The vegan wannabe-revolutionary in me is absolutely fascinated by the cafe. Yesterday, I would’ve gone out of my way to eat there.
Today, the human being in me is revolted by their behavior. What. The. Fuck.
Brilliant.
It’s possible to consider a place a home without paying through the roof (no pun intended) to erect a permanent shelter on it.
Snarkyness aside, not having a house/apartment is in and of itself quite draining. It isn’t necessary to rub it in their faces by implying that they don’t belong anywhere in the community.
There was no indication he intended to cause a scene. Not even the cafe accuses of him that.
Fine. The former’s evil. The latter’s being an asshole. They’re both passing judgment based on idiotic stereotypes. Not even allowing people to share space for a freaking cup of coffee, much less participate in community? I’m sure that’s exactly the kind of oppression-free paradise of equality they seek to build.
They’ve since gone and banned all on-duty police from their cafe (see the blog entry) because officers make them uncomfortable. No dialog, no chance at improving relations, no middle ground, nothing… instead of allowing any sort of tolerance, their solution is to simply ban anyone who doesn’t immediately share their world view? I sure hope that doesn’t mirror their collective decision-making process.
Devil’s advocate: there’s plenty of chance for dialog, improving relations, middle-ground. The cops just have to come in when they’re not on-duty. Failing that, they can send a non-cop for dialog purposes.
As I said initially, I think they were being moderate douchebags here. Folks are blowing this way out of proportion, however.
Why would they want to? One of their own went in to get some coffee, by all indications behaved perfectly normally, perhaps even tried to be friendly (enough to chat with another patron, at least)… and got kicked out because somebody decided, after having served the guy, that he was suddenly no longer comfortable with his presence for no apparent reason.
That’s not exactly a welcoming atmosphere.
If the cop was simply served some coffee once or twice, maybe some smalltalk could’ve happened leading up to a “So what is this whole anarchism business?” moment. I guess we’ll never know.
Good lord just from the description in the OP I knew it would be a bunch of hippiedouches in SE Portland. I’ve seen this place, it’s somewhere I would loathe going into because A) many vegans ruin their reputation by proclaiming they don’t eat anything that has a face (seriously, the face only goes into hot dogs and sausage) and 2) I don’t like vegan food anyway.
I have no love for the police, and avoid them whenever possible. But at the end of the day they’re human beings just like everyone else, and common basic courtesy goes a long way in spreading community spirit. It looks like on google maps the reviews are almost universally reviled starting from June 3rd when the article actually came out. I’m amused. We get so vocal about things going on in our town, don’t we?
Yes, there are certainly degrees. Thus not serving blacks is less immoral than lynching them. But nobody lynched the police officer in question.
Are you asserting some moral difference between denying service to a police officer, and denying service to an un-closeted gay person?
Is that your distinction - that it is OK to discriminate *in favor of *of a member of some group? If so, I think you have missed something - neither these anarchist twits nor the racists of the South discriminated in favor of members of the groups they disliked.
What is interesting to me is that the anarchist blog says that the officer in question was “peripherally involved” in the shooting of one Keaton Otis.
Curious about the story, I came across this article. Basically, a police officer saw an African American guy driving a car in a hoodie in warm weather, while eyeballing the cops in his mirrors. Several unsignaled turns later, he was pulled over, and then tried to drive away again. He was boxed in by police cars. It seems that in rapid succession (in somewhat unclear order) three cops tasered him, either before or during Mr. Otis’ reaching for the glove compartment. The tasing was not effective, and Mr. Otis pulled out a gun and shot one cop in the leg. The other police then fired 32 shots, killing Mr. Otis.
I cannot understand why stating that this police officer was “peripherally involved” (which I read to mean, not involved at all) in the shooting of someone who tried to kill a police officer is used as some sort of evidence that the police officer is somehow a bad guy.
Refusal to treat equally all comers by a business otherwise open to the public based on superficial characteristics of a potential patron is just wrong and should be prohibited. Whether it’s as wrong as Jim Crow or not is just hair-splitting nonsense.
Really? Sorry, but if I, as a business owner, have no input on who I may decline to do business with, then I quit. After all, my potential customers are free to go where they wish.
Although I do not serve food, I prefer people wear shirts and shoes. Barefoot customers are asked politely to leave. A guy walks into my place and I know from local gossip that he has ripped off other businesses? I send him packing. Cop comes in who pulled me over without p.c. last week? Take your business elsewhere.
These issues very rarely arise, but when they do I should be free to react.
Because to these people, ALL police are the bad guys. No shooting is justified as it’s an expression of the power of THE STATE to oppress the undesirable population. And so on.
If I open a fancy restaurant, can I have a dress code? Can I insist that gentlemen wear coats and ties and bar jeans, shorts and flip-flops? A lot of nightclubs around here ban hoodies, hats, and baggy pants. Are they discriminating?
FTR, I think the coffeehouse guy was a total tool and pretentious as hell. But he does have the right to serve who he wants (except for certain protected classes) even if he shouldn’t have used it on the officer.
I suppose being clothed can be considered a social norm in most business places. But you’re picking on extremes. I’m talking about superficial personal characteristics, like the wearing of a uniform or a person’s profession.
And also I think it matters what kind of business we’re talking about. If you’re a service establishment open to the public that is generally open to the public for people to walk in and be served on a casual, routine basis, as opposed to a business whose services are on the more professional level or requires significant involvement, detailed work, or significant ongoing interaction.
An ordinary retail establishment? No, you shouldn’t be able to kick people out just because you don’t like the look of them.
That’s not superficial. Neither is it superficial when it’s a specific individual who has caused trouble in your establishment before.
Again, if it’s an ordinary, retail establishment, I think you should serve him, unless he actually causes trouble in your shop.
But this is also a special case, because you know the guy and have concrete reasons to dislike him. It’s not superficial.
Doing business with the public in a situation in which walk-ins are routinely served should mean you can’t kick people out just because you don’t like the look of them.
I’m an anarchist, and I think this was stupid. There’s no such puppy as an unrepentant tool of the system, everyone is a potential fellow traveller. Until their actions say different, that is - if the cop started to hassle the other clientèle, yeah, ask him to leave. Until then, he’s a working stiff like everyone else.
And I say this as someone who has no love for the police as an armed wing of the State. But mistaking the individual for the collective is a mistake.
There are so many problems with this comparison that I can’t address them all without doing that obnoxious line-by-line refutation thing. So I’ll just focus on one aspect.
Yes, I’m aware that Jim Crow didn’t discriminate in favor of groups they disliked. Rather, Jim Crow discriminated in favor of a privileged group: white people got the colder water, the better theater seats, the superior houses, and the better-paying jobs, compared to black people. Was this acceptable?
Of course not. Nor would it be acceptable today for a restaurant to have a policy of giving free coffee to white people, but making everyone else pay for coffee.
But nobody blinks an eye at a restaurant that gives free coffee to cops, but makes everyone else pay for it.
Race is different from occupation.
You cannot discriminate based on race. You are allowed to discriminate based on occupation.
On preview: What Mr. Dibble said. I don’t want to lose sight of the basic douchiness of the cafe guy–what I’m saying is that he’s not on a level with the Citizen’s Councils.
