Woman fired from Century 21 for expressing Trump support (rudely)

[BothWings]

F****** progressive Hall monitors
You can't say you can't do f*** you

 

[Marener]

So you think a business can retaliate against its customers?

Yes. I don’t see why not. Especially if a patron acts despicably.

I think it is. For a business to take retaliatory actions against a customer is certainly not legal, especially if she was just exercising a constitutionally protected right.

You keep trying to make this about a business transaction. That’s irrelevant. There’s no confidentiality agreement with their transaction. It’s irrelevant and the only reason you’re going with it is because your original argument, not based on any business transaction, failed.

It is relevant because she is a paying customer.

its the same context as a bar who can be held liable for damages and injury for serving a visibly intoxicated customer. The bartender is legally allowed to sell alcohol, and they don't know if this person is driving or has someone to drive for them, still, if that person gets into an accident, the bar is liable, because they served them alcohol. Which is their legal right, but they are held liable because they know to do so, could cause harm to someone

Nothing about being a paying customer affects the issue.

Selling alcohol to an intoxicated person is illegal because there are specific laws making it illegal.

There’s no specific law addressing this point.

Does a restaurant not have an obligation to the safety of its customers? Regardless of what they did? Let's say that woman had been killed by an angry mob as a result of them posting what they did, you think the restaurant wouldn't be sued?

The restaurant is not responsible for the actions of an angry mob.

If I owned a restaurant, and that friend came in and while in my business I told that person that their wife was cheating on them, and it caused the divorce, I'm thinking..yeah, the woman could probably sue my business for damage because as a business, it's none of my business to get involved in the affairs of my customers, and I would have known that by divulging that information, that a divorce would be a reasonable possibility.

I bet you can’t find any court cases where any such business has ever been held responsible for this kind of action.

 

[Mashmont]

Good for Century 21.

Century 21 Realtor expresses her Trump love by writing "I hope President Trump deports you" to her Mexican restaurant waiter on the credit card receipt.

Stephanie Lovins has now been fired from Century 21

Realty Company Dumps Ohio Woman For Writing 'I Hope Trump Deports You' On Mexican Restaurant Receipt

"Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The CENTURY 21 brand does not condone acts of discrimination and is taking this situation seriously. We have looked into it and the agent in question is no longer associated with the brand," a representative wrote in a follow-up comment.

Insult: Bad. Firebombing Teslas: No Comment

 

[ThisIsMe]

Yes. I don’t see why not. Especially if a patron acts despicably.

A business cannot retaliate against one of their employees, but you think they can retaliate against a customer?

You keep trying to make this about a business transaction. That’s irrelevant. There’s no confidentiality agreement with their transaction. It’s irrelevant and the only reason you’re going with it is because your original argument, not based on any business transaction, failed.

I'm saying, the customer is in a business transaction with the restaurant. They are a paying customer. They would expect the business to not take an action to not harm them.

The restaurant is not responsible for the actions of an angry mob.

If they are the cause of that action...if you disagree then J6 would like to have a word with you.

I bet you can’t find any court cases where any such business has ever been held responsible for this kind of action.

There are examples of people being sued for interfering with marriages, but not in THIS specific example. It's possible there is one but I'm not interested in sifting through law articles to find an example that fits this specific example.

 

[Marener]

A business cannot retaliate against one of their employees, but you think they can retaliate against a customer?

Depends on what you mean by retaliate. If a business had an employee who was despicable, there’s nothing preventing them from saying so publicly.

I'm saying, the customer is in a business transaction with the restaurant. They are a paying customer. They would expect the business to not take an action to not harm them.

You can expect whatever you want. The question is if there’s any legal obligation by the business. There isn’t. The business didn’t sign an NDA with the patron, did they?

If they are the cause of that action...if you disagree then J6 would like to have a word with you.

The connection between the mob and Trump was far closer than any connection here. Besides, I don’t know of any successful lawsuit that held Trump responsible for J6.

There are examples of people being sued for interfering with marriages, but not in THIS specific example. It's possible there is one but I'm not interested in sifting through law articles to find an example that fits this specific example.

There’s nothing anywhere close to what you’re claiming here, and I’m not referring to marriages but anyone exposing public and true information about someone being liable for the harm it caused.

Zero. Because you have no case.

 

[MarathonMike]

Good for Century 21.

Century 21 Realtor expresses her Trump love by writing "I hope President Trump deports you" to her Mexican restaurant waiter on the credit card receipt.

Stephanie Lovins has now been fired from Century 21

Realty Company Dumps Ohio Woman For Writing 'I Hope Trump Deports You' On Mexican Restaurant Receipt

"Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The CENTURY 21 brand does not condone acts of discrimination and is taking this situation seriously. We have looked into it and the agent in question is no longer associated with the brand," a representative wrote in a follow-up comment.

This is the kind of trivial horseshit that continually makes NATIONAL NEWS because it gets all the Democrat goldfish hopping out of the pond with excitement. PFFFFFFFT

 

[ThisIsMe]

Depends on what you mean by retaliate. If a business had an employee who was despicable, there’s nothing preventing them from saying so publicly.

Retaliate. An employee does something that is a protected right and the business takes action against them for it. You think that protection stops at the customers?

You can expect whatever you want. The question is if there’s any legal obligation by the business. There isn’t. The business didn’t sign an NDA with the patron, did they?

I think this would fall under retaliation laws.

The connection between the mob and Trump was far closer than any connection here. Besides, I don’t know of any successful lawsuit that held Trump responsible for J6.

Leftys said he incited the mob that makes him responsible. If the restaurant incites a mob against a customer, that makes them responsible.

There’s nothing anywhere close to what you’re claiming here, and I’m not referring to marriages but anyone exposing public and true information about someone being liable for the harm it caused.

Thats...kinda what I just said. There are examples of people being sued for interfering with marriages, but in different circumstances.

 

[Dr.Destructo]

So she wasn't fired for expressing support for Trump afterall, she got fired for expressing hateful bigotry.

But, you can't expect a stupid MAGAT to be truthful about anything, not even once, so the OP's title is to be expected.

You know thats slander.

I also know you HATE all blacks being thrown into the same basket of prejudiced.
You, above all people, should know not all racists are Trump supporters, and not all Trump supporters are racists.

I'm white, and have had friends of all colors in my life, from all parts of this country and this globe.

I just don't know about you sometimes. Are you an extreme bipolar? Seriously........it would explain a lot.

 

[Dr.Destructo]

Good for Century 21.

Century 21 Realtor expresses her Trump love by writing "I hope President Trump deports you" to her Mexican restaurant waiter on the credit card receipt.

Stephanie Lovins has now been fired from Century 21

Realty Company Dumps Ohio Woman For Writing 'I Hope Trump Deports You' On Mexican Restaurant Receipt

"Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The CENTURY 21 brand does not condone acts of discrimination and is taking this situation seriously. We have looked into it and the agent in question is no longer associated with the brand," a representative wrote in a follow-up comment.

I voted for Trump, and I may seem like a Trumpateer..............but I only vote for the best person available, no matter what party or faith they are.

And theres LOTS of shitbags and fuktards that will take advantage of ANY situation and use it for their own personal means.
That doesn't indicate THEY are who you think they are.

This woman is a ***** and a bigot. If I'd have seen that or if she had said that out loud, I'd have gotten up and unloaded a a whole ton of verbal shit in her face!!!!

I don't care WHERE you come from, if you got a job and you are WORKING that job, then you have a right to be here.




MY problem is with the ones that come over here and expect AMERICAN CITIZENS to kiss their asses, wipe their asses, feed them, clothe them, and give them ANYTHING they want without giving THIS COUNTRY anything at all. **** them!!!!

 

[Marener]

Retaliate. An employee does something that is a protected right and the business takes action against them for it. You think that protection stops at the customers?

Depends on what the action is. If the action is exercise of free speech, it’s acceptable.

I think this would fall under retaliation laws.

Find a “retaliation law” so we can see what you’re referring to.

Leftys said he incited the mob that makes him responsible. If the restaurant incites a mob against a customer, that makes them responsible.

People can say whatever they want. The difference is whether it’s a legal argument that has merit.

Thats...kinda what I just said. There are examples of people being sued for interfering with marriages, but in different circumstances.

Are there examples? I doubt there’s anything applicable to this situation.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Depends on what the action is. If the action is exercise of free speech, it’s acceptable.

A business cannot retaliate against an employee if that employee is engaged in a protected right.

Workplace retaliation:

Retaliation

www.dol.gov

Every workplace probably has their own rules about this, but it's not allowed by law. You know this.

People can say whatever they want. The difference is whether it’s a legal argument that has merit.

So J6 wasn't an issue then? You can't say one person is responsible for inciting a mobile and then say another isn't.

Are there examples? I doubt there’s anything applicable to this situation.

Lol, yeah, I....just said that......

 

[Marener]

Every workplace probably has their own rules about this, but it's not allowed by law. You know this.

True. Protections are for very specific and legally identified circumstances. But not whole cloth.

So J6 wasn't an issue then? You can't say one person is responsible for inciting a mobile and then say another isn't.

Again, you can say whatever you want. The question is legal argument. I haven’t seen any legal argument succeed saying Trump was legally responsible for violence and you won’t see any legal argument succeed saying the restaurant is responsible for this lady’s firing.

Lol, yeah, I....just said that......

There’s no examples? I agree. There aren’t.

Your argument has no merit. People are allowed free speech even if it harms another person. Thats the end of the story.

 

[ThisIsMe]

True. Protections are for very specific and legally identified circumstances. But not whole cloth.

Again, you can say whatever you want. The question is legal argument. I haven’t seen any legal argument succeed saying Trump was legally responsible for violence and you won’t see any legal argument succeed saying the restaurant is responsible for this lady’s firing.

..they impeached trump over it....

There’s no examples? I agree. There aren’t.

There are no examples of specifically a person being sued because they told the other person their spouse was cheating on them, but there are examples of people being sued for interfering with marriages. Look up "alienation of affection"...it's a mostly outdated law, but a couple of states still recognize it.

Your argument has no merit. People are allowed free speech even if it harms another person. Thats the end of the story.

I'll concede that I can't find a law addressing this, but I won't concede that there isn't one. In our legal system, there are a lot of nooks and crannys that this would fall into. Using any kind of speech with the intent to cause harm to someone has to have a legal argument somwhere.

 

[Marener]

..they impeached trump over it....

Different standards.

There are no examples of specifically a person being sued because they told the other person their spouse was cheating on them, but there are examples of people being sued for interfering with marriages. Look up "alienation of affection"...it's a mostly outdated law, but a couple of states still recognize it.

You have nothing.

I'll concede that I can't find a law addressing this, but I won't concede that there isn't one. In our legal system, there are a lot of nooks and crannys that this would fall into. Using any kind of speech with the intent to cause harm to someone has to have a legal argument somwhere.

You have nothing other than your intransigence.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Different standards.

Why?

You have nothing.

You have nothing other than your intransigence.

At least I admit when I don't have a solid backup, not that I'll concede there isn't one, the law is tricky like that, I simply don't have one to reference.

I decided to put this question to AI to see what it would say. Interesting response:

In this scenario, the woman might have legal options against the restaurant (and possibly the waiter) for posting her receipt and photo online, which led to her being fired. Since you’ve ruled out defamation (and the note’s contents being true wouldn’t support a defamation claim anyway), the most likely legal avenues are related to privacy and possibly emotional distress. Here’s how this could play out:

1. Invasion of Privacy: Public Disclosure of Private Facts​

• What It Is: This tort occurs when someone publicly discloses private, non-newsworthy information about another person that is highly offensive to a reasonable person.
• Application Here:
  • The receipt itself might not be "private" since it’s part of a transaction, but the woman’s identity (via the photo) and linking it to the note could be. If the restaurant posted her full name, face, or other identifying details without her consent, it might qualify as a privacy violation.
  • The note’s content (if nasty but not illegal) is arguably her personal expression, and publicizing it with her image could be seen as exposing her to shame or ridicule beyond what’s reasonable.
• Requirements:
  • The disclosed fact must be private (not already public).
  • The disclosure must be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
  • It must not be of legitimate public concern (e.g., if she’s not a public figure, her rude note isn’t inherently "newsworthy").
• In This Case:
  • Posting the receipt and photo likely wasn’t necessary for the restaurant’s business interests—it seems retaliatory. Courts might view this as crossing a line, especially if the woman’s identity wasn’t already tied to the incident publicly.
  • If the restaurant’s post led directly to her firing, she could argue it caused tangible harm (loss of employment).
• Challenges:
  • If she wrote the note in a public setting (e.g., a receipt left on the table), she might have a weaker claim to privacy over it.
  • The restaurant could argue they were exercising their free speech or protecting their reputation, though this defense is shaky if they identified her unnecessarily.

2. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)​

• What It Is: This applies when someone’s extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress.
• Application Here:
  • Posting the receipt and photo to publicly shame her could be seen as "outrageous," especially if the restaurant knew or should’ve known it could ruin her reputation or job.
  • If she suffered severe emotional harm (e.g., diagnosable anxiety or depression) tied to the firing, this could bolster her case.
• Requirements:
  • The restaurant’s actions must be beyond mere insult—courts set a high bar for "outrageous."
  • She’d need to prove severe distress, not just embarrassment.
• In This Case:
  • A court might find the public shaming disproportionate to her offense (a rude note). Linking it to her identity and causing job loss could tip it into IIED territory.
• Challenges:
  • IIED is tough to win because "severe distress" must be well-documented, and courts often see public shaming as a gray area unless it’s extreme (e.g., doxxing with threats).

3. Other Potential Claims​

• Negligence: If the restaurant didn’t intend harm but carelessly posted her info, leading to foreseeable damage (job loss), she might argue negligent infliction of emotional distress or economic harm. This is less likely but possible.
• State-Specific Laws: Some U.S. states have laws against "revenge posting" or cyberbullying that might apply if the restaurant’s intent was to humiliate her. She’d need to check local statutes.
• Employment Law Angle: If her firing was directly tied to this incident, she could explore whether her employer’s decision violated any employment protections (e.g., “at-will” exceptions), but this is a long shot unless the note was protected speech (unlikely).

Key Factors for Her Case​

• Identifiability: Was her face or name clearly shown? The more identifiable she was, the stronger her privacy claim.
• Harm: Losing her job is concrete harm, which helps her case. She’d need to link it directly to the restaurant’s post (e.g., her employer saw it online).
• Restaurant’s Intent: If they posted it to shame her rather than, say, warn other businesses, it looks worse for them.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. privacy laws vary by state. For example, California has robust privacy protections, while other states lean heavily on free speech.

Legal Options​

• Sue the Restaurant (and Waiter): She could file a civil lawsuit for invasion of privacy and/or IIED, seeking damages for lost wages, emotional distress, and possibly punitive damages if the restaurant’s actions were egregious.
• Demand a Takedown: Before suing, she could send a cease-and-desist letter demanding the post be removed, which might mitigate further harm (though it won’t undo the firing).
• Consult a Lawyer: She’d need one to assess her state’s laws, gather evidence (e.g., the post, her termination notice), and calculate damages.

Likely Outcome​

• She has a decent shot at a privacy claim if the restaurant didn’t need to post her photo and it caused clear harm. Courts often frown on businesses publicly shaming customers over minor slights.
• IIED is harder but possible if the shaming was over-the-top and wrecked her life.
• The restaurant might counter with free speech or claim the receipt was “public” anyway, but identifying her personally weakens their position.

Would she win? Maybe, if she’s in a privacy-friendly jurisdiction and can prove the post directly led to her firing. She should talk to a lawyer ASAP to weigh her odds and file before any statute of limitations runs out (often 1-2 years, depending on the state).

 

[Marener]

Why?

Because impeachment is a political process, not a legal one.

At least I admit when I don't have a solid backup, not that I'll concede there isn't one, the law is tricky like that, I simply don't have one to reference

Your argument is absurd on its face.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Because impeachment is a political process, not a legal one.

Doesn't matter, accountability was still pursued.

Your argument is absurd on its face.

Not really. I know you like to think so, but that doesn't make it so

 

[Marener]

Not really. I know you like to think so, but that doesn't make it so

Because you have nothing to substantiate your opinion. It’s just claims you’re making. No precedent. No laws.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Because you have nothing to substantiate your opinion. It’s just claims you’re making. No precedent. No laws.

And i said as much. Just because I can't find the law doesn't mean one doesn't exist. I still believe that this whole thing could be argued from a retaliation standpoint, which is against the law, and while you have no expectation of privacy in a public place, there has to be a law out there about doxxing people or releasing information with intent to harm, regardless of its nature. To think that releasing information about someone that you reasonably know will cause them harm, cannot be legal.

Again..nooks and crannys

 

[Marener]

And i said as much. Just because I can't find the law doesn't mean one doesn't exist. I still believe that this whole thing could be argued from a retaliation standpoint, which is against the law, and while you have no expectation of privacy in a public place, there has to be a law out there about doxxing people or releasing information with intent to harm, regardless of its nature. To think that releasing information about someone that you reasonably know will cause them harm, cannot be legal.

Again..nooks and crannys

So you continue to believe what you want to believe despite having no substantial evidence to support your belief.

You can do so, but I’ll point out this is nonsense.