NationStates Jolt Archive

You know, if this had been the other way around, with a man of "middle eastern descent" being the recipient of refusal of service, the ACLU would have been down the next day with a lawsuit. As it is, this sort of treatment is ILLEGAL in the US.

FORT WORTH, Texas -- The owner of a local convenience store tells NBC 5 he has fired an employee who mistreated a customer who is also a U.S. Marine.

The firing comes in response to protests at the store as well as an e-mail campaign circulating throughout Dallas/Fort Worth. The e-mail, written by Heather Dowell, tells of her brother's treatment while visiting the store.

http://www.nbc5i.com/news/4071950/detail.html

According to Dowell's e-mail, her brother, Jason Young, attempted to make a purchase at the One Stop Grocery and Grill on 8th Avenue in Fort Worth. The clerk allegedly asked if Young was a Marine, and when he replied yes, the clerk left the counter and never returned.

Outraged, Dowell began the e-mail campaign calling for the boycott of the store.

On Tuesday, several people protested the store as the e-mail continued to make its rounds. According to the store owner, the incident was a misunderstanding and the employee in question was fired.

What do you suppose the ACLU could do in that situation?

What do you suppose the ACLU could do in that situation?

File a suit claiming discrimination, as they would have if the situation was reversed.

Sue the owner for what? He fired the guy, he even apologized. What else is in his power to do?

Talk about a frivolous lawsuit. It's not like he had a sign up that said, "If your ass wear's camo, best get the hell out, Rambo!"

File a suit claiming discrimination, as they would have if the situation was reversed.
I doubt the ACLU has time to file suits every time a clerk is rude to a civilian. (Which I assume the reverse of a soldier is

Although, I admit that the ACLU picks and chooses, somewhat. This isn't a good example of it, as you just want to make it seem that the ACLU hates America.

Edit: I was really lazy in describing the point you were trying to make and that was the best I could do. :confused:

I doubt the ACLU has time to file suits every time a clerk is rude to a civilian. (Which I assume the reverse of a soldier is

No, the ACLU files suit only when they view it as politically correct from their point of view.

They are not really interested in equality.

As it is, this sort of treatment is ILLEGAL in the US.


Erm... You know those signs which say "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" that are placed in damn near every store and restaurant in the country?

The ACLU might defend him if they had a leg to stand on. However, what the shopkeeper did was clearly legal.
Furthermore, small businesses (15 employees and less) can legally discriminate however they like.

If neither of those were in effect, then the ACLU'd side with him, if they noticed this case. But they also tend to only take cases where they've got a chance of winning, whereas the clerk could simply say that he was looking. As we are a nation which (officially) considers criminals innocent until proven guilty, and allows for reasonable doubt, the only effective thing that could be done is exactly what has been done- publicise it.

Class in 20 minutes, will return with cites of ACLU protecting the right of servicemen where it has been violated, if it's not taken care of before I get back.

Try not serving a single black customer in the US, regardless of signage, regardless of how small the business, and see how fast the ACLU shows up.

What does the ACLU have to do with this?

If I'm working retail or food service, and I refuse to serve a customer, I get fired. Period. This isn't a rights/liberties/free speech issue.

The marine has the same right to service as anyone else who walks into the store. The clerk got fired. What else do you want? The ACLU to make a cameo in a situation where they aren't needed?

Typically, the ACLU will step in on underdog or unpopular cases because they may illustrate rights issues without drawing that kind of support. This marine had a lot of public support. He had the email campaign, he had the protests, and he didn't need help. The ACLU ought to be around for the people who don't have such an obvious case as this marine and for the people who are wronged but don't get the public support. Say you get a case such as, I dunno, the American Nazi Party wants to hold a rally. This may be despicable, but it's within the right to peacably assemble and something that, regrettably, must be defended if we hold the freedom to assemble important.

The ACLU should not be allowed to pick and choose.

I don't think anyone can deny that the ACLU would attack this issue if it was a minority discriminated against. Their history confirms that.

they should have accepted service but the attack at foreigners in the email is worse, i wouldn't allow anyone with that attitude near me

I doubt the ACLU has time to file suits every time a clerk is rude to a civilian. (Which I assume the reverse of a soldier is

Actually, I think the "reverse situation" he's refering to is if the person being refused was of Middle Eastern descent, as the two employees in the store were (according to the e-mail).

However, using this incident to bash the ACLU seems a bit disingenuous. The situation was taken care of, as the two employees who refused to do their job and serve a customer were deservedly fired.

Please don't take that to mean that I think the ACLU is above criticism. Far from it, in fact. But make it fair criticism.

I've been to a ton of convience stores in Texas, and never seen one of those "We hold the right to refuse service signs" but if its the case, then well, he holds the right to refuse service. However, on the same key, Texas is a right to hire state, so the owner of the store had the right to fire the clerk for any damned reason he pleases. Yay for Texas! (Rep Ft. Worth, YO!)

I bet the situation wasn't how it was stated though. The juxtaposition of finding out he's a marine and leaving the till might have been entirely coincidental.

You know, if this had been the other way around, with a man of "middle eastern descent" being the recipient of refusal of service, the ACLU would have been down the next day with a lawsuit. As it is, this sort of treatment is ILLEGAL in the US.

FORT WORTH, Texas -- The owner of a local convenience store tells NBC 5 he has fired an employee who mistreated a customer who is also a U.S. Marine.

The firing comes in response to protests at the store as well as an e-mail campaign circulating throughout Dallas/Fort Worth. The e-mail, written by Heather Dowell, tells of her brother's treatment while visiting the store.

http://www.nbc5i.com/news/4071950/detail.html

According to Dowell's e-mail, her brother, Jason Young, attempted to make a purchase at the One Stop Grocery and Grill on 8th Avenue in Fort Worth. The clerk allegedly asked if Young was a Marine, and when he replied yes, the clerk left the counter and never returned.

Outraged, Dowell began the e-mail campaign calling for the boycott of the store.

On Tuesday, several people protested the store as the e-mail continued to make its rounds. According to the store owner, the incident was a misunderstanding and the employee in question was fired.

What are you talking about? The owner fired the guy because he disrespected a customer. What are you trying to say, he shouldn't have been allowed to fire the employee?

Erm... You know those signs which say "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" that are placed in damn near every store and restaurant in the country?

The ACLU might defend him if they had a leg to stand on. However, what the shopkeeper did was clearly legal.
Furthermore, small businesses (15 employees and less) can legally discriminate however they like.

What the shopkeeper did is not clearly legal: This was a clerk, not the owner of the business. The clerk was acting as an individual, as shown by the fact that he got fired by the owner. He was not acting in accordance with any company policy, he was simply refusing to do the job he was paid to do.

Sure, Denny's can refuse to serve whoever they like, but a Denny's waitress doesn't get to say, "sorry, I don't serve blacks/jews/arabs/Italians" without getting fired.

The ACLU should not be allowed to pick and choose.

Give me a break. They should be compelled to have a hand in every single case in the country or none at all? Even the Supreme Court picks and chooses.

I gather your world is full of absolutes, Browning. How's that working out for you?

The ACLU should not be allowed to pick and choose.
Point of information: Was the ACLU aware of this case prior to the employees being fired?

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

Point of information: Was the ACLU aware of this case prior to the employees being fired?

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

Probably not. I would hesitate to think that that would stop them, as there are restaurants sued by the ACLU in the past that were sued after firing employees.

It seems that the mere fact that a store or business has no posted policy against discrimination, and no training program to prevent discrimination is enough for the lawsuit to proceed.

The ACLU usually wants far more than the firing of the offender. They want to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Probably not. I would hesitate to think that that would stop them, as there are restaurants sued by the ACLU in the past that were sued after firing employees.

It seems that the mere fact that a store or business has no posted policy against discrimination, and no training program to prevent discrimination is enough for the lawsuit to proceed.

The ACLU usually wants far more than the firing of the offender. They want to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Thanks for answering.

Another point-of-information: How big are the restaurants that get sued by the ACLU, usually?

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

Try not serving a single black customer in the US, regardless of signage, regardless of how small the business, and see how fast the ACLU shows up.

The ACLU would have nothing to do with it. *Any* private business can refuse service to *anyone* they want to, so long as they are not receiving government funds.

This case did not in any way warrant a lawsuit, because there was no law broken. The soldier did exactly what he should have done - set up a boycott to make sure that the shopowner knew that this sort of treatment was unacceptable to the public, and that the public would no longer shop his store if it continued. THat has nothing whatsoever to do with the law - it a is a product of market forces.

The ACLU usually wants far more than the firing of the offender. They want to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Of course that's the goal. The ACLU wants cases that are representative of rights infringements and that may serve as examples or precedents for similar cases. That's exactly why they pick and choose (same, as noted above, as the Supreme Court picking and choosing for relevance and stature).

And that's probably why they didn't pick this case. Because what's the precedent that would be set? Sue on behalf of the marine? The clerk has been fired and there's no pretense that his behavior was acceptable. Sue on behalf of the clerk? Why? What he did isn't really defensible. Free speech is one thing, discriminatory practices (and simple failure to perform one's job) are another.

Frankly, there's no way for the ACLU to enter this case in a useful way. Which is probably why they haven't.

The ACLU would have nothing to do with it. *Any* private business can refuse service to *anyone* they want to, so long as they are not receiving government funds.


Government funds or not, if you're a public restaurant, store, or other business, and a customer comes in the door willing to pay for service, you can't turn them out because their black, Jewish, etc., or any other classification that's not material to the service at hand.

I.e., I can turn a man out of a woman's restroom. But I can't tell a female soldier to get out of a woman's restroom. If it's open to the public, discrimination is not allowed.

The ACLU should not be allowed to pick and choose.

Are you even listening to yourself?

If so, have you taken your medicine today?

Are you even listening to yourself?

If so, have you taken your medicine today?

here.... :fluffle:

The clerk has a responsibility.

He didn't fulfill it. It doesn't matter what his etnicity is. He didn't do his job, so this was a rightful firing.

here.... :fluffle:

Fluffling is the best medicine.

:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Government funds or not, if you're a public restaurant, store, or other business, and a customer comes in the door willing to pay for service, you can't turn them out because their black, Jewish, etc., or any other classification that's not material to the service at hand.

I.e., I can turn a man out of a woman's restroom. But I can't tell a female soldier to get out of a woman's restroom. If it's open to the public, discrimination is not allowed.

Again, this is untrue. If you specifically advertise that you are open to anyone, you must be open to anyone. However, as was pointed out to you, just about every business has a sign that says "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." As such, they can refuse service to anyone. If a storeowner doesn't want to sell to marines/blacks/Jews/Asians/women/what-have-you, that is the storeowner's right. It won't gain him many customers, but it is his right. This particular storeowner was aware of the business he would lose and, as such, fired the clerk in question.

What does the ACLU have to do with this?

If I'm working retail or food service, and I refuse to serve a customer, I get fired. Period. This isn't a rights/liberties/free speech issue.


Not necessarilary. The primary point of the "right to refuse service" signs is when dealing with abusive customers. If a customer constantly made lewd commends and grabbed your butt whenever you were close enough then I doubt you get fired for refusing service. If a customer was verbally or physically threatening, you certainly wouldn't be fired for calling the police on him.

The ACLU should not be allowed to pick and choose.

As a private organization they are welcome to pick and choose as they see fit.

Not necessarilary. The primary point of the "right to refuse service" signs is when dealing with abusive customers. If a customer constantly made lewd commends and grabbed your butt whenever you were close enough then I doubt you get fired for refusing service. If a customer was verbally or physically threatening, you certainly wouldn't be fired for calling the police on him.

I should have been more specific: "If I'm working retail or food service and I refuse to serve a customer on grounds of ethnicity or occupation, I get fired."

As a private organization they are welcome to pick and choose as they see fit.

Then they should stop pretending that they serve "all" Americans, when in actuality, they don't.

I should have been more specific: "If I'm working retail or food service and I refuse to serve a customer on grounds of ethnicity or occupation, I get fired."

(unless the owner wants you to do so, in which case you don't.)

Then they should stop pretending that they serve "all" Americans, when in actuality, they don't.

You are right. We should give the ACLU lots and lots and lots of money so that they can be the only lawyers in the country and take on every single case there is in the entire country just so you will be happy.

Then they should stop pretending that they serve "all" Americans, when in actuality, they don't.

They have limited resources, they can't fight every single battle that could, conceivably be given to them.

couple of points:
1. I only see the Marine's side of the story here. I would like to hear what the clerk has to say before making judgment. For all I know, the marines might have been ranting about how "we should nuke them all to the stone age" or some other comment the clerk didn't appreciate.

2. According to the law (although I'm not well versed in Texas state law) *any* privately owned store can refuse sevice to a customer for *any* reason they want. Whether they have a small sign or not. There is no such right as "the right to buy at the corner store". The best thing to do is what this guy did: alert the media, do a boycott, be an activist.

3. Someone stated earlier "Furthermore, small businesses (15 employees and less) can legally discriminate however they like."
I am compelled to add that this is in their hiring practices only. The point being that it's hard to find representative of enough minorities when you have only 4 employees.

4. I really don't see what the ACLU could have done in this instance.

They have limited resources, they can't fight every single battle that could, conceivably be given to them.

I understand that. It's just that they present themselves as protectors of "all" Americans.

They should, on their website, say that they pander to certain minority groups, and will under no circumstances act to protect the rights of anyone else. That should be in very large print on everything they publish.

Then they should stop pretending that they serve "all" Americans, when in actuality, they don't.

This is a very narrow view. Most discrimination occurs against minority groups. So yes, most ACLU cases dealing with discrimination will be defending minority members.

That said, the results of these cases apply to everyone. There's no clause in court decisions that says: "This ruling applies to situations in which blacks suffer discrimination at the hands of whites but not vice versa." So in the event that the clerk was not fired and our friend the Marine got no apology, he could have turned to a precedent case such as the Denny's-that-refused-to-serve-blacks flapdoodle a few years back.

For christ's sake, this is exactly why the ACLU does unpopular stuff, like the earlier fictional example of defending the American Nazi Party's right to assemble. Because "all Americans" means everybody. The cases are about liberties issues, not about which minority happened to put that liberty issue to the test.

I understand that. It's just that they present themselves as protectors of "all" Americans.

They should, on their website, say that they pander to certain minority groups, and will under no circumstances act to protect the rights of anyone else. That should be in very large print on everything they publish.

If this were true, you would be right. However, it is not true.

What the shopkeeper did is not clearly legal: This was a clerk, not the owner of the business.

You are, of course, entirely correct, and in that point I was wrong. And, as you (and 90% of the respondants) have said, since he was fired, there is absolutely zilch left to be done.

But, as I promised...
Proof that the ACLU does protect servicemen's rights:
http://www.skepticfiles.org/aclu/07_31_90.htm
http://www.laaclu.org/News/2003/August%2012%20Funk%20Coscientious%20Objector.htm
http://www.aclu-nj.org/pressroom/armyofficersrighttodisplay.htm
http://aclunc.org/aclunews/news0407/nofly.html


If you want more, just ask.

Then they should stop pretending that they serve "all" Americans, when in actuality, they don't.
im not following, what should the ACLu do and why? what problem there was, which is questionable to begin with, was rectified?

grow the fuck up all you ACLU haters and get a fucking clue

Try not serving a single black customer in the US, regardless of signage, regardless of how small the business, and see how fast the ACLU shows up.

Alright, you have made a claim. Now back it up.

Even if you do, was the ACLU even contacted?

Consider this scenario. The marine has been replaced by a woman. The clerk has been replaced with a pharmacist. The reason for not serving the customer is a different moral stance (assuming the clerk refused to serve the Marine because he was anti-war).

Pharmacy employees have refused service to women who wanted birth control pills.

Result: Not only were they not fired, various state governments have sided with these pharmacists and technicians saying that they had a 'moral right' to refuse service to these women.

I did a quick search of the ACLU website and looked up reproductive rights. While a number of topics were addressed, refusal to serve women who wanted birth control pills was not one of the cases.

Under the circumstances, one must assume that the ACLU does pick and choose what cases to support. But what do you expect? They have limitations on their resources. The ACLU didn't ignore the Marines case just because he was a marine - a previous poster listed links to a number of cases where the ACLU is supporting a soldier's right. The ACLU isn't ignoring women's reproductive rights either, although they're not yet fighting the example I gave above.

The only problem is that they can't do everything with the resources they have available.




http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-11-08-druggists-pill_x.htm

Consider this scenario. The marine has been replaced by a woman. The clerk has been replaced with a pharmacist. The reason for not serving the customer is a different moral stance (assuming the clerk refused to serve the Marine because he was anti-war).

Pharmacy employees have refused service to women who wanted birth control pills.

Result: Not only were they not fired, various state governments have sided with these pharmacists and technicians saying that they had a 'moral right' to refuse service to these women.

I did a quick search of the ACLU website and looked up reproductive rights. While a number of topics were addressed, refusal to serve women who wanted birth control pills was not one of the cases.

Under the circumstances, one must assume that the ACLU does pick and choose what cases to support. But what do you expect? They have limitations on their resources. The ACLU didn't ignore the Marines case just because he was a marine - a previous poster listed links to a number of cases where the ACLU is supporting a soldier's right. The ACLU isn't ignoring women's reproductive rights either, although they're not yet fighting the example I gave above.

The only problem is that they can't do everything with the resources they have available.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-11-08-druggists-pill_x.htm

Now that there are laws in place for this, you will see plenty more lawsuits. Not because of someone denying service - they are allowed to do so (although at least one of the cases involved a pharmacist who also refused to transfer her prescription, which is illegal), but because employers will be upset that they can't fire employees that aren't doing their jobs. Most employers generally have plenty of money to hire high-priced lawyers, so it is unlikely that the ACLU will get involved.

Meanwhile, there is a pattern here that I find rather funny. As a general rule, the ACLU doesn't sue anybody. There is always a client who wishes to sue, and the ACLU aids them in that suit. If there is no client currently trying to sue someone, why does anyone here think the ACLU should be involved?

The ACLU sucks

:rolleyes:

Now that there are laws in place for this, you will see plenty more lawsuits. Not because of someone denying service - they are allowed to do so (although at least one of the cases involved a pharmacist who also refused to transfer her prescription, which is illegal), but because employers will be upset that they can't fire employees that aren't doing their jobs. Most employers generally have plenty of money to hire high-priced lawyers, so it is unlikely that the ACLU will get involved.

Meanwhile, there is a pattern here that I find rather funny. As a general rule, the ACLU doesn't sue anybody. There is always a client who wishes to sue, and the ACLU aids them in that suit. If there is no client currently trying to sue someone, why does anyone here think the ACLU should be involved?

I believe that others were trying to make that same point earlier: if the ACLU had not been contacted why would they pursue the case?

I was just trying it from a different angle - John Browning was arguing that the ACLU didn't take the case because the victim was a marine. I was trying to point out a similar case (admittedly about something that makes me very angry) where the ACLU didn't get involved, despite the victim being women (a group that the ACLU frequently assists).

Wow. I am more than slightly baffled at the point of this thread. There's nothing in this case that the ACLU neesd to involve themselves with. Guy doesn't get served, clerk gets fired.

Where's all this malice toward organizations that actually try to help people and/or make the world a better place come from with you people?? (e.g. you Browning)

Four pages and I still don't know why the ACLU was supposed to be involved or what it was they where supposed to be doing in this case.

Where's all this malice toward organizations that actually try to help people and/or make the world a better place come from with you people?? (e.g. you Browning)

Christian Conservatives HATE the ACLU because it doesn't let them run roughshod all over everything.

Christian Conservatives HATE the ACLU because it doesn't let them run roughshod all over everything.

Heh, I guess so.

What bothers me about it really, is that it seems to keenly directed at causes and organizations that do good things for people/animals/environments that have no way of protecting themselves. Why does there seem to be this overpowering need to cripple the lower classes/minorities/forests/wildlife to an even higher degree? Haven't they done enough? Or will they only be happy when the entire twentieth century is nothing but a dim and maligned memory? :headbang:

I don't remember anything in the constitution regarded descrimination based upon military service.

Yea...sex and race is...

But there is absoluetly no legal case here, so really, wtf would the ACLU do even if they heard about it soon enough.

Where's all this malice toward organizations that actually try to help people and/or make the world a better place come from with you people?? (e.g. you Browning)

The neo-cons in power prefer making critics of their policies look corrupt/evil/incompetant/biased (*laughs*) to draw attention away from the horribleness of their policies and gain more support from their base. This has always been a tactic employed by incompetant leaders. This, and using fear to control the populace.

First they get the talking heads discrediting the opposition with:

1) misinformation
2) words and actions taken out of context
3) 'caricature-ization'
4) overexaggeration of ANY offense committed by the opposition no matter how small (or even suggesting that the opposition was involved when they weren't)
5) outright bullshit lies crafted in interesting ways

...while at the same time diminishing/dismissing their own faults and glorifying their own values. The 'dittohead' base gleefully chants these as well because it makes them feel really good about themselves, and it creates a resonance of bullshit that flies over all media. If they can get more people to say it the more true it becomes and the opposition is drowned by the claptrap to the point it is no longer heard, and by extention becomes a 'minority' in the vast pool of opinion in the media.

"A lie told often enough becomes the truth." - Lenin

(odd how the neo-cons are taking to heart a communist leader's words)

Sad thing is when the opposition defends itself (even if they do it well) it looks like they are being defensive and therefore makes them appear weaker. The ruling party will take advantage of this by making themselves look stronger by emphasizing strong traits like 'decisiveness' and 'patriotism'.

The opposition should have known better and should have ATTACKED and not DEFENDED. They stood by and let the pot call the kettle black. Hell, the even let the pot call the kettle white! Pathetic. This is exactly why Kerry lost (that and his lack of charisma). Christ, they even attacked the ketchup! This would be under 'caricature-ization'. Weiner needs his ketchup. :D Words like "flip-flop" and "tax and spend" are nice examples of this as well and they make good chants.

Even if the critics are correct and the policies are ruining all they touch it no longer matters at this point. What matters is winning the argument which by extention validates the policies. From personal experience I can tell you if some asshole wants to have everyone do what they want to do all they gotta do is yell like an irrational moron and eventually the more rational will stop arguing since it is easier to just agree with the idiot. As a result everyone will end up doing what that guy wants to do and they'll all be fucked because of it. The moron will ignore the bad condition he has created by changing the justification of his actions or by trying like Hell to make the hopelessly bad situation look good. It's called "DENIAL" and the Iraq War is a good example of this. The bigger the fuck up the more vigorously they defend it.

Ain't nothing better than playing the victim when you were never a victim to start when trying to make the opposition look bad while gaining some support from your base.

This is what Browning is up to and he has been trained to do it by listening to conservative media. He makes it look like the opposition (the ACLU, which poo-pooed the treatment of gays and Gitmo detainees by Bush & company and I assume this is why neo-cons are now slabbering over them) look like assholes by implying that they were indifferent to the military when they get discriminated against. This would make the military look like victims and since the military is made up of mostly conservatives it would strengthen the conservative base (it would certainly make Browning feel better by reinforcing his beliefs and giving him vindication since he is/was in the the military). However, since no lawsuit was formed, the clerk was fired (I assume the marine can now be served without hindrence) and since this wasn't an INSTITUTIONAL level of discrimination then the ACLU would not get involved anyway.

There is probably a logical fallacy for just this type of argument.

I find comfort that this was flagged and dismissed so well by the intelligent folk that use this board. I salute you all.

That rant took me a long time to perfect. I hope you enjoy it :D

That rant took me a long time to perfect. I hope you enjoy it :D

It was a good read. I know that the "right" (how did the whole handedness thing come into politics in the first place?) gleefully throws out straw-man attacks as a way of life. What is most appaling is that common people with day jobs can be suckered by this tripe. By the way, what is this nebulous bullshit they call "moral values", because from what I've seen of it, "moral values" seems to be justification (more like a pitiful and shameful excuse) for bigotry and intolerance of anything that isn't white-bread 50's ideological garbage. Like the stance against affirmative action, the UN (which the US helped found BTW), and other things that try to foster cooperation and equality of any kind that doesn't in some way show fealty to white america.

I am sooooo sick and tired of christo-facist, repo-lican, right-wing blow-hard, no business borrowin', insecure junkard motherfuckers (homage to Dolamite) telling me that they know what's best for me and my country!!

Ok, now I'm off to go take my Xanax... Oh, wait, Jeb Bush's daughter stole it all already ;)

OK, so why is this suppose to demonstrate bias by the ACLU? Did this marine appoach them with a complaint? Although it has been supposed, I haven't read anything in the links that show conclusively that this was a discrimination case. Besides spreading the claim over the web and editorials did this marine file any claim of discrimination with the ACLU or anyone else? To play the devils advocate all he can prove is he wasn't waited on promptly. And that's not something that's against the law, but it can get you fired. Oh wait, the clerk was. :rolleyes: He doesn't claim that he was told he wasn't being served because he was a marine. In fact he doesn't claim to have been told he wasn't being served at all. Those are important things in proving a discrimination claim. All he states is he wasn't served, no explanantion was given and he left after a couple of minutes without anything more said.


To be fair to the ACLU, maybe they're not involved because there's no provable case. :headbang:

If the clerk could come up with a reasonable explanation for not attending the register he'd probably have a better chance with a case of wrongful termination. It's all about what you can prove people, assumptions mean nothing.

If the clerk could come up with a reasonable explanation for not attending the register he'd probably have a better chance with a case of wrongful termination. It's all about what you can prove people, assumptions mean nothing.

You can fire people for any reason no matter how irrational or stupid in the United States with very few exceptions. The worker would have no concievable case.

You can fire people for any reason no matter how irrational or stupid in the United States with very few exceptions. The worker would have no concievable case.Wrong-o, If you can prove discrimination in the termination, he's got a case. There are thousands of wrongful termination cases every year in the US.

The ACLU should not be allowed to pick and choose.
Then who should do so for them? You?

Wrong-o, If you can prove discrimination in the termination, he's got a case. There are thousands of wrongful termination cases every year in the US.

Uh you can't just say I was "wrongfully fired" and sue. Your boss can fire you if you sneeze to loud. The only state in the US which has a wrongful discharge statute which says you can only be fired for just cause is Montana. Now if you are talking about a race/national origin/religion/sex/age discrimination suit you might have a case but I didn't see anything indicating any of these.

Uh you can't just say I was "wrongfully fired" and sue. Your boss can fire you if you sneeze to loud. The only state in the US which has a wrongful discharge statute which says you can only be fired for just cause is Montana. Now if you are talking about a race/national origin/religion/sex/age discrimination suit you might have a case but I didn't see anything indicating any of these.From what I've read, a claim by the clerk that he was fired for being arab is supported about as much as the marines claim he wasn't waited on because he was a marine.


Which is to say neither is really worth anything.

Although I do believe you can also sue successfully even without playing the discrimination card if you can prove malice.

BLAH

The UN (which the US helped found BTW), and other things that try to foster cooperation and equality of any kind that doesn't in some way show fealty to white america.

...etc...



Yes, but the UN got in Bush's way, so discredit, discredit, discredit. Remember Hans Blix' apparent blindness? Everyone was saying "fucker can't see shit. Of course he has WMD's".

Lou Dobbs on CNN, a guy I usually admire, ran a poll on his segment on whether the UN should "get out of town" or not (the premise was based on the amount of parking fines the UN delegates have left to pay). An overwhelming majority voted the "get out of town" option.

There was even a joke about it in the 'Mother Goose & Grimm' newspaper comic where Hans was looking for milk in his fridge and he was apparently having trouble finding some even though there were rows of it there.

And now we've stopped looking for WMDs...

Times like those show that American arrogance and xenophobia are not too far beneath their usually friendly surface.

I could go into a rant about the history of America's broken treaties (ask any dead indian or a black person without 40 acres and a mule) but it is 5 AM and I have to be up by 9 AM.

'night :)

From what I've read, a claim by the clerk that he was fired for being arab is supported about as much as the marines claim he wasn't waited on because he was a marine.


Which is to say neither is really worth anything.

Although I do believe you can also sue successfully even without playing the discrimination card if you can prove malice.

Oh I didn't read that he was an Arab. Still if you don't serve the customers that is a good reason for firing someone. You can't claim discrimination simply because you are a member of a minority group if you were an asshole to the customers. Now if the boss called him a stupid towelhead or something when he was firing him that might give rise to an inference of discrimination.

Aside from that you definitely just can't sue your boss for firing you for a stupid reason even if he shows malice. Hell half the time a person is fired in the US, the boss ends up yelling and screaming at him, and the security guards end up escorting the guy to the parking lot. Unless you have an employment contract, your employment is considered to be "at will", meaning you work as long as the employer and the employee will it.

Then they should stop pretending that they serve "all" Americans, when in actuality, they don't.

In what way don't they?

I could go into a rant about the history of America's broken treaties (ask any dead indian or a black person without 40 acres and a mule) but it is 5 AM and I have to be up by 9 AM.

'night :)

It's my understanding that no such law was ever passed to provide for slave reperations. There was talk of it, but it never happend. And not all black Americans are decendents of slaves anyway.

It's my understanding that no such law was ever passed to provide for slave reperations. There was talk of it, but it never happend. And not all black Americans are decendents of slaves anyway.

I was born in North Carolina in 1961. There were no slaves then. Both of my parents came to the United States after 1961. So they never owned slaves in the US, and neither did their ancestors.

So you want me to pay reparations to people I, and none of my ancestors, never harmed?

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard of.

I was born in North Carolina in 1961. There were no slaves then. Both of my parents came to the United States after 1961. So they never owned slaves in the US, and neither did their ancestors.

So you want me to pay reparations to people I, and none of my ancestors, never harmed?

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard of.

Same for me. I live in Minnesota where a ton of American Indians, and settlers, were killed over the years. My family didn't move here until a couple decades after the fighting ended. I don't feel that I owe them anything. Especially when at the time the Indians were fighting each other for hunting lands and keeping that area. The Americans at the time played by their rules and won.

It was a good read. I know that the "right" (how did the whole handedness thing come into politics in the first place?)

I think it's because of where they sit in the House and/or Senate. Republicans on the Right and Democrats on the Left.

Great rant Upitatanium! Pretty much sums it up.

Edit: I just read that email. That person is a racist ass and can go screw himself.

Edit: I just read that email. That person is a racist ass and can go screw himself.
Where did you read it? I want to look at it myself.

It's linked in the first post.

http://www.nbc5i.com/news/4071950/detail.html

Seems obvious enough to me. Plus if his brother, the Marine, acted in the same manor at the store, I wouldn't have served him either.

Honestly I think this is complete BS and made up or at least the "facts" of the story of screwed completely.