Legal Question in Discrimination Law in Illinois

Wow. I really don't think I have a firm answer here but couldn't resist the temptation to suggest some direction.

I can not think of a federal law directed toward individuals having a gender preference in a place of public accommodation being considered an act of discrimination per se. Employers can't do this (Hooters may be an exception or at least tolerated because it is demeaning enough to women so how many men would want to dress up in a Hooters' outfit....). Governments can't do this (women's military facilities may be an exception), but as to private individuals...? I also am familiar with the Illinois Human Rights Act and there is nothing in it either that seems to touch on this kind of situation.

In a way it would seem to me to be no different than having a preference for a male vs. female massage therapist -- these are in the nature of personal service and part of the overall experience is personal comfort. Or I used to work in a restaurant and patrons had "favorite" staff and asked to be seated in that staff's section if the person was on duty at the time. The problem is that if enough people did this, or said, "I only want a White waiter" or something like that, there could be what's called a "discriminatory effect". But again, it's the customer asking the employer to provide a different waiter -- the employer is not being asked to discriminate in hiring, or to not provide some kind of reasonable accommodation for the employee waiter. If anything, on a humorous note perhaps, the customer is disabled because he or she is paranoid and needs the reasonable accommodation of a female waiter.... There are some exceptions in the Human Rights Act, however, that would suggest this kind of differentiation can be made, but again it is by a service provider.....

Then again, it's not race, but gender. And the law does make distinctions between them as protected classes, for better or for worse. If this was a race issue, I'm wondering whether this might not be taken as some kind of solicitation to commit an illegal act or some kind of public disturbance that the restaurant could then ask the patron to leave, since denial of service is not based on any particular traits of the patron, but a request that could cause a disturbance. I also think the restaurant need not comply with the request since "full enjoyment" of the premises is a general requirement, and not something the patron can manipulate. But beware a patron trying to make a case.

As a practical matter the restaurant can say "we have assigned sections and can not re-assign staff, but if you'd like to, there's a 2-hour wait for another section where the staff is female.....!! Bottom line, I think, without doing more research, it's just rude and politically incorrect, but not necessarily illegal, and it's more a question of handling the situation but when the patron leaves suggest that the next time the patron patronize another establishment.....