U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Yesterday, 10:11 PM
 
11,015 posts, read 4,476,624 times
Reputation: 27766

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburban_Guy View Post
I wonder how many of those fully supporting what this woman did, would themselves invite 20 random homeless people from the street into their own homes to feed them and let them use the restroom.

Crickets....

As always, so long as it's someone else's facility and property and not yours.
I think everyone completely understands what you're saying.

This is a very hard topic to tackle. How can you legally refuse a specific class of people you don't want to serve, while serving a very similar class of people you DO want to serve? It's very hard.

In Central Texas, Highland Mall went out of business trying to figure out how to boot out gang bangers while still allowing youthful paying customers to enter and buy merchandise.

It's impossible, is what I'm saying. Coming up with a clear description of people you will reject while allowing people you want in your business is impossible to do, from a legal standpoint.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 10:50 PM
 
10,179 posts, read 4,775,084 times
Reputation: 13303
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC View Post
Yes, they can, you're right.

But they have to say it clearly, in the restaurant, on signage and they have to enforce it fairly.

For example, if they said people whose clothing doesn't appear clean and neat can't eat there, they'd have to kick out a construction crew of 4 guys that eats there every lunch.

And no one wants to do that.

No, they don't have to have signage outlining the terms of their refusal of service. You're making things up as you want them to be, not as they are. There is no legal requirement for a restaurant to be fair or to treat any group - aside from the named protected classes - equally. However, this restaurant did have a longstanding policy to not allow the homeless to use their facilities and they were applying this policy to these homeless as they do all homeless so in this case they were in adherence even to your standards.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 04:22 AM
 
4,946 posts, read 2,415,301 times
Reputation: 5888
Quote:
Originally Posted by carrcollie View Post
the Bible commands us to give to the poor and needy, without judging their circumstances.

The Bible also tell us not to judge others.

The Bible also says that "the poor will always be with us."

I'm not interested in citing chapter and verse here because I'm not a hard core Bible thumper. But I know what it says.

I hope you are never in a situation where you can't work because of a disability or mental health condition. Many Americans are just one step away from financial catastrophe if they have a serious medical situation.
People can quote the bible all they want - I find that those who push their own beliefs on others most times don't follow it. Instead of wasting time on a forum trying to educate us - maybe go down to the local food pantry and help out those less fortunate.

You're right - many are one step away from being on the street and God help them but many are there due to their own circumstances - drugs, gambling, refusal to take their psych meds - people have to accept that many make their own beds.

There are many panhandlers claiming to be poor that live better than you or I.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 05:56 AM
 
Location: NJ
24,558 posts, read 30,686,096 times
Reputation: 16541
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC View Post
I can't tell what you're saying.
I am saying that it is inappropriate to keep referring to it as "a slippery slope" in an attempt to put what they did in a negative light. There is no reason to consider it a slippery slope other than you are trying to make the action look bad. It's perfectly legitimate action.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 06:09 AM
Status: "New apartment!!! 😀" (set 12 days ago)
 
Location: Ashe Co. NC
1,039 posts, read 863,151 times
Reputation: 720
carrcollie...ty for good post..and this:What Does the Bible Say About Helping The Needy Kjv?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 07:40 AM
 
11,015 posts, read 4,476,624 times
Reputation: 27766
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ View Post
I am saying that it is inappropriate to keep referring to it as "a slippery slope" in an attempt to put what they did in a negative light. There is no reason to consider it a slippery slope other than you are trying to make the action look bad. It's perfectly legitimate action.
It IS a slippery slope - if you're talking about the "action" of the management of Taco Bell.

From a business standpoint it may be a perfectly understandable "action" - we all certainly get that.

But it's not at all clear legally. Google "sues because they were denied service" and see just how very slippery the slope is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 07:53 AM
 
10,179 posts, read 4,775,084 times
Reputation: 13303
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC View Post
It IS a slippery slope - if you're talking about the "action" of the management of Taco Bell.

From a business standpoint it may be a perfectly understandable "action" - we all certainly get that.

But it's not at all clear legally. Google "sues because they were denied service" and see just how very slippery the slope is.
The "slippery slope" argument is usually invoked by one who doesn't have a solid argument against the current situation so needs to project some potential future situation.

Yes, please do google on those terms and you'll see the results involve cases involving one of the protected classes under federal or state law.

And also google "sued because of slippery floor" to see just as many results so I guess keeping a clean store and mopping the floors is a "slippery slope" as well.

Businesses can refuse service provided it is not on the basis of a legally protected class. The lines are clearly drawn and there is no slippery slope. Anyone can get sued for anything. There's not many businesses that haven't been sued for something. Getting sued doesn't necessarily mean you did anything wrong and there's nothing you can do to preclude getting sued.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 07:57 AM
 
7,295 posts, read 2,632,793 times
Reputation: 16647
Quote:
Originally Posted by xray731 View Post
People can quote the bible all they want - I find that those who push their own beliefs on others most times don't follow it. Instead of wasting time on a forum trying to educate us - maybe go down to the local food pantry and help out those less fortunate.

You're right - many are one step away from being on the street and God help them but many are there due to their own circumstances - drugs, gambling, refusal to take their psych meds - people have to accept that many make their own beds.

There are many panhandlers claiming to be poor that live better than you or I.

I hear that claim a lot. I doubt that it's true. I'll give you that they probably make a chunk of change, standing on the street corner with their sign. But really...how many of these folks do you think live in a decent house or apartment, and drive a decent car? I think very little.


And is it REALLY a better life, spending 6 to 8 hours at a busy intersection begging for $5's and $1's? I'll give you that maybe they're scamming me. Maybe their time could be used more...productively, more honorably, more...benefiting society. But living better than me? No. I don't think so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 08:51 AM
 
1,224 posts, read 1,559,369 times
Reputation: 3550
What a terrible way to have handled things. If this woman wanted to do a good thing she could have easily purchased the food for 20 homeless people, then taken it back where they had been located. Of course she should have known Taco Bell would not want them using their bathrooms to bathe, do drugs, trash the facilities, etc. If there was no expectation that would be a problem, she would have just invited these 20 people to her own home to use the bathroom facilities, clean up, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 08:52 AM
 
Location: Fort Lauderdale, Florida
9,570 posts, read 8,543,723 times
Reputation: 20943
Quote:
Originally Posted by evening sun View Post
I can hardly blame TB for not allowing them to use the restrooms, I have heard horror stories from people in business who have allowed them to use the facilities. But it was a kind thing for her to do. I hope they got to enjoy the tacos.

When I worked at Cheesecake Factory downtown Fort Lauderdale, the homeless people would ransack the restrooms making them useless for our guests. Always.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top