# We reserve the right to refuse service
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-reserve-the-right-to-refuse-service/74147
**Category:** Factual Questions
**Created:** [July 29, 2001, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-reserve-the-right-to-refuse-service/74147 "2001-07-29T08:10:43Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)
#### Post date: [July 29, 2001, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-reserve-the-right-to-refuse-service/74147/1 "2001-07-29T08:10:43Z")
…to anyone
You see these signs all over the place in retail stores. I understand the need for them in some cases, but is it really true?
It seems that various forms of discrimination could easily slide under this blanket statement. What if the owner of the store just decides to refuse service to people of a certain ethnicity?
Does this right to refuse service actually exist, or is it just a convenient out for businesses who want a sign to point to when they have a problem with a customer?
---
### Author:  [@nightshadea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nightshadea)
#### Post date: [July 29, 2001, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-reserve-the-right-to-refuse-service/74147/2 "2001-07-29T08:18:52Z")
it backs your second statement … ie if youre not wearing the attire they want you to wear … or your being rude or walk in drunk this is mostly used in stores and resturants really
---
### Author:  [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)
#### Post date: [July 29, 2001, 8:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-reserve-the-right-to-refuse-service/74147/3 "2001-07-29T08:27:06Z")
Don’t quote me on this because I’m a bit tipsy right now. The civil rights act of 1964 prhoibits discrimination by private merchants on the bases of race, color, creed, sex, religion, and national origin, etc. So, if a merchant does not discriminsate on these bases, and just kicks a guy out for being a drunken ass, then everything is grand. No cites, it’s a lot of work.
---
### Author:  [@FarmerOak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FarmerOak)
#### Post date: [July 29, 2001, 8:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-reserve-the-right-to-refuse-service/74147/4 "2001-07-29T08:43:43Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Bearflag70 \*
> **The civil rights act of 1964 prhoibits discrimination by private merchants on the bases of race, color, creed, sex, religion, and national origin, etc.**
Very close, for a tipsy **Bear**.
The aforementioned legislation prohibits discrimination _in places of public accomodation_. These would tend to include hotels and restaurants, but not necessarily pawn shops and 7-Elevens.
Please note that the FCRA of 1964 applies **exclusively** to interstate commerce. The government of the United States does **not** have the authority to regulate my Bait Shack or my garage sale.
Cite: 42 U.S.C. (ss) 2000a _et seq._ No link as yet.
IANAL. YMMV.
---
### Author:  [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)
#### Post date: [July 29, 2001, 9:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-reserve-the-right-to-refuse-service/74147/5 "2001-07-29T09:04:15Z")
Thanks, Farmer, for holding me up in my current state. Perhaps I should refrain from posting. 🙂 ::hic::
---
### Author:  [@FarmerOak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FarmerOak)
#### Post date: [July 29, 2001, 9:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-reserve-the-right-to-refuse-service/74147/6 "2001-07-29T09:23:56Z")
The Farmer never lets his state of sobriety influence his posts. My rule of thumb is: Hit **preview reply** once for every beer consumed since log-on.
---
### Author:  [@National\_Kegger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/National_Kegger)
#### Post date: [July 29, 2001, 9:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-reserve-the-right-to-refuse-service/74147/7 "2001-07-29T09:37:14Z")
The classic one is in casinos, where they can and do exclude anyone they think is counting cards at blackjack. It’s not against the rules, and it is unfair of them, but they still get away with it.
---
### Author:  [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)
#### Post date: [July 29, 2001, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-reserve-the-right-to-refuse-service/74147/8 "2001-07-29T22:43:26Z")
Thanks all. I’ll check out that Civil Rights thingy (man, the stuff you miss by not paying attention in History class)
---
### Author:  [@micco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/micco)
#### Post date: [July 30, 2001, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-reserve-the-right-to-refuse-service/74147/9 "2001-07-30T01:45:42Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by National Kegger \*
> \*\*The classic one is in casinos, where they can and do exclude anyone they think is counting cards at blackjack. It’s not against the rules, and it is unfair of them, but they still get away with it. \*\*
I was told that casinos bar card counters because it’s actually illegal. Casinos are licensed to run games of chance. If you’re counting, that’s a game of skill and violates their license.
Of course, I was told this by a card player, not a legal scholar, so YMMV. In any case, they can exclude you with impunity and your only recourse is to show a pattern of illegal discrimination.
---
### Author:  [@DoctorJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DoctorJ)
#### Post date: [July 30, 2001, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-reserve-the-right-to-refuse-service/74147/10 "2001-07-30T02:23:34Z")
Casinos run poker games, and that is certainly a game of skill. Counting cards is not illegal anywhere in the US that I know of (without a mechanical device, of course).
> [@](#):
>
> The aforementioned legislation prohibits discrimination in places of public accomodation. These would tend to include hotels and restaurants, but not necessarily pawn shops and 7-Elevens.
What exactly makes something a “public accommodation”? I’ve always wondered.
Dr. J
---
### Author:  [@micco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/micco)
#### Post date: [July 30, 2001, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-reserve-the-right-to-refuse-service/74147/11 "2001-07-30T13:55:13Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by DoctorJ \*
> \*\*Casinos run poker games, and that is certainly a game of skill. Counting cards is not illegal anywhere in the US that I know of (without a mechanical device, of course).
> \*\*
This is pretty far afield of the OP, but it vaguely relates to refusing service so here goes…
Two points regarding poker games in casinos:
1. They’re as much a game of chance as blackjack, in that you draw cards and make choices based on those cards.
2. The casinos do not participate in poker games. They provide a dealer and take a cut of every hand, but you don’t play against the house like you do in blackjack, at least in every game I’ve played. This may put them in a slightly different standing even if you dispute #1.
I didn’t mean to imply that counting cards was illegal for the player, but that it changed the nature of the game so that it was a violation for the casino. That is, the casino was doing something wrong by allowing it, but the player wasn’t culpable. AFAIK, this is the cited reason for barring card counters in Vegas casinos. I believe Atlantic City has different rules. YMMV.
---
### Author:  [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)
#### Post date: [July 30, 2001, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-reserve-the-right-to-refuse-service/74147/12 "2001-07-30T15:10:26Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by FarmerOak \*
> Please note that the FCRA of 1964 applies **exclusively** to interstate commerce. The government of the United States does **not** have the authority to regulate my Bait Shack or my garage sale.
Except that the Supreme Court has already decided, w/r/t the Civil Rights Act, that basically every business enterprise in the country is engaged in interstate commerce. \*See [Katzenbach v. McClung\*](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=379&page=294), 379 U.S. 294 (1964). Not even in the Rehnquist Court’s recent Commerce Clause jurisprudence has the validity of _Katzenbach_ been so much as questioned.
If your bait shop sells worms, lures, or tackle from another state, _Katzenbach_ says you’re subject to the provisions of the CRA. And while I don’t know of any cases involving discrimination at a garage sale, that blender with the missing buttons came from Indiana, and those old vacation t-shirts you bought for the kids at Daytona Beach were printed in California long before the squirts outgrew them. Now you’re selling these items in a different state. Feel free to draw your own conclusion here.
Do not try to avoid the Civil Rights Act by claiming you’re not engaging in interstate commerce. You will lose.
---
### Author:  [@FarmerOak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FarmerOak)
#### Post date: [July 30, 2001, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-reserve-the-right-to-refuse-service/74147/13 "2001-07-30T20:26:31Z")
Thank you, **minty**. I stand corrected.
Please note that it is still legal to discriminate againt left-handed people. It’s the last bastion for bigots.
---
### Author:  [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)
#### Post date: [July 30, 2001, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-reserve-the-right-to-refuse-service/74147/14 "2001-07-30T21:09:57Z")
Guess you haven’t read the Americans With Disabilities Act lately, huh? 😉 Nah, seriously, I don’t know of any laws that prohibit discrimination based on hand dominance.
One other thing I should have pointed out in my previous post is that most (and for all I know, all) states have passed their own laws closely mirroring the federal Civil Rights Act. So even if you could get around the federeal CRA on interstate commerce grounds, you could still get nailed via state anti-discrimination statutes.
Of course, to be actionable the discrimination has to be based on the person’s race/gender/religion/etc. If you toss a member of a protected class out of your Hardee’s franchise because he’s not wearing shoes, you haven’t violated any anti-discrimination laws. And frankly, I don’t see what the point of the OP’s signs are anyway, since AFAIK you can chuck 'em out regardless of the presence of such a sign.
---
### Author:  [@The\_Bad\_Astronomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Bad_Astronomer)
#### Post date: [July 30, 2001, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-reserve-the-right-to-refuse-service/74147/15 "2001-07-30T22:24:49Z")
> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by micco \*
> \*\* The casinos do not participate in poker games. They provide a dealer and take a cut of every hand_\*
Hmmmm… if they take a straight cut (ie a fixed amount of money), then it doesn’t matter if someone counts cards or not. However, if they take a percentage of the take, it might benefit the casino to have someone paying attention to cards played. The pots are likely to be bigger if someone knows that all the kings have been played, for example.
Anyway, counting cards sounds legal to me, and I have always wondered how casinos get away with throwing out counters, given how regulated the casinos are.
Back to the OP, I always figured that the signs mean that they are reserving the right to throw out people exhibitnig bad behavior no matter what else they are doing (buying a lot of stuff, or whatever). However, the generalness of the sign leaves them open for all sorts of interpretation.
---
### Author:  [@bdgr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bdgr)
#### Post date: [July 30, 2001, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-reserve-the-right-to-refuse-service/74147/16 "2001-07-30T23:08:44Z")
I know in Texas, the we reserve the right to refuse service has its limits… You cant refuse service based on race, religion, style of dress, or memebership in any orginization unless the style of dress constitutes an imdiate breach of public peace. There are a couple of biker [attorneys](http://www.aimncom.com/states_map/texas.htm) makeing a big name for themselves for taking on bars and eating establishments for refuseing service to bikers, or not letting them wear colors. They always seem to win. I have a relative who lives in Washington state and is a member of a motorcycle club up there. His club has a lawyer retained for just such things, and any time they get refused they call him and wind up geting an apology from the establishment in question. Apparently Washington has a similar law.
---
### Author:  [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)
#### Post date: [July 30, 2001, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-reserve-the-right-to-refuse-service/74147/17 "2001-07-30T23:35:24Z")
No offense, **bdgr** , but that sounds quite incorrect to me. The page you linked to claims the Texas Constitution prevents private individuals from “depriving a citizen of his or her right to freedom of speech, expression, or association.” It then cites a Texas Supreme Court case, _association. Hajek v. Bill Mowbray Motors Inc_, 647 S.W.2d 253 (1983) for this proposition.
But _Hajek_ says no such thing. In fact, that’s such a ridiculous falsehood that if such a claim came across my desk in a brief to a court, I would move for sanctions against the other attorney. The _Hajek_ Court states quite plainly that it is reversing because the trial court had improperly issued an injunction preventing the defamation defendant from exercising his right to free speech:
> [@](#):
>
> The temporary injunction granted by the trial court constitutes a prior restraint on free speech. Our Constitution provides, in part:
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Every person shall be at liberty to speak, write or publish his opinions on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that privilege; and no law shall ever be passed curtailing the liberty of speech or of the press.
>
> Tex. Const. art. I, § 8.
>
> The language enjoined here evoked no threat of danger to anyone and, therefore, may not be subject to the prior restraint of a temporary injunction. Defamation alone is not a sufficient justification for restraining an individual’s right to speak freely. _Ex parte Tucker_, 110 Tex. 335, 220 S.W. 75, 76 (1920).
>
> Because the decision of the court below conflicts with article I, section 8 of the Texas Constitution and _Ex parte Tucker_, _supra_, we grant the application for writ of error and, without oral argument, reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and dissolve the temporary injunction.
If you have any further information showing that Texas businesses cannot freely discriminate based on style of dress or organizational membership, I would be pleased to see it.
---
### Author:  [@bdgr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bdgr)
#### Post date: [July 30, 2001, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-reserve-the-right-to-refuse-service/74147/18 "2001-07-30T23:57:17Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by minty green \*
> \*\*No offense, **bdgr** , but that sounds quite incorrect to me.
no offense taken. I will look around and see if I can find a second site, but these guys are one of the bigger biker legal firms, and they have been quite successfull using this argument against various establishments. they aren’t the only ones either, just the only ones I could think of off the top of my head.
---
### Author:  [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)
#### Post date: [July 31, 2001, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-reserve-the-right-to-refuse-service/74147/19 "2001-07-31T00:07:22Z")
If they’re winning, I’m pretty much certain they’re winning through the threat of litigation rather than winning in court. It’s also possible that there’s some sort of statute restricting dress codes, as bikers are often seen lobbying their reps when the Legislature is in session, and with some success. But I’ll believe it when I see it. 🙂
---
### Author:  [@bdgr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bdgr)
#### Post date: [July 31, 2001, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-reserve-the-right-to-refuse-service/74147/20 "2001-07-31T01:43:10Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by minty green \*
> \*\*If they’re winning, I’m pretty much certain they’re winning through the threat of litigation rather than winning in court. It’s also possible that there’s some sort of statute restricting dress codes, as bikers are often seen lobbying their reps when the Legislature is in session, and with some success. But I’ll believe it when I see it. 🙂 \*\*
Actually, the Texas legislature just passed a law to that effect, but the governer vetoed it. I dont know how much they have one in court and how many just caved, but I remember reading about one of the first cases involving a man who was asked to leave a bar because of his colors. He refused, was arrested for Criminal Tresspass, and the Texas Supreme Court ruled in his favor. I think the various biker attorneys saw this as a way to make a name for themselves after that, and they have been taking on these cases ever since. The law that he just [vetoed](http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/tlo/textframe.cmd?LEG=77&SESS=R&CHAMBER=H&BILLTYPE=B&BILLSUFFIX=00259&VERSION=5&TYPE=B) would have made it easier.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-reserve-the-right-to-refuse-service/74147.md?page=2)