In a restaurant he was asked to leave. His lawyer is planning to sue...

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200770508029

Was the restaurant owner right or wrong?

Right.

A business such as this reserves the right to deny service to anyone for any reason. I've seen these notices all my life.

I was once denied entry to a pool hall because I was wearing jeans with a rip in the left knee. (This used to be standard dress; my favorite clothes are what I call "ten-year clothes", after a green shirt I'd owned for over a decade, which I retired after wearing while receiving my daughter. What? They're the most comfortable clothes in the world!)

First off, the bar did have a right to deny me entry on the principle of anyone for any reason. Additionally, it was to my error; it was actually a posted rule that I was aware of, but had never been enforced against me through many prior occasions. To the other, though, management's response to the doorman was, "You what?!" Their other response was to revise the wording of the rule to from "No ...," to "We reserve the right ...". No, they never apologized to me, and they shouldn't have to. But everyone aside from the doorman was aghast that people who spent that much and tipped that well were denied entry. Especially on a dead night.

O.J. doesn't even have that going for him. The bar, technically, did not even need to post a rule to deny my entry. Comparatively, OJ and his lawyer need to shut the hell up.

I agree with you Tiassa. Still, the owner might want to put out a sign: No murderers allowed! :)

In a restaurant he was asked to leave. His lawyer is planning to sue...

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200770508029

Was the restaurant owner right or wrong?

Don't all restaurants have the "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" clause?

The owner was well within his rights. The restaurant is his property, and he can eject unwanted people from it.

The owner was well within his rights. The restaurant is his property, and he can eject unwanted people from it.

Sure. but what if he rejects people based on race or sex? Why is it different than rejecting based on criminal history?

I just watched a vid clip of the restaurant owner being interviewed. According to him, the table that O.J. was sitting at before the owner told him he wasn't going to serve him, was used after O.J. was booted, for a 30 member party, of which Michael Jordan was a part of, so to me, that indicates that race wasn't an issue.

Sure. but what if he rejects people based on race or sex? Why is it different than rejecting based on criminal history?


Because you don't choose your gender or race. Criminals choose to be criminals.

They cannot do it based on he is black, however based on he is a murderer, yes they can. He could try to sue them and will probably fail.

The restaurant owner basically said that it was because of O.J.'s book, "If I did it, here's How I Would Have Done It". He said he's even had O.J. in there before and has had pictures taken with him. But he said that the book was the thing that pushed it too far.

It really doesn't matter (with the exception of blatant racial discrimination, which wasn't the case here) what a patron (any patron) does, restaurants have a right to refuse service to anyone at anytime for any reason.

Mind you, I am arguing here philosophically....


It really doesn't matter (with the exception of blatant racial discrimination, which wasn't the case here) what a patron (any patron) does, restaurants have a right to refuse service to anyone at anytime for any reason.

I bet if the owner refused to serve old people his ass would be sued to hell....So the anytime for any reason doesn't always apply...

So no, there are groups of people whom can NOT be denied, like based on age (too young is OK) gender or race or nationality. I assume there could be a huge difference between a private restaurant and a restaurant in a chain. (publicly traded)....

I assume there could be a huge difference between a private restaurant and a restaurant in a chain. (publicly traded)....

Legally, no?
Functionally, however, they will do anything to save face.

Mind you, I am arguing here philosophically....



I bet if the owner refused to serve old people his ass would be sued to hell....So the anytime for any reason doesn't always apply...

So no, there are groups of people whom can NOT be denied, like based on age (too young is OK) gender or race or nationality. I assume there could be a huge difference between a private restaurant and a restaurant in a chain. (publicly traded)....

True, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be a frivolous lawsuit. Anyone can file a lawsuit against anyone for any reason. That doesn't mean that the lawsuit is valid or not ridiculous. I mean, take that stupid bitch that won the lawsuit against McDonalds because she burned herself with HOT coffee.

I often wonder how a litigation attorney gets around "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone at anytime for any reason"
I honestly don't see how that can be misinterpreted in any way shape, size or form.

Maybe I should file a lawsuit agains the next woman that shoots me down after I ask her out. :rolleyes:

Legally, no?


Sure there is. Let's talk about golf courses, not restaurants. The Augusta Open refuses women to enter and although they probably got sued by the women advocates groups, since the Augusta is a PRIVATE club, they can make whatever RULES they want.

Now if we are talking about another golf course, which isn't private, but belongs to a publicly traded corporation, they can not discriminate based on age,gender or race.

I assume something similar applies to restaurants. As long as it is private, it is their business whom they do busniess with. But once they are public or corporate, federal laws apply....

But I am not a lawyer, I just play one on Sciforums...

Now if we are talking about another golf course, which isn't private, but belongs to a publicly traded corporation, they can not discriminate based on age,gender or race.

I think you are mistaken.
A "Private" golf course can be incorporated.
What makes a golf course not "Private" has nothing to do with whether or not it is incorporated, it has to do with whether or not it is owned and operated by the government.
A county park with a golf course is a "Public" course.
A piece of land owned by an individual, a group of individiuals or a corporation is a "Private" course.

What I meant was publicly traded. (I actually wrote that) I can be wrong, but when there are stockholders and board of directors, the business better be open for everyone...

What I meant was publicly traded. (I actually wrote that) I can be wrong, but when there are stockholders and board of directors, the business better be open for everyone...

That is often the practice (as I said, to save face) but there is no law stating such.

Sure. but what if he rejects people based on race or sex? Why is it different than rejecting based on criminal history?
So you're saying that inborn qualities like race and sex are the equivalent of chosen activities such as rape and murder?

You realize that it would then follow that the state would be just as justified in jailing/executing someone based on race or sex as for being a murderer? Hitler just as justified in his genocide against Jews as the state of Illinois when it executed John Wayne Gacy?

From what I understand, O.J Simpson wasn't found guilty of murder in a criminal court. It couldn't be established beyond all reasonable doubt that he was guilty.

He was successfully sued in a civil court. On the balance of probabilities.

Big difference, folks

So you're saying that inborn qualities

OK, how about if I don't serve blonde people? Certainly, one's haircolor can be changed if they want to eat in my restaurant...

Or let's say I don't serve lawyers. That is a required "quality"...

From what I understand,

It is rather irrelevant to the question.

syz:

It is rather irrelevant to the question.


Aren't people asserting that O.J should be denied service because he is a murderer?

I'm just pointing out that he was never found guilty in a criminal court of law. In otherwords, he is innocent until proven guilty.

I mean, take that stupid bitch that won the lawsuit against McDonalds because she burned herself with HOT coffee.
Stella Liebeck.
Spilled coffee in her lap while adding cream and sugar.
Suffered severe burns, requiring two years of treatment involving skin grafts and medical costs of $20,000.
McDonalds refused an offer to settle for the $20,000 medical costs.

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 compensation, reduced to $160,000 because Liebeck was judged to be partly at fault.
They also awarded $2.7 million punitive damages, but the judge reduced that amount to $480,000.
Rather than go to appeal, McDonalds and Liebeck settled out of court for an unknown amount.

Source:
The TRUE Stella Awards (http://www.stellaawards.com/), by Randy Cassingham.

Well, I guess the original question can be 2 layered:

1. Can someone deny a service based on something he doesn't like.

2. In particular how does it apply to OJ?

My answer would be that as long as it is a private enterprise, they can make their own rules. In OJ's case, he was found liable not to mention most people believes that the criminal case was a travesty and 3rd, the owner was upset about the bookdeal, so your point was irrelevant to the topic...

What about docters who refuse to operate or treat malpractice lawyers? Is that ethical? If it is nonemergency situation and they are able to go to another doctor. I am in favor of people being able to choose their customers as they see fit as long as they do not discriminate against race, religon, or creed.

Yeah, similar problem.

Also there was a pharmacist, who refused to sell an abortion pill to a teenager...

Sure. but what if he rejects people based on race or sex? Why is it different than rejecting based on criminal history?

there are other things going against oj besides being a murderer like thrying to profit of the deaths of those he murdered

In a restaurant he was asked to leave. His lawyer is planning to sue. Was the restaurant owner right or wrong?OJ was found not guilty by the legal system. All that means is that the government must treat him as innocent. This does not apply to private citizens. Big difference!Still, the owner might want to put out a sign: No murderers allowed!Uh-oh. That could get the owner busted for slander! OJ is not a "murderer" because he was found not guilty by the government's own legal system, and the government gets to define who's a murderer and who isn't. If anyone calls OJ a murderer in print, it would be just like calling anyone else a murderer who isn't. It's slander and it's a crime.Sure. but what if he rejects people based on race or sex? Why is it different than rejecting based on criminal history?Because the guy has no criminal history! He was found not guilty by a jury of his peers!Mind you, I am arguing here philosophically. I bet if the owner refused to serve old people his ass would be sued to hell....So the anytime for any reason doesn't always apply. So no, there are groups of people whom can NOT be denied, like based on age (too young is OK) gender or race or nationality.These "protected groups" are specifically defined in legislation. America has been wrestling with this for decades and we have reached a very uneasy compromise that we are not allowed to discriminate against people because of their ethnicity, religion, gender, and with more exceptions age, and with uneven enforcement sexual orientation. All other discrimination is more or less legal.I assume there could be a huge difference between a private restaurant and a restaurant in a chain. (publicly traded)....Not in terms of the law, but certainly a big corporation would be more vigorously prosecuted.True, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be a frivolous lawsuit. Anyone can file a lawsuit against anyone for any reason. That doesn't mean that the lawsuit is valid or not ridiculous. I mean, take that stupid bitch that won the lawsuit against McDonalds because she burned herself with HOT coffee.I see someone else clarified this later on, but to add more details:McDonalds knew that its coffee was a full twenty degrees hotter (11C) than anyone else's. That is some really damn hot liquid to hand somebody without a warning, especially knowing that people commonly set it in their laps and go bouncing off down the road in their cars. They had already settled seven hundred cases of similar injury. They never consulted with a burn specialist. Stella was 78 years old and had never sued anyone in her life. All she asked for was straight reimbursement for her medical expenses. She only added punitive damages because McDonald's stonewalled this rather reasonable request.I often wonder how a litigation attorney gets around "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone at anytime for any reason"Easy. All you have to do is look at the Supreme Court decisions for the past 75 years. The Constitution means nothing any more. The government can do whatever the hell it wants, so private citizens figure maybe they can get away with it too.From what I understand, O.J Simpson wasn't found guilty of murder in a criminal court. It couldn't be established beyond all reasonable doubt that he was guilty. He was successfully sued in a civil court. On the balance of probabilities. Big difference, folksMore clearly, civil courts render civil judgments. By definition they do not render criminal judgments. A person who loses a civil lawsuit is not a criminal by definition, and therefore has no criminal record.OK, how about if I don't serve blonde people? Certainly, one's haircolor can be changed if they want to eat in my restaurant.That is probably okay. Blonde people are not protected against discrimination by law. If you discriminate against them because they are of Nordic ethnicity, then you're crossing the line. You'd better also discriminate against black, Latino, and Asian people whose hair is blonde from dyeing or an accident of ancestry.Or let's say I don't serve lawyers.I would say that must be legal. On the other hand, as a practical matter you're going up against the legal profession itself. It just doesn't sound like a sensible idea to me. :)Also there was a pharmacist, who refused to sell an abortion pill to a teenager...We've recently had to start sorting out the conflict of people who refuse to perform their job duties because of what they claim are the mandates of their religion. Since the miscreants are have always been Christians and America refuses to rein in Christianity's abuses, naturally they usually get away with it. Now that Muslims are trying it, it will be interesting to see if we are as kind to them. In Minneapolis, Somali taxi drivers have refused to pick up airport passengers with liquor in their luggage. In NYC, some Muslim taxi driver refused to pick up a blind lady because she had a guide dog and he thinks dogs, who have been our beloved companions for 15,000 years, are too dirty to live among us.

Let's see. Maybe I'm a Rastafarian and my religion requires me to smoke dope every night. My boss requires me to take random piss tests and he fires me because I turn up positive. Will the law be as kind to me as it was to the Christian pharmacist who refused to stock the "morning-after" pill, resulting in a woman becoming pregnant because it was Friday night in a small town and every other pharmacy was closed until Monday morning?

Because the guy has no criminal history!

In 1989, Simpson was convicted of spousal abuse for beating her. He got probation, community service, and fines totaling less than $1,000.

In 1989, Simpson was convicted of spousal abuse for beating her. He got probation, community service, and fines totaling less than $1,000.

Yep, and he was also convicted of wrongful death in the death of his wife.

Fraggle sometimes types faster and more than his brain can handle! And he sure can type a lot of words!!! He and Tiassa were having a contest on number of non-sensical words they could type .....Fraggle is winning hands down!

Baron Max

You don't get "convicted" in civil court.

You don't get "convicted" in civil court.

Ahh, would you like to call it something else, then?

Baron Max