South Carolina restaurant kicks blacks out

[Rhodesi]

Ah, the cretinous white liberals are in full, foaming, faux-outrage mode in this thread. Who cares if these people's feelings were hurt, at the end of the day its the business owner's right to decide who he lets into his premises, in the same way as it is with a homeowner. Things like this happen all the time, but of course, we can't have a single black person having hurt feelings can we? This whole article is framed in a way as to appear racist, whereas in fact it is something that happens fairly regularly across the world.a

[Srboslavija]

So to recap - the business has previously had no issue serving their regular ("black") customers - but this time, for no reason at all ("apart from being black") they kicked out their regulars? ("because of the colour of their skin")

Which side is making this a race issue?

[Rhodesi]

They didn't remove them based on them being black. The complainant felt threatened by them. I don't see a mention of race being the specific reason for why they were removed.

They were removed because the customer felt threatened. The customer felt threatened because they were black.

If it had been 25 white customers, do you think the restaurant would have removed them? 25 paying customers? Or would they have told that one customer they were being ridiculous? I see no reason or justification given why these customers were removed, or any justification for the customer to feel threatened. If this isn't a racial issue, I don't know what is.

Where does it say this?

[Lordieth]

They were removed because the customer felt threatened. The customer felt threatened because they were black.

If it had been 25 white customers, do you think the restaurant would have removed them? 25 paying customers? Or would they have told that one customer they were being ridiculous? I see no reason or justification given why these customers were removed, or any justification for the customer to feel threatened. If this isn't a racial issue, I don't know what is.

First off I think the claim the complaining customer was white is questionable. The manager is never quoted as saying the customer was white, and it is bad customer service policy to invite conflicts by pointing out complaining customers to other customers.

Second There is nothing definitive to tie the customer's complaint to be based on race. Until I get the other side of the story why it is just an unknown.

Third Discrepancy in the time one account says they waited 2 hours and were kicked out as soon as they were seated, another account says they were sitting their peaceably for two hours. Given this is a wing and beer place there is a question of how much were they drinking, were they sitting were they waiting.

Fourth it appeals they were kicked out for recording the incident rather than the incident itself.

No, but the customer who first broke the story out on Facebook actually stated that the customer was white in his original post. The manager isn't going to want to in any way associate her actions with any sort of issue of race. Whether or not the customer was white I cannot say, but if it wasn't true, then you'd think someone would have questioned the credibility of his claims. You see his original facebook post in the video.

[Genivaria]

They were removed because the customer felt threatened. The customer felt threatened because they were black.

If it had been 25 white customers, do you think the restaurant would have removed them? 25 paying customers? Or would they have told that one customer they were being ridiculous? I see no reason or justification given why these customers were removed, or any justification for the customer to feel threatened. If this isn't a racial issue, I don't know what is.

Where does it say this?

I repeat my earlier question.
Were the group doing anything other then being black that would warrant being kicked out?

[Kronstad]

First off I think the claim the complaining customer was white is questionable. The manager is never quoted as saying the customer was white, and it is bad customer service policy to invite conflicts by pointing out complaining customers to other customers.
Second There is nothing definitive to tie the customer's complaint to be based on race. Until I get the other side of the story why it is just an unknown.
Third Discrepancy in the time one account says they waited 2 hours and were kicked out as soon as they were seated, another account says they were sitting their peaceably for two hours. Given this is a wing and beer place there is a question of how much were they drinking, were they sitting were they waiting.
Fourth it appeals they were kicked out for recording the incident rather than the incident itself.

Did you even READ the article? http://progressivepopulist.org/2013/08/ ... ned-video/
To answer your questions (which are answered in the article which you have not bothered to read):
1. he did not say it because no one would say it to their face "a white person felt threatened by 25 black people, so we're kicking you out"...makes sense
2.As Brown explained: "I asked her – I want to be clear with you. I said, so you’re telling me I have to leave. She said I have a right to deny you service. I said so you’re asking me to leave because you’re upset because he was recording you, after we’ve waited for two hours, and after you’ve already pretty much discriminated on us, and she answered yes.
3. it doesn't say it anywhere; Brown said in the article that he waited two hours to be seated (seating peaceably there meant waiting to be seated near that area)
4. no, the shift manager came to them before they videotaped the incident; do you really see any justification in racially discriminating 25 people just for being there and for waiting to be seated?
Please, next time, read the information provided in the article before posting questions with answers already in the OP, thanks.

[Srboslavija]

Where does it say this?

I repeat my earlier question.
Were the group doing anything other then being black that would warrant being kicked out?

Unless someone here was there when it happened or video footage is provided, none of us here can be certain.

Has the business previously kicked out its regular black customers for being black?

[Lordieth]

They were removed because the customer felt threatened. The customer felt threatened because they were black.

If it had been 25 white customers, do you think the restaurant would have removed them? 25 paying customers? Or would they have told that one customer they were being ridiculous? I see no reason or justification given why these customers were removed, or any justification for the customer to feel threatened. If this isn't a racial issue, I don't know what is.

Where does it say this?

The guy who broke the story that his group were kicked out stated they were sitting peacefully for two hours. Nobody in the story has at any point disputed that claim. I think it's safe to assume it's racially motivated, but no, the story doesn't spell it out explicitly. If however you feel that is insufficient, then I will just state that a white customer felt threatened by a group of black patrons, who claim they were waiting patiently for their meal. This in itself should raise concerns as to why they were removed, but perhaps it is a matter of opinion.

[Wisconsin9]

Ah, the cretinous white liberals are in full, foaming, faux-outrage mode in this thread. Who cares if these people's feelings were hurt, at the end of the day its the business owner's right to decide who he lets into his premises, in the same way as it is with a homeowner. Things like this happen all the time, but of course, we can't have a single black person having hurt feelings can we? This whole article is framed in a way as to appear racist, whereas in fact it is something that happens fairly regularly across the world.a

Do you by any chance happen to have a brick wall I can borrow? If I bash my head against it enough times, it might be enough to purge the concentrated stupid in your post from my memory.

[The Rich Port]

Ah, the cretinous white liberals are in full, foaming, faux-outrage mode in this thread. Who cares if these people's feelings were hurt, at the end of the day its the business owner's right to decide who he lets into his premises, in the same way as it is with a homeowner. Things like this happen all the time, but of course, we can't have a single black person having hurt feelings can we? This whole article is framed in a way as to appear racist, whereas in fact it is something that happens fairly regularly across the world.a

Do you by any chance happen to have a brick wall I can borrow? If I bash my head against it enough times, it might be enough to purge the concentrated stupid in your post from my memory.

And that's a hard "maybe".

[Kronstad]

Has the business previously kicked out its regular black customers for being black?

Does it have to? If it happens once, it's more than enough. Racial discrimination doesn't have to happen several times before it is stopped; one event is sufficient to reasonably call for a halt to this.

[Greed and Death]

First off I think the claim the complaining customer was white is questionable. The manager is never quoted as saying the customer was white, and it is bad customer service policy to invite conflicts by pointing out complaining customers to other customers.

Second There is nothing definitive to tie the customer's complaint to be based on race. Until I get the other side of the story why it is just an unknown.

Third Discrepancy in the time one account says they waited 2 hours and were kicked out as soon as they were seated, another account says they were sitting their peaceably for two hours. Given this is a wing and beer place there is a question of how much were they drinking, were they sitting were they waiting.

Fourth it appeals they were kicked out for recording the incident rather than the incident itself.

No, but the customer who first broke the story out on Facebook actually stated that the customer was white in his original post. The manager isn't going to want to in any way associate her actions with any sort of issue of race. Whether or not the customer was white I cannot say, but if it wasn't true, then you'd think someone would have questioned the credibility of his claims. You see his original facebook post in the video.

Well I would be someone questioning his claims now wouldn't I?

[Wisconsin9]

Do you by any chance happen to have a brick wall I can borrow? If I bash my head against it enough times, it might be enough to purge the concentrated stupid in your post from my memory.

And that's a hard "maybe".

If that doesn't work, I can just keep going until I'm in a coma.

[Lordieth]

Ah, the cretinous white liberals are in full, foaming, faux-outrage mode in this thread. Who cares if these people's feelings were hurt, at the end of the day its the business owner's right to decide who he lets into his premises, in the same way as it is with a homeowner. Things like this happen all the time, but of course, we can't have a single black person having hurt feelings can we? This whole article is framed in a way as to appear racist, whereas in fact it is something that happens fairly regularly across the world.a

Yeah, I heard it happened on a bus once too. Outrageous that bus drivers aren't allowed to segregate passengers anymore.

[Luveria]

Ah, the cretinous white liberals are in full, foaming, faux-outrage mode in this thread. Who cares if these people's feelings were hurt, at the end of the day its the business owner's right to decide who he lets into his premises, in the same way as it is with a homeowner. Things like this happen all the time, but of course, we can't have a single black person having hurt feelings can we? This whole article is framed in a way as to appear racist, whereas in fact it is something that happens fairly regularly across the world.a

Seriously?

Do you not know there are conservatives who oppose racism?

[Rhodesi]

Ah, the cretinous white liberals are in full, foaming, faux-outrage mode in this thread. Who cares if these people's feelings were hurt, at the end of the day its the business owner's right to decide who he lets into his premises, in the same way as it is with a homeowner. Things like this happen all the time, but of course, we can't have a single black person having hurt feelings can we? This whole article is framed in a way as to appear racist, whereas in fact it is something that happens fairly regularly across the world.a

Do you by any chance happen to have a brick wall I can borrow? If I bash my head against it enough times, it might be enough to purge the concentrated stupid in your post from my memory.

Sadly no... and my point wasn't as stupid as the reaction's of virtually everybody on this thread.

[Threlizdun]

Ah, the cretinous white liberals are in full, foaming, faux-outrage mode in this thread. Who cares if these people's feelings were hurt, at the end of the day its the business owner's right to decide who he lets into his premises, in the same way as it is with a homeowner. Things like this happen all the time, but of course, we can't have a single black person having hurt feelings can we? This whole article is framed in a way as to appear racist, whereas in fact it is something that happens fairly regularly across the world.a

Except no, the owner has no right to do any such thing. They haven't had that right for about half almost half a century now.

[Farnhamia]

Ah, the cretinous white liberals are in full, foaming, faux-outrage mode in this thread. Who cares if these people's feelings were hurt, at the end of the day its the business owner's right to decide who he lets into his premises, in the same way as it is with a homeowner. Things like this happen all the time, but of course, we can't have a single black person having hurt feelings can we? This whole article is framed in a way as to appear racist, whereas in fact it is something that happens fairly regularly across the world.a

A business that claims to offer its services to the public must offer them to all of the public, not just the ones it likes. As long as those people were doing nothing wrong, and apparently they weren't, they should have not been asked to leave. A restaurant is not the same as a home, by the way.

And watch it with the name-calling.

[Wisconsin9]

Do you by any chance happen to have a brick wall I can borrow? If I bash my head against it enough times, it might be enough to purge the concentrated stupid in your post from my memory.

Sadly no... and my point wasn't as stupid as the reaction's of virtually everybody on this thread.

Too bad. And you're right, it wasn't as stupid. It was more so.

[Rhodesi]

Ah, the cretinous white liberals are in full, foaming, faux-outrage mode in this thread. Who cares if these people's feelings were hurt, at the end of the day its the business owner's right to decide who he lets into his premises, in the same way as it is with a homeowner. Things like this happen all the time, but of course, we can't have a single black person having hurt feelings can we? This whole article is framed in a way as to appear racist, whereas in fact it is something that happens fairly regularly across the world.a

A business that claims to offer its services to the public must offer them to all of the public, not just the ones it likes. As long as those people were doing nothing wrong, and apparently they weren't, they should have not been asked to leave. A restaurant is not the same as a home, by the way.

And watch it with the name-calling.

Firstly, that is clearly just advertising rhetoric. Secondly, maybe so, although I am hard pressed to work out why this customer would ask management to kick out these people without a good reason. Thirdly, how so?

[Rhodesi]

Sadly no... and my point wasn't as stupid as the reaction's of virtually everybody on this thread.

Too bad. And you're right, it wasn't as stupid. It was more so.

Well, you admit the rest of the reactions to this were stupid, so I guess we have common ground.

[Wisconsin9]

A business that claims to offer its services to the public must offer them to all of the public, not just the ones it likes. As long as those people were doing nothing wrong, and apparently they weren't, they should have not been asked to leave. A restaurant is not the same as a home, by the way.

And watch it with the name-calling.

Secondly, maybe so, although I am hard pressed to work out why this customer would ask management to kick out these people without a good reason.

For some people, skin color is a good reason.

[Lordieth]

No, but the customer who first broke the story out on Facebook actually stated that the customer was white in his original post. The manager isn't going to want to in any way associate her actions with any sort of issue of race. Whether or not the customer was white I cannot say, but if it wasn't true, then you'd think someone would have questioned the credibility of his claims. You see his original facebook post in the video.

Well I would be someone questioning his claims now wouldn't I?

Indeed. I can only go on the information provided by the story. I admit that it is a little one-sided, but the establishment hasn't refuted the claims. Either because the story is true, or because they know it would look worse if they denied the claims made against them. What makes me question is the story, is that if you take race entirely out of the equation, who in their right mind as a business would remove 25 customers over 1? At the very least, the business is guilty of idiocy, and they've brought this on themselves. I'm in some doubt about their motivation, as although stupidity isn't justification, it's a possibility.

[Srboslavija]

Has the business previously kicked out its regular black customers for being black?

Does it have to? If it happens once, it's more than enough. Racial discrimination doesn't have to happen several times before it is stopped; one event is sufficient to reasonably call for a halt to this.

Well if the same customers had no issues before it would indicate that something else happened this time to warrant them being asked to leave.

You're judging the group of 25 based on their race as a sole reason for being kicked out. Others would judge their actions as a reason for being kicked out.

You know the whole thing... "judge a person by their actions, not their race ..."

[Threlizdun]

Does it have to? If it happens once, it's more than enough. Racial discrimination doesn't have to happen several times before it is stopped; one event is sufficient to reasonably call for a halt to this.

Well if the same customers had no issues before it would indicate that something else happened this time to warrant them being asked to leave.

You're judging the group of 25 based on their race as a sole reason for being kicked out. Others would judge their actions as a reason for being kicked out.

You know the whole thing... "judge a person by their actions, not their race ..."

It was specifically stated they did nothing to warrant being kicked out.