constitutional right to purchase food

pirelli

In a hypotetical situation.

Can you be prevented from shopping in your local supermarket because the manager does not like you. You have not broken any laws or rules. You simply were disliked by the manager because you made a complaint against them to customer service.

Can they lawfully bar you from shopping in what is the local supermarket. It would seem unconstitutional to prevent a person of good character the right to
enter the local supermarket because the manager dislikes the person.

The managers side of the story: He claims the person he dislikes waved at him while shopping and this upset him.

r14

Even if there is a constitutional right to buy food it's not being infringed because you can easily buy food in any other supermarket. You won't starve because the supermarket manager doesn't like you.

As for a right to be in the supermarket, it's just like any other private property. The manager has the right to exclude anyone he doesn't want there just like you have the right to exclude him from your house.

pirelli

There must be something that disallows discrimination. Take for example
the equality status, does the supermarket not have to give a reason for the exclusion in writing. Could you take a case to the equality tribunial if they don't give a reason.

I can't exclude polish people because they say goodbye in polish can i.

Stirling

Couldn't this be taken to be the case that the right to be in a supermarket to purchase food is one granted under licence and that what would be happening would be the revocation of this licence rather than trespass in the strictest sense of the word?

EC1000

pirelli wrote: »

There must be something that disallows discrimination. Take for example
the equality status, does the supermarket not have to give a reason for the exclusion in writing. Could you take a case to the equality tribunial if they don't give a reason.

I can't exclude polish people because they say goodbye in polish can i.

http://www.equality.ie/index.asp?locID=18&docID=-1

Tells you all you need to know

pirelli

EC1000 wrote: »

http://www.equality.ie/index.asp?locID=18&docID=-1

Tells you all you need to know

Thanks, But is that the only remedy.

pirelli

Stirling wrote: »

Couldn't this be taken to be the case that the right to be in a supermarket to purchase food is one granted under licence and that what would be happening would be the revocation of this licence rather than trespass in the strictest sense of the word?

Does this mean that your entitled to shop if that is what you are doing.

Aprilsunshine

pirelli wrote: »

Does this mean that your entitled to shop if that is what you are doing.

Look - unless you are a traveller or foreign and this is the reason for the so called discrimination, your best bet is to write to the head office,explain the problem and give the manager's name etc. In the current climate the head office won't want such pettiness by their staff.

But there is no legal remedy I'm afraid. As a previous post explained this could be a licence situation and they are entitled to revoke it at will.

Seriously forget the law and complain the old fashioned way.

pirelli

Aprilsunshine wrote: »

Look - unless you are a traveller or foreign and this is the reason for the so called discrimination, your best bet is to write to the head office,explain the problem and give the manager's name etc. In the current climate the head office won't want such pettiness by their staff.

But there is no legal remedy I'm afraid. As a previous post explained this could be a licence situation and they are entitled to revoke it at will.

Seriously forget the law and complain the old fashioned way.

Not looking for legal advice or case law, read the OP April before handing out advice. "Current climate" ! Lol that says it all.

Stirling

pirelli wrote: »

Does this mean that your entitled to shop if that is what you are doing.

In a word no. The reason you are granted the licence to be on the premises is for the purpose of shopping but the revocation of the licence is that to be on the premises not to shop - the right to shop on the premises is ancillary to the right to be on the premises to shop and when this primary licence was revoked you have no right to shop there at all.

pirelli

Stirling wrote: »

In a word no. The reason you are granted the licence to be on the premises is for the purpose of shopping but the revocation of the licence is that to be on the premises not to shop - the right to shop on the premises is ancillary to the right to be on the premises to shop and when this primary licence was revoked you have no right to shop there at all.

Thanks Stirling. So essentially there is a license and it has been revoked.
In general they can revoke that license to prevent anyone they choose from entering and therefore management has the right to refuse service.

The management has the right to refuse service, but i had thought this was always not the complete truth when it came to your local co op / market etc..
This could effect peoples livelihood.

It might serve a business competitor if i can not use my local co -op and the manager of the co -op is a friend of the business competitor. Must I/they really have to prove that there is a conspiracy, is there not a more immediate relief.


Should they not give a written reason.

Stirling

Well if whats in question is a bare licence then yes they can revoke without written notice but generally won't as a matter of good business sense - it looks bad and does damage to the reputation of a business.


As for the co-op situation that complicates things a little bit. Do you mean one in which the hypothetical person barred is an actual member of the govering co-operative society as opposed to a mere shopper in the store or outlet operated and controlled by the society? If a member of the co-operative society I imagine such a person might have further rights dependant on the terms laid down by the hypothetical co-operative but these further rights, if any, would derive from such membership and would be defined by the governing documents rather than being general in nature so in this hypothetical one would need further information.

One would have to have a look at the hypothetical documents no determine if the hypothetically banned person was a hypothetical member of the hypothetical co-operative and what hypothetical rights this hypothetical membership gave to the hypothetically aggrieved hypothetical person.

And the award for the most uses of the word "hypothetical" in a single post goes to....:D