I get the feeling that this Borg tuna melt is laid out for Admiral Ackbar.
In the circumstances, sure. But if it’s the only shop in town and there’s no other clerk around? When there’s lots of choice, the “rights” don’t truly conflict.
Fair enough.
I don’t agree that makes any difference.
Let’s say this was a collective run in the middle of Montana, in a one stoplight town, a hundred and sixty-five miles from the next deli.
And let’s take the University landlord out of the picture, because it’s obvious that if the lease mandates “you must serve all,” that sort of trumps any questions about what their policy SHOULD be.
So – here we are in Buttmunch, MT, Pop. 302 (on market days). And me and my “Big Sky Zionist Zone” T-shirt get a hankering for a tuna melt on rye.
???
Well, the right of free speech entails accepting the consequences of exercising it.
Well, if Cowgirl McHickstein refuses to accept your payment, I assume you have the right to leave without paying.
If I’m a visitor and I have notice, I’m with you.
Wait, are we talking about “should” or “can”? These free speech arguments always go the same way. One guys says “He shouldn’t say that” and the other guy goes “but he has a right to” and the first guy goes “Well I have a right to say he shouldn’t” and back and forth it goes.
Can they refuse the person? Yes, if it’s not a protected class (race, sex…)
Should they? No. If they do, they’re dicks, not criminals.
Should the person be fired? Depends on what the owners want to do. They certainly can if they want. Either way, as always, the institution will be held accountable for its decision.
I don’t think anyone’s against the proposition that the institution is accountable in ways such as lost business, etc. And i don’t think (correct me if wrong on this one!) that anyone is saying the institution cannout legally compel its workers to serve anyone, on pain of being fired.
What I’m not sure I’m hearing a consensus on is whether there should be some official, legal-type remedy. We’ve mentioned that in case of race, for example, there is: the business cannot refuse to serve Hispanics, even if they’re willing to lose the dollars and weather a boycott, because an individual so refused would have the legal right to sue the business. The law says a business cannot turn away a person because he’s Hispanic.
The question is: SHOULD that extend into the sorts of situations we’re discussing now? Should I, based on my being refused service in Buttmunch, MT, because I was wearing a pro-Israel shirt, be able to exact some sort of legal remedy? Should we, as a society, tell businesses that a cost of doing business in Montana is the service of people whose political opinions you find distasteful?
I think people are abusing context here. They are thinking of the food collective as a for profit corporation that hires and fires employees. I linked people to their website, I don’t know if anyone read it. They are run by two types of people:
-
Members of the collective who are ostensibly co-owners
-
Volunteers who want to save money on food or can’t afford food.
Either way it’s difficult to fire someone over such an issue. I am sure it was dealt with in a civil way that is behind the scenes for those of us viewing it through the lens of one article in the Washington Post. Believe it or not, most of these problems are solvable by someone saying, “Dude, don’t be an asshole.” It’s not a big free speech issue, it’s a matter of civility. Wearing a T-Shirt spouting your political beliefs is kind of vulgar, and not serving someone because of that T-Shirt is even more vulgar. Otherwise it’s really a non-issue.
It’s easy to say that life ‘Should’ accomodate a great many things. Odds are that if you went to Buttmunch Montana it’d be your word against the locals, you’d have to fight it in their jurisdiction, and the stakes would be really really low. If some redneck in the middle of the woods doesn’t want to serve you even if it’s because you’re a ‘nigger’, you’re probably not going to do much about it.
One of my favorite parables from the bible is talking about blessing people who welcome you into their homes, and shaking the dust from your feet when you leave the homes of someone who was inhospitable.
My take: No, probably not. I think this problem should be addressed by means of head-shaking and tongue-clicking. And also by businesses giving a good hard think to these issues when setting their customer service policies. But I can’t come up with an adequate reason to drag the ponderous majesty of the law into it.
What if this deli is the only food store in town, and the next town’s an hour’s drive away? Does that change the situation enough to involve the law?
When in Rome, do as the Romans. You should’ve changed your shirt before going into the deli.
A bit of discussion about the right to refuse service here.
There was a thread not long ago about OJ being kicked out of a restaurant and his lawyer trying to make it out as a race issue, despite OJ having dined there before. I think the consensus was that the owner was within his rights so long as he didn’t kick OJ out for being black.
All in ice cream. Or better yet, things from the salad bar.
The stupidity here – beyond being offended by someone else’s silly political statement – was putting the thing in writing. This is where the public sector fails miserably in managing people. In the private sector, I would have made a very loud, very public statement that we do not tolerate intolerance, that all customers who are not actively abusive toward the cashiers would be served with a smile. I would then have taken each individual cashier behind closed doors and advised that if someone’s t-shirt offends, the cashier should simply slip away from the counter discretely, ask another cashier to wait on the person, and go about the business of doing business. And the first time I caught someone abusing the process, they’d learn the other meaning of the word “cashier.”