Let me lead in by saying this really isn't unique. It happens often, and I'm sure it's happened to some of you. I OC everywhere, and I've never been asked to leave a restaurant, or any other establishment. I've been "firmly talked to" by an officer, I've been questioned by a bookstore manager, and I've been questioned by many civilians... but never asked to leave.
Here is the article at MArooned:
MArooned: How It Should Be Done...
And here is the full letter that the patron wrote:
» Letter to BoneFish
And now my thoughts:
The manager in this situation made a choice, as described in the letter. I believe that managers everywhere make the choice to side with the sheep for a number of reasons. First, they believe there are far more sheep than there are responsible gun owners. Second, the manager might possibly be an anti-gun person. Third, the manager knows that he has the potential to lose more "non-gun" customers (the majority of their income) than gun-carrying customers (probably a minority).
The third one is obviously an assumption... thinking that people would stop going there knowing they "allow" guns.
I think that store/restaurant owners should know that, in these cases when stories like this are publicized somewhere (on the interwebs), that gun owners are a tightly-knit group of people who praise and support businesses that make positive and good decisions.
Had this manager "allowed" the gun-owning customer to stay, and let the sheep know that the customer has done nothing wrong... the owner/manager could possibly see a surge in business from gun owners that care to support them.
Do you think that the supporting business of gun owners attending a pro-gun restaurant is worth the possible loss of anti-gun customers? Do you think the passive anti-gunners would even care? Or just the vehemently anti-gun customers?
Either way... the article is worth a quick read. I like MArooned's view on it, as well as the customer's letter. Here is a snippet of the letter:
Here is the article at MArooned:
MArooned: How It Should Be Done...
And here is the full letter that the patron wrote:
» Letter to BoneFish
And now my thoughts:
The manager in this situation made a choice, as described in the letter. I believe that managers everywhere make the choice to side with the sheep for a number of reasons. First, they believe there are far more sheep than there are responsible gun owners. Second, the manager might possibly be an anti-gun person. Third, the manager knows that he has the potential to lose more "non-gun" customers (the majority of their income) than gun-carrying customers (probably a minority).
The third one is obviously an assumption... thinking that people would stop going there knowing they "allow" guns.
I think that store/restaurant owners should know that, in these cases when stories like this are publicized somewhere (on the interwebs), that gun owners are a tightly-knit group of people who praise and support businesses that make positive and good decisions.
Had this manager "allowed" the gun-owning customer to stay, and let the sheep know that the customer has done nothing wrong... the owner/manager could possibly see a surge in business from gun owners that care to support them.
Do you think that the supporting business of gun owners attending a pro-gun restaurant is worth the possible loss of anti-gun customers? Do you think the passive anti-gunners would even care? Or just the vehemently anti-gun customers?
Either way... the article is worth a quick read. I like MArooned's view on it, as well as the customer's letter. Here is a snippet of the letter:
I used the term ‘politically correct option’, applying it to the decision of the manager, because I do not believe the manager had any motivation other than satisfying one patron at the expense of the another. His choice as to which patron was more socially acceptable was based on his acceptance of decades of politically motivated propaganda, misinformation and frankly, outright lies.