“I feel that it’s my right to make the statement. It’s the same thing as no shoes no service,” said shop owner Hugo Corral....
"A mother calls and says hey we can’t go in there anymore because we don’t want it to smell like marijuana when my child’s sitting there waiting," said Corral....
Other business owners have thanked him for taking a stand and his customers say it’s been a noticeable difference.
१० मार्च, २०१४
In Colorado, refusing service to people who smell like marijuana.
New frontiers in discrimination.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
४० टिप्पण्या:
These people are going to learn soon enough that making it legal isn't enough. It's never enough. We must join them, approve of their behaviour. Cheer them. Tolerance isn't the name of the game anymore, it's now acceptance.
Just as making gay sex legal wasn't enough, we now must celebrate gay sex. Cheer them on. Anything less is an atrocity and reeducation is called for.
It is neither new nor wrong for a business owner to exclude someone whose personal hygiene offends other customers. Expelling someone for smelling of pot is not significantly different from expelling a vagrant for smelling.
do they refuse service to people who smell like alcohol?
"Discrimination" will go down in modern American history as one of the most abused words of our time.
"Discrimination" is now almost universally understood in popular American culture to be something invidious and evil, if not illegal.
Time was, when someone had "discriminating tastes," it meant that they chose things that were of quality, and persons of discriminating tastes rejected things that were of poor quality or poor value. To have discriminating tastes was a good thing.
"New frontiers in discrimination" indeed.
What if you have a note from your dermatologist saying you naturally smell like marijuana, so please provide service anyway?
I wonder if he serves cig smokers. They sure reek as well, I would rather not hang around that smell with my kids either.
Should be the same as with smoking in bars and restaurants -- business owners should be free to choose what they'll tolerate from customers on their premises and workers can choose in which establishments they'll work.
If there's money to be made in serving (or not serving) smokers (or stoners) somebody will fill the need.
I've never seen a smoker thrown out for smelling smokey, but plenty of places won't let you smoke in their establishments.
Rec: Do they have to exclude someone who reeks of liquor?
They can if they want to, yes?
(I suspect it's not as problematic in their neighborhood as reeking of pot.
One only bans what is problematic, after all.)
Likewise with Mark's suggestion of banning people who reek of tobacco smoke - if you're one of his customers, complain about it.
Otherwise it's none of your damn business, is it?
Do they have to exclude someone who reeks of liquor?
I believe that you can exclude someone who is obviously 'impaired'. Drunk. And who might present a detriment to the operation of your business and to other patrons. I would assume it could be the same for the impaired, stoned.
However, just smelling like pot, cigarettes etc is an interesting line on which to refuse service. How about someone who just smells bad? Bad B.O. Poor hygiene and smells like urine or poop? Where do we draw that line. The smell of curry is offensive to me. Can I refuse service to people who smell like curry?
His right. I'd especially ban them if it was an "all you can eat" place.
eric:
Homosexual behavior was never illegal. However, society rejected its consecration in public. As it rejected most heterosexual behaviors in the same context. Aside from normalizing productive heterosexual relationships, our society was largely gender neutral, with a focus on individuals. This changed with not the emergence but liberation of progressive morality.
"do they refuse service to people who smell like alcohol?"
What consistency do you think seems required? What is your equality principle here?
Let's say a restaurant has a dress code requiring shirts and shoes and then it decides to exclude people who show up in flip-flops. Would you say but do they exclude people whose shirts are not long sleeved?
Unless you're in a category where the classification triggers heightened scrutiny, I don't see what the problem is.
A better argument would be contending that discrimination against those who use marijuana is discrimination against the disabled.
Hope they refuse service to people who smell of patchouli too. God I hate that stuff.
San Francisco's main library just decided a foul oder, and washing yourself up in the bathroom, is going too far.
Took 'em over a decade.
I don't see someone reeking of pot as a problem (it's a nice smell) but that's just me,...
"do they refuse service to people who smell like alcohol?"
What consistency do you think seems required? What is your equality principle here?
After reading the article, it seems to me that the owner is discriminating against people who smell bad (offensively). So how about if an alcoholic shows up and reeks of stale beer and flop sweat? What about, as mentioned earlier, the 4 pack a day smoker who absolutely reeks from 10 feet away. Or the mentally ill person who hasn't showered in 2 weeks?
Reading the article, it looks to me as if he wants to discriminate against pot smokers and the pretense is because they smell. So my question was, does he also discriminate against others who stink? If not, then I don't see where he should have the ability to discriminate on the basis of smelling like burnt hemp. I don't get the clothing reference. On the other hand, if he wants to exclude pot smokers from his business, he should come out and say so, kind of like cake bakers in Arizona (or was that Oregon?)
I don't know how my question:
"do they refuse service to people who smell like alcohol?"
Changed into:
"Do they have to refuse service to people who smell like alcohol?"
What is this, the online version of the telephone game?
I don't mind if he chooses not to serve pot smokers, just like I don't mind if a baker decides who to bake a cake for. I just think you should be up front about it, and if it's an odor problem, does the owner discriminate based on all unpleasant smells or just some unpleasant smells?
...one person’s hay-fever is another person’s ambrosia...
...sayeth the Court.
The guy is an obvious racist.
Pretty soon an ADA qualified individual with a disability & who is prescribed smoked cannabis as treatment will get kicked out of this establishment, and the result will be a federal case.
In Colorado, refusing service to people who smell like marijuana
So... are people who smell like marijuana in the other 49 states served cheerfully and with a smile?
Individuals cannot decide who they buy from or sell to, don't they know that?
Only the State can decide this.
Pretty soon an ADA qualified individual with a disability & who is prescribed smoked cannabis as treatment will get kicked out of this establishment, and the result will be a federal case.
How many of those lawsuits have there been in ADA-lawsuit-happy California during the 18 years we've had medical marijuana?
A lot of people here are talking like lawsuits are already in the works. They are not. It is simply an article about a businessman who won't serve people who smell like pot.
Nobody's protesting or suing him.
Homosexual behavior was never illegal
As inaccurate statements go, that ranks up there with "I've been to all 57 states".
The cigarette smellers are not too cool either.
Apparently some Asians think (or used to think before they started feasting on fat) that Americans smell like rancid beef or dairy products.
Oh slippery slope.
Where people go and eat should not reek of filthy drugs.
... Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. Maybe he hasn't thought about it because he doesn't have booze-reeking people trying to get haircuts, and so doesn't waste his time listing all possible reasons of bad odor and customer complaints that he wants to eliminate from his premises.
As to the where to draw the line - that's nobody's business but the proprietor's (or at least, it should be. But we've lost the freedom of association -and by extension, disassociation - thanks to our perpetual progress towards inclusiveness.
So to any future questions. Yes, I should be able to ban someone from my own property - even if I am using that property to run a business - for any reason.
I may let people who smell of cigarettes on but not marijuana or beer - my choice.
I may ban curry-smelling people. I may ignore the obvious do-whistle and say I'm just banning Indians. Or blacks. Or whites. Or gays. Or Republicans. Or gay Republican Indians.
That *ought* to be my right. And if 'you' were truly tolerant, you'd respect that.
Cause you know, tolerance is all about accepting other people's decisions that you don't agree with, and surely we can all agree with something as simple as 'my property, my choice.'
How about too much perfume? I have been in more than one workplace that banned perfume ("scent free" is the term). Let them refuse a stinky cab driver of color for wearing too much cologne and see what happens....
"Homosexual behavior was never illegal. However, society rejected its consecration in public. As it rejected most heterosexual behaviors in the same context. Aside from normalizing productive heterosexual relationships, our society was largely gender neutral, with a focus on individuals. This changed with not the emergence but liberation of progressive morality."
You're not correct about this n.n. And I'm not sharing an opinion here. Factually, Homosexuality was not only prosecutable, it was a charge of inadmissibility into the United States. There is a lot of case law that deals with this.
Look up the Fleuti case for more information on this.
Fleuti involved immigration qualifications. Every nation sets standards for their immigrants. Every nation prefers functional candidates.
There was not a general condition of illegality or prosecution of homosexual behavior. This was true even in the heart of the so-called Mormon empire in Salt Lake City. While there were no "pride parades", there was tolerance for individuals and respect for their privacy. That's all that should be expected of behaviors which can be tolerated. It is not a behavior which merits consecration or normalization in popular culture or society generally.
There was not a general condition of illegality or prosecution of homosexual behavior
It is kind of amazing how full of shit you are, nn.
For the record Sodomy was a felony in Georgia punishable by 1 to 20 years, upheld by SCOTUS in Hardwick v. Bowers
For purposes of clarity, the Ga. Statute, only overturned in 2002 read,"A person commits the offense of Sodomy when he performs or submits to any sexual act involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another."
So Teabaggers were criminals, as were many married adults and many fornicators of all ages.
No wonder SCOTUS quickly went to Privacy as a Constitutional right.
n.n. wrote;
"Fleuti involved immigration qualifications. Every nation sets standards for their immigrants. Every nation prefers functional candidates."
Yeah, Fleuti was a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR). LPR's are not, under the legal definition, making an entry into the United States under the old Immigration law unless they made a meaningful departure. If you want to Mexico for a day trip, like Fleuti did, then you wouldn't be making a meaningful departure.
However, if you did make a meaningful departure, you would be subject to what used to be called exclusion law (as opposed to deportation which is a more exacting process and requires burden of proof on the government).
Ok, so was Fleuti making an entry? No, he wasn't.
But let's say he was? What would he have been excluded for?
He was guilty of a "Crime involving Moral Turpitude."
What the heck crime was that?
"'afflicted with psychopathic personality,' § 212(a)(4), 66 Stat. 182, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(4), by reason of the fact that he was a homosexual."
He had been convicted already, in court. This is what made it possible to remove him from the United States.
He wasn't removed because they couldn't apply this law to him (Exclusion law) because he was technically making an entry into the United States. He hadn't made a meaningful departure.
However, had he made a meaningful departure, he would have not been allowed back into the United States because he had previously been convicted of being a Homosexual.
n.n.
My bad, I read it wrong. They originally tried to get him on a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude but that didn't fly.
Then they tried the exclusion charge (Immigration law, not criminal law) of "'afflicted with psychopathic personality" because he was homosexual.
I stand corrected.
I'm sure pot smokers can find plenty of places that will serve them. So why is it even an issue if there are some that won't?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा