| I came to this blog by accident and cant help but be intrigued by this topic. So here is my 2 cents. From a legal perspective, the US adheres to Common Law which i presume is the very reaon why such refusal of service is legal and not discriminatory since the provision of service, or sales at common law is a cotract. One of the principles of contract is that there must be an 'offer' and 'acceptance' of that offer. And secondly, the parties of a contract have free will regard what is it they are contracting, the common law will not interfere so long as the not contradictory to any legislation regarding the agreement (here, the provision of service and legal goods). Now, to cut the long story short, any business who advertises are not regarded as to be the offeror, instead, for policy reasons their actions are regarded as an 'invitation to treat'. Hence, any person who walks into the store and asks for service is actually offering to purchase the service or goods (which is essentially a contract of sale). Here, the owener can either accept the offer (to which other conditions must be met which i will no discuss here) or reject the offer. Because either party must enter a contract at their own free will, the owener is under no compulsion to accept and can reject for any reason he thinks fit (legally speaking). Should the owner not accept the invitation to treat, he naturally without the right pursuant to their operating ownership of the premises to ask certain individual to leave under the principle of tresspass in torts. Hence, the sign ur speaking of merely reflects that legal principle. |