S.F. bakery won't serve cops, police union claims. Store says it's about the guns, not the cops
latimes.com
San Francisco’s police union says a city bakery chain has a “bigoted” policy of not serving uniformed cops.
The San Francisco Police Officers Assn. wrote in a social media post last week that Reem’s California “will not serve anyone armed and in uniform” and that includes “members of the U.S. Military.” The union is demanding that the chain “own” its policy.
Reem’s says, however, its policy isn’t against serving armed police officers. It’s against allowing guns inside its businesses.
You are viewing a single comment
Veterans can’t bring guns wherever they want either. There’s signs on every hospital in Ohio.
I wouldn't be surprised if groups are already trying to spin stuff like that as anti veteran discrimination, although this article says "armed and in uniform" implying by that language they would serve an unarmed cop in uniform, so I guess they just have to ask everyone in uniform if they have a gun or install a metal detector if they actually want to enforce it
Or they could just guess and refuse to serve someone in a non-protected class as is their legal right.
yeah but if they want to do that they have to say "no cops" not "no cops who are currently carrying guns"
Why? They can refuse service to either. That's 100% legal.
I'm sure the cops can find a way to sue them if they don't have it explicitly written down or will show up just to intimidate them at anything lesser than being asked not to be there, but we'll see
Cop isn't a protected class. They have no standing.
Maybe - and that would mean they will lose the case.
However, if they manage to drag it out for years and years, it'll be a serious strain on the bakery owner's financials. Assuming it is a small business and not a huge chain, it would have them struggling to keep up the cost of defense until that happens.
Until the next republican runs on making it one (or this case goes all the way up to the current supreme court), it's not a stretch that they could become one given that veterans already are, I know they aren't now, but that can change quickly
First, any veteran worth their weight in salt know they aren't some sort of Messiah for the people. Those of us that served, myself included, joined and did our jobs to protect others; family, friends, communities, and country. Only those veterans with selfish intentions would hold a private business in less regard for refusing service to anyone they are legally able to refuse service to.
Second, this is about uniformed police, not veterans. Those two things are not synonymous. Veterans, the ones I mentioned in the first paragraph, don't feel the need to walk around with their
dicksguns out to buy a bagel. I'm not sure if you are conflating them out of ignorance or a misunderstanding.I don't live in fear like you do.
On what grounds? Again, you can refuse service to anyone for any reason as long as they are not a protected class as defined by the Civil Rights Act.
That means you can say "we refuse to serve people under 5'3" (amusement parks do this all the time) " or "we refuse to serve accountants" or "we refuse to serve people with tiny noses." All of those are legal. There is no grounds for a lawsuit for any of them.
Nothing about being a veteran requires you to carry a gun around, or even be pro-gun-ownership
That some veterans are dumb is just a result of the military not valuing intelligence in privates, and being willing to recruit anyone who can run and do pushups and pullups.
People understandably want to support veterans but the reality is that the people who go into the military are usually dumb, toxic masculine men.