Starbucks shop boots police officers because customer ‘did not feel safe’...

[Kutnupe14]

So, if you order dinner at a restaurant, you don't have a contractual interest in consuming that meal at the restaurant?

How is ordering a coffee drink at Starbucks and sitting down at a table materially any different?

No. Look at it this way, would the price of your meal be the same if you ordered carry out?

 

[chipbennett]

I don't like that idea at all. We can't condone officers being JBTs when we don't like the bad, legal, behavior of others. The officers conducted themselves exactly as professionals should.

Allow me my mental schadenfreude. I know the officers in question would never do such a thing.

I don't believe that it is established that legal (or, at least, legally compelling) behavior of others is involved here. For the sake of argument, the barista violated the officers' right of accommodation to consume their coffee drinks purchased on the premises. For the sake of further argument, the "offended" customer committed tortious interference of the officers' contractual interest with the establishment.

Of course, I've reached the point of no more tolerance for these fascist *******s.

 

[chipbennett]

No. Look at it this way, would the price of your meal be the same if you ordered carry out?

Yes, actually, because I wouldn't be paying a tip for the server. Also, there are (or at least, used to be) restaurants that charged different prices for dining in vs carrying out.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Is there case law on this question? Again, I argue that providing tables and chairs intended to be used to consume products purchased on the premises constitutes the same contractual interest as eating at any other restaurant.

We are long-past the time when any proprietor could ask any patron to leave for any reason whatsoever. "Right of accommodation", and all.

Not that I'm aware, so I won't say I'm 100% right, but businesses usually have wide leeway in refusing service if you aren't a member of a protected group.

 

[Clay Pigeon]

Not that I'm aware, so I won't say I'm 100% right, but businesses usually have wide leeway in refusing service if you aren't a member of a protected group.

So, you are saying LEO are not a protected group?

 

[Kutnupe14]

So, you are saying LEO are not a protected group?

No, they're not, at not from a civil rights perspective.

 

[Fargo]

Is there case law on this question? Again, I argue that providing tables and chairs intended to be used to consume products purchased on the premises constitutes the same contractual interest as eating at any other restaurant.

We are long-past the time when any proprietor could ask any patron to leave for any reason whatsoever. "Right of accommodation", and all.

Yeah, the closest I know of supports Kut's argument.

https://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06291201bd.pdf

If you find Ct. Of Appeals decision overruled in the above, it largely adopted Chip's argument. I think the INSCt. got it wrong, but it is what it is.

 

[Clay Pigeon]

No, they're not, at not from a civil rights perspective.

Joe Citizen doesn't have Qualified immunity, LEO do.

 

[tsm]

No, they're not, at not from a civil rights perspective.

How do you know some of them weren’t?

 

[chipbennett]

Yeah, the closest I know of supports Kut's argument.

https://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06291201bd.pdf

If you find Ct. Of Appeals decision overruled in the above, it largely adopted Chip's argument. I think the INSCt. got it wrong, but it is what it is.

So, the cited case is an irate bank customer who demanded services not provided by the bank, by policy. I don't see how that has any bearing on someone who purchases product for consumption from a restaurant.

 

[chipbennett]

Joe Citizen doesn't have Qualified immunity, LEO do.

I'm not sure how qualified immunity would be involved here?

 

[Clay Pigeon]

I'm not sure how qualified immunity would be involved here?

I didnt post that it was,
Kut posted that LEO were not a protected group as far as civil rights go. Its not true..

 

[chipbennett]

I didnt post that it was,
Kut posted that LEO were not a protected group as far as civil rights go. Its not true..

Okay, but "as far as civil rights go" with respect to criminal trespass at a place of business, how is LEO qualified immunity involved? (Especially considering that they were off-duty...)

 

[Fargo]

So, the cited case is an irate bank customer who demanded services not provided by the bank, by policy. I don't see how that has any bearing on someone who purchases product for consumption from a restaurant.

Irate and policy don't have anything to do with the statute. The trigger is "contractual interest". If bank customers who are in a contract allowing them to use branches of the bank they have given their money to don't have such an interest, restaurant customers are likely SOL.

 

[ultra...good]

Imagine if somebody was wearing a rainbow themed whatever and were asked to leave because someone was not comfortable around homosexuals. How would that fly?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Imagine if somebody was wearing a rainbow themed whatever and were asked to leave because someone was not comfortable around homosexuals. How would that fly?

It wouldn't, assuming the person vocalized the "homosexual" complaint.... but if it's just a rainbow themed shirt (not the rainbow flag), in theory, it could fly, as rainbows aren't necessarily indicative of being a homosexual. The shirt just might be ugly.

 

[Clay Pigeon]

Imagine if somebody was wearing a rainbow themed whatever and were asked to leave because someone was not comfortable around homosexuals. How would that fly?

So you can tell who is a homosexual just by them wearing something " Rainbow Themed "... Thats some awesome gaydar you have.

 

[ultra...good]

So you can tell who is a homosexual just by them wearing something " Rainbow Themed "... Thats some awesome gaydar you have.

I cannot, just a hypothetical question.

 

[Rookie]

Yeah, the closest I know of supports Kut's argument.

https://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06291201bd.pdf

If you find Ct. Of Appeals decision overruled in the above, it largely adopted Chip's argument. I think the INSCt. got it wrong, but it is what it is.

Not making any argument, but here is the only time I've seen contractual interest being used as a legitimate defense.
https://law.justia.com/cases/indiana/court-of-appeals/1998/123101-ewn.html

 

[chipbennett]

Irate and policy don't have anything to do with the statute. The trigger is "contractual interest". If bank customers who are in a contract allowing them to use branches of the bank they have given their money to don't have such an interest, restaurant customers are likely SOL.

Understood. But in the cited case, the account holder was asking for services not offered by the bank. Thus, there was no contractual interest regarding the requested services. Had the account holder been asking for services offered by the bank and thus services to which he was entitled by virtue of holding an account at the bank, then the question of contractual interest likely would have been answered differently.

I pose the same question to you: if someone has been served a meal at a restaurant, does that person have a contractual interest in the real property, for the purpose/duration of completing the meal?