985
submitted 11 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

San Francisco’s police union says a city bakery chain has a “bigoted” policy of not serving uniformed cops.

The San Francisco Police Officers Assn. wrote in a social media post last week that Reem’s California “will not serve anyone armed and in uniform” and that includes “members of the U.S. Military.” The union is demanding that the chain “own” its policy.

Reem’s says, however, its policy isn’t against serving armed police officers. It’s against allowing guns inside its businesses.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] elscallr@lemmy.world 86 points 11 months ago

It's wholly within their rights to refuse service to anyone for any reason. I hope they stick to their.. well, I guess "stick to their guns" doesn't really work here but whatever.

[-] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 76 points 11 months ago

If they are a public facing business, they are not within their rights to refuse service to anyone for any reason. There are protected classes, like age/race/sexuality. So if you own a business like a coffee shop, you can't say "no black people." However, police and guns are not protected classes, so I think they should be in the clear legally.

[-] ZzyzxRoad@lemm.ee 28 points 11 months ago

What happened to the supreme court cases that said it's ok to discriminate against protected classes as long as it just so happens to be "against your religion"

[-] visak@lemmy.world 24 points 11 months ago

"against your Christian religion". Fixed that for you.

[-] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

The Supreme Court decision was a very narrow decision based on how the commission treated the business owner, not a broad decision on free exercise vs protected class.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission

[-] visak@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

Of course. They're patient. They chipped away at abortion for decades before finally getting it overturned in Dobbs.

Similarly they went from Masterpiece Cake Shop to the Creative LLC case which widened the exception further because it's a "creative endeavor". Don't for a minute think they're not queing up a case to deny medical services based on a "sincerely held religious beliefs".

[-] felixthecat@kbin.social 21 points 11 months ago

Unfortunately that isn't true. Businesses have a right to refuse service for a wide variety of reasons. Like you said though those protected classes are illegal to discriminate against.

That is why you can have rules, like "no shirt no shoes no service". So in this case it is if you bring a gun you will be asked to leave.

Although now if that store was ever a victim of a robbery I would bet the response time is very slow....

[-] Wogi@lemmy.world 20 points 11 months ago

Nooo I'm sure the police are very honorable men and women who would never retaliate against anyone for any reason.

They would certainly never accept bribes for any reason, or destroy evidence, or beblatantly racist.

No no no these are honorable men

[-] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 14 points 11 months ago

Although now if that store was ever a victim of a robbery I would bet the response time is very slow…

So you're saying people who become cops aren't interested in the public good and are more interested in power?

[-] raptir@lemm.ee 7 points 11 months ago
[-] elscallr@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

It's not like police departments give a shit about robbery anyway. They take a report and tell you to call insurance. Better off with a guy with a gun.

[-] Imotali@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

Fun fact, if they can prove the police deliberately delayed their response that's a massive lawsuit.

[-] elscallr@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

You still gotta convince the city and then who are you really hurting? If the cops had to pay lawsuits out of the FOP pension fund maybe that would matter. If you sue the city you're only hurting your neighbors and yourself.

[-] orclev@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

Payments for those things shouldn't come out of public funds, cops should individually be required to carry malpractice insurance. Cop gets found guilty of violating someones rights? Settlement gets paid by their insurance. I bet you'd see all those "bad apples" suddenly being utterly unemployable once they literally can't find anyone willing to insure their scumbag asses.

[-] elscallr@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

Forcing cops to carry the equivalent of malpractice insurance would be a great step.

[-] Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago

Also the distinction is "no uniforms, no guns" off duty police are still served. It's actually a little closer to "no shoes, no shirt, no service".

As listed in the article some of the employees and regular customers come from war-torn places or have histories of traumatic interactions with police. Hence the ban comes from a place of limiting PTSD reactions.

[-] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago

"Stick to their buns" I guess?

this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2023
985 points (98.2% liked)

News

22470 readers
5277 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS