[bigbob]

I wasn’t aware of that, so maybe I’m wrong in making that particular comparison. But the greater point is, does a private business owner have the right to refuse service to anyone?

I see both sides, and I’m a big fan of SHS and am sorry this happened to her. But I also think there is a bigger point to be made here about freedom and limitations on same.

It seems to me that most everyone on FR has their dander up over this more than Mrs. Sanders herself seems to.

[FreedomPoster]

I agree that the Red Hen management/ownership has the right to not serve SHS. Heck, I cheered the owner of a Louisville steakhouse who refused to serve O.J. Simpson when he and his entourage showed up the week of the Kentucky Derby.

With that said, turnabout is fair play. I’m not saying a government entity should be involved here. But private citizens showing her the error of her ways is just fine.

[mrsmel]

My dander is up because good people who are Christians have been financially ruined by these same people, her kind of people, and I’d bet you real money that she supported it. Yes, I take the ruination of people whose only “crime” was to not be forced to help enact a message with which they profoundly disagreed, to the point of being sued for disagreeing to violate their consciences, quite seriously. The left does not care if we take the high road, they care if they get what they want. Nobody asked her to do anything which violated her principles of any kind, no one asked her to put a GOP elephant design on their food. But she kicked them out, and she won’t be sued, and she won’t lose her livelihood. No pain, and she’ll be a hero because the media supports her “cause”. The Christian businesses were forced to pay a real cost to not violate their principles, and they did pay it rather than violate their religious principles. What’s sauce for the goose needs to be sauce for the gander, because otherwise the left just doesn’t care.

[DAC21]

“It seems to me that most everyone on FR has their dander up over this more than Mrs. Sanders herself seems to”

SHS needs to stay above the fray, we do not. This is one time that I have no issue going to war for someone else.

[CottonBall]

“But I also think there is a bigger point to be made here about freedom and limitations on same.”

Whose freedom?

i see this as a similar issue to jews being denied services in Germany. The intolerance of the left.

[COUNTrecount]

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

Restaurants: Right to Refuse Service

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
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.

[TStro]

This B#tch followed the party across the street and continued her tirade. This wasn’t just refusal of service. We have the right to go after her for her abusive behavior.