committed by private individuals in activities offered to the public as a crime. Consolidated case law has condemned restaurants that refused to serve Muslim customers or that used dress codes as a subterfuge to exclude racialised people. French doctrine, in works such as those by Alexandre Quiquerez (Gastronomie et droit), emphasises that restaurants, more than places of sociability, are spaces of “constitutional commensality”, in which the republican principle of equality is measured in concrete terms.12 At the European Union level, Directives 2000/43/EC13 and 2004/113/ EC14 consolidate the duty to ensure non-discriminatory access to goods and services. The former deals with racial equality, while the latter deals with gender equality in access to economic activities. Both oblige Member States to punish discriminatory practices in restaurants, bars and hotels.15 The case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights has reinforced that the right to consumption cannot be used to legitimise exclusions16 . Cases involving veiled refusals of service show that the European Union requires Member States to take effective measures that go beyond formal prohibition and achieve the prevention of indirect discrimination. The American experience is paradigmatic. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, especially in Title II, prohibited segregation in restaurants and hotels, breaking with decades of “whites only restaurants.” This consolidated the idea that when private space is opened to the public, it becomes a political locus, subject to the Constitution. Refusing to serve a black customer was not only a breach of contract, but a symbolic denial of their citizenship. The historical precedent in the United States sheds light on the current debate, as it shows that a restaurant is more than just a business: it is a space for recognition, where equality is decided on a daily basis.17 12 QUIQUEREZ, Alexandre. Gastronomie et droit. Paris: Larcier–Intersentia, 2022. 13 EUROPEAN UNION. Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000. On the application of the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin. Available at: https://eur-lex. europa.eu/legal-content/PT/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32000L0043 . Accessed on: 5 Sept. 2025. 14 EUROPEAN UNION. Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004. On the implementation of the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to goods and services. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/PT/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32004L0113. Accessed on: 5 Sept. 2025. 15 SWEDEN. Swedish Supreme Court. Escape Bar and Restaurant v. Ombudsman Against Ethnic Discrimination, T-2224-07, 1 Oct. 2008. Summary available at European Network of Legal Experts on NonDiscrimination Field, European Anti-Discrimination Law Review, no. 8, July 2009, p. 68. Available at: https:// tinyurl.com/escape-bar-swe. Accessed on: 5 Sept. 2025. 16 EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Çam v. Turkey (Application no. 51500/08), judgment of 23 February 2016. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-161149. Accessed on: 5 Sept. 2025. 17 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964). Case in which the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Title II of the Civil Rights Act, 589 FREEDOM OF ACCESS TO RESTAURANTS
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==