Just Desserts (Just No Sammiches)

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Suppose I were to wear a Star Trek t-shirt into an establishment. Could the counter person deny me service because he was a Star Wars fan? What about wearing a ‘Cats Rule, Dogs Drool’ button, and the clerk happened to hate cats? Where does it stop? They don’t like my hat or my shoes or my earrings, so they get to deny me service?

‘If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought - not free thought for those who agree with us, but freedom for the thought that we hate.’ - Oliver Wendell Holmes

Boru

[Thumpalumpacus]

Not going to argue for the sake of argument, that's pedantic.

Well I don't think clarifying why a dress code violation might be apropos in this instance is pedantry, though I made it clear I was not au fait with US law on this issue. If you don't want to debate the point then that's not a problem. I just find the topic interesting, and want to explore and understand more about it.

I've been a retail business manager here for well over 20 years. I've told people to GTFO out my stores at times, and on those occasions they ask why and try to proclaim a "right" to be served, I simply tell them that I don't like the way they're talking to me and that if they don't leave I will call the police and push for trespassing. Once a property owner tells someone to leave, and they don't, they're trespassing.

Now, on the other hand, I cannot refuse service for illegal reasons -- i.e., reasons barred by CRA1964 in an appropriate business. Certain businesses must serve anyone and everyone who comes in. Restaurants, gas stations, hotels, and other public accommodations less than 1/2 a mile (IIRC) from a federal highway must serve any law-abiding customer.

[Sheldon]

Suppose I were to wear a Star Trek t-shirt into an establishment. Could the counter person deny me service because he was a Star Wars fan? What about wearing a ‘Cats Rule, Dogs Drool’ button, and the clerk happened to hate cats? 

That's a false equivalence fallacy surely? 

Where does it stop? They don’t like my hat or my shoes or my earrings, so they get to deny me service?

That seems like a slippery slope fallacy to me, I'd certainly need to see some compelling objective evidence that a business refusing service to someone for expressing hate speech on their premises, would result in the banning of the trivialities you suggest. 

‘If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought - not free thought for those who agree with us, but freedom for the thought that we hate.’ - Oliver Wendell Holmes

Boru

No one has denied their right to think whatever they want, (is that even possible?) So I don't see how this right has been violated here? No one has even denied those people's right to express those thoughts publicly either. 

This site, like all other forums, has rules about what can and cannot be said, and those who break those rules can and are refused the service it provides, yes? I must say don't see how this is any different?

[Rev. Rye]

For the record, these are the shirts that these people were refused service for:


Also worth noting, I'm subbed to this YouTube channel who covers a somewhat similar incident in her bakery. That said, I don't know if Subway can make these sort of unilateral charity decisions the same way Alice does:




In addition, with this in mind, I'm starting to wonder about the sort of reactions I'd get if I actually got around to commissioning that "Elliott Smith Didn't Kill Himself" shirt.

[brewer]

Suppose I were to wear a Star Trek t-shirt into an establishment. Could the counter person deny me service because he was a Star Wars fan? What about wearing a ‘Cats Rule, Dogs Drool’ button, and the clerk happened to hate cats? Where does it stop? They don’t like my hat or my shoes or my earrings, so they get to deny me service?

‘If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought - not free thought for those who agree with us, but freedom for the thought that we hate.’ - Oliver Wendell Holmes

Boru

Most people are in business to make money, I don't think much in the first paragraph would rise to the occassion. Holmes also said "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." So the guys with the shirts are free to wear (or say) what they want but when others feel negatively impacted they are also free to act, like not giving them a sandwich. A kind of counter protest.

[Rev. Rye]

Or this...





Then again, given that the entire process of making a Subway sandwich is clearly visible, this might not be a very viable solution in this case.

[Thumpalumpacus]

This site, like all other forums, has rules about what can and cannot be said, and those who break those rules can and are refused the service it provides, yes? I must say don't see how this is any different?

This is a compelling point. A proprietor has (outside the legal strictures I mentioned earlier) a right to choose whether or not he or she wants this or that speech on his or her grounds. How many times has "pissing on the carpet" been used around here?

A retailer in America has every right to refuse service to anyone aside from classes protected by CRA1964. You cannot refuse service to blacks or gays because they're black or gay.

You can refuse service to assholes. That's because assholes aren't a protected class.

[Nanny]

This thread discriminates against my religious views.

[brewer]

Now give me my damn sandwich.

[Silver]

I thought this was going to be a sweets thread.