Good for the employees...

Yes. I think it's mean to hope someone gets fired even if the could get fired.

Again however. The article says they were not refused service.

(12-31-2014 12:09 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Yes. I think it's mean to hope someone gets fired even if the could get fired.
Again however. The article says they were not refused service.

OK, that's a finer semantic distinction that I care to make.

As for refusal of service, I've seen reports that they were and reports that they weren't. I would certainly argue that a mass (and some reports say some, some say many) gesture of "hands up, don't shoot" would at least constitute constructive refusal to serve. The closest analogy I can think of would be if an African-American family showed up in the serving line and the employees donned white hoods, would you consider that to be effective denial of service?

(12-30-2014 09:46 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Yeah I disagree with hoping someone gets fired just because you disagree with his position.

You mean like the guy from Mozilla or Donald Sterling? How about the football player who was suspended for Tweeting "OMG" after Michael Sam was drafted?

But I'm glad to know that you won't call for the terminations of anyone who speaks out against gay marriage, Muslims, etc. becasue that's just a position disagreement.

(12-31-2014 12:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 12:09 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Yes. I think it's mean to hope someone gets fired even if the could get fired.
Again however. The article says they were not refused service.

OK, that's a finer semantic distinction that I care to make.

As for refusal of service, I've seen reports that they were and reports that they weren't. I would certainly argue that a mass (and some reports say some, some say many) gesture of "hands up, don't shoot" would at least constitute constructive refusal to serve. The closest analogy I can think of would be if an African-American family showed up in the serving line and the employees donned white hoods, would you consider that to be effective denial of service?

Comparing hand up as a symbol of surrender to hoods which represent lynching is a bit of a stretch don't you think?

(12-31-2014 11:43 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 10:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-30-2014 09:46 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Yeah I disagree with hoping someone gets fired just because you disagree with his position.

And, of course, that is a gross mischaracterization. Disagreeing with his position would be applicable if he disagreed with the officers but served them. Refusing to serve them goes beyond disagreement.

Refusing to serve them would be a good reason to fire or suspend him.

it's funny how nobody has substituted "gang" for "cops" and hypothesized on 'that' outcome....

the employees should be fired because they put the employer in a no-win situation.

doesnt matter what political point they were trying to make, right or wrong, they cost their employer money and PR.

I'd fire them for being retarded


If they applauded the cops as they came in and said "Pants up, dont loot" I'd have the same opinion as to their firing.

(12-31-2014 03:37 PM)Tiguar Wrote:  the employees should be fired because they put the employer in a no-win situation.

doesnt matter what political point they were trying to make, right or wrong, they cost their employer money and PR.

I'd fire them for being retarded


If they applauded the cops as they came in and said "Pants up, dont loot" I'd have the same opinion as to their firing.

XACLY!

...hopefully fit's new job will help him understand simple business principles (not holding breath)