We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.

[Number1]

It?s like the pharmacists who refuse to fill morning after prescriptions because of their moral belief. They are pharmacist. It is their job to fill prescriptions. If they don?t want to do their job, they should choose another line of work.
It?s like being in the army and refusing to shoot people because you don?t believe in it.
The same applies to you. You are a bartender. It is your job to serve drinks. Either do it or find another job.
Serving a drunk might be against the law and is an entirely different mater. There is NO law against serving pregnant women.
You keep bringing up the argument that if the pregnancy goes wrong, you will be sued for serving her alcohol. Personally I have NEVER heard of such an occurrence. Give us a documented example.
Can I order a drink now?

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
Wish it was still that way.

but in today's society... you are not allowed to have any freedom of thought or opinion. Just be a good little sheeple and follow along.

Yes, we should go back to the time when the negros had to go around to the back to be served.

mugs... that was really taking what KarenMarie said out of context.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

It's easy.
"I'm sorry ma'am, we are all out of that alcohol."

 

[Kaido]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
How come this right doesn't exist anymore? I just took my liquor pouring class to get my license, and the teacher said that every single time (in Washington State) an employee refused to serve a pregnant woman alcohol and went to court about it, the pregnant lady has won.

I could personally never serve an obviously pregnant lady alcohol.

I'm not a doctor, but I am a father, and I know my wife would have the occasional partial glass of wine with dinner when pregnant. I also know that for generations beer and wine were considered safer than water to drink....
For most people alcohol in extreme moderation will not injure their pregnancy, but again, I'm no doctor.

You are actually probably right. But at the same token, I still couldn't live with myself wondering if that baby did turn out to have problems. I know it's not my decision, but I'd rather not have any part of it, and the underlying problem still exists: We DON'T have the right to refuse service, and that is bullsh*t.

Well, from a technical point of view, it really isn't your responsibility and thus you shouldn't feel guilty about it. I don't drink, but I worked at Pizza Hut for awhile and felt the same way. One time this really overweight guy came in, ordered a pizza, and sat there on the bench and ate the entire pizza. At first I felt kind of bad because the pizza (among other things) was doing nothing for his health, but at the same time, it was his choice to inhale an entire box of pizza. I'm not his mom and I can't tell him not to make bad decisions about his health. If I refused the right to service him and told him it would just clog his arteries, he would have just gotten mad and went somewhere else.

It's kind of like blaming gun companies or video game companies for kids shooting themselves or other kids. They just make guns, which can be used in law enforcement, target practice, hunting, and so on; it's really the parent's responsibility to wisely manage their weapons. As hard as it may be to understand, it's not your responsibility to govern anyone's decisions other than your own or perhaps your kids. If you really don't want to be a part of it, there are literally millions of other jobs available. I know Pizza Hut is always hiring

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Kaido

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
How come this right doesn't exist anymore? I just took my liquor pouring class to get my license, and the teacher said that every single time (in Washington State) an employee refused to serve a pregnant woman alcohol and went to court about it, the pregnant lady has won.

I could personally never serve an obviously pregnant lady alcohol.

I'm not a doctor, but I am a father, and I know my wife would have the occasional partial glass of wine with dinner when pregnant. I also know that for generations beer and wine were considered safer than water to drink....
For most people alcohol in extreme moderation will not injure their pregnancy, but again, I'm no doctor.

You are actually probably right. But at the same token, I still couldn't live with myself wondering if that baby did turn out to have problems. I know it's not my decision, but I'd rather not have any part of it, and the underlying problem still exists: We DON'T have the right to refuse service, and that is bullsh*t.

Well, from a technical point of view, it really isn't your responsibility and thus you shouldn't feel guilty about it. I don't drink, but I worked at Pizza Hut for awhile and felt the same way. One time this really overweight guy came in, ordered a pizza, and sat there on the bench and ate the entire pizza. At first I felt kind of bad because the pizza (among other things) was doing nothing for his health, but at the same time, it was his choice to inhale an entire box of pizza. I'm not his mom and I can't tell him not to make bad decisions about his health. If I refused the right to service him and told him it would just clog his arteries, he would have just gotten mad and went somewhere else.

Not a good analogy. The pizza isn't putting anyone else's life in direct danger, whereas a pregnant mother is posing a threat to her child and a drunk customer is posing a threat to other drivers (and is breaking the law by being intoxicated).

I'm not necessarily saying I agree with these laws, but this is the reasoning behind why they exist. The pizza analogy is not relevant in that context.

 

[Kaido]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Kaido

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
How come this right doesn't exist anymore? I just took my liquor pouring class to get my license, and the teacher said that every single time (in Washington State) an employee refused to serve a pregnant woman alcohol and went to court about it, the pregnant lady has won.

I could personally never serve an obviously pregnant lady alcohol.

I'm not a doctor, but I am a father, and I know my wife would have the occasional partial glass of wine with dinner when pregnant. I also know that for generations beer and wine were considered safer than water to drink....
For most people alcohol in extreme moderation will not injure their pregnancy, but again, I'm no doctor.

You are actually probably right. But at the same token, I still couldn't live with myself wondering if that baby did turn out to have problems. I know it's not my decision, but I'd rather not have any part of it, and the underlying problem still exists: We DON'T have the right to refuse service, and that is bullsh*t.

Well, from a technical point of view, it really isn't your responsibility and thus you shouldn't feel guilty about it. I don't drink, but I worked at Pizza Hut for awhile and felt the same way. One time this really overweight guy came in, ordered a pizza, and sat there on the bench and ate the entire pizza. At first I felt kind of bad because the pizza (among other things) was doing nothing for his health, but at the same time, it was his choice to inhale an entire box of pizza. I'm not his mom and I can't tell him not to make bad decisions about his health. If I refused the right to service him and told him it would just clog his arteries, he would have just gotten mad and went somewhere else.

Not a good analogy. The pizza isn't putting anyone else's life in direct danger, whereas a pregnant mother is posing a threat to her child and a drunk customer is posing a threat to other drivers (and is breaking the law by being intoxicated).

I'm not necessarily saying I agree with these laws, but this is the reasoning behind why they exist. The pizza analogy is not relevant in that context.

I agree, it was just a technical comparison of the idea rather than reality

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Number1
It?s like the pharmacists who refuse to fill morning after prescriptions because of their moral belief. They are pharmacist. It is their job to fill prescriptions. If they don?t want to do their job, they should choose another line of work.

What someone does in their line of work is up to their employer.

 

[BlancoNino]

A lot of you guys seem to be missing a point. Yes, people have rights, but that also means that businesses have rights too. If a business doesn't want to serve pregnant women (or any other group of people), that's their right. Businesses should have the right to serve whomever they want just as people have the right to exchange their currency for a service wherever they want.

 

[ruffilb]

Originally posted by: Amplifier
just refuse to serve them

Claim that something's wrong and you're unable to serve them at that time.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: ruffilb

Originally posted by: Amplifier
just refuse to serve them

Claim that something's wrong and you're unable to serve them at that time.

It's a good idea, but I don't think a business should have to lie to cover their legal ass.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
A lot of you guys seem to be missing a point. Yes, people have rights, but that also means that businesses have rights too. If a business doesn't want to serve pregnant women (or any other group of people), that's their right. Businesses should have the right to serve whomever they want just as people have the right to exchange their currency for a service wherever they want.

By opening itself as a place of public accommodation, a business opens itself to those restrictions. If you want to start a private, members-only club you can exclude women or Asians or Muslims or old people or pregant women if you want. But if you're open to the public you can't discriminate.

It's not like this is the only way in which a business's rights are limited. A restaurant has to pass health inspections, a bar has to have a liquor license, etc.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: mugs
By opening itself as a place of public accommodation, a business opens itself to those restrictions. If you want to start a private, members-only club you can exclude women or Asians or Muslims or old people or pregant women if you want. But if you're open to the public you can't discriminate.

It's not like this is the only way in which a business's rights are limited. A restaurant has to pass health inspections, a bar has to have a liquor license, etc.

Yes, all of which are stupid. The free markets police themselves, that's a fact. You can't argue with the fact that if you own a bar, it's still YOUR private property. It's sad the government infringes on our rights. If a restaurant isn't clean and people are getting food poisoning, nobody will eat there and law suits can follow. All these licenses and regulations only make it harder for more competition in the market because it makes it way more stressful for most people to want to be a business owner, even if they have the ambition.

For the record, not being served alcohol at a bar based on anything isn't a violation of "civil rights" but is a violation of business-owner and constitional property rights.

 

[SpanishFry]

funny. over the years I've refused to serve 50-100 people because they were royal jackasses (some while sober) and i've never been sued.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
For the record, not being served alcohol at a bar based on anything isn't a violation of "civil rights" but is a violation of business-owner and constitional property rights.

Not according to the law. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the supreme court.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: Zugzwang152
It's not your decision on messing up life for the child.

Besides, what have you really done except make her go out of the way to go to the liquor store herself? Be nice and get a nice tip.

But as a taxpaying member of society, he has to pay for that childs special needs. So yes he has a right to say no.

 

[radioouman]

Can restaurants refuse to serve obese people?

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
For the record, not being served alcohol at a bar based on anything isn't a violation of "civil rights" but is a violation of business-owner and constitional property rights.

Not according to the law. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the supreme court.

That's my point. The laws are fascist and violate property rights.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: radioouman
Can restaurants refuse to serve obese people?

Why would they want to? That's money in the bank!

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: radioouman
Can restaurants refuse to serve obese people?

Why would they want to? That's money in the bank!

Bingo! Exactly why we don't need laws to "protect customers".

 

[Kyanzes]

You are not a doctor to decide wether she should drink or not, or to decide if she's even pregnant. You are not qualified to make such a diagnose. Even if you happen to be a doctor, she's still not your patient. Even if she happens to be your patient, you are still not there in official capacity. (And why in hell are you selling alcohol in a bar when you are a doctor anyway?)

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Kyanzes
You are not a doctor to decide wether she should drink or not, or to decide if she's even pregnant. You are not qualified to make such a diagnose. Even if you happen to be a doctor, she's still not your patient. Even if she happens to be your patient, you are still not there in official capacity. (And why in hell are you selling alcohol in a bar when you are a doctor anyway?)

But lets say I'm a bar-owner and I own the property she is standing in. Am I qualified to tell her she can't drink? Apparently not.

 

[slackerinabox]

just give them watered down drinks.. or rat poisoning.this way they can't sue!

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
For the record, not being served alcohol at a bar based on anything isn't a violation of "civil rights" but is a violation of business-owner and constitional property rights.

Not according to the law. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the supreme court.

That's my point. The laws are fascist and violate property rights.

Take it up with the supreme court.

Apparantly they don't agree with you. Hmmm... supreme court justice vs. aspiring bartender. Yeah, you'll show them.

You do not have an absolute right to do whatever you want to do with or on your property. Nor should you. I'm not a fascist, I'm a realist.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: mugs
Take it up with the supreme court.

Apparantly they don't agree with you. Hmmm... supreme court justice vs. aspiring bartender. Yeah, you'll show them.

You do not have an absolute right to do whatever you want to do with or on your property. Nor should you. I'm not a fascist, I'm a realist.

I don't know if a case has ever been brought up with the supreme court. Obviously you can't use your property to do "whatever you want". But apparently having the authority to decide who can be on your property is too much to ask.

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
Wish it was still that way.

but in today's society... you are not allowed to have any freedom of thought or opinion. Just be a good little sheeple and follow along.

You still have this right, however it cannot violate Title VII, although technically serving a pregnant woman would violate title VII (it affects women in general at a greater rate than men) I would think that protecting a child would supersede this.