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.
It’s wholly within their rights to refuse service to anyone for any reason. I hope they stick to their… well, I guess “stick to their guns” doesn’t really work here but whatever.
If they are a public facing business, they are not within their rights to refuse service to anyone for any reason. There are protected classes, like age/race/sexuality. So if you own a business like a coffee shop, you can’t say “no black people.” However, police and guns are not protected classes, so I think they should be in the clear legally.
What happened to the supreme court cases that said it’s ok to discriminate against protected classes as long as it just so happens to be “against your religion”
“against your Christian religion”. Fixed that for you.
The Supreme Court decision was a very narrow decision based on how the commission treated the business owner, not a broad decision on free exercise vs protected class.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission
Of course. They’re patient. They chipped away at abortion for decades before finally getting it overturned in Dobbs.
Similarly they went from Masterpiece Cake Shop to the Creative LLC case which widened the exception further because it’s a “creative endeavor”. Don’t for a minute think they’re not queing up a case to deny medical services based on a “sincerely held religious beliefs”.
Unfortunately that isn’t true. Businesses have a right to refuse service for a wide variety of reasons. Like you said though those protected classes are illegal to discriminate against.
That is why you can have rules, like “no shirt no shoes no service”. So in this case it is if you bring a gun you will be asked to leave.
Although now if that store was ever a victim of a robbery I would bet the response time is very slow…
Nooo I’m sure the police are very honorable men and women who would never retaliate against anyone for any reason.
They would certainly never accept bribes for any reason, or destroy evidence, or beblatantly racist.
No no no these are honorable men
So you’re saying people who become cops aren’t interested in the public good and are more interested in power?
Well I never!
It’s not like police departments give a shit about robbery anyway. They take a report and tell you to call insurance. Better off with a guy with a gun.
Fun fact, if they can prove the police deliberately delayed their response that’s a massive lawsuit.
You still gotta convince the city and then who are you really hurting? If the cops had to pay lawsuits out of the FOP pension fund maybe that would matter. If you sue the city you’re only hurting your neighbors and yourself.
Payments for those things shouldn’t come out of public funds, cops should individually be required to carry malpractice insurance. Cop gets found guilty of violating someones rights? Settlement gets paid by their insurance. I bet you’d see all those “bad apples” suddenly being utterly unemployable once they literally can’t find anyone willing to insure their scumbag asses.
Forcing cops to carry the equivalent of malpractice insurance would be a great step.
If.
Biggest if.
Also the distinction is “no uniforms, no guns” off duty police are still served. It’s actually a little closer to “no shoes, no shirt, no service”.
As listed in the article some of the employees and regular customers come from war-torn places or have histories of traumatic interactions with police. Hence the ban comes from a place of limiting PTSD reactions.
deleted by creator
“Stick to their buns” I guess?
deleted by creator