Remember that Christian bakery?

[*rfaulk34*]

(07-10-2015, 07:23 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I don't think roto suggested loitering as he said "continued to enjoy their purchase".

As far as protected classes. I don't know if there are laws protecting criminal history but I assume few jurisdiction protect criminal history. Within context of the scenario, I would assume that not allowing someone to make use of the seating is on the same level as refusal of service. I'm sure Fred can provide more insight into that as an attorney.

I do know that 21 states and DC have sexual orientation as a protected class with regards to public accommodations, though, but that's not really an issue with what either Roto or myself were talking about.

That would be considered loitering but not necessarily with the same negative connotation that the word carries. Starbucks and other places allow customers to sit and consume their product while doing other things or nothing at all.

Roto brought up an interesting point. Once the consumer has been lawfully served, can they be asked to leave immediately if the proprietor feels their presence would hurt business? Comparing a pedophile and a homosexual isn't on the mark, but each could effect sales in the end. Seems to me, that's the next step in the process. Someone is served, asked to leave, and the debate now becomes...'shouldn't i be allowed to enjoy the product i just purchased, at the place i purchased it'?