't agree with you.

It's the restaurant owner's right to refuse service to anyone.

Actually, Erin. He's right on that one (really @!$%#ing wrong on everything else).

As long as it's based on a personal reason (being an @!$%#, BO, improper dress, etc.), not an uncontrollable reason (race, sex, handicap, sexual orientation, etc.) or religious preference, you can refuse service to anyone, for any reason. It might not be good for business, but it's not illegal.

I love the smell of pi$$ed off extremist in the morning. It smells like victory.

I'm not encumbered by ideology. You should try it.

You're obviously "not encumbered" by facts either...

carry on.

You're obviously "not encumbered" by facts either... carry on.

I asked for a link and you guys refuse. Who's light on the facts? LOL

And I'm not a conservative. I don't care who you wed. I don't go to church. I won't ever tell you what to do.

I just want a strong America-the kind that Bill Clinton and Ron Reagan presided over.

Actually, Rational Brent, I did some research, and he's NOT "right on that one". Restaurants are public accommodations, and cannot refuse service without a very good reason, such as the ones I stated. It is called discrimination.

Does a Restaurant Have the Unrestricted Right to Refuse Service to Specific Patrons?

No. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits restaurants from refusing service to patrons on the basis of race, color, religion, or natural 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 “We Reserve the 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 natural 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
• Patrons lacking adequate hygiene (e.g. excess dirt, extreme body odor, etc.)

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.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/restaurants-right-to-refuse-service.html

The link you asked for was something that I actually agreed with, so why would I provide a link?

Can you provide a link to your fantasy HIV "facts"? (I seem to recall seeing Erin ask YOU for one as well)

Erin, correct. They can't say "I don't want to serve men" or "I don't want to serve orientals" or they would be (correctly) sued.

And I don't have a problem with her refusing to serve the guy in the story for the reason she stated.

WITHIN REASON, they can refuse service to anyone they want.

DYPHJ:

"very good reason"?

What does that even mean?

If Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh belly up (haha, couldn't help the "belly up" reference, sorry) to my bar and ask me for a drink, I am well within my rights to deny them service simply because I find them to be offensive @!$%#s. (If I were to do it because they were fat, THAT would be discrimination. See the difference?)

It keeps cutting my link off. WTF?

Statistically, AIDS hits gay men and intervenous drug users at a hugely disproportianal rate.

I think some people (with bleeding hearts) get wrapped around tha axel on the "It's a gay disease" phrase. I'm not saying they deserve it or bring it on themselves.

It affects straights as well, just not as easily, because of BIOLOGY. Blood transfers during intervenous drug use and anal sex are the two biggies.

Can't link-this site won't let me. Can't even paste a site.

On your Rush and Beck thing, yes. I do see it. I could say the same to Sgt Schultz, Eugene Robison or KO for the same reason.

Where does that get us?

No, Rational Brent, she can't refuse service "within reason" -- she must have a very good reason, such as the patron being disruptive/abusive, not paying his/her bill on previous visits, etc., or one of the reasons listed in the quoted section of my previous post.

DYPHJ: You may think you are within your rights to refuse to serve them, but they are within their rights to sue you for discrimination -- and they would probably win.

However, there is no law that says you must give them good service, so how you serve them is up to you.

Erin, when I say "within reason", I am agreeing with the ones you listed above. I'm expecting a little bit of common sense here. No offense, I am agreeing with you.
We must also remember to take into account that most business owners aren't stupid enough to deny service without using one of those reasons, regardless of the actual reason.

I think 'his presence would be disruptive to my employees and my clientele" would suffice, especially if the employees refused to work until he leaved. That might pass.

If I refuse to serve anyone wearing a blue shirt, because I don't like blue shirts, I think that would be legal. Dumb, yes, but legal. It's not a protected class to wear a blue shirt. But it's not a "good" reason. I think the answer is I could legally do that.

In actuality, that happens all the time. It's called a dress code.

Try to get into a nice restaurant or nightclub wearing a t-shirt and sandals sometime... (but when they turn you away, be sure to try and sue 'em for it, since you were "discriminated against")

Rational Brent-

I saw on your profile that you have only been here a month so you're probably still in the Greenhouse. It won't let you post links yet, but be patient and you soon will.

I think you are now treading onto dangerous ground, because that sounds like discrimation against someone based on their religion, and even if it technically is based on something other than the persons religion, i.e. their dishonesty, I would never advise you to do it if I were your lawyer, because it's too close a call. You would likely get sued and it would be a difficult case to defend.

If your religion requires you to hate, which is more appropriate, allowing the expression of your discriminatory hate, because that's your protected religion, or are the religious required to shelve their discriminatory hate, because discrimination is wrong?

The answer seems simple to me.

I think you are now treading onto dangerous ground, because that sounds like discrimation against someone based on their religion, and even if it technically is based on something other than the persons religion, i.e. their dishonesty, I would never advise you to do it if I were your lawyer, because it's too close a call. You would likely get sued and it would be a difficult case to defend.

So you're saying that a restaurant owner would lose a discrimination suit brought by the Westboro Baptist Church if he refused to rent a dining room to them? Because their religous beliefs (God hates gays) are being discriminated against?

Gee, maybe I should found a religion.

Gay people are people. Sadly some forget this fact and try to impose their will on them.

I applaud the owner for standing up for her convictions, but legally she was wrong to refuse service. It might have been better to let him sit and order, and make the service so bad that he would want to leave on his own (spilling food and/or drink on him "accidentally" might have helped).

It's like the Westboro Baptist Church First Amendment ruling: while I hate what they have to say, they certainly have a right to say it, because if they take that right away from Westboro, it could be taken away from anyone.

She can refuse service based on whatever she wants so long as it does not violate 'protected classes' - such as race, gender, age, etc etc.

"Bigot" isn't a protected class, thankfully.

Shuklack, read my comment #22.7. If she refuses service to anyone, she'd better have a very good reason -- and not liking someone's politics, or considering someone a homophobe, are not very good ones. If he was being disruptive or abusive, she might have a leg to stand on.

I dunno, I teeter here. If she were denying him because he was white, or because her had red hair, or was Nigerian, then she is denying him based on something he can't change, and that WOULD be illegal, I don't think this is, so long as she lets other white people in. Can conservative be a protected class? Wouldn't that be funny!

Here, she's actually familiar with the individual, and simply doesn't want someone with his beliefs in her business. That could be a slippery slope, suppose only conservatives owned hospitals, and refused to allow entry to liberals?

But having him in and then giving him crappy service is bad too, because how is he to know it was because he's a bigot, and not because the restaurant is simply badly run? Then she hurts her business by trying to be accommodating, because I guarantee he will express his opinion on her business to others.

something he can't change

I doubt he could change.