Thermal
August Member
Oh my goodness, after pages of on topic discussion a brief sidebar has ruffled thine feathers? Shall we repeat discussion points? How many times?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Restaurant manager fired for accommodating a bigoted customer's demand
- Thread starter Checkmite
- Start date
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
And using "then" instead of "than" is a greater sin still.
Thermal
August Member
Here ya go, Mr Morgue:
A restaurant managers job is to create a pleasant dining experience for all its customers. It is not their job to decide if their customer's desires are noble or bigoted. It is not the managers job to enforce right thinking.
Now heres the hitch. The manager cannot deny service based on skin color under civil rights laws. But can they simply redirect servers to keep peace for their other patrons? Is that reasonable, all in? The manager of a franchise does not get to set franchise policy independently, or decide if individual patrons are up to their personal standards. It is not illegal to request a non- black server, just supremely dicklish and bigoted, but not illegal.
A restaurant managers job is to create a pleasant dining experience for all its customers. It is not their job to decide if their customer's desires are noble or bigoted. It is not the managers job to enforce right thinking.
Now heres the hitch. The manager cannot deny service based on skin color under civil rights laws. But can they simply redirect servers to keep peace for their other patrons? Is that reasonable, all in? The manager of a franchise does not get to set franchise policy independently, or decide if individual patrons are up to their personal standards. It is not illegal to request a non- black server, just supremely dicklish and bigoted, but not illegal.
Thermal
August Member
The server won't get tipped. So it might be the best thing to give the server some tables that will let her earn her money than one that will be hell bent on stiffing her.
It is the manager's job to protect his/her employees from abuse and to maintain a non-hostile work environment. Accommodating an outspoken racist who insults a server not only injured the employee, but offended other customers (some of whom were angry enough to make a public issue of it). Sometimes the customer is not right.
Last edited:
Thermal
August Member
Ok. Is it necessarily hostile or abusive to request a server for bigoted reasons, though? Put a little spin on it to test the theory: a customer politely and with a smile asks for a Christian server, is that hostile? What if they just request a specific server, who they did not present a reason for preferring? Still hostile to others?
(I agree that the manager handled this wrongly and suggested a resolution upthread, but JoeMorgue is giving a make pretend complaint so I am offering a make pretend discussion point so he can point a finger at someone else and feel superior and happy)
Exactly! The law prohibits racial discrimination toward employees too; reassigning a server because they are black, no matter if a customer requests it, violates the law. Simple.
Further IMO we all have a moral responsibility to others. Facilitating racism violates that moral responsibility. Think how hurtful to the server to be told that a racist came in who thinks you are too disgusting due to your race to serve them and rather than back you I will support them and reassign you to a different table. One should step up to one’s responsibilities.
The manager can't discriminate against employees on the basis of race, religion or other protected class. The manager couldn't ask servers "who's saved?" No, I would expect the manager to tell the customer "We don't discriminate on the basis of religion here."
On the other hand, if the customer said something like "Is Angela working tonight? She's a wonderful server. Could you seat us at one of her tables?" that would be entirely different. That's not prejudice against an entire group of people.
It’s damn illegal, immoral, and hurtful to accommodate them! And yes it is hostile to non-Christians!
Is this so hard to see that you think this would come off as a more acceptable spin for most people here? Being Jewish I beg to disagree. It is the same as discrimination against blacks, etc.
BTW of course one can legally request a specific server or not a specific server. It’s only stupid bigots who feel the need to include a racial or religious criteria in their request.
Last edited:
Are you pretending to support racial and religious discrimination just so other posters can feel superior? Well it just makes me feel ill, not superior. You can stop now.
Stone Mountain?
Thermal
August Member
Just presenting a focal point for your random Voice Crying Out in the Wilderness/Get Off My Lawn postings, O quote feature-challenged poster. A 'thank you' might be more appropriate.
Thermal
August Member
Really not sure it's illegal, though it's certainly wrong and bigoted.
And seriously, just DAing for Joey. I said what I felt was reasonable earlier, to tell the patrons that the establishment could not comply with such a request and ask if they would they still be dining there or get their coats.
Thermal
August Member
Read more carefully: is it illegal to make such a request? I'd be interested in the wording of said law.
Civil Rights Acts, as we all should know, are limited in policing behaviors. Many posters think they make any kind of bigotry illegal. They do not.
No, it's probably not generally illegal to express racist thoughts, although it could be intimidation in some cases. But it would be illegal for a manager to assign employees on the basis of race. That's the issue here.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
That's not actually an error, but a stylistic choice. Both the King James Bible and Shakespeare feature sentences beginning with conjunctions. Quite different than using the wrong word entirely.
Unless there's a very good practical reason for why they don't want be served by someone (in a very broad and general sense of the word, not just relating to waiters) people should not expect to be allowed to discriminate and choose who provides that service.
Conservative Muslim men (but also other conservative and traditional minded people) often point to religious objections to touching, or being touched, by women other than their wife or close relatives even when it's a part of things like healthcare or even a handshake. In those cases it's unacceptable to agree with their request to only be touched by men.
Conservative Muslim men (but also other conservative and traditional minded people) often point to religious objections to touching, or being touched, by women other than their wife or close relatives even when it's a part of things like healthcare or even a handshake. In those cases it's unacceptable to agree with their request to only be touched by men.
Exactly. Which was precisely the point I also posted.