But they could not ban the previous franchise owner from EATING in a Mcdonald’s.
If Sterling were an owner of said McDonald's and he drug their name through the mud, rescinding his license would be one thing, but how could they tell him that he couldn't eat in a Mcdonald’s (after they stripped his license) in say Chicago - walking in and ordering a Big Mac like everyone else.
Why not? As a supporter of the freedom of association, I would want to respect the right of the McDonald's establishment to determine what individuals it will allow on their property.
If Sterling were an owner of said McDonald's and he drug their name through the mud, rescinding his license would be one thing, but how could they tell him that he couldn't eat in a Mcdonald’s (after they stripped his license) in say Chicago - walking in and ordering a Big Mac like everyone else.
The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
I don't think a-holes have class protection yet under the law.