650
submitted 10 months ago by stopthatgirl7@kbin.social to c/news@lemmy.world

Business says it doesn’t serve anyone who is armed

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Nougat@kbin.social 235 points 10 months ago

Private business, police are not a protected class, the end.

[-] Wookie@artemis.camp 23 points 10 months ago
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] GreenPlasticSushiGrass@kbin.social 187 points 10 months ago

Lol! "Bigoted and discriminatory"! As if they were born a cop, had no choice to be anything other that a cop, and could never be without a uniform or a weapon. Fuck 'em.

My partner was a charge nurse on a psych ward for 16 years. Many of her interactions with police were as follows:

POLICE: buzzes the desk
My Parnter: Yes?
P: This is officer so-and-so with the so-and-so police department. We have a warrant for the arrest of a patient on your ward. Let us in.
MP: Okay, but this is a secure ward and firearms are not allowed. Surrender your weapons at the security office and I'll grant you access to make your arrest when you return.
P: I'M NOT SURRENDERING MY WEAPON!
MP: Well, then can't enter this ward.
end of conversation

[-] LeftSaidFred@lemmynsfw.com 85 points 10 months ago

ACAB = Assigned Cop at Birth

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 57 points 10 months ago

They also have to check their guns when they go into places like prisons, so those guys are just idiots.

[-] chatokun@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 10 months ago

Yes, but that's to their friends; not people who should be obeying their instructions without question like the peasants they are.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 150 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

"We ban firearms in this establishment."
"WE're cops!"
"Got a warrant? Otherwise, you're violating our rules and regulations and we ask you to leave."

[-] Kbobabob@lemmy.world 62 points 10 months ago

Better yet, have them arrested for trespassing. LMAO

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 59 points 10 months ago

you can try.... I've actually been there. Sort of.

Used to work contract security. my client was next to a MLB ball field- their parking lot literally was next to the service entrance, so the various staff that weren't special (concessions, security, etc,) would park there. A lot of their ball game security are moonlighting cops or retired cops... they liked to tail gate after the game.... but the city would revoke the license for running a parking lot if we allowed alcohol.

Getting drunken cops to leave your property when the other cops tried to be like "what's the harm," etc is no good.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 25 points 10 months ago

Fun story time... a couple of friends of mine were walking home after a night of drinking and some cops pull over and get out and say, "two white men in dark clothes just robbed the gas station down the road and you fit that description." One friend said, "you're two white men in dark clothes so you fit that description too. I'm going to have to make a citizen's arrest." My other friend said the cuffs got put on them at light speed. They got charged with public intoxication. We don't know if the two white men in dark clothes were ever caught.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] 0110010001100010@kbin.social 143 points 10 months ago

something something gay wedding cake. Last I checked LEO isn't a protected class. And they aren't even denying LEO, just those that come in on-duty and are armed. So yeah, get fucked pigs.

load more comments (30 replies)
[-] BilboBargains@lemmy.world 136 points 10 months ago

What are the odds that the police take this snub badly and do something petty and vindictive in return?

[-] Stamets@startrek.website 26 points 10 months ago
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 83 points 10 months ago

That Oregon bakery who refused to sell to a gay wedding ended up winning in the appeal, so if you can say “no gays” you can say “no ______”

[-] singron@lemmy.world 26 points 10 months ago

They didn't actually win. It had the some procedural non-decision that the Colorado bakery case had (i.e. the regulator failed to be sufficiently neutral). They got fined again and that is being appealed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klein_v._Oregon_Bureau_of_Labor_and_Industries

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 59 points 10 months ago

Police aren't a race, orientation or protected class. A cop can in fact remove his gun and uniform, it's not attached to his skin

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] n2burns@lemmy.ca 40 points 10 months ago

This policy doesn't seem weird to me at all, but I'm Canadian. I've seen establishments that don't allow weapons on site. So except in emergency situations, police officers need to secure their weapon before they enter the store (I think they put them in the gun locker in the trunk of their car?).

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] flop_leash_973@lemmy.world 36 points 10 months ago

If its legal for someone to hypothetically not create a wedding announcement website for gay people because she doesn't want to serve those kinds of people, then there should be nothing wrong with not wanting to serve armed cops.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-web-designer-refused-work-sex-weddings-rcna68629

Baking food and making coffee could be argued to be every bit as "creative" as a website can be if the lawyer is good enough.

[-] Rediphile@lemmy.ca 21 points 10 months ago

One is outright discrimination based on sexual orientation. The other is simply a policy applied to all patrons.

It should absolutely be legal to say 'no shoes no service' or 'has gun no service' even if it was not legal to discriminate based on sexual orientation/race/gender/etc. They aren't at all the same thing.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] LeatherRebel@leminal.space 33 points 10 months ago

cops arnt even people so dont see the prob at all

[-] ares35@kbin.social 29 points 10 months ago

odds on there being an 'incident' at that location in the near future, and the cops responding stop at dunkin' for coffee and a donut while on the way there....?

[-] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 19 points 10 months ago

There are only two Dunkin Donuts in SF. Mainly because they are terrible donuts.

So, basically 0.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] foggy@lemmy.world 22 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Does this police chief have beef with the MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL, MLS, and every other major sports organization?

None of them allow firearms on site unless you are on duty

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 20 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

You might be interested to know that cops, judges, politicians, and all other government officials don't actually have Qualified Immunity according to the full text of section 1983 of the federal code. The SCOTUS wasn't handed the full text in 1982 when they heard Harlow V Fitzgerald. The text was changed illegally in 1874 by one guy when he copied the 1871 Congressional Record into the Federal Register.

Look up "16 crucial words that went missing from a landmark civil rights law" for more info.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/15/us/politics/qualified-immunity-supreme-court.html

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] vlad76 19 points 10 months ago

Sure, they should be able to turn anyone away, no questions asked.

load more comments (15 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2023
650 points (97.1% liked)

News

21821 readers
5267 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