Seattle restaurant engages in blatant discrimination

[MikeK]

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.

Ja! Wir müssen dem Führer!

 

[Ringel05]

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.

Ja! Wir müssen dem Führer!

Now, now, he/she simply chose to impart an analistic interpretation of my humorous intent. Cest la vie!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Congratulations, you have fallen for the security theater of the TSA. They make a show and accomplish nothing. Just to point out how good the screening is, both Richard Reid and Umar Abdulmutallab were both screened before they got on the planes, and they both had bombs.

 

[Anachronism]

Ja! Wir müssen dem Führer!

How does one say... "Welcome to my Ignore List you worthless sack of crap" in German?

Congratulations, you have fallen for the security theater of the TSA. They make a show and accomplish nothing. Just to point out how good the screening is, both Richard Reid and Umar Abdulmutallab were both screened before they got on the planes, and they both had bombs.

Quantum, I go out of my way NOT to fly unless it is absolutely necessary. I would rather drive 8-10 hours in my own car than to fly somewhere if I can help it. I understand that they're not getting the job done. That's why I would prefer strip downs and cavity searches for all passengers, a ban on pretty much all carry-on luggage, and real screening of every bag in the cargo hold. However, until we get people like you who are more interested in their "civil rights" than they are in their own safety, it won't happen. Therefore, until the airlines either implement proper security or start allowing me to carry a gun onto the aircraft, I will go out of my way to avoid getting on a plan unless it's absolutely necessary.

 

[Ringel05]

If you keep putting everyone on ignore that disagrees with you or calls you names, eventually you'll end up having "debates" with yourself.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Congratulations, you have fallen for the security theater of the TSA. They make a show and accomplish nothing. Just to point out how good the screening is, both Richard Reid and Umar Abdulmutallab were both screened before they got on the planes, and they both had bombs.

Quantum, I go out of my way NOT to fly unless it is absolutely necessary. I would rather drive 8-10 hours in my own car than to fly somewhere if I can help it. I understand that they're not getting the job done. That's why I would prefer strip downs and cavity searches for all passengers, a ban on pretty much all carry-on luggage, and real screening of every bag in the cargo hold. However, until we get people like you who are more interested in their "civil rights" than they are in their own safety, it won't happen. Therefore, until the airlines either implement proper security or start allowing me to carry a gun onto the aircraft, I will go out of my way to avoid getting on a plan unless it's absolutely necessary.

If you can provide convincing evidence that I need to give up my civil rights in order to be safe we can discuss the options. As it is, I am more likely to be killed by lightning than die in a terrorist attack, and I am not going to carry around a lightning rod to keep myself safe. I tend to be rational about risks and assess the dangers realistically instead of emotionally, which is why I oppose the government trying to keep me safe. They prefer to err on the side of caution, and I prefer to take a few risks.

As for passengers being armed, I actually like that idea. Everyone should be required to carry a gun if they want to fly, it would definitely cut down on hijackings, and would be less of a violation of civil rights than what we have now. And the best part is that anyone who does not carry a gun does not have to fly. That will end all the arguments against the idea just like they end the arguments against searches.

 

[LostAmerican]

[As for passengers being armed, I actually like that idea. Everyone should be required to carry a gun if they want to fly, it would definitely cut down on hijackings, and would be less of a violation of civil rights than what we have now. And the best part is that anyone who does not carry a gun does not have to fly. That will end all the arguments against the idea just like they end the arguments against searches.

Pass out the pistols, get the passengers drunk, then watch the fun!

Gunfight at the OK Corral at 50,000 feet!!

"We have no idea why the plane crashed or
why every passenger was shot full of holes,"​

 

[Toome]

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

I think that's misleading. But then again, I'm no lawyer. Generally speaking, the right to refuse service applies to certain situations such as the restaurant being at max capacity; stopping service because the restaurant is about to close; refusing service to patrons who are rowdy or bothering other customers; refusing service to people who are either loitering or are not ordering off the menu; or refusing service to someone whose hygiene is lacking. I'm not sure that a restaurant can deliberately discriminate based on where a person is employed.

I think the restaurant owner is getting away with it either because the situation simply hasn't come up yet where he kicked out a TSA employee and/or no one has challenged this policy in court. And this could be something that is technically yet to be determined. It's pretty clear that Blacks, disabled veterans, people over 40, etc. are protected classes. Wonder what the restaurant owner would do if a Black TSO who was also a disabled veteran came into the restaurant?

I think this guy is looking for publicity and is getting it.

 

[Toome]

Seems that this story may be an urban legend.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

I think that's misleading. But then again, I'm no lawyer. Generally speaking, the right to refuse service applies to certain situations such as the restaurant being at max capacity; stopping service because the restaurant is about to close; refusing service to patrons who are rowdy or bothering other customers; refusing service to people who are either loitering or are not ordering off the menu; or refusing service to someone whose hygiene is lacking. I'm not sure that a restaurant can deliberately discriminate based on where a person is employed.

I think the restaurant owner is getting away with it either because the situation simply hasn't come up yet where he kicked out a TSA employee and/or no one has challenged this policy in court. And this could be something that is technically yet to be determined. It's pretty clear that Blacks, disabled veterans, people over 40, etc. are protected classes. Wonder what the restaurant owner would do if a Black TSO who was also a disabled veteran came into the restaurant?

I think this guy is looking for publicity and is getting it.

That actually varies from state to state. Federal law allows a business to discriminate if there is any type of reason that is applicable to their business practices. California law is more restrictive, but still allows a business to refuse service to motorcycle club members who refuse to remove their colors. In other words, it is not just about working hours and capacity. Would you want to eat in a restaurant if they were serving a man who had just been working in a sewer and not yet changed clothes?

As for the restaurant going after publicity, is that a bad thing somehow?

 

[warriorautotech]

Anyone that would trade freedom for security deserves neither.

 

[Toome]

That actually varies from state to state. Federal law allows a business to discriminate if there is any type of reason that is applicable to their business practices. California law is more restrictive, but still allows a business to refuse service to motorcycle club members who refuse to remove their colors. In other words, it is not just about working hours and capacity. Would you want to eat in a restaurant if they were serving a man who had just been working in a sewer and not yet changed clothes?

As for the restaurant going after publicity, is that a bad thing somehow?

So far we're in agreement. Nothing you said supports the notion that a restaurant owner can categorically deny service based simply on where someone works. The motorcycle gang example is based on the assumption that the wearing of colors would be disruptive or provocative to rival gang members; and the sewer worker example is one of the examples I cited.

Didn't say that going after publicity is a bad thing. My point is that IF there's any substance to this story (and there seems to be some doubt if this story is even true or if this restaurant even exists), that this owner's so-called conviction is not as solid as we may be led to believe. By receiving notoriety, it brings in more business. During the whole process, he doesn't even have to actually throw out a TSA employee. Pretty clever, if you ask me; however, the catch is that there's no business name, no address or anything else to verify the story. There have been NO police incidents as claimed that involved police officers escorting TSA employees off the premises. This has all the makings of an internet hoax.

 

[Anachronism]

Anyone that would trade freedom for security deserves neither.

I'm well aware of where the quote comes from. However, in this day and age one cannot have both. I choose security, thank you very much.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That actually varies from state to state. Federal law allows a business to discriminate if there is any type of reason that is applicable to their business practices. California law is more restrictive, but still allows a business to refuse service to motorcycle club members who refuse to remove their colors. In other words, it is not just about working hours and capacity. Would you want to eat in a restaurant if they were serving a man who had just been working in a sewer and not yet changed clothes?

As for the restaurant going after publicity, is that a bad thing somehow?

So far we're in agreement. Nothing you said supports the notion that a restaurant owner can categorically deny service based simply on where someone works. The motorcycle gang example is based on the assumption that the wearing of colors would be disruptive or provocative to rival gang members; and the sewer worker example is one of the examples I cited.

Didn't say that going after publicity is a bad thing. My point is that IF there's any substance to this story (and there seems to be some doubt if this story is even true or if this restaurant even exists), that this owner's so-called conviction is not as solid as we may be led to believe. By receiving notoriety, it brings in more business. During the whole process, he doesn't even have to actually throw out a TSA employee. Pretty clever, if you ask me; however, the catch is that there's no business name, no address or anything else to verify the story. There have been NO police incidents as claimed that involved police officers escorting TSA employees off the premises. This has all the makings of an internet hoax.

As I said, it depends on the state. I don't know the laws in Washington, so I am not going to say it is legal there. That does not mean they did not do it, just that, if they did, and it is illegal, they will eventually pay. as for it being a hoax, that is certainly possible, but I still support the idea of a business being able to do this.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Anyone that would trade freedom for security deserves neither.

I'm well aware of where the quote comes from. However, in this day and age one cannot have both. I choose security, thank you very much.

Funny thing about that, you actually get neither if you choose security. There is no way the government can keep you safe. So you are actually giving up freedom in return for a lie.

You really should think about that.

 

[Anachronism]

Funny thing about that, you actually get neither if you choose security. There is no way the government can keep you safe. So you are actually giving up freedom in return for a lie.

You really should think about that.

I don't trust the Government with my security. I trust the 31 rounds of 9mm +P, JPH that I have within arms reach almost all of the time. I trust the knife and pepper spray that live in my pocket. The shotgun and bullet-resistant vest that live under my bed. The basket-hilted broadsword by the front door of my apartment.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

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.

Your concerns don't make you correct.[/QUOTE]

Here's the realistic choice. You're given the option of a patdown, or you can go through the machine that scans your whole body, where they see anything you're carrying on you. You've obviously never flown and had a patdown before have you?

I chose the machine last time I flew (I fly often). It's not a big deal.


BTW-Although they themselves can't arrest you-they can deny you getting on your plane fly, and can detain you for questioning at length-and you're not free to leave.

edit: And TSA agents don't implement the rules. They just do their job-to provide for their families-just like any other American does. You want to go after the real people who make those rules, and violate your rights (if you feel they have been)-go after the politicians.

 

[manifold]

Right, wrong or indifferent, I'm pretty sure that if a TSA agent sued them he/she'd win.

 

[Toome]

As I said, it depends on the state. I don't know the laws in Washington, so I am not going to say it is legal there. That does not mean they did not do it, just that, if they did, and it is illegal, they will eventually pay. as for it being a hoax, that is certainly possible, but I still support the idea of a business being able to do this.

Agreed, which is why I prefaced it with the disclaimer that I'm no lawyer. What may seem patently illegal to the average person may, in fact, actually either be a protected action under the law or an act that has yet to be challenged in court, therefore NOT illegal (as opposed to legal).

What I find interesting is how this story grew arms and legs, at least on internet message boards. If I recall correctly, I believe this may even have been linked on Drudge. Not that Drudge is necessarily an infallible source; however, it appears that there's very little scrutiny given to something like this just because it's the internet.

When I was in the military, a young officer was getting ready to brief the Boss on something that involved statistics. He was going to use a piece of paper with his hand-scratched calculations to support the figures he was going to use in the briefing. I told him to go ahead and print it out over the computer. My real reason was because it would be a neater and more professional presentation. But I jokingly said, "if it's a computer printout, nobody questions the math." To some extent, that was probably more true than any of us would care to admit.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As I said, it depends on the state. I don't know the laws in Washington, so I am not going to say it is legal there. That does not mean they did not do it, just that, if they did, and it is illegal, they will eventually pay. as for it being a hoax, that is certainly possible, but I still support the idea of a business being able to do this.

Agreed, which is why I prefaced it with the disclaimer that I'm no lawyer. What may seem patently illegal to the average person may, in fact, actually either be a protected action under the law or an act that has yet to be challenged in court, therefore NOT illegal (as opposed to legal).

What I find interesting is how this story grew arms and legs, at least on internet message boards. If I recall correctly, I believe this may even have been linked on Drudge. Not that Drudge is necessarily an infallible source; however, it appears that there's very little scrutiny given to something like this just because it's the internet.

When I was in the military, a young officer was getting ready to brief the Boss on something that involved statistics. He was going to use a piece of paper with his hand-scratched calculations to support the figures he was going to use in the briefing. I told him to go ahead and print it out over the computer. My real reason was because it would be a neater and more professional presentation. But I jokingly said, "if it's a computer printout, nobody questions the math." To some extent, that was probably more true than any of us would care to admit.

Probably.