IV. PARADIGMATIC CASES AND CONTEMPORARY CHALLENGES Critical hermeneutics is not proven in abstractions, but in confrontation with reality. Each case of exclusion in restaurants reveals how the law is made or broken in everyday life. These are not isolated episodes or mere consumer issues, but constitutional micro-dramas where equality and dignity are put to the test in the most concrete way: the door that opens or closes, the table that is offered or denied. It is in this concrete terrain that theory finds its most demanding test. The most eloquent historical paradigm remains the civil rights movement in the United States. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, especially Title II on public accommodations, was born largely out of the struggle against segregation in restaurants and diners32 . The Greensboro sit-ins, which began in 1960 when four black students sat at the „whites only“ counter at Woolworth‘s lunch counter, became a symbol of peaceful resistance to segregation. The case Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964) legally established that establishments open to the public cannot discriminate on the basis of race, setting a precedent that resonates to this day33 . In contemporary France, the issue of the Islamic veil has generated tensions in public spaces, including restaurants. Although the case of S.A.S. v. France (2014) dealt specifically with the ban on full veils in public spaces34 , discriminatory logic often spills over into private establishments. Alexandre Quiquerez, in his work Gastronomie et droit, analyses how restaurants become the stage for these tensions, constituting a space of „constitutional conviviality“ where republican principles are tested in practice35 . The debate reveals how seemingly neutral concepts – “hygiene”, “safety”, “family environment” – can mask discriminatory practices. In Brazil, although there is no systematic mapping of cases involving restaurants in particular, case law has established robust parameters against discriminatory practices in commercial establishments open to the public. In matters of consumption and equality, the CDC, combined with the constitutional principles of dignity and equality, provides a solid framework for protection against arbitrary exclusion. 32 UNITED STATES. Civil Rights Act of 1964. Public Law 88-352, 2 July 1964. Title II – Public Accommodations. 33 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964). 34 EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. S.A.S. v. France (Application no. 43835/11), Judgment of 1 July 2014. 35 QUIQUEREZ, Alexandre. Gastronomie et droit. Brussels: Larcier-Intersentia, 2022. pp. 187–192. 595 FREEDOM OF ACCESS TO RESTAURANTS
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==