quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

QuietlySeeking:

That's an asked and answered situation. Businesses have almost no right to refuse service.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Domented1

just my humble opinion here... Everyone is quoting supreme court decisions as controling law here and they are irrelevant, the large grey thing with a trunk. The fact is that Ohio law, which is controlling in Cleveland states that this individual is NOT required to show identification, as has been quoted in the original post. So unless the posters here wish to declare this Ohio statute unconstitutional, they must admit that while the poster was a bit over the top, he was within his rights.

Personally I find it offensive that someone would be ridiculed for standing upon their rights, which I spent three years of my life actively standing ready to defend as a member of the United States Armed Forces. I was also witness to a member of our armed forces being stopped on a California Beach by police who requested consent to search, the sailor refused consent, the officer then placed him under arrest for "public Intoxication" (when he did not appear intoxicated and in fact had only had coffee that morning). The officer searched the sailor incidental to his arrest (for public intoxication) and found him in possesion of Mariuana, told him he was no longer under arrest for public intoxication, but instead for possesion. .... things that make you go hmmmmmm

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuietlySeeking

quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

QuietlySeeking:

That's an asked and answered situation. Businesses have almost no right to refuse service.

Yep, you are correct...at least that it is an asked and answered question; however, businesses may refuse service, but must have "a specific interest in refusing service."  Certain states expand the protected groups (to sexuality and modes of dress in CA); ultimately unless the patron can prove that the "refusal of service" is due to membership in a protected group, the patron will be out-of-luck.

I excerpt the article here simply to provide clarity:

"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." (bold is mine)

http://www.legalzoom.com/articles/article_content/article13721.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado
A specific interest like loss prevention?

quote:

Quietly Seeking:
Yep, you are correct...at least that it is an asked and answered question; however, businesses may refuse service, but must have "a specific interest in refusing service."  Certain states expand the protected groups (to sexuality and modes of dress in CA); ultimately unless the patron can prove that the "refusal of service" is due to membership in a protected group, the patron will be out-of-luck.

I excerpt the article here simply to provide clarity:

"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." (bold is mine)

http://www.legalzoom.com/articles/article_content/article13721.html

quote:

SugarMyChurro:
....The protected class of persons in question is...

...EVERYBODY!

I think you are dead wrong again, and you know it

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Anyone who wants can try to use sinergys scam.  Of course you will probably be filmed as it occurs, and end up arrested and owing the company money.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

The idea that they can refuse service because a customer refuses to be searched arbitrarily is nonsense. The protected class of persons in question is...

...EVERYBODY!

I think you are dead wrong again, and you know it.

quote:


§ 40-b. Wrongful refusal of admission to and ejection from places of
public entertainment and amusement. No person, agency, bureau,
corporation or association, being the owner, lessee, proprietor,
manager, superintendent, agent or employee of any place of public
entertainment and amusement as hereinafter defined shall refuse to admit
to any public performance held at such place any person over the age of
twenty-one years who presents a ticket of admission to the performance a
reasonable time before the commencement thereof, or shall eject or
demand the departure of any such person from such place during the
course of the performance, whether or not accompanied by an offer to
refund the purchase price or value of the ticket of admission presented
by such person; but nothing in this section contained shall be construed
to prevent the refusal of admission to or the ejection of any person
whose conduct or speech thereat or therein is abusive or offensive or of
any person engaged in any activity which may tend to a breach of the
peace.

The places of public entertainment and amusement within the meaning of
this section shall be legitimate theatres, burlesque theatres, music
halls, opera houses, concert halls and circuses.