My question involves civil rights in the State of: California
I recently witnessed an argument in a local grocery store between a man who insisted on not wearing a mask and the store manager who was insisting that he leave the store. The man claimed a medical problem that excluded him from the state mask rules. It seems to me that there are actually two different ways to look at this, and I'm wondering which would dominate legally (I am not a lawyer).
First, I believe that it is true that there are state mandates regarding wearing of masks inside public places, and that it is also true that those mandates come with a medical exemption.
Second, I believe that it is true that businesses have a right to refuse service to anyone at any time, if there is a good cause for their refusal and if they do not unfairly discriminate against members of a range of groups (sex, race, national origin, etc.). I also believe that there have been some court decisions during the pandemic which have found that attempting to prevent one's employees and customers from infection with CoViD-19 is a good cause for refusal of service (I do not know if any of these were in California).
So, we have two grounds (and who knows, possibly more) for why a store might refuse service to maskless individuals during the pandemic. But the first one includes a medical exemption while the second does not. How does this mismatch affect the civil rights of maskless customers versus store managers? Must the store manager respect the medical exemption and let the maskless man shop, or must the maskless man respect the right of the store manager to refuse service to him on the valid ground of protecting his employees and other customers, and leave?
Or, have I misunderstood something basic about this and the question makes no sense as posed?