Tall Man wrote: "Actually, only protected groups are exempt. If you have a dress code, you can throw out people who don't meet it. Bars expel drunk and otherwise obnoxious patrons daily. Restaurants legally enforce, "No shirt, no shoes, no service"

Everything you cite is a health code issue, actually. Which only goes to prove my point.

Restaurants are a public accommodation. Catering is a public accommodation. Any business where you hang your shingle out to do business with the public? You guessed it, a public accommodation.

Public accommodations are not religious institutions and, therefore, are not subject to religious exemptions. Just ask the Hobby Lobby dude. One of many articles about the matter: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/19/judge-rejects-hobby-lobby-case-against-obamacare-contraceptive-coverage-mandate/

As far as I know, all the states that have gay marriage also have statutes that list gays as a protected class and prohibits discrimination in public accommodations on such grounds.

At this point, he has no case either way.

The fact that Tall Man, Short Hair needs an adjective for "identical" highlights the problem.

If you could just say "identical," there would be nothing to talk about.

https://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equal-rights/right-refuse-service

"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."

In other words, they can not refuse to serve you just because they do not like who you are, but they have to have a real reason to deny service. Even where gays are not a protected class, the business can not refuse service just because they don't like gays.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2013 06:14PM by MJ.