Restaurant Bans TSA Employees

[INGunGuy]

They should put up separate water fountains for TSA agents and the rest of us.

I myself think it is complete BS that a business is FORCED by our tyrannical FEDGOV to serve the "Protected class" which unfortunately I am not a member of...

I think that a business owner should make that decision all on their own. If they dont want to serve blacks, whites, hispanics, gun owners, etc, that should be their own decision and not a decision made by the tyranny which is the FEDGOV!

INGunGuy

 

[right winger]

I hope more places join the ban

 

[dross]

For the record, I approve of the business owner having the right to choose with whom he does business for whatever reason he chooses. It is, IMHO, his absolute right to do so, and it is no one's right to partake of his services (that is, there's no right to have coffee at his cafe.) If someone disagrees with his policies that person has a right to protest his actions publicly.

That said, mrjarrell, you state that a business can choose to do business with whomever they please, but a few months ago, you wrote:



It seems to me that his reason was less important than his decision to not do business with someone.

Blessings,
Bill

I don't see a contradiction here. In my view a business should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason. If a business exercised that right, however, for reasons of which I disapproved, I might very well boycott that business, or even protest against it. I don't see a conflict between those actions.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I don't see a contradiction here. In my view a business should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason. If a business exercised that right, however, for reasons of which I disapproved, I might very well boycott that business, or even protest against it. I don't see a conflict between those actions.

The contradiction I saw, if any, was the impression I got that he was OK with refusing to serve TSA agents, but that it was wrong of the cookie store owner to refuse service to homosexuals once the clarification was made that that was (if not THE reason, at least) A reason not to serve them. Personally, I agree, a business owner should be able to lawfully refuse to serve anyone and the people have a right to peacefully demonstrate their opposition and disagreement with his doing so, and refuse to patronize that business (and encourage others to do likewise, whether the group being refused is gays, gun owners, people who drink alcohol, or people with brown hair and beards (or any other group, for that matter.))

Blessings,
Bill

 

[silverbullet]

Wishing I knew where this place was too!

 

[public servant]

You know the thing I find so funny, I am a member on a LEO forum, and the cafe owner is being slammed pretty hard by ALL LEO's that are responding because "THEY" think he is a dumb*** or whatever "THEY" may think. I will tell you this, I have NEVER in my life ever read so much BS from such a large group of JBT-LEO's in my life.

They are only entitled to *your* opinion?

In reality...although I support the business owner's right to serve, or to not serve anyone he wants...I think his outrage should be pointed at TSA policy makers. Not serving TSA workers does little to bring a solution to the cause...but I understand his reasoning. And I'm good with it.

His business...his rules.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

BoR, Dross -

I generally find both of you to be right on target - may I point out one thing that you may wish to be careful of - as a practical matter?

While I agree in principle with that thought, gents, there's a practical limitation to it as well. What about areas of the country that would tend to apply pressure to a business not to allow or serve certain people of [insert religion, ethnicity or ?? here ]?

For instance - I happen to be a landlord. That's one of my businesses. I live in an area of Indiana with a very strong history of ethnic errr... strife.... (for want of a better term). If you don't think it still exists - think again. I VEHEMENTLY disagree with it, but it's still there. If it was UNCHECKED by ANY law there are those who would run anyone who rented to a [insert religion, ethnicity or ?? here ] out of town. They would use the same force (and freedoms) sadly - to cow others into not doing business with anyone of a background different from theirs nor allowing folks like that to live here.

While I TOTALLY agree that a business ought to be free to do it -AND to take the protests if they do, it does beg the question: How do you protect the business when it comes to being harassed , run out of town, kids harassed at school as [insert religion, ethnicity or ?? here ]-lovers, etc. It's not an idle issue. I truly wish it WAS. Failure to think this through can have consequences far beyond what is intended, I suspect.

 

[dross]

BoR, Dross -

I generally find both of you to be right on target - may I point out one thing that you may wish to be careful of - as a practical matter?

While I agree in principle with that thought, gents, there's a practical limitation to it as well. What about areas of the country that would tend to apply pressure to a business not to allow or serve certain people of [insert religion, ethnicity or ?? here ]?

For instance - I happen to be a landlord. That's one of my businesses. I live in an area of Indiana with a very strong history of ethnic errr... strife.... (for want of a better term). If you don't think it still exists - think again. I VEHEMENTLY disagree with it, but it's still there. If it was UNCHECKED by ANY law there are those who would run anyone who rented to a [insert religion, ethnicity or ?? here ] out of town. They would use the same force (and freedoms) sadly - to cow others into not doing business with anyone of a background different from theirs nor allowing folks like that to live here.

While I TOTALLY agree that a business ought to be free to do it -AND to take the protests if they do, it does beg the question: How do you protect the business when it comes to being harassed , run out of town, kids harassed at school as [insert religion, ethnicity or ?? here ]-lovers, etc. It's not an idle issue. I truly wish it WAS. Failure to think this through can have consequences far beyond what is intended, I suspect.

I didn't say it lightly. Everything has tradeoffs, no doubt about it. Yet, I'd rather make the tradeoff that gives more freedom rather than less.

Looking at history, when laws have been used to limit the power of one group in favor of another, what you see is that the free market and people's free will actually subverts what the laws are trying to do. In South Africa, one group wasn't allowed to perform skilled work for another group. In spite of this, a black market in services flourished. "Gardeners" were actually working as plumbers, in spite of the law.

Look at the futility of the laws you mention. If I don't want to hire someone, or rent to them, I can easily get arond any laws that are supposedly there to protect them. I just don't give my real reasons.

I think most businesses care a lot more about their images than the law.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

I tend to feel the same way (err on the side of freedom) Dross... As a minority myself (at least in this section of the country), I am sensitive, however, to the abuses that can result. That's something NOT to be taken lightly.

As you mention, people can find other reasons, for example, not to rent to someone. The problem I'm referring to is a bit more challenging. What if people want to run ME out of town because I rented to a [person of some race, religon, or ???], and the neighbors didn't like it? I'd like to think that I was tough enough to stand up to it - but it's been known to degenerate to thuggery - and in my community, I might well be outnumbered.

(of course a Saiga helps to even the odds...)

Seriously - it's not something I take lightly. I still err on the side of freedom - but I think that it deserves careful consideration.

 

[dross]

I tend to feel the same way (err on the side of freedom) Dross... As a minority myself (at least in this section of the country), I am sensitive, however, to the abuses that can result. That's something NOT to be taken lightly.

As you mention, people can find other reasons, for example, not to rent to someone. The problem I'm referring to is a bit more challenging. What if people want to run ME out of town because I rented to a [person of some race, religon, or ???], and the neighbors didn't like it? I'd like to think that I was tough enough to stand up to it - but it's been known to degenerate to thuggery - and in my community, I might well be outnumbered.

(of course a Saiga helps to even the odds...)

Seriously - it's not something I take lightly. I still err on the side of freedom - but I think that it deserves careful consideration.

We can't allow a heckler's veto.

You are correct to bring up consequences, because everything is a tradeoff.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Sorry, AP, I didn't see this till just now. Tell me... When laws were passed during the Reconstruction, did they end segregation and/or discrimination and/or racism? We all know the answer is no. So what did? Arguably, nothing, since those still exist, but speaking generally, education, free choice, and in some cases, societal pressure seem to have had a positive effect. Let's not count out the financial incentives, either: Let's say there are 100 landlords in your community with rental properties. There are 30,000 people of X group. If 20 of those 100 landlords have properties that they open to the Xs, those properties will quickly fill. Here's the kicker, though: If the other 80 landlords' properties remain vacant, they will either change their rules and allow Xs to rent from them reasonably or they will quickly lose money on their properties. This would require not only the Xs to not patronize such people, but also Ys, Zs, As, and Bs refusing to do so and telling the landlords that those policies are the reasons why. Further, if the rest of the alphabet ALSO refused to deal with the landlords on other matters... example: "You're going to have to leave. I don't sell groceries to landlords who don't rent to Xs.", the pressure would become insurmountable. Eventually, there would be 70, then 60, then, well, fewer landlords that refused to rent to Xs, and their properties would be bought by the original 20, who would then rent them as needed.

Now... Don't think I'm saying this would happen overnight nor that it would be easy. I'm just saying it's a method by which the problem could be addressed. I don't say this lightly either, as I grew up knowing prejudice as well. It's not fun. Changing minds happens only with lots of hard work and concerted effort, and even then, only by consent of the person who owns the mind. Are we trying to change minds or actions, though? I used to have a sign over my computer that read, "When you've got 'em by the _____, their hearts and minds will follow." For that blank, you may substitute the plural of a word for a round object used in a variety of games.

The trick, therefore, is to get 'em by those objects.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[INGunGuy]

They are only entitled to *your* opinion?

In reality...although I support the business owner's right to serve, or to not serve anyone he wants...I think his outrage should be pointed at TSA policy makers. Not serving TSA workers does little to bring a solution to the cause...but I understand his reasoning. And I'm good with it.

His business...his rules.

No, not at all. The issue is that from what I have read over the last year or so, that most of the LEO that are active members of this particular forum seem like they are more like the JBT-LEO than the public-servant LEO as they should be.

Now I do realize that most people have a bad day at work, and that is totally understandable. BUT, the problem is that when a LEO has a bad day it can turn out VERY UGLY for the civilian having to deal with him/her and their bad day.

I am a member of numerous forums on all topics, and one happens to be a Network Engineering forum as I am a Network Engineer. I have seen people come and people go, and yes we all know you have TROLLS, but I have never and I have to say again never read the kind of insults and bad-mouthing that I read on this particular LEO forum on any of the other forums I read. People come on and ask really silly or stupid questions about a multitude of things and people offer insight and info and not attacks and insults. I read because I find it particularly disgusting about how some people feel about others.

As for the store owners "RIGHTS" why shouldnt a cafe be allow to choose who they serve no matter race, creed, color, religion, social status, sexual orientation, gun owner, pet owner, the list goes on and on. YEARS ago, Cracker Barrel fired all their gay employees, well that didnt set quite too well with me. Now personally I dont care about sexual orientation, but I didnt like the fact that a company would fire all employees that were gay. Maybe next time they fire all men over 40. The issue at hand wasnt that the company fired the employees, they want to fire them because they were gay that is IMHO their "RIGHT". But I also dont have to frequent their establishment. And I dont, I have never been back. I believe that if a cafe set up and served "Whites Only" in a society without a "protected class" of people in TODAYS world, they wouldnt last 6 months the backlash would be monumental.

We have all been to an establishment that REQUIRED a coat and tie, dont you think we would be denied service if we didnt meet the minimum requirement? Hasnt that happened to us as gun owners, sometimes being denied service because we decided to carry a firearm. As you said "His Business...His Rules" is right on the money...

INGunGuy