"Right to refuse service" denied?

imported post

While at my family's Independence Day gathering (about 90 miles from where I now live), I was reading the local paper and saw that the local bowling alley had closed. It seems that after bowling league politics and a 5-year lawsuit (won by the alley owner), the owner found out he couldn't bar some of the parties involved. Rather than be forced to let them in, he closed the doors.

If you want to see the mudslinging involved, read here:
http://community.bowl.com/forums/t/87589.aspx?PageIndex=1

What I find curious is that Arkansas repealed the law allowing business owners the right to refuse service. Would this not invalidate any "no guns" signs, and negate any trespassing charges brought against a CHL?

As a strong advocate of property rights, I don't believe any property owner should be required to admit someone he doesn't want, but I thought this would be an interesting take on the change in the law.

Thoughts?

imported post

Honestly, this is the first I've heard of anything like that, other than Hucklberry taking away the rights of a business to allow or disallow smoking.

Then again, I only visit AR once a year now, as opposed to when I lived there.

imported post

I absolutely believe that any business has a right to close its doors and become private property.

However, being granted a charter to serve the public means one should be prepared to serve ALL the public.

imported post

ne1 wrote:

I absolutely believe that any business has a right to close its doors and become private property. 

However, being granted a charter to serve the public means one should be prepared to serve ALL the public. 

Click to expand...

Even people that are being unruly and disruptive, even destructive?

imported post

ne1 wrote:

I absolutely believe that any business has a right to close its doors and become private property.

However, being granted a charter to serve the public means one should be prepared to serve ALL the public.

Click to expand...

No one "grants a charter" to run a bowling alley. It doesn't have to "close its doors" to become private; it's private because it's owned by private individuals, not the government.

imported post

KBCraig wrote:

No one "grants a charter" to run a bowling alley. It doesn't have to "close its doors" to become private; it's private because it's owned by private individuals, not the government.

Click to expand...

You are quite wrong on whether a permit is required to operate a bowling alley. Depending on the locality you could have any number of agenciesinvolved from Department of State (fictitious name, articles of incorporation, etc.), Department of Health (public eating and drinking establishment), Department of Revenue (collection of taxes), Civil Rights Commission, building codes, fire codes, employment rules and regulations, child welfare laws, blue laws, zoning laws, etc., etc.

Any one of these permits, licenses, charters, etc.are likely to make reference to thestipulation that the business may only engage inlawful activities. Discrimination and deprivation of individual rights in a place of public accommodation might not be considered lawful activity. Just because private individuals have ownership rights does not make the property exclusively private. Corporations, for example, are said to be publicly held.

imported post

Corporations, for example, are said to be publicly held.

Click to expand...

Corporations can be private, public, limited or combinations of such. I think it is interesting how those advocating the ignoring of signs denying the carrying of guns use the public access principal yet one of the largest companies in the US (SAS) is pri9vately owned by one man yet there are thousands of companies that are considered publicly owned and traded on the various markets owned by just a few people. The you have the LLC businesses that open their doors to the public yet are owned by a very few people or even one person but does it for the liability factor.

What is the difference between ignoring the signs on a Wal-Mart, those at a Lawyers office and those at a bowling alley?

imported post

ne1, I'm interested in your experience running a business in Polk County, Arkansas. Go ahead and make a list.

Meanwhile, this bowling alley was owned by one man, and required no professional license. If you have any knowledge of the law that was repealed, please share.

imported post

Private property owners have a right to deny service to anyone they want. Take Wal Mart for example, each time someone comes in and offers to buy something this person is offering to form a contract. Wal Mart has every right to refuse to enter the contract, if it chooses too, because no person or business can be forced into a contract. Wal Mart has every right to deny offers to form contracts from people on whatever criteria they want to, whether it be because the person is wearing a pistol, because the person has pink hair, or whatever else they want.

imported post

Restaurants: Right to Refuse Service Lawyers








Legal Topics > Business > Bars and Restaurants

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 aresubject to the same lawsas 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.



How Can a Lawyer Help Me?


If you were unjustly refused service at a restaurant, you should contact a constitutionallawattorney immediately. A lawyer can help determine the existence of any unlawful discrimination, as well as the overall strength of your individual case.

If you are a restaurant owner, an attorney can provide more details on your right to refuse service, including guidance on placing limited restrictions on who gets served at your restaurant.








Consult a Lawyer - Click Here to Present Your Case Now!

imported post

Amen on that. Its your property, and u determine who comes on it. If someone comes in my business and mouths off, is rude,obnoxious, etc. they won't be coming back. This is America and I determine who I do business with.

imported post

Since a lawfully carried firearms would enhance safety and well being then it certainly should not be on the owners naughty list.

imported post

lockman wrote:

Since a lawfully carried firearms would enhance safety and well being then it certainly should not be on the owners naughty list.

Click to expand...

Any business owner that doesn't understand that should be on OUR naughty list.