It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Another Crazy REEEE Incident by a Lefty: This Time in a Vape Store.

page: 17
69
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2019 @ 08:04 AM
link   
That is one hilarious fit that boy threw!
For the life of me I can't figure out why some folks take a stance against Trump to this level.
Its completely ridiculous!

The customer was not in any way out of line other than having a Trump shirt on.
I've always heard that the customer is right.

If you have a business its not smart to run any customers off.
I new a guy who put up a no muddy boots sign on his restaurant. Guess how long it lasted after that.....
about 6 months if even that. He'd been there for years!


edit on 1-1-2019 by Trucker1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 2 2019 @ 01:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: PaladinRoden
a reply to: scraedtosleep

So you agree that the left vs. right paradigm is retarded. Or you just triggered that leftest also look stupid and finding the same behavior on the right makes it feel justified? So what is your stance? You support Hillary/Bernie/Communist/Socialist? Or you a free thinking individual who see's past this BS?


you hit the nail on the head

when one cant defend their position alot resort to "well so and so did it"

now if your trying to deflect bad, illegal, stupid behavior by showing someone on the other side doing it is the mentality of two wrongs must make a right.

stupid , intellectually dishonest and clearly a desperation for all to see.

now to be fair and deny ignorance.

IF (KEY WORD IF) you can present an IDENTICAL (as close as you can) situation where a person (ex) wore a "bernnie for president" shirt and the store clerk acted like this jagbag did.

then you have at least a apples to apples comparison .

but at best you show TWO DOUCHWAFFLES doing wrong... politics are IRRELEVANT in justifying ANY OF THEM RIGHT.

if one wants to go TOTAL HONEST we can find more (i would bet factor of 100 to 1 or more but thats just my educated guess) of this activity against trump supporters than EVER COULD FIND with obama, hillory , democrats, ect.

if you could I would denounce them as well... no moral justification for either of them.

so here is the COLD HARD TRUTH.

The clerk was CLEARLY IN THE WRONG

he did not follow his EMPLOYERS (aka those paying his wages) policies.
he acted like a complete irrational lunatic.
he had NO JUSTIFICATION to lay his hands on this person
he did not call the cops to remove the guy (what is LEGAL BTW) but ranted on
used foul language, racial slurs, and other things if came from a conservative would ALSO BE JUST AS WRONG but chastised to no ends.
lastly
unless you have PROOF that the video recorder (be known I always want full video usually ) provoked him with anything other that the shirt you cannot give equal blame to this clerk.

the clerk MADE A CHOICE to go full douchbag .
he did not follow the law or use LEGAL MEANS to remove him
he got FIRED for his actions

end of story.

one side note I would like to make

notice when a same sex couple goes into a (ex) bakery KNOWING they will not LEGALLY make them a specialty cake that they find offensive but the store owner OPENLY OFFERS TO SELL THEM ANYTHING THEY CARRY NO PROBLEM ....
the baker is taken to court and a bunch of people support the same sex couple as right

this situation is IDENTICAL in most aspects but now its the TEE SHIRT WEARING man fault.


same situation , different actions by the person working (yes one is an owner and one is a clerk, but both had the place clear policies)but not looking at the facts.

just food for thought

scrounger



posted on Jan, 2 2019 @ 02:57 AM
link   
a reply to: scrounger

You did a good amount of nail-head-hitting yourself.

That's what this is really all about. It's got little to do with some fool clerk getting himself fired and making a fool of himself at the same time. There are mentally unstable conservatives (I know a few off the top of my head) as well as leftists, idiot conservatives as well as leftists, corrupt conservatives as well as leftists, and criminal conservatives as well as leftists. That's just the way it is. Neither side has a lock on bad behavior.

But the difference lies in how these fringe elements are treated by both the opposition and their own political affiliates. Had I seen a video with a conservative ranting similarly about someone with an "I'm with HER!" shirt on, I would have felt the same way. The fact that it was a MAGA shirt and a leftist makes no difference to me when it comes to right or wrong.

Contrast that with those who so recently cheered for a gay couple's victory in forcing a bakery to make a custom cake. In that case, the same ones who supported the customer now support the clerk. Even though the situation is decidedly different (clerk as opposed to owner, stock item as opposed to custom artwork, and a complete meltdown as opposed to a simple refusal to cooperate), the narrative from the left changes based solely on the basis of political affiliation. A few conservatives do this as well, but the majority that I saw, back when the cake issue was a hot topic, were saying that the refusal was proper only because it was a custom job... that a refusal to serve someone would have been inappropriate simply on the basis of their lifestyle choice had it been a stock item.

Contrast it with the ongoing Trump-Russia collusion probe. Not one scintilla of evidence has been verified against Trump, but we all know for a fact that Hillary paid lawyers to pay Chris Steele to pay the Russian government for a dossier that was then leaked to the FBI and used for a FISA investigation without being independently verified. Hell, all that has been openly admitted! How much more collusion does one want? Yet, leftists bristle at the very thought that Hillary or the FBI should be investigated, while demanding that Trump be investigated and somehow removed from office for this assumed collusion without any verified evidence.

That's why these threads garner so much attention, why the concept of TDS took hold, and why people continue to support Trump. It's really not that Trump is infallible, or divine, or above the law... it's that those on the left seem to be treated so, and people do not agree with that. At least, I know I don't, and I am getting sick and tired of the labels. I'm not a racist, I'm not a sexist, I'm not any kind of 'phobe,' and I am not even a Republican. I'm a conservative Independent (who would once have been and was called a liberal Independent), meaning I want to see proof that something will work before throwing away decades of established norms, and I want the people making decisions to be accountable for their actions, regardless of their political affiliation.

But, as long as we have so many people in this country who are willing to ignore verified facts in favor of spurious allegations just because of political affiliation, we'll never be able to really make progress. I'm not going to budge in my positions based on arguments from those who have shown themselves to be so frivolous.

Have a star.


TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 2 2019 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: RazorV66
You mean the demonstrable mental illness of the Wrong..err, Right, right?



posted on Jan, 5 2019 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Allaroundyou

You are mistaken...... If he is an employee..... he does not have the right to do anything of the sort..... if he owns the business, he may or may not have the right to refuse service..... from the expeditious way his employment was terminated and the way apologies from the business owner to the customer were publicly made.... I would be willing to go out on a limb that it was not the owners policy to refuse service to people in MAGA hats.

Please take a moment to correct your post, we have enough misinformation in this world already. I hope in the future you refrain from assigning Rights to people that they do not have



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 07:21 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Thanks for the post.

Obviously I don't think your vision is how society works (we do not live in a meritocracy), nor is it how it should work (nobody should discriminate, and the ability to oppress shouldn't be given to the rich). I think that leads to a rigid class structure but ultimately a system which is probably stable (except for when pure selfishness destroys our planet), so it's really not freedom in the first place.

If you're interested in my POV, there's this documentary.

I don't think neoliberalism or classical liberalism works, rather, it's what got us into this mess in the first place.
edit on 6/1/19 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 6/1/19 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 07:45 AM
link   
a reply to: C0bzz


Obviously I don't think your vision is how society works (we do not live in a meritocracy), nor is it how it should work (nobody should discriminate, and the ability to oppress shouldn't be given to the rich). I think that leads to a rigid class structure but ultimately a system which is probably stable (except for when pure selfishness destroys our planet), so it's really not freedom in the first place.

Overall, that is exactly how it works. There are exceptions; sometime life just don't go the way it should. There's no way to stop that. It's just the way things are. If someone works hard, starts to climb that financial ladder, makes a good decision to change jobs and in the midst of that is diagnosed with cancer and loses everything... well, how do we stop that? Outlaw cancer? Even if we provide disability and universal healthcare, that person has still lost their position financially.

There are also exceptions, primarily among the very rich and the very poor. Capitalism itself breaks down on those two extremes; that's why we have the socialist programs we have and a progressive tax. But overall... yes, that's exactly how it works.


Where do you stand on free trade?

That depends on how you define free trade. In general, as long as there is a level playing field, government has no business interfering in trade at all, with the sole exception of establishing standards of honesty.


I don't think neoliberalism or classical liberalism works...

I think many times people tend to internalize those terms and begin to look at the economic implications in a more theoretical than pragmatic sense. That always leads to errors. Human nature is to seek out wants and needs, and that simple concept will drive any society, no matter what label is placed on the economic practices. That is the advantage of capitalism: it relies on human nature rather than tries to ignore it. With the exception of the two extremes mentioned above, it seems to work pretty well.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 8 2019 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Wookiep

Only in America..



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 07:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: Wookiep

I see two things wrong here.

First is this individual not adhering to the employee that has every right to refuse service.

Ummm... no, he doesn't.

The owner of the store has the Right to set policy, and if the owner of the store has a policy of not selling to people wearing pro Trump clothing, then you would be right.


So to put this bluntly the dude making and recording the video is in the wrong.

Wrong, the employee is in the wrong, plain and simple.



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 07:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: jidnum
People need to learn the law before saying a business cannot discriminate against political choice.

The business OWNER can make those kinds of choices.

Not low level employees.



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 08:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: gallop
I mean, I'm sure there is no written policy that a police officer cannot just mug someone, there is no "Under no circumstance is a police officer to mug a member of the public." yet, somehow we don't need one... Yet.

Ahem...

Surely you are not suggesting that police officers are exempt from laws of general applicability (Burglary, assault, etc)???



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 08:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Serdgiam
I think one can rationally support someone like the bakers, as long as they only refuse service in situations that would require them to "participate" in something that goes against their beliefs.

Exactly. There is a world of difference between refusing to sell someone something 'off the shelf' (what this moron did), and refusing to engage in customized services (regardless of the reason). The baker offered to sell the gay couple a cake from their shelf, he simply refused to do a custom job.



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 10:22 AM
link   
I am neutral when it comes to american politics but still. Thats just crazy. Even if they did just refuse service because of the hat and shirt just because they did not agree with their views is just really low? Everyone is allowed to have their own opinions people dont need to refuse tot alk to people just because of it even when they arent doing anything lol. The screaming definitity does not help their case lol



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wookiep
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

The STORE didn't refuse the sale. The employee did. And he got fired. Employees aren't the ones who decides who gets to refuse service based on their emotions. Its not the whole refuse service law etc. This has already been discussed at length.

If it was the store owner you'd have quite the valid point.


That’s not entirely correct. I worked in the restaurant industry for 20+years, most often in a management role. If a server takes an issue with a guest, the server can refuse service. If a bartender thinks for a second a guest is not in the right frame of mind to have a drink, they can refuse service.

I’ve refused to serve several guests over the years and as a server and a bartender. When I was being overtly hit on by a man who was told repeatedly to knock it off, I refused service. (I’m a dude) When I saw a father hit his kid when he thought no one was looking, I refused to serve him (he didn’t even complain, he left like the bitch he was). I’ve had angry people who did not seem intoxicated order a drink and didn’t serve them.

I’ve got plenty of stories about cutting off service or flat out denying it, but none of them include management or corporate reprimanding me for doing anything wrong. I manage a group of medical offices now and 3 weeks ago I saw a receptionist kick a lady out because the lady asked the receptionist Are you too fat to get up and check for me?”, the Dr, who owns the practice and condo it’s in, came out and asked the woman to find another practice.

So in many cases, an employee can certainly refuse service, even if it’s based off emotions. That said, if I ever tried refusing service because of a shirt, I would have lost my job immediately and if a server approached me with that as a “problem”, I’d put a new server on the table and have a discussion with the complaining employee on if their skin is thick enough to work with the general public.
edit on 10-1-2019 by Drucifer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2019 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Drucifer


That said, if I ever tried refusing service because of a shirt, I would have lost my job immediately and if a server approached me with that as a “problem”, I’d put a new server on the table and have a discussion with the complaining employee on if their skin is thick enough to work with the general public.

That's the point. As a bartender, you had an actual legal obligation to cut someone off if you believed serving them would be harmful to them or the general public. As a waiter, someone hitting on you is a direct invasion of your dignity. Those are considered acceptable reasons to deny service in a service industry. Wearing an item of clothing, or even expressing a view you do not agree with is not a reason to deny service, even in a service industry.

The dude hitting his child I will not comment on. I do not know the circumstances, so I will give the benefit of the doubt that you had good cause.

In the waiter role, (I assume) you did not demand that they leave the store, either. You simply refused to serve them. I would hope that, in the process of refusing to serve them, you did not scream obscenities at them in the middle of the restaurant in full view of other customers. Either reaction would be enough to justify firing the employee IMO.

But the clincher is that this was not even a service industry. This was a store. You go in, you buy products, you leave. Done. The expectations are different than if you were required to have a longer interaction with customers, and there was no other employee to take over. The clerk was there to do a job, sell items to customers, and he not only refused to do his job without good reason, he conducted himself in a childish, immature manner that I'm sure reflected badly on the reputation of the store itself. There is no excuse for that. None.

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
69
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join