Seattle restaurant engages in blatant discrimination

[AllieBaba]

How many of you wold be OK with someone turning away Vets b/c they didn't like what the military is doing?

They after all, didn't have to sign up.

Who cares? It's an asshole thing to do, but private business is private business. If they choose to refuse service, they can.

People can also choose to not patronize their establishments as well...

Like the hillbilly restaurants down south who refused to serve black American soldiers who were going off to fight WW2 and die so those hillbillys could refuse service to THEIR familys yet served the NAZIs who were held prisoners of war in the US.

Oh please. Denying service based upon somebody's JOB is not the same as denying someone based on the color of their skin.

Moron.

BTW, your reference to "hillbilly restaurants" implies that they were the only ones who exhibitied such behavior, and also identifies you as a bigot. It figures.

 

[strollingbones]

[you really are a fucking idiot....you do realize its against the codes of war to starve the fucking pows?

do you think the south is the only place that did this...best look up north at the things done there.....but you are still a fucking idiot...well most likely a non fucking idiot....or at least not fucking within your species idiot

Did you sell your meds again?

i notice you didnt refute a thing i said....but i refuted what you said...

now why dont you go on with the meds thing again....after all i can quit the imaginary meds but you cant quit the imaginary facts

 

[AllieBaba]

Bones is using her critical thinking skills! Woo hoo!

Wish everyone else would follow suit. It's distracting.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

Punishing people for the job they do is about as stupid as discriminating on their skin color, religion, or anything else.

I don't think so. One cannot choose their race. And I'm not aware of any religion that imposes itself on others in an offensive way. But where "anything else" is concerned you'll need to be more specific in presenting your argument.

There are occupations which are considered necessary but which evoke resentment from (most of) the public. Parking violations officer is one. TSA examiner is another. Anyone taking this type of job should be aware of the scorn that goes with it. In the simplest terms, one is being paid to inconvenience and annoy people and there will be consequences.

NJ is one state with a bi-annual motor vehicle inspection requirement. Once every two years I must take my car to a place and wait on a long line to have my car poked, prodded and examined by a progression of bored, exaggeratedly impersonal inspectors whom I've come to dislike because of the largely unnecessary, pointlessly invasive and unproductive annoyance their efforts represent. While it's true they are only "doing their job," that job is to annoy and inconvenience me for what I feel is no good reason.

While some people are resigned to gracefully accept bureaucratic privacy invasions I am not. So while I haven't flown in years, and hopefully will not ever again, I empathize with the restaurateur who chooses to express his resentment by shunning his tormentors. I know how he must feel.

 

[signelect]

If TSA is so important to national security why do they not require at least a high school education. Makes you wonder how smart the enemy is. Having said this I did something stupid at the airport and the TSA agent could not have been more professional and polite. It was resolved but he did exactly what was required for the issue. I had forgotten about two bullets in a back pack that were in a pouch. I am glad they found them and I was wrong.

The resturant can chose to serve or not serve anyone they want to.

 

[rightwinger]

If you don't enjoy your patdown you don't have to fly

If you're too cowardly to fly without violating other peoples' Constitutional rights, you don't have to fly either.

Constitutional rights?

The Pat down is voluntary

 

[Anachronism]

If you don't enjoy your patdown you don't have to fly

I prefer to fly with people who have been screened

Agreed. Though I prefer to fly with people who've been stripped and cavity searched.

 

[syrenn]

Gotta love the free market. Anyone that disagrees with this is free to eat somewhere else, but they will get my business next time I am up there.

Fed up with what he views as crappy treatment from the TSA, the owner of a restaurant near Seattle-Tacoma International Airport has decided to put all TSA agents on his No-Eat List.
"We have posted signs on our doors basically saying that they aren't allowed to come into our business," one employee tells travel journalist Christopher Elliott. "We have the right to refuse service to anyone."
She says that whenever a TSA agent attempts to dine at the restaurant, "we turn our backs and completely ignore them, and tell them to leave... Their kind aren't welcomed in our establishment."
The restaurant claims that 90% of its patrons are in agreement with their stance and that the local police have actually helped escort TSA workers of the premises.

Seattle-Area Restaurant Refuses To Serve TSA Agents - The Consumerist

They got my business the next time i am there! Thanks for the link.


However, how about they just force all tsa to submit to a strip search before they are allowed to eat See how they like it.

 

[Anachronism]

If you're too cowardly to fly without violating other peoples' Constitutional rights, you don't have to fly either.

Then maybe I should be able to employ my Second Amendment rights when I go to get onboard an aircraft; because that's the ONLY WAY I'm getting on a plane where the passengers have not been screened.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

If you don't enjoy your patdown you don't have to fly

If you're too cowardly to fly without violating other peoples' Constitutional rights, you don't have to fly either.

Constitutional rights?

The Pat down is voluntary

No, it is not.

 

[syrenn]

Yup. How would you like your TSA agent? Fried, baked, fricasseed, skewered?

I like mine treated with the utmost of respect and deference, thank you very much. Just like every other Law Enforcement Agent. Then again I grew up in a family where we were taught to RESPECT authority not to ignore or defame it.

As far as i know, tsa are not law enforcement.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

If you're too cowardly to fly without violating other peoples' Constitutional rights, you don't have to fly either.

Then maybe I should be able to employ my Second Amendment rights when I go to get onboard an aircraft; because that's the ONLY WAY I'm getting on a plane where the passengers have not been screened.

Who said passengers shouldn't be screened?

 

[syrenn]

Nobody forced them to take the job.

If the American public would utilize a little more common sense and basic logic, there wouldn't be so much of a problem. Most of the delays are caused not by TSA but by people who have to make a big deal out of little things or who cannot follow simple, basic rules.

I don't fly often, but I've never had an issue with airport security. I make sure there's nothing unusual in my bags. I have my paperwork ready when I walk up (including my ID). I don't wear or carry stuff I don't need on me or in my carry-on. I generally breeze right through Security without an issue.

I fly often and follow the rules. I ALWAYS have a problem. I have large boobs. So its not as if i can not pack them along or check them into the hold.

Following the rules also does not mean that i have to put my health at risk. Which as far as i am concerned they do......on many levels.

 

[Mini 14]

If you're too cowardly to fly without violating other peoples' Constitutional rights, you don't have to fly either.

Constitutional rights?

The Pat down is voluntary

No, it is not.

But flying is.

 

[Anachronism]

No, it is not.

Yes it is. If you choose not to volunteer to have it done, you have volunteered to miss your plane.

As far as i know, tsa are not law enforcement.

They are the duly authorized security force hired by the Federal Government to oversee security at the airport. That makes them the equivelant of LEO's so far as I'm concerned.

 

[Anachronism]

Who said passengers shouldn't be screened?

You seemed to have compared the screening process to being unConstitutional, so that's what I was referring to.

I fly often and follow the rules. I ALWAYS have a problem. I have large boobs. So its not as if i can not pack them along or check them into the hold.

Following the rules also does not mean that i have to put my health at risk. Which as far as i am concerned they do......on many levels.

Are you suggesting that you get singled out for patdowns simply because you are a well-endowed woman? If so, I'm very sorry to hear that. Maybe if we could profile potential real threats that wouldn't happen so often.

In what way does the screening process put your health at risk?

 

[rightwinger]

If you're too cowardly to fly without violating other peoples' Constitutional rights, you don't have to fly either.

Constitutional rights?

The Pat down is voluntary

No, it is not.

Sure is....you are flying voluntarily and know the rules before you show up at the airport

 

[syrenn]

No, it is not.

Yes it is. If you choose not to volunteer to have it done, you have volunteered to miss your plane.

As far as i know, tsa are not law enforcement.

They are the duly authorized security force hired by the Federal Government to oversee security at the airport. That makes them the equivelant of LEO's so far as I'm concerned.

There are different factions of tsa. The people in the airport are screeners ..and NOT law enforcement in ANY way shape or from. Then there is the air marshal serviace, which are now under the tsa now and THEY are law enforcement officers.

The screeners are dip shits. Some airports have private screeners and are not even part of the tsa.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

No, it is not.

Yes it is. If you choose not to volunteer to have it done, you have volunteered to miss your plane.

Don't waste my time with logical fallacies. What you present is a false choice, but you already knew that. If that's the best point you can make it's because you can't make your point.

As far as i know, tsa are not law enforcement.

They are the duly authorized security force hired by the Federal Government to oversee security at the airport. That makes them the equivelant of LEO's so far as I'm concerned.[/QUOTE]

Your concerns don't make you correct.

 

[syrenn]

Who said passengers shouldn't be screened?

You seemed to have compared the screening process to being unConstitutional, so that's what I was referring to.

I fly often and follow the rules. I ALWAYS have a problem. I have large boobs. So its not as if i can not pack them along or check them into the hold.

Following the rules also does not mean that i have to put my health at risk. Which as far as i am concerned they do......on many levels.

Are you suggesting that you get singled out for patdowns simply because you are a well-endowed woman? If so, I'm very sorry to hear that. Maybe if we could profile potential real threats that wouldn't happen so often.

In what way does the screening process put your health at risk?

I am not suggesting anything. I am flat telling you that is what they do.

As to health. As a past medical professional, you NEVER touch one person without changing your gloves or washing your hands in between touching two people. That is a HUGE health risk. Would you want someone touching crabs on underwear in one bag and then touching your personal items? If they touch my makeup i throw it away..and that is not an inexpensive thing to do. Ever look at the floors they want you to walk on? Do they steam clean the floors or carpets twice a day to keep back pathogens? How about the "foot prints" they want everyone to stand in

That is one health risk

How about this one.


Guy with a bomb. Bomb found by tsa guy.. blows up bomb......just saying.