Terminalcoffee discussion
Face Off! (Less Serious)
>
Should a Coffee Shop Owner Be Able to Refuse to Serve Police?
date
newest »
newest »
1. Doesn't seem like a wise business practice.2. Joke answer: Serve them to whom?
More serious: When in uniform, officers represent "the state." Refuse away. When dressed casually, honor their humanity and serve them.
By the way, why would a vegan be afraid of a police officer?
There's a rather nice TV show in the UK called "Early Doors" showing life in the early evening in a pub. A pair of portly policemen regularly turn up for their free beer in a back room and they boast of their petty malpractices. Isn't getting free refreshments a traditional perk of being a policeman?
1.I don't think a coffee shop owner should kick out a police officer unless he's/she's there to start crap.2.I do think that they should be able to refuse business to anyone they choose not to serve.
That being said, it sounds like they took this man's money before they kicked him out, which is pretty ridiculous to me, if you don't want him there, don't serve him and then ask him to leave in such a humiliating fashion. That's just my opinion though.
It is not at all uncommon for an entire district, or a social class or an ethnic group or some mixture of these to become hostile towards the police. When this happens, it is very difficult to undo. It is in any case as much a symptom as a cause of social division and unrest. In the height of the NI Troubles, policemen would seek out places where they could grab a cup of coffee where they knew they would be safe. One of these was my own work-canteen. Whenever such a group of policemen left, we would all utter a palpable sigh of relief.
A business owner can refuse to serve anyone, even the police. But as Bun said, this police officer's behavior wasn't causing a problem. Heck, he was on his way out the door with his coffee. On the other hand, it does sound like the co-owner, Langley, asked the officer to leave quietly without making a scene, and that he explained why, so I don't have a problem with the request overall. I just don't like it.
Personally I don't think that cafe owner was justified though it is his right, I suppose, to
Can they refuse to serve black people? Asians?
But isn't that like saying an Asian person in traditional dress is not welcome but if they're wearing "American" clothes it's OK?
Actually, since a cafe is a "public accommodation" as defined under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, its owners do not have the right to refuse service "to anyone." Legally, they can't discriminate on the basis of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability. Whether the cafe owner has a right to refuse service to officers in uniform without just cause--for instance, an officer who is drunk, disorderly, physically or verbally abusive, etc. is an interesting question. Since it does not look like this particular officer is interested in pursuing the matter, it seems unlikely we'll get a court ruling on it.
But, personally, I would doubt that the cafe owner was on solid legal ground, any more than he would be, for instance, in refusing service to people who voted for Barack Obama--although political affiliation, like professional affiliation, is not (I think) a category specifically protected under the public accommodation law. Again, I'm not sure, but I think a person is on somewhat shaky ground refusing service based on these blanket classifications in a cafe, which is a licensed and regulated business--not a private party in your own back yard where you can associate or refuse to associate with whomever you choose.
My own personal opinion: cops are people. Some are great; some are not. Judging any person solely on the basis of his or her profession seems like a very dubious claim to the moral high ground. Moreover there is nothing inherently bad about police work (although admittedly, I've met some police officers that I didn't like very much). What is really achieved by snubbing people?
Yes, well done, Jonathan, I agree with Mary.I don't agree that a business owner can refuse to serve anyone. And while I understand what Buns is saying about gang colors, I'm worried about the slippery slope associated with such choices. For example, what if a coffee shop says it's had problems with, I don't know, Samoan patrons, and therefore no one in Samoan dress will be served? Is that ok? Where to draw the line? Could that be used as a rationale for discrimination?
This leads me to the second point and one I find fascinating when this question moves to a legal playing field. You can't legislate for every motivation. Maybe this owner was genuinely scared for the patrons. Maybe this owner just gets off on the folk hero status of sticking it to the man. How do you work around that? I don't have a good answer.
Finally, do you remember the parking lot owner in the southeast, don't remember where, who said he wouldn't allow Obama supporters to park in his lot? I know the scenarios aren't exactly the same but they hold some similarities. Both involve a service provider symbolically wielding power. The parking lot scenario both amused and bothered me. First off, how is he going to know who's an Obama supporter? Would he assume, for example, someone driving a Volvo is automatically an Obama supporter? Would he check for bumper stickers? Maybe have the driver get out of the car and spin around so he can take a long look? Ask questions? I can just see it...
Parking Lot Owner: Ok, before I let you into the lot, you have to tell me whether or not you support Obama.
Driver: Why?
PLO: Because I said so.
Driver: But I just want to park.
PLO: Answer the question.
Driver: What's the right answer?
PLO: I'm not telling.
Driver: What if I'm undecided?
PLO: (thinks for a minute) You can come in, but you have to park way in the back.
Also, I agree, the cop deserves credit for keeping his cool. Like I said, I don't have a good answer to this one, especially since I'm not from Portland and don't know the contextual details, but I'm leaning toward "no" for both.
There are broadly two views of policemen, judges etc. One is that they are neutral - a kind of referee or umpire - on nobody's side. The other is that they are the opposition or on the side of the opposition. Those who take one view tend to look on the other with incomprehension.
Being afraid of all policemen because one "rogue" cop shot down an "innocent bystander" is like being afraid of all African-Americans because one "hoodlum" robbed your best friend at gunpoint. It doesn't hold up and it's incredibly insulting of the cafe owner to assume that his patrons have the same irrational prejudices he does. It sounds to me like he made the cop leave to prove some sort of point to himself and his audience, not out of any genuine concern.
Larry wrote: "I don't get it, Anthony."Many of us see the police and the judicial system as having the job of enforcing the law in an impartial manner. This role is rather similar to that of a referee at a football match.
Other people, however, see the police as an enemy or as an opponent. According to this view, the police are out to stop people doing what they want to do. The police may, for example, be thought to favour the rich and privileged over the rest.
Those who take one view tend not to understand the opposed view.
No doubt the cafe owner did not want to appear to take sides with the police over his clientèle. The policeman, on the contrary, perhaps thought, "I'm only doing my job".
BunWat wrote: "Well and I think that a much better approach all around would have been to go to the cop and say, I'm really sorry but since the death of Jack Dale Collins some of my patrons are afraid of policemen..."Sounds like you're making some assumptions as well.
Mod
BunWat wrote: "Well and I think that a much better approach all around would have been to go to the cop and say, I'm really sorry but since the death of Jack Dale Collins some of my patrons are afraid of policeme..."I agree with you BunWat, 1.) That the business owner made a poor judgment call and 2.) if his motivation for doing so was because of recent shootings, then he could have handled the situation better. We won't amend the public's rocky relations with the police - I'm also from Portland and agree that the shootings this year have been disturbing - until we have these difficult conversations. Having the officer as a patron could’ve been a positive thing for the owner, if, say, he ever becomes concerned with crime in the area. The best way to fight against that is having a working relationship with the officers in his area and communicating with them regularly. Whatever the owner’s motivations were and whether he was right in doing so, he just shot himself in the foot.
I was unable to read the article but the gist of the story is on duty cop want free service?Tell him to go to hell. Your taxes pay his wages. Where would it end? It is tantamount to asking for a bribe or a protection racket.
Anthony wrote: "There's a rather nice TV show in the UK called "Early Doors" showing life in the early evening in a pub. A pair of portly policemen regularly turn up for their free beer in a back room and they bo..."Hi Anthony, I based my previous reply on your comment. The cop wasn't asking for free service or even pally with the owner. It's not the same thing.
Think of it more like a Northern Ireland situation at the time of the troubles if a cop would've had the bravery to go into a cafe where previously one of his collegues had shot an innocent man!
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/in...
What do you think? I guess I have two questions here.
1. Should a coffee shop owner refuse to serve police?
2. Should a coffee shop owner be able to refuse to serve police?