Suppose someone was tried and acquitted of a serious person-to-person crime in which the entire media market—including reporters themselves—felt the defendant "got away with their crime", and that person decides to remain in that city/town.
Now suppose you're a business owner in a competitive market for this product/service within the same city/town, have a longstanding policy of "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" and painstaking documentation that the policy is applied "evenly and fairly".
The situation? The person that was tried and acquitted entered the business and was told by an employee that they were reserving the right and they were to leave because the business has a documented history of refusing service to others who were in a similar situation.
Now you, the business owner, have been served with civil court paperwork, both against your business and you personally. When you contact your attorney and they review the paperwork, they let you know you confidentially that you're in the wrong, the now-plaintiff has retained a better lawyer then you would be able to retain, and you have exactly two options:
1. Agree to non-bankruptable financial compensation that would be nearly impossible to pay off;
2. Settle outside of court by agreeing to both turn over your business to the plaintiff, and never own or operate another business again.
Which would you pick?