4 ms·

It seems that what they need isn't new laws, but removal of whatever law prevents them from putting time limits on their tables. But maybe what prevents them f

It seems that what they need isn't new laws, but removal of whatever law prevents them from putting time limits on their tables. But maybe what prevents them from doing this is a very general law that they need a special exception from, and hence a "loitering law".

thaumasiotes 13y ago
Your parent comment specifically says this: > Because this restaurant was part of a chain and had policies to follow, there wasn't really anything they could do to alleviate the situation. So it seems the situation is something like "a McDonald's franchise owner has a big problem with oldsters filling his seats and inhibiting revenue. As a condition of the McDonald's franchise, he's not allowed to kick patrons out, because though that's great for his revenue the PR is bad enough that it's a revenue loss for headquarters. So he lobbies the local government, which doesn't oversee McDonald's-the-international-company, to pass loitering laws such that he's able to get rid of the oldsters." I don't think the hypothetical guy would have much luck making the case to the IP holder that he needs to build some ill will for the brand.
- busterarm 13y ago
  Right. Actually I think McDonald's allows their restaurants to enforce a 20 minute loitering policy. I've seen the signs clearly posted in many of them. The problem for restaurants is that they're serving the general public. While they're private property, the seating areas inside are considered, for the most part, a public space. While you can refuse people service, you can't do it for any reason that is discriminatory (in the ways that are constitutionally protected plus a few others). If you required a membership, there's implied exclusivity and you can deny anyone you want -- even for discriminatory reasons. This protects businesses like night clubs and the Boy Scouts. If you start throwing out old people who ordered coffee, you're basically asking for a discrimination suit...unless you have a clearly posted sign stating a policy that is enforced for everyone.

thaumasiotes 13y ago

Your parent comment specifically says this: > Because this restaurant was part of a chain and had policies to follow, there wasn't really anything they could do to alleviate the situation. So it seems the situation is something like "a McDonald's franchise owner has a big problem with oldsters filling his seats and inhibiting revenue. As a condition of the McDonald's franchise, he's not allowed to kick patrons out, because though that's great for his revenue the PR is bad enough that it's a revenue loss for headquarters. So he lobbies the local government, which doesn't oversee McDonald's-the-international-company, to pass loitering laws such that he's able to get rid of the oldsters." I don't think the hypothetical guy would have much luck making the case to the IP holder that he needs to build some ill will for the brand.

busterarm 13y ago
Right. Actually I think McDonald's allows their restaurants to enforce a 20 minute loitering policy. I've seen the signs clearly posted in many of them. The problem for restaurants is that they're serving the general public. While they're private property, the seating areas inside are considered, for the most part, a public space. While you can refuse people service, you can't do it for any reason that is discriminatory (in the ways that are constitutionally protected plus a few others). If you required a membership, there's implied exclusivity and you can deny anyone you want -- even for discriminatory reasons. This protects businesses like night clubs and the Boy Scouts. If you start throwing out old people who ordered coffee, you're basically asking for a discrimination suit...unless you have a clearly posted sign stating a policy that is enforced for everyone.