Mister Darcy
Member
Noooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!
Miss Smith, how could you do this to me?
Miss Smith said:
Miss Smith, how could you do this to me?
-
FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.
Refused Entry to Bar
- Thread starter brotherman82
- Start date
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
Miss Smith
Member
Well color me Royal blue and torn between two lovers
Mr Darcy, last time I looked you were a character in a book. Besides you were created in the late 1700's so you are a bit too old for even me. Shucks, how old do you think I am?
This brotherman, Hubba Hubba, really sounds like he knows how to treat a woman. But I would prefer the K-Mart parking lot. I have to do some shopping and Martha Stewart is quite an Icon for me. She should have a cane to go with her personality, do not you think?
Brotherman, you really should be cloned. I like to drink sweet vermouth with a twist of lemon, what do you like to drink?
Mr Darcy, if you had a uniform in your past, there might have been a chance for you. I hate to be blunt, but you know where I have my weaknesses.
Now kitties... which one of you should I bring along? No,not you you eat my support hose... down boy.. down!
Mr Darcy, last time I looked you were a character in a book. Besides you were created in the late 1700's so you are a bit too old for even me. Shucks, how old do you think I am?
This brotherman, Hubba Hubba, really sounds like he knows how to treat a woman. But I would prefer the K-Mart parking lot. I have to do some shopping and Martha Stewart is quite an Icon for me. She should have a cane to go with her personality, do not you think?
Brotherman, you really should be cloned. I like to drink sweet vermouth with a twist of lemon, what do you like to drink?
Mr Darcy, if you had a uniform in your past, there might have been a chance for you. I hate to be blunt, but you know where I have my weaknesses.
Now kitties... which one of you should I bring along? No,not you you eat my support hose... down boy.. down!
brotherman82
Junior Member
Ya, I mean out of all the people in the world I think I should be number one on the "to be cloned list" haha. That would be convenient in case I ever got a fishing hook stuck in my eye or accidently shot myself instead of the skeet. This one horse town only has a Wal-Mart, I'm affraid you'll have to make due with the great faded glory collection they have. Oh, and I usually don't have lemon with vermouth, now tea is another story.
BelizeBreeze
Senior Member
I know this is a worthless pursuit, but maybe someone other than our poster (who seems to left his brain in his other pants) may learn something about the Unruh Act and it's application in the private sector.
"The (Unruh) Act amended an 1897 version of Civil Code section 51 that was declarative of a common law doctrine requiring places of public accommodation “to serve all customers on reasonable terms without discrimination and . . . to provide the kind of product or service reasonably to be expected from their economic role.” (In re Cox (1970) 3 Cal.3d 205, 212 (Cox).) "
"(the Ca. Supreme Court) also concluded that in enacting the Unruh Act, the Legislature intended to ban all forms of arbitrary discrimination in public accommodations. (Ibister v. Boys’ Club of Santa Cruz (1985) 40 Cal.3d 72, 75"
In light of the above decisions, some people may consider that all discrimination, regardless of the purpose or scope, to be held illegal bye the court under Unruh. And, as you'll see, this is simply not so.
Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1142 (Harris.)
"Harris involved a claim by women receiving public assistance that a landlord’s policy requiring prospective tenants to have gross monthly incomes equal to or greater than three times the rent charged for an apartment (the minimum income policy) constituted economic status discrimination and was barred by the Unruh Act. The plaintiffs argued that the defendant’s policy excluded persons who could pay the rent, but were unable to meet the minimum income policy. "
"We held that the Unruh Act did not include within its ambit claims of economic status discrimination because economic status is fundamentally different than the categories either enumerated in the Act or added by judicial construction"
Unlike the Harris analysis, which concluded that personal characteristics discrimination can be actionable under Unruh, the Harris decision was based on economic characteristics and therefore a ban to actions under Unruh.
From the Harris decision a three-prong test was devised by the court to determine if the underlying action were sustainable under Unruh.
1. Is a new claim of discrimination under the Act based on a classification that involves personal characteristics;
2. Did a legitimate business interest justify the underlying policy, and;
3. What are the potential consequences of allowing claims for economic status discrimination to proceed under the Unruh Act.
In light of our current post and the situation described therein, here is my analysis:
1. Having been refused service because the bartender could not determine, through analysis, that the photo being used for identification was, in fact, that of the person using such, is a matter of other than personal characteristics;
2. A legitimate business interest exists in that, if a drinking or other such licensed establishment which is required, by statute, to control access to its premesis allows all persons regardless of personal characteristics access, they would lose their license and by extension, their business, and;
3. If such an action as is contemplated in this thread were allowed to proceed, then drinking and other similiarly situated establishments would be required to allow entry to all persons who held identification which proported to be valid, regardless of the veracity of that validity.
Such is not the intent of the California legislature nor the California Supreme court.
And lastly, this entire discussion is moot since the incident occurred in Texas and NOT california and the Unruh Act therefore does not apply.
"The (Unruh) Act amended an 1897 version of Civil Code section 51 that was declarative of a common law doctrine requiring places of public accommodation “to serve all customers on reasonable terms without discrimination and . . . to provide the kind of product or service reasonably to be expected from their economic role.” (In re Cox (1970) 3 Cal.3d 205, 212 (Cox).) "
"(the Ca. Supreme Court) also concluded that in enacting the Unruh Act, the Legislature intended to ban all forms of arbitrary discrimination in public accommodations. (Ibister v. Boys’ Club of Santa Cruz (1985) 40 Cal.3d 72, 75"
In light of the above decisions, some people may consider that all discrimination, regardless of the purpose or scope, to be held illegal bye the court under Unruh. And, as you'll see, this is simply not so.
Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1142 (Harris.)
"Harris involved a claim by women receiving public assistance that a landlord’s policy requiring prospective tenants to have gross monthly incomes equal to or greater than three times the rent charged for an apartment (the minimum income policy) constituted economic status discrimination and was barred by the Unruh Act. The plaintiffs argued that the defendant’s policy excluded persons who could pay the rent, but were unable to meet the minimum income policy. "
"We held that the Unruh Act did not include within its ambit claims of economic status discrimination because economic status is fundamentally different than the categories either enumerated in the Act or added by judicial construction"
Unlike the Harris analysis, which concluded that personal characteristics discrimination can be actionable under Unruh, the Harris decision was based on economic characteristics and therefore a ban to actions under Unruh.
From the Harris decision a three-prong test was devised by the court to determine if the underlying action were sustainable under Unruh.
1. Is a new claim of discrimination under the Act based on a classification that involves personal characteristics;
2. Did a legitimate business interest justify the underlying policy, and;
3. What are the potential consequences of allowing claims for economic status discrimination to proceed under the Unruh Act.
In light of our current post and the situation described therein, here is my analysis:
1. Having been refused service because the bartender could not determine, through analysis, that the photo being used for identification was, in fact, that of the person using such, is a matter of other than personal characteristics;
2. A legitimate business interest exists in that, if a drinking or other such licensed establishment which is required, by statute, to control access to its premesis allows all persons regardless of personal characteristics access, they would lose their license and by extension, their business, and;
3. If such an action as is contemplated in this thread were allowed to proceed, then drinking and other similiarly situated establishments would be required to allow entry to all persons who held identification which proported to be valid, regardless of the veracity of that validity.
Such is not the intent of the California legislature nor the California Supreme court.
And lastly, this entire discussion is moot since the incident occurred in Texas and NOT california and the Unruh Act therefore does not apply.
brotherman82
Junior Member
BB, I appreciate that comprehensive analysis. However must I remind you, you asked for any state law, which brought the discussion to CA. Granted it has since been qualified as you mentioned by Harris, which I admitted earlier I had been unable to find. However, if I were to pursue the case in California my analysis would be different. The bar’s refusal to serve was not based on inability to verify identification, as there would be no further way to prove identification after credit cards, other government issued I.D’s, and a social security card had been shown, but rather because of some personal characteristics, most likely unconventional clothing, (given the setting) which in California is impermissible under the Unruh Act. But the strength of that argument is debatable. Again I appreciate the explanation, more importantly the link to the Harris case which you will be shocked to hear required no further explanation. I only wish I would have been pointed in that direction a lot sooner. Instead smart response and further elementary responses, a simple link to that case or other cases would have suffice. We aren't all small minded and while I questioned the specific incident I soon became more interested in the broader state of the right to refuse service. In just snooping around a little bit more I have found legal articles on the subject and in California the issue still seems to be somewhat unclear. Regardless, very interesting.
Miss Smith
Member
Well color me white and call out the bridesmaids
Keep talking brotherman, be still my heart. Did you know there is only a 72 hour wait to get married in Texas? And I don't have to be a resident, I looked it up. You get out that old Uniform. We will get BelizeBreeze out there as best Man and his cat Scruffy will be on my side.
Get your bloodtest done asap, young fellow. You are going to have the oldest virgin as your blushing bride. Now where did I put my wig and my teeth.
Kitties... Mommie is finally going down that Aisle. Yea--Haw
here comes the bride, all dressed in white... Oh I don't have any white support hose. Oh I can get some at Wal-mart. Dun dun dun dunhunn..
Keep talking brotherman, be still my heart. Did you know there is only a 72 hour wait to get married in Texas? And I don't have to be a resident, I looked it up. You get out that old Uniform. We will get BelizeBreeze out there as best Man and his cat Scruffy will be on my side.
Get your bloodtest done asap, young fellow. You are going to have the oldest virgin as your blushing bride. Now where did I put my wig and my teeth.
Kitties... Mommie is finally going down that Aisle. Yea--Haw
here comes the bride, all dressed in white... Oh I don't have any white support hose. Oh I can get some at Wal-mart. Dun dun dun dunhunn..
brotherman82
Junior Member
Can we have the whole BB fan club? My dog will love all the cats haha.
Last edited:
Just Blue
Senior Member
Miss Smith and brotherman....I am so happy for you...uhhh
love...can i come to the wedding?? I'll bring REAL clam chowdah from Legal Seafood, the best in the world and kinda fitting seeing where you all met! And I will stop at K-Mart for those white supporthose...please ...Can I..huhhuh??
love...can i come to the wedding?? I'll bring REAL clam chowdah from Legal Seafood, the best in the world and kinda fitting seeing where you all met! And I will stop at K-Mart for those white supporthose...please ...Can I..huhhuh??