South Carolina restaurant kicks blacks out

[Luveria]

What I want to know is why is it reasonable to move 25 people at the complaint of one person when these people are said by the management to be regular customers? Further, why not just move the person who has the issue? It's their fucking issue.

Obviously you know more than the manager who took the complaint.

As far as I can tell from the responses here, the situation should have been allowed to escalate between the patrons, potentially have the police involved and let it go from there.

It's interesting only one person made the compliant and no other customers, and that you have a group of those twenty-five regular customers who were recording a video (seriously, why would they be recording their incriminating actions?) outraged and turned down the free meal given in response. It's almost as if they were removed for no real reason.

[Greed and Death]

Which raises a lot of questions of why. Was it race ? Was it I am having a quite meal and being seated next to 25 people will be distracting? Was it because the 25 people who had been waiting for two hours had waited in the bar and now and a little drunk ?

What I need is more information.

What I want to know is why is it reasonable to move 25 people at the complaint of one person when these people are said by the management to be regular customers? Further, why not just move the person who has the issue? It's their fucking issue.

Depending on how you read the account the 25 they had either just sat down or not yet sat down. Then if the complainer was already mid meal it would be weird to move him. I will be honest if I were taking a girl on a date I would not be happy to be seated next to a table of 25 the bigger the table the louder people tend to get.

Also it was not clear they were moving them or denying them service until after the video camera came out. They might have been holding the group of 25 back and trying to bribe the complainer with free desert or free drinks.

[Eastern Kirgyzstan]

It is the *OWNER'S* restaurant, they could be black, white, pink, or green, color has nothing to do with property ownership and the rights you have on your property. If your not happy with his choices, go get your own restaurant and bring in anyone you want! America has become such a police state it's not funny.

[Fartsniffage]

Obviously you know more than the manager who took the complaint.

As far as I can tell from the responses here, the situation should have been allowed to escalate between the patrons, potentially have the police involved and let it go from there.

It's interesting only one person made the compliant and no other customers, and that you have a group of those twenty-five regular customers who were recording a video (seriously, why would they be recording their incriminating actions?) outraged and turned down the free meal given in response. It's almost as if they were removed for no real reason.

Umm, where does it say they were recording anything before the manager spoke to them?

[Condunum]

What I want to know is why is it reasonable to move 25 people at the complaint of one person when these people are said by the management to be regular customers? Further, why not just move the person who has the issue? It's their fucking issue.

I would assume that it's because the group had just sat down and the complainer was already eating a meal. Also, no where in the articles posted does it say the complainer was eating alone. They may also have been part of a sizable party.

I've already since acknowledged the potential size of their party. Regardless, this group had been there for 2 hours already. Why were they now an issue?

[Fartsniffage]

I would assume that it's because the group had just sat down and the complainer was already eating a meal. Also, no where in the articles posted does it say the complainer was eating alone. They may also have been part of a sizable party.

I've already since acknowledged the potential size of their party. Regardless, this group had been there for 2 hours already. Why were they now an issue?

They weren't there at the table for 2 hours. They were in the restaurant for 2 hours but had just been seated.

Seriously, this is all in the articles....

[Luveria]

It's interesting only one person made the compliant and no other customers, and that you have a group of those twenty-five regular customers who were recording a video (seriously, why would they be recording their incriminating actions?) outraged and turned down the free meal given in response. It's almost as if they were removed for no real reason.

Umm, where does it say they were recording anything before the manager spoke to them?

It doesn't.

It is the *OWNER'S* restaurant, they could be black, white, pink, or green, color has nothing to do with property ownership and the rights you have on your property. If your not happy with his choices, go get your own restaurant and bring in anyone you want! America has become such a police state it's not funny.

Wrong. Anti-discrimination laws exist. Even if this wasn't discrimination, there is something questionable about removing twenty-five customers who had been there for two hours, only because one person makes a complaint.

[Condunum]

What I want to know is why is it reasonable to move 25 people at the complaint of one person when these people are said by the management to be regular customers? Further, why not just move the person who has the issue? It's their fucking issue.

Depending on how you read the account the 25 they had either just sat down or not yet sat down. Then if the complainer was already mid meal it would be weird to move him. I will be honest if I were taking a girl on a date I would not be happy to be seated next to a table of 25 the bigger the table the louder people tend to get.

Also it was not clear they were moving them or denying them service until after the video camera came out. They might have been holding the group of 25 back and trying to bribe the complainer with free desert or free drinks.

There's a chance of that, but nothing to suggest it. You may be trying to trumpet being on a high horse with the "NEEDS MOAR EVIDENCE" thing, and I get it. I do the same thing. However, with the current evidence, this has a likely chance to be racial. why do you not accept this?

[Condunum]

I've already since acknowledged the potential size of their party. Regardless, this group had been there for 2 hours already. Why were they now an issue?

They weren't there at the table for 2 hours. They were in the restaurant for 2 hours but had just been seated.

Seriously, this is all in the articles....

You know, I can fucking read. It doesn't change what I said.

[Farnhamia]

It is the *OWNER'S* restaurant, they could be black, white, pink, or green, color has nothing to do with property ownership and the rights you have on your property. If your not happy with his choices, go get your own restaurant and bring in anyone you want! America has become such a police state it's not funny.

Nope, sorry, there are laws against discrimination in public places. Restaurants are public places.

[Greed and Death]

Depending on how you read the account the 25 they had either just sat down or not yet sat down. Then if the complainer was already mid meal it would be weird to move him. I will be honest if I were taking a girl on a date I would not be happy to be seated next to a table of 25 the bigger the table the louder people tend to get.

Also it was not clear they were moving them or denying them service until after the video camera came out. They might have been holding the group of 25 back and trying to bribe the complainer with free desert or free drinks.

There's a chance of that, but nothing to suggest it. You may be trying to trumpet being on a high horse with the "NEEDS MOAR EVIDENCE" thing, and I get it. I do the same thing. However, with the current evidence, this has a likely chance to be racial. why do you not accept this?

Your right Mr. Jones has not alleged sufficient facts to merit producing alternative scenarios so no point in going into them yet.

The burden still stands on Mr. Jones and he has yet to meet that.

[Theranis III]

Seems someone forgot to inform them that Jim Crow is no longer applicable.

Jim Crow was an invention of Vaudeville.

the character yes, the laws no. Those regressive, oppressive laws were born as the reactionary response to the Reconstruction. While the character himself was amusing to some, the laws definitely were not pleasant to those who were oppressed by them.

[Srboslavija]

I would assume that it's because the group had just sat down and the complainer was already eating a meal. Also, no where in the articles posted does it say the complainer was eating alone. They may also have been part of a sizable party.

I've already since acknowledged the potential size of their party. Regardless, this group had been there for 2 hours already. Why were they now an issue?

Maybe because of the way they were behaving after being forced to wait two hours, a complaint was made and the manager acted on it? [Non race-related option]

OR

It took the manager two hours to figure out they were black and kicked them out because of it? [Race-related option]

[Fartsniffage]

They weren't there at the table for 2 hours. They were in the restaurant for 2 hours but had just been seated.

Seriously, this is all in the articles....

You know, I can fucking read. It doesn't change what I said.

But it does answer the question. Why would the complainer complain about them being sat near them before they were actually sat near them?

[Condunum]

I've already since acknowledged the potential size of their party. Regardless, this group had been there for 2 hours already. Why were they now an issue?

Maybe because of the way they were behaving after being forced to wait two hours, a complaint was made and the manager acted on it? [Non race-related option]

OR

It took the manager two hours to figure out they were black and kicked them out because of it? [Race-related option]

As it stands, both are an option. I'd be happier to accept the first one, because I'm content with managers just being dicks with impatient customers.

You know, I can fucking read. It doesn't change what I said.

But it does answer the question. Why would the complainer complain about them being sat near them before they were actually sat near them?

Because they were 25 people in a restaurant. That's really hard to miss if they're being disruptive.

[Fartsniffage]

Maybe because of the way they were behaving after being forced to wait two hours, a complaint was made and the manager acted on it? [Non race-related option]

OR

It took the manager two hours to figure out they were black and kicked them out because of it? [Race-related option]

As it stands, both are an option. I'd be happier to accept the first one, because I'm content with managers just being dicks with impatient customers.

But it does answer the question. Why would the complainer complain about them being sat near them before they were actually sat near them?

Because they were 25 people in a restaurant. That's really hard to miss if they're being disruptive.

They were waiting to be seated. That implies they were in a waiting area or the bar, not in the restaurant itself. I doubt they had them lined up against the wall waiting for people to stop stuffing chicken down their gullet and bugger off.

And I've never said they were being disruptive. After all, the info we have is that the restaurant wanted to re-seat them, not something it would do if they were.

[Condunum]

As it stands, both are an option. I'd be happier to accept the first one, because I'm content with managers just being dicks with impatient customers.


Because they were 25 people in a restaurant. That's really hard to miss if they're being disruptive.

They were waiting to be seated. That implies they were in a waiting area or the bar, not in the restaurant itself. I doubt they had them lined up against the wall waiting for people to stop stuffing chicken down their gullet and bugger off.

And I've never said they were being disruptive. After all, the info we have is that the restaurant wanted to re-seat them, not something it would do if they were.

Well, actually, that's not true. Restaurants regularly keep disruptive customers with the hopes that they can be pacified with bribery.

[Fartsniffage]

They were waiting to be seated. That implies they were in a waiting area or the bar, not in the restaurant itself. I doubt they had them lined up against the wall waiting for people to stop stuffing chicken down their gullet and bugger off.

And I've never said they were being disruptive. After all, the info we have is that the restaurant wanted to re-seat them, not something it would do if they were.

Well, actually, that's not true. Restaurants regularly keep disruptive customers with the hopes that they can be pacified with bribery.

So were they or weren't they being disruptive?

[Gauthier]

Umm, the article you posted.....

Does it?

NORTH CHARLESTON (WCSC) -
Michael Brown says he was celebrating his cousin's last day in Charleston last month at Wild Wing Cafe in North Charleston. He says after his party of 25 waited two hours for a table, the shift manager told them there was a "situation."

"She said there's a situation where one of our customers feels threatened by your party, so she asked us not to seat you in our section, which totally alarmed all of us because we're sitting there peaceably for two hours," explains Brown. "Obviously, if we were causing any conflict, we would have been ejected out of the place hours before."

Brown says while he was talking to the shift manager, someone in his group began videotaping the conversation. Brown says that's when the manager became upset and refused to seat them.

"I asked her I want to be clear with you," says Brown. "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."

Brown says several calls were made to the corporate office in Mt. Pleasant, but he says they did not receive a call back, so he took to Facebook with this post Thursday.

I will never go to Wild wings cafe in N. Chs again! We (Party of 25 family and friends) waited 2hrs, patiently and were refused service because another customer (White) felt threatened by us. This type of racial discrimination is unacceptable and we have to put a STOP TO IT. The manager looked me dead in the face and said she was refusing us service because she had a right to and simply she felt like it. DO NOT SUPPORT THIS ESTABLISHMENT... PLEASE SHARE THIS POST... We need your help.

That caught the restaurant's attention.

"We got alerted through social media, so we always encourage our customers to respond to us or to comment on our social media pages," says Debra Stokes, the chief marketing officer for Wild Wing Cafe.

Representatives for Wild Wing Cafe say they immediately responded and spoke to Brown.

"We had a conversation," says Stokes. "It was a really good conversation. He and many of his family and friends were there about a month ago, and they are regular customers of ours. So, they were having a going away party, and they just didn't receive the experience that they have come to know and love."

Brown says an apology was offered and a free meal for the entire group, but he says he's not completely satisfied.

"We weren't coming there for a free meal. When we came there that night, we were coming to patronize the business. This is not a situation where you can just give us a free meal and everything is ok because it's deeper than that."

As of Thursday night, Brown said his post had been shared 900 times on business' Facebook page and his own page.

The only thing I see is this, "she asked us not to seat you in our section." I'm not even sure what that means.

The restaurant version of Blacks In the Back.

[Srboslavija]

Maybe because of the way they were behaving after being forced to wait two hours, a complaint was made and the manager acted on it? [Non race-related option]

OR

It took the manager two hours to figure out they were black and kicked them out because of it? [Race-related option]

As it stands, both are an option. I'd be happier to accept the first one, because I'm content with managers just being dicks with impatient customers.

fml!! if option two turns out to be the case I'll eat my shoe and leave the forum forever

At least your keeping a somewhat open mind, without knowing all the facts. The same can't be said for some of the other members of the Outrage Bridge though...

[The UK in Exile]

As it stands, both are an option. I'd be happier to accept the first one, because I'm content with managers just being dicks with impatient customers.

fml!! if option two turns out to be the case I'll eat my shoe and leave the forum forever

At least your keeping a somewhat open mind, without knowing all the facts. The same can't be said for some of the other members of the Outrage Bridge though...

The Outrage Bridge, connecting mainland Factland to the isle of fictainia.

[Fartsniffage]

fml!! if option two turns out to be the case I'll eat my shoe and leave the forum forever

At least your keeping a somewhat open mind, without knowing all the facts. The same can't be said for some of the other members of the Outrage Bridge though...

The Outrage Bridge, connecting mainland Factland to the isle of fictainia.

Don't be silly. It's how you describe being taken in by a Grosvenor gambit.

[Condunum]

Does it?


The only thing I see is this, "she asked us not to seat you in our section." I'm not even sure what that means.

The restaurant version of Blacks In the Back.

Not necessarily.

As it stands, both are an option. I'd be happier to accept the first one, because I'm content with managers just being dicks with impatient customers.

fml!! if option two turns out to be the case I'll eat my shoe and leave the forum forever

At least your keeping a somewhat open mind, without knowing all the facts. The same can't be said for some of the other members of the Outrage Bridge though...

I try. I get swept up in emotions pretty easily, but it doesn't take long for me to think twice.

[Srboslavija]

*Outrage Brigade, dammit.

[Condunum]

Well, actually, that's not true. Restaurants regularly keep disruptive customers with the hopes that they can be pacified with bribery.

So were they or weren't they being disruptive?

That's unclear. What is clear is that based on the manager's response to Brown when questioned, the manager did not act appropriately.