"Bake the Cake" issue reversed

[CaptUSA]

This isn't about liberty, the employee is violating his fiduciary duty to his employer, the employer's rights are the ones being violated BY THE EMPLOYEE.

Um... That's a tort. Has nothing to do with the trespassing issue. You're actually saying that any time you open a place for public business that your employees have to allow everyone to stay on the property because they can't make that call??????


lol - bathe in the hypocrisy.

[Suzanimal]

He was NOT trespassing, the owner opened the store to the public and did not give his employee permission to exclude anyone just because he felt like it, only the owner could have made the man a trespasser for wearing Trump merchandise.

The employee only has a right to refuse service in the interests of the business or to quit.

Actually, he was. He was asked to leave. I've had to deny service to people without permission from the owner.

[Swordsmyth]

Lol - sure, the employee may have violated the fiduciary duty to the employer. An issue the employer should address with the employee, either by termination or, in the worse case, a tort, if it cost the employer lots of money.

But that is 100% completely beside the point! And shows that you will cling to any excuse to maintain your hypocrisy.

Any employee-in-charge can refuse service to anyone at any time. And they can ask the customer to leave the premises. Try switching the roles around and you'd see your own hypocrisy. But your cognitive dissonance (or your employers) won't allow it.

As an employee I would never presume to have a right to drive away customers for some reason that wasn't in my employer's interests, if a customer wanted me to do something that I objected to I would either swallow my pride and do it or quit if it was objectionable enough.

The employee does not have a right to make subjective personal decisions like that unless authorized by the owner.

No judge or jury in the world would find the customer guilty of trespassing. (except maybe in a leftist madhouse these days)

[Swordsmyth]

Actually, he was. He was asked to leave. I've had to deny service to people without permission from the owner.

I'm sure you did it in the interests of your employer and therefore you had the right, this lunatic didn't.

[Swordsmyth]

Um... That's a tort. Has nothing to do with the trespassing issue. You're actually saying that any time you open a place for public business that your employees have to allow everyone to stay on the property because they can't make that call??????


lol - bathe in the hypocrisy.

I keep saying they have the right to refuse service IN THE INTEREST OF THEIR EMPLOYER, this was not such a case.
The only reason it is a tort is because the employee DOESN'T HAVE A RIGHT TO DO WHAT HE DID, doing something you have a right to do can't be a tort.

[Suzanimal]

I'm sure you did it in the interests of your employer and therefore you had the right, this lunatic didn't.

Not always. Once I banned a man who tipped me a penny. Plus, he was an $#@!.

The guy was asked to leave and didn't. At that point, he was trespassing. And if the clerk's employer didn't trust his judgement, it seems odd that he would leave him in charge of the store. I can't imagine that someone who reacted that way keeps his beliefs a big secret.

[TheCount]

The idiot is an employee, he doesn't have the right to refuse service to a customer based on his political beliefs.

What about based on his religious beliefs?

[Swordsmyth]

Not always. Once I banned a man who tipped me a penny. Plus, he was an $#@!.

Then he was a detriment to the atmosphere of the bar.

The guy was asked to leave and didn't. At that point, he was trespassing.

Only if the employee told him to leave for a reason he had a right to.

And if the clerk's employer didn't trust his judgement, it seems odd that he would leave him in charge of the store. I can't imagine that someone who reacted that way keeps his beliefs a big secret.

It very likely didn't come up in the interview.

[Swordsmyth]

What about based on his religious beliefs?

Are they in the interests of the employer somehow?

[CaptUSA]

I keep saying they have the right to refuse service IN THE INTEREST OF THEIR EMPLOYER, this was not such a case.
The only reason it is a tort is because the employee DOESN'T HAVE A RIGHT TO DO WHAT HE DID, doing something you have a right to do can't be a tort.

lol - You are really, really bad at this.

The employer has already acknowledged that this employee will act in their interest when he put this snowflake in charge. If he finds out differently, then he can take the necessary action.

But now, what you're doing, is assuming a disagreement between the employer and employee. And that because of that disagreement (which you imagined), you think the employee loses his right of being in charge of the store. Here's a hint: It doesn't. Not unless the owner fired the employee on the spot and either closed down that store or put someone else in charge.

[CaptUSA]

Then he was a detriment to the atmosphere of the bar. In the judgment of the person in charge.


Only if the employee told him to leave for a reason he had a right to. And I defend liberty only on the basis of the reason for people using it.


It very likely didn't come up in the interview.

FTFY

[TheCount]

Are they in the interests of the employer somehow?

No. Let's say... a pharmacist whose employer wants them to fill prescriptions which the pharmacist feels run contrary to their religious beliefs.

[Swordsmyth]

lol - You are really, really bad at this.

The employer has already acknowledged that this employee will act in their interest when he put this snowflake in charge. If he finds out differently, then he can take the necessary action.

But now, what you're doing, is assuming a disagreement between the employer and employee. And that because of that disagreement (which you imagined), you think the employee loses his right of being in charge of the store. Here's a hint: It doesn't. Not unless the owner fired the employee on the spot and either closed down that store or put someone else in charge.

It isn't carte blanche, if I put you in charge of my tractor to mow my field and you drive it in to town you have stolen my tractor, the employee was put in charge of selling things to customers unless doing so was somehow not in the interests of his employer, the employee was in effect stealing the store.

Doing something you have a right to do can't be a tort.

[Swordsmyth]

No. Let's say... a pharmacist whose employer wants them to fill prescriptions which the pharmacist feels run contrary to their religious beliefs.

Then as an employee they can fill them or quit.

[Swordsmyth]

FTFY

No, you are failing to respect the property rights OF THE OWNER, I am defending the property rights OF THE OWNER.

[Origanalist]

Then he was a detriment to the atmosphere of the bar.


Only if the employee told him to leave for a reason he had a right to.


It very likely didn't come up in the interview.

You're just doubling down on falsehoods here. The guy behind the counter has the right to expel anyone for any reason. The customer can then complain to management, after he leaves.
And you don't know anything about the interview or how well the owner knows this employee, you're just injecting presumptions based on how you think things should be.

[euphemia]

Limited vocabulary, for sure.

[CaptUSA]

No, you are failing to respect the property rights OF THE OWNER, I am defending the property rights OF THE OWNER.

You pretend to think that's what you're doing. But you're not fooling anyone.

You're grasping for any excuse to defend your team. <- that's what you're doing!

The store owner's rights were not violated in any way in that video. He has a right to put anyone in charge that he sees fit. If he doesn't see fit anymore, then he can change his mind. But until the owner changes his mind, the employee in charge is responsible for who remains on the property.

[Swordsmyth]

You're just doubling down on falsehoods here. The guy behind the counter has the right to expel anyone for any reason. The customer can then complain to management, after he leaves.

The employee did not have a right to do what he did.

And you don't know anything about the interview or how well the owner knows this employee, you're just injecting presumptions based on how you think things should be.

Nobody knows unless we track down the owner and ask him but in order to discuss the case we must assume the most likely situation until we know otherwise, the most likely situation is that the owner did not give the employee permission to deny service based on political beliefs, that means the employee effectively stole the store to use for his own purposes.

[Swordsmyth]

You pretend to think that's what you're doing. But you're not fooling anyone.

You're grasping for any excuse to defend your team. <- that's what you're doing!

The store owner's rights were not violated in any way in that video. He has a right to put anyone in charge that he sees fit. If he doesn't see fit anymore, then he can change his mind. But until the owner changes his mind, the employee in charge is responsible for who remains on the property.

YOU already admitted that it was a tort, that means that the owners rights are being violated and that the employee was not within his rights.

[CaptUSA]

The employee did not have a right to do what he did.

You might need to call it a night, Boromir.

[Swordsmyth]

No matter what you think about this case this case IS NOT LIKE the cake case where THE OWNER exercised his right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

[CaptUSA]

YOU already admitted that it was a tort, that means that the owners rights are being violated and that the employee was not within his rights.

lol - it may be a tort if the employee drove away lots of money without the owners knowlegde. But the owner would have to file a civil suit - not a criminal one - and it would be after the fact. The trespassing... that's the criminality here.

[CaptUSA]

No matter what you think about this case this case IS NOT LIKE the cake case where THE OWNER exercised his right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

And there you have it, folks. SS Boromir takes a bow.

[Swordsmyth]

You might need to call it a night, Boromir.

And there you have it, folks. SS Boromir takes a bow.

A truly crushing reply.
Your argument is unanswerable.

It's too bad that you already admitted that it was a tort.
Explain to me how the employee was not stealing the store to use for his own purposes, it is no different then the example I have given about the tractor:

It isn't carte blanche, if I put you in charge of my tractor to mow my field and you drive it in to town you have stolen my tractor, the employee was put in charge of selling things to customers unless doing so was somehow not in the interests of his employer, the employee was in effect stealing the store.

[Mach]

He should have told the employee that he was against gay marriage, too.

[euphemia]

Just for giggles, what would have happened if the snowflake clerk just did his job and didn’t make a spectacle? Of if he had simply called the police to remove the offender? That would have been a lot less interesting, for sure, but I can’t imagine the police would have been excited to escort the “trespasser” from the store. Nobody was asking the low-vocabulary clerk to do anything that he was not doing for the other customer in the store. His attitude and behavior might be why business was so slow.

[specsaregood]

You're just doubling down on falsehoods here. The guy behind the counter has the right to expel anyone for any reason. The customer can then complain to management, after he leaves.

When you say "right to expel" do you mean legal right or natural right? Because I'm pretty sure he doesn't have the "legal right" to expel somebody for being black.

This is where we get to the root of the argument. I am against these laws, if a business owner wants to kick out somebody for being Mexican or gay, they SHOULD have that right; but legally they don't. And for that reason, they shouldn't be able to kick this guy out over his political positions. Either the law should protect ALL consumers equally, or get rid of it. $#@! all these special protected classes, bull$#@!.

[CaptUSA]

It's too bad that you already admitted that it was a tort.
Explain to me how the employee was not stealing the store to use for his own purposes, it is no different then the example I have given about the tractor:

It isn't carte blanche, if I put you in charge of my tractor to mow my field and you drive it in to town you have stolen my tractor, the employee was put in charge of selling things to customers unless doing so was somehow not in the interests of his employer, the employee was in effect stealing the store.

I love how he doesn't even try to hide the strawman.

But hey, let's play your stupid analogy out... If you gave me your tractor, I'd still be in charge of driving it. If I crashed it while doing something stupid, you'd sue me for the damages. But you gave me the keys which gave me authorization to steer it how I wanted. If you discovered you didn't like the way I was doing it, you'd take those keys away - but until you do that, I'm still driving. The tractor isn't stolen until you, as the owner, make that call.

None of that happened in that video. You are just trying to defend your team. You sense of liberty is completely situational. Just like the snowflakes on the left.

[euphemia]

Actually, he was. He was asked to leave. I've had to deny service to people without permission from the owner.

I don’t know how it goes in GA, but I have held ABC certification before. I know in TN there are laws governing who may purchase and use alcohol, and a server is obligated to cut off customers who have had too much. Personally, I would not risk my job over some dudehead 17 year old.

If I was an employer, I would have to be concerned about an employee who goes from 0-60 over a T-shirt to the point that he cannot do his job. He was totally ignoring the othe customer in the store.