- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 37 year old man who hit on 16 year old at Starbucks banned
Posted on 1/5/17 at 3:21 pm to Big12fan
Posted on 1/5/17 at 3:21 pm to Big12fan
quote:I'm sorry but that sign only applies to whites unless all other parties are loud and drunk. Denying service to a protected class (black, gays or for religious reasons) is against the law.
We Reserve The Right To Refuse Service To Anyone
1
Posted on 1/5/17 at 3:23 pm to Oddibe
quote:
I'm sorry but that sign only applies to whites unless all other parties are loud and drunk. Denying service to a protected class (black, gays or for religious reasons) is against the law.
And that's a problem. The government decides which groups should be protected and which shouldn't. And this list continues to grow.
Posted on 1/5/17 at 3:28 pm to Revelator
quote:I completely agree.
And that's a problem
Posted on 1/5/17 at 3:32 pm to Scruffy
quote:
Any business should be able to discriminate for any reason.
That should be applied evenly, no matter how arbitrary the reason.
If that isn't the case 100% of the time, I oppose instances such as this.
the only thing is this isn't the law. The law is clear on this. You can refuse service to anyone, assuming its not for civil rights reasons.
if this bothers the right, they should work to amend the laws to address the gap.
Posted on 1/5/17 at 3:35 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
the only thing is this isn't the law. The law is clear on this. You can refuse service to anyone, assuming its not for civil rights reasons.
if this bothers the right, they should work to amend the laws to address the gap.
This seems to fall under that umbrella. This man was hitting on a girl who is of legal age in his state. He didn't even ask her for sex or sexually harass her, and hasn't been charged with a crime. By all intents and purposes, what he was doing was legal. If people can't discriminate against others for their legal sexual preferences, then this guy fits that bill.
This post was edited on 1/5/17 at 3:37 pm
Posted on 1/5/17 at 3:36 pm to Revelator
It's obvious it's necessary to protect people still after 50 years.
Look I'm a guy that wants to get rid of affirmative action and get back to as pure a meritocracy as we can get. You are fricking holding us back. Cease. Desist. Get the frick over yourself. Behave on things like this so we can fight for color, sexuality, gender, age, handicap, doesn't matter as long as you can do the job.
If you provide the product or labor. Provide it. If you don't, don't waste space. That's all.
So again defend somebody worth defending not a guy creeping on a barista just because she was nice while serving him.
Look I'm a guy that wants to get rid of affirmative action and get back to as pure a meritocracy as we can get. You are fricking holding us back. Cease. Desist. Get the frick over yourself. Behave on things like this so we can fight for color, sexuality, gender, age, handicap, doesn't matter as long as you can do the job.
If you provide the product or labor. Provide it. If you don't, don't waste space. That's all.
So again defend somebody worth defending not a guy creeping on a barista just because she was nice while serving him.
Posted on 1/5/17 at 3:39 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:My statement implied that I oppose those laws in every single instance.
the only thing is this isn't the law. The law is clear on this. You can refuse service to anyone, assuming its not for civil rights reasons.
I believe that Starbucks should be able to do what they did in the OP, but because of leftist opposition to the free trade and interaction between all parties, I oppose the actions commented on in the OP due to the hypocritical stance of those supporting those laws.
It's purely out of spite.
My stance is completely irrelevant outside of conversation due to the large number of authoritarian leftists.
This post was edited on 1/5/17 at 3:40 pm
Posted on 1/5/17 at 3:45 pm to Scruffy
The problem with Starbuck's stance is that when a black male does the same exact thing and they ban him, he can sue for discrimination. He might not win, but he can file the suit.
What happens when so older woman hits on a male barista? Does she get banned also.
I am all for Starbucks' doing what they did but they only got away with it because it involved a white male.
What happens when so older woman hits on a male barista? Does she get banned also.
I am all for Starbucks' doing what they did but they only got away with it because it involved a white male.
Posted on 1/5/17 at 3:46 pm to Oddibe
That is why I oppose their actions because they are not applied equally.
Authoritarian leftists believe in "protected groups" and their stances regarding those groups are an insult to freedom.
Authoritarian leftists believe in "protected groups" and their stances regarding those groups are an insult to freedom.
Posted on 1/5/17 at 3:48 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:like ageism?
And I believe its long held legal principle that businesses can ban individuals for reasons, assuming they aren't related to civil rights.
Posted on 1/5/17 at 3:53 pm to Revelator
quote:
Spokane police defended the decision to ban Werner, claiming businesses have a right to refuse service for any reason.
Since when?!
You used to see signs posted to that effect openly at businesses. WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE.
That was tacitly racist and was made illegal 50 years ago.
Posted on 1/5/17 at 4:34 pm to ZappBrannigan
quote:
So again defend somebody worth defending not a guy creeping on a barista just because she was nice while serving him.
Awww, have you even read the thread and do you even know my position?! I'm defending Starbucks actions, not the guy.
At least read the thread before posting stupid stuff.
Posted on 1/5/17 at 4:38 pm to WhiskeyPapa
When I worked as a theater usher, we still had on the tickets that mgmt had the final say in seating or ejection from the theater.
It was a treat to enforce.
And in all honesty most common toss outs.
Row of black kids with no/lax supervision.
Teenagers. (Any race)
Prank and/or obscenity.
My favorite was the guy who had pizza delivered through a fire exit without setting off the alarm. And the two rows of whale bones snuck into some old lady flick.
It was a treat to enforce.
And in all honesty most common toss outs.
Row of black kids with no/lax supervision.
Teenagers. (Any race)
Prank and/or obscenity.
My favorite was the guy who had pizza delivered through a fire exit without setting off the alarm. And the two rows of whale bones snuck into some old lady flick.
Posted on 1/5/17 at 4:42 pm to Revelator
No, I know your position. That's why you got the "since when?"
I'm telling you exactly why this doesn't hunt or equate to your "since when?"
Don't be coy.
I'm telling you exactly why this doesn't hunt or equate to your "since when?"
Don't be coy.
Posted on 1/5/17 at 4:45 pm to ZappBrannigan
quote:
I'm telling you exactly why this doesn't hunt or equate to your "since when?"
And I'm telling you that a private business should be able to deny service to anyone for any reasons. And this includes denying to bake a cake for a same sex wedding or refusing to serve guys hitting on young women.
This post was edited on 1/5/17 at 5:08 pm
Posted on 1/5/17 at 4:53 pm to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
I don't think this is a case of virtue signalling. It looks more like CYA.
I meant in this thread. Starbucks can and should do whatever they want.
Posted on 1/5/17 at 5:18 pm to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
You used to see signs posted to that effect openly at businesses. WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE.
Unless a business is getting Governent aid to run that business, why shouldn't they be allowed to serve who they want to serve?
This post was edited on 1/5/17 at 5:45 pm
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News