Re: Freedom of speech?

However, a private company that denies access in a an arbitrary manner is in violation of civil law principles.

Easy one. "We're not denying access to Jack because he is a paedophile, but because we fear he might ogle at children in our premises, take pics of them or otherwise making them or their parents / guardians uncomfortable and we believe this is a good cause for banning him. We receive [insert number c] clients per year, and even by the lowest estimates available, this means we receive [c/100] paedophiles per year, which we don't ban. Thus, it is not arbitrary."

Notice also that paedophilia not being considered an orientation, but a disease, as it legally is in the USA, and a "dangerous" one at that, it might be even easier than that to argue.