Is a store owner legally obligated to serve all customers?

Does the business owner have a sign that says: “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason”? I don’t mean to be smarmy, but I have seen these signs many times in my life. I think the business owner does have that right if he want’s to exercise it. I have had managers in the past that have refused service to customers for small things like panhandling in the town, but not on our property. Once I had a manager who refused service to one of her ex-boyfriends for cheating on her.

It could be a sticky situation. If the person refused could claim any type of discrimination under the civil rights act of 1964, there could be legal implications. I would advise the business owner to tread lightly with this one.

That’s retarded! Do you think they can send away to the government for a special sign and when it arrives they can post it and obtain a special right send people away? They ALWAYS reserve the right to refuse service to any one.

@simone54 You are right, but in my experience a sign can easily prevent many lawsuits.
For example: people aren’t really so stupid as to think it is o.k. to get out of their car in the middle of a car wash, yet there are signs posted warning you not to do this very thing.

@Capt_Bloth haha that would suck.

I found a little more info on this subject for you here.

Below is an excerpt from the article:

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. For example, in a recent case, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their “colors,” or patches, which signified club membership. The court held that the refusal of service was not based on the club members’ unconventional dress, but was to protect a legitimate business interest in preventing fights between rival club members

@Capt_Bloth ; I doubt if “cheatin’ dog” is a protected class in the civil rights act!~

I worked in retail for years, much of the time for a large department store, which feels like a public place to most people. If someone was very rude or abusive we could refuse to service them and ask them to leave and not come back. This very rarely happened, but there were people banned from the store. Typically, the people who are banned are thiefs, but not always. A store is private property.

@Judi ha ha! that’s true, but some guys probably think it should be! lol

@JLeslie ; It has been argued that “store fronts” although on private property are the new “public square” and that although it is public property it is a place where people can express “freedom of speech.” I don’t know if it is every where, but here in California, many stores put up signs that say something like, “Please don’t support the panhandlers.” because they can’t ban them from the property.

A business cannot afford to arbitraily refuse customers if they want to stay in business.

@judi, I don’t know the laws in different states, certainly I would not think you can just ban someone because you feel like it, you would need a reason I am assuming, since the store is open to the public. There are stores in NYC, and actually when I was in La Jolla, that you have to ring the bell to get in, I wonder if they ever ignore people, and if that is even legal?

@JLeslie ; Where I have seen the signs are in stores like Wal-Mart where they have a big parking lot and people are panhandeling in front of the store. I used to work for a property management company that did retail property management (I was in the residential department) and we had this discussion often. How many panhandlers blocking your store entrance is acceptable?

I think there could be legal repercussions. Just as people dislike the sight of a breastfeeding woman, in most states she is protected by law and does not need to cover up or leave a business because of their feelings on it.

I am getting conflicting information from @Capt_Bloth and @scamp . Things may differ between states. I think it is a tricky issue involving the rights of businesses and the rights of the public.

I agree @LostInParadise it’s best to check your local laws to be sure. I just googled to find some more info for you, and the link I posted seems to be California law.
Then there is that line between state and federal laws which could blur the subject even more!!

The owner of a private property, or a store, has every right to not have people there. They can refuse to serve anyone, its perfectly legal. Even discrimination cases, when brought, are hard to win because of the right of an owner in their private property where they operate their business to refuse to deal with people they choose not to.

Boycotts are much more effective than lawsuits in effecting change.

“No shirt, no shoes, no service.” You can choose who to serve. But just like Denny’s learned when they didn’t serve African-American customers, there are consequences.

We used to ban thieves and people who unduly harassed employees when I worked in retail. You just have to pick your battles.

I have seen signs in several stores that say they have the right to refuse service. At our major department stores you will see signs that say “No soliciting is allowed on these premises”.

I had thought that In the US, property rights were king. As long as it’s private property, you can do what you want with it. It’s like your house. No one can force you to let everyone in the house, just because you let your friends in. You are allowed to have any friend you want, and to toss out anyone you want.

So, by extension, I thought businesses would be seen the same way. They can kick people out arbitrarily or based on prejudice or whatever.

It is interesting to see that businesses do not have complete rights over their property. If they discriminate against a protected class of people, then they can lose a lawsuit and be forced to treat that protected class the same way as other customers.

Obviously thieves and people engaged in dangerous speech can be kicked out. But surely if you want to sit and read Chaucer in a very loud voice, you can be kicked out for causing a ruckus the same as if someone was engaged in hate speech. For God’s sake, clubs routinely have doormen who grant access only to those who look right. How arbitrary can you get?

I guess I don’t understand the legal distinctions whereby refusing service to random customers is ok, but refusing service to Hispanics would not be ok. It seems to me that if it’s private property, you should be allowed to kick out anyone you want, whether or not they are in a protected class.

@daloon You are making me think. If you own a rental building with more than 4 units (this might vary by state) you cannot discriminate based on race, sex, etc., but it is private property. If it is less than 4 units you can do whatever you want.

The law used to be, it might have changed since I learned it, that companies with fewer than 15 employees did not have to answer to any laws regarding race, or quotas, nothing along those lines. It seems the bigger you get as a business the more obligation you have to serve society as a whole without restriction.

The club example is good. Generally clubs just have you wait on line, I have only once been to a club where everyone was crowded around and the bouncer selected who could get in.

So if I have a business such as a flower shop, why should my rights take second place to those of anyone else. We seem to have lots of people who are not satisfied with EQUAL rights. They want(and insist on) EXTRA rights over other people. I have never understood that.