Coffee shop refuses to serve police officers

[UNCjigga]

This is just dumb. I put this up there with not making a wedding cake because your customer is gay. Discrimination is discrimination.

The only possible scenario where I might sympathize is a coffee shop refusing to serve ICE officers, because they might be perceived as a legitimate threat to safety of some communities.

 

[zinfamous]

I find this to be...dumb. Oakland has a long, strident history with police abuse, that goes back well before 90% of ATers were a mere molecule in the speckled eyes of their yet-unmet parents' loins, so I doubt many of you can appreciate that actual history...but this is still just dumb.

Does the law protect occupations as it does other real, human-born classes? I'm not sure that it does...but this is still just stupid. It seems spiteful to me in a general sense, but also could backfire easily against the business owner in a vacuum--who is going to protect this place now when they get robbed endlessly?

 

[Starbuck1975]

It's sad that it's that way sometimes but only the cops have the power to make it better.

Cops are not the only ones who have the power. Dialogue is a two way street. Stunts like this may gain you customers in the Bay Area, but showing disrespect to first responders is not a winning message nationally.

 

[Kathy Sharp]

I'm fine with coffee shop not wanting to serve anyone.
However, this may result in police not exactly racing to their defense when they are robbed or vandalized. "IIRC in your opinion we are evil and incompetent, did you really expect us to arrive under 30 minutes?"

 

[ch33zw1z]

Cops are not the only ones who have the power. Dialogue is a two way street. Stunts like this may gain you customers in the Bay Area, but showing disrespect to first responders is not a winning message nationally.

Boo hoo, sounds like getting attention on the situation is starting the dialogue. We have no knowledge of the history between LEO's and this particular establishment. So any context outside of the main story is just speculation. I speculate this is getting them the attention they want, but that's just speculation.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I'm fine with coffee shop not wanting to serve anyone.
However, this may result in police not exactly race to their defense when they are robbed or vandalized. "IIRC in your opinion we are evil and incompetent, did you really expect us to arrive under 30 minutes?"

Do you have any information claiming that's how it was to begin with?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Boo hoo, sounds like getting attention on the situation is starting the dialogue. We have no knowledge of the history between LEO's and this particular establishment. So any context outside of the main story is just speculation. I speculate this is getting them the attention they want, but that's just speculation.

Let’s stick to the main story. The President of the Oakland Police Association wrote a letter to the business to start that very dialogue, which the business has yet to respond to, and why they are now drawing heat.

The yelp backlash is hilarious.

This isn’t about dialogue. This is just more derp from duh resistance, playing to the crowd in Oakland.

 

[HomerJS]

That's the head scratcher... it's this odd ethical quandary where they won't serve coffee, but would probably have the police rushing in with guns drawn in the event of a crisis, which is clearly part of the problem (especially when the subject is non-white).

And it's safe to say the majority of BLM supporters, including the ardent ones, don't think the police should go away -- what they want are police forces that don't practice systemic racism.

You mean the same ethical quandary doctors face if they have to treat a terrorist who's brought into the hospital?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Let’s stick to the main story. The President of the Oakland Police Association wrote a letter to the business to start that very dialogue, which the business has yet to respond to, and why they are now drawing heat.

The yelp backlash is hilarious.

This isn’t about dialogue. This is just more derp from duh resistance, playing to the crowd in Oakland.

Well, hold your horses there bucaroo. I don't really see any heat on them except from the Fox news story headline claiming it.

This is one of those "let's see how it plays out" situations.

If we had a nickel for each time police departments didn't respond or comment to the general public, you know...that's a lot of nickels.

Since this topic was brought to my attention, the obvious questions revolve around events leading up to this. If we're lucky, this story won't fade into the journalism abyss due to the general public short term memory problems.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Well, hold your horses there bucaroo. I don't really see any heat on them except from the Fox news story headline claiming it.

This is one of those "let's see how it plays out" situations.

If we had a nickel for each time police departments didn't respond or comment to the general public, you know...that's a lot of nickels.

Since this topic was brought to my attention, the obvious questions revolve around events leading up to this. If we're lucky, this story won't fade into the journalism abyss due to the general public short term memory problems.

Don’t call me buckaroo, partner.

Heat in the sense the story has national attention. CNN is now covering the story, as are other major news outlets.

 

[K1052]

Let’s stick to the main story. The President of the Oakland Police Association wrote a letter to the business to start that very dialogue, which the business has yet to respond to, and why they are now drawing heat.

The yelp backlash is hilarious.

This isn’t about dialogue. This is just more derp from duh resistance, playing to the crowd in Oakland.

Oakland kinda has a passing familiarity with political radicalism and a long history of police issues. I'd take their motivation as probably genuine even if you don't happen to agree with the action.

 

[Commodus]

Mom Let you fall out of your high-chair one too many Times.

Thanks for your constructive and not-at-all-childish response.

I don't see the issue with acknowledging the trickiness of the situation -- yes, of course it would make sense for them to cooperate with police in an emergency, it's just ironic that they'd deny officers coffee but would welcome them in while they're brandishing guns.

 

[mdram]

The only possible scenario where I might sympathize is a coffee shop refusing to serve ICE officers, because they might be perceived as a legitimate threat to safety of some communities.

huh? only if your illegal.

 

[pauldun170]

Oakland kinda has a passing familiarity with political radicalism and a long history of police issues. I'd take their motivation as probably genuine even if you don't happen to agree with the action.

Some might say that there is a backstory lots of people are ignoring.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/oakland-police-reform-115552
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/21/oakland-police-misconduct-scandals-pile-up
https://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakl...sex-scandal-investigation/Content?oid=7673287
https://www.sfgate.com/g00/bayarea/...Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8=&i10c.ua=1&i10c.dv=13
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/30/us/police-corruption-charges-reopen-wounds-in-oakland.html

 

[Atreus21]

I think it would be patently ridiculous to make a specific job a protected class. I have no interest in humoring you on ridiculous hypotheticals.

heh. I wonder why.

You said cops weren't a protected class, and therefore you don't oppose discrimination against them. So does it follow that if they were a protected class, you'd oppose this? Just yes or no.

Your and others' unwillingness to answer that question is itself indicative of the answer.

 

[feralkid]

Cops show up and get coffee while not in uniform, they win.

Cops show up and kick your lying ass for calling in a false report, America wins.

 

[pauldun170]

heh. I wonder why.

You said cops weren't a protected class, and therefore you don't oppose discrimination against them. So does it follow that if they were a protected class, you'd oppose this? Just yes or no.

Your and others' unwillingness to answer that question is itself indicative of the answer.

I'll play
I'm not opposed to a store refusing to serve uniformed officers if its in response to policing standards or officer behavior at the place of business.
If by some ridiculous occurrence federal law extended protections to police, the store may still be in the clear.
The store currently does serve police officers. The store policy concerns uniformed officers only.
The argument the store would push would be that its policy concerns the Oakland police department (the uniform), not the individual officer.

 

[Atreus21]

I'll play
I'm not opposed to a store refusing to serve uniformed officers if its in response to policing standards or officer behavior at the place of business.
If by some ridiculous occurrence federal law extended protections to police, the store may still be in the clear.
The store currently does serve police officers. The store policy concerns uniformed officers only.
The argument the store would push would be that its policy concerns the Oakland police department (the uniform), not the individual officer.

What I'm getting at is that defending discrimination on the basis of its victim not being a protected class is similar to a defense of 19th century slavery on the grounds that it was legal at the time.

It's a moral question first, and citing protected status seems a cop-out (no pun intended). Were we just fine with discrimination against gays until they were made a protected class in 2013?

 

[HomerJS]

If store can refuse service for people not wearing shirts then they can refuse service to police in uniform. If they show up in street clothes they get served. Not legally discrimination.

Having said that, I'm against stores refusing to serve police. Public accommodation needs to serve all. Same story for cake maker.

 

[fskimospy]

What I'm getting at is that defending discrimination on the basis of its victim not being a protected class is similar to a defense of 19th century slavery on the grounds that it was legal at the time.

It's really, really not. See below.

It's a moral question first, and citing protected status seems a cop-out (no pun intended). Were we just fine with discrimination against gays until they were made a protected class in 2013?

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how protected classes work. Gay people were never made a protected class in 2013, however in some states discrimination based on sexual orientation was added to public accommodation laws. Protected classes are not black people, women, or gay people. EVERYONE is part of multiple protected classes which are race, sex, and sexual orientation. The day that law was passed you were protected to the same extent that gay people are, meaning if a gay bar refused to serve you because you are straight they would be violating the law.

The entire linchpin of anti-discrimination law is that we are all free to discriminate to our heart's content based on what someone DOES, not based on who they ARE. It's perfectly legal to discriminate against someone for being a police officer because that's a choice they made. I wouldn't do it, but it's legal.

 

[JockoJohnson]

It says a lot about the people who replied to my comment. As long as the gubmint says they aren't a protected class, they won't whine about it. If gays/blacks/women/aliens/whatever aren't protected, you are fine with discrimination...good to know.

Only rely on gov't to tell you what is right. I guess if you lived back in the 1700/1800s, you would be fine with slavery because the gov't said so. Wouldn't want you thinking for yourselves, now would we?

I made those statements because all replies fell back on the response "it's not a protected class".

 

[umbrella39]

No it says more about you... That you think there are parts of the Constitution you can pick and choose to hold up and others you prefer to wipe your ass with... You don't get to redefine discrimination. Sorry...

If they chose not to serve school teachers I would give an equal amounts of fuck...

Zero

 

[JockoJohnson]

Thank you for the honest reply. I can respect that. As for not wanting to serve school teachers or police or anyone else, it's still discrimination and I don't agree with it. I don't need the gov't to tell me what is right and wrong. As discussed here ad nauseam, the gov't isn't always right.

Edit: I'm not saying I think people should go to jail or face criminal/civil penalties either. People could do the old fashion protest...I just don't see that happening in Oakland.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

I kind of want my discriminatory douchebags to be openly discriminatory so I can choose not to give them my money. Forcing them to "hide" their douchbaggedness with laws kind of almost subsidizes these dirtbags with profit I could have rewarded a good person with.

 

[WaTaGuMp]

Cops show up and kick your lying ass for calling in a false report, America wins.

Police brutality, sweet, I get paid.