>>>
>>>>>My point is entirely valid. If the owner of a business asked you or someone else to leave, and you stood there
>>>>>making a fuss and demanding a reason, he could just as simply call the police and have you carted off the premises
>>>>>as well, because, IT'S HIS BUSINESS. And you would have no say in it. Your feelings on the matter are entirely irrelevant.
>>>>>
>>>>>Do you have to like it? No. Do you have to accept it? Yes.
>>>>
>>>>Now that is cute; you found the Caps Lock key. Good for you.
>>>
>>>
>>>Caps serve to emphasise something. But you knew that.
>>
>>You think?
>>
>>>
>>>>Actually, that's not true about having no say. Restaurants must serve you if you follow their rules. Be that dress code, age restrictions, no pets, etc. Personal dislike is not enough. You can sue them otherwise. Got another point? Because that one is moot.
>>>
>>>
>>>No, they don't. At least not here in Cal. They can refuse service to anyone with no reason
>>>given, so it's a valid point. But pick some other type of business. The idea still applies.
>>>
>>
>>Good thing we're not in California then.
>>
>>>
>>>>UPDATE: Actually, I wonder if Kevin could sue. Michel is always saying that he can't do this or has to do something else for legal reasons. Why? To protect himself because he can be sued. Interesting.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>But you're missing the whole point here. Michel has no legal obligation to tell YOU why he banned Kevin.
>>>That's what ppl hre are all up in arms about - that Michel didn't explain his reasons to the general
>>>UT public.
>>>
>>>You and I have no say, and no right to know the details.
>>
>>And he didn't explain them to Kevin. You good with that too?
>
>I don't believe that. I think both Michel and Kevin know the situation. Regardless, you and I don't
>have an inherent right to the facts.

I talked to Kevin last night and he said he had no clue and received no notice.