South Carolina restaurant kicks blacks out

[Neoconstantius]

I seriously question the veracity of the source...

[Solaray]

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.

I feel like the business owner shouldn't suffer for the actions of one racist manager in that case. He should be fired and replaced swiftly, problem solved, no government involvement needed.

[Luveria]

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

I feel like the business owner shouldn't suffer for the actions of one racist manager in that case. He should be fired and replaced swiftly, problem solved, no government involvement needed.

But didn't you know it's outrage to be suggesting it could be the fault of a racist employee?

[Condunum]

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

I feel like the business owner shouldn't suffer for the actions of one racist manager in that case.

Actually, they should. The owner of the restaurant of it's franchised, the owner of the business if it's company owned. There's a strange perception that those higher up aren't responsible for the actions of their managers, when they're the ones who can dictate what those managers can and can't do.

[Solaray]

I feel like the business owner shouldn't suffer for the actions of one racist manager in that case. He should be fired and replaced swiftly, problem solved, no government involvement needed.

But didn't you know it's outrage to be suggesting it could be the fault of a racist employee?

It's pretty hard to deny that this was a race issue, I'm surprised people are objecting that.

[Condunum]

But didn't you know it's outrage to be suggesting it could be the fault of a racist employee?

It's pretty hard to deny that this was a race issue, I'm surprised people are objecting that.

Actually, it's not. There's a high chance it was, but it's not clear.

[Solaray]

I feel like the business owner shouldn't suffer for the actions of one racist manager in that case.

Actually, they should. The owner of the restaurant of it's franchised, the owner of the business if it's company owned. There's a strange perception that those higher up aren't responsible for the actions of their managers, when they're the ones who can dictate what those managers can and can't do.

It's the owner's responsibility to reprimand(fire) that problem employee. Once they do so, they should no longer be liable.

[Solaray]

It's pretty hard to deny that this was a race issue, I'm surprised people are objecting that.

Actually, it's not. There's a high chance it was, but it's not clear.

It might not have been solely race related, but there is very little chance that race wasn't at least a part of it.

[Condunum]

Actually, they should. The owner of the restaurant of it's franchised, the owner of the business if it's company owned. There's a strange perception that those higher up aren't responsible for the actions of their managers, when they're the ones who can dictate what those managers can and can't do.

It's the owner's responsibility to reprimand(fire) that problem employee. Once they do so, they should no longer be liable.

No, they're entirely liable. Management on all levels is responsible for the actions of their direct underlings. If management fucks up in a store, their boss is responsible for fixing the issue after removing the person.

[Condunum]

Actually, it's not. There's a high chance it was, but it's not clear.

It might not have been solely race related, but there is very little chance that race wasn't at least a part of it.

No, again, not true. It's completely unclear what the situation was, because we don't know much. What is clear is that a group of 25 people were requested to be moved by a customer who was seated in that area, and the size of the group alone is enough to cast doubt on this being a racial issue.

[Solaray]

It's the owner's responsibility to reprimand(fire) that problem employee. Once they do so, they should no longer be liable.

No, they're entirely liable. Management on all levels is responsible for the actions of their direct underlings. If management fucks up in a store, their boss is responsible for fixing the issue after removing the person.

Yeah, but I don't think the liability should be legal. It should be a matter of cleaning the soiled name of the restaurant and offering proper apology to the offended patrons, I don't think suing is the right thing to do.

[Solaray]

It might not have been solely race related, but there is very little chance that race wasn't at least a part of it.

No, again, not true. It's completely unclear what the situation was, because we don't know much. What is clear is that a group of 25 people were requested to be moved by a customer who was seated in that area, and the size of the group alone is enough to cast doubt on this being a racial issue.

I suppose so. There really isn't a lot of information about it is there?

[Luveria]

It's pretty hard to deny that this was a race issue, I'm surprised people are objecting that.

Actually, it's not. There's a high chance it was, but it's not clear.

Even if it wasn't race related, it could be considered treating customers improperly wrongly asking a group of twenty-five to leave over one baseless complaint. Yet I'm being told I'm a bleeding heart liberal screaming outrage over racism, because I call into question how a group of customers may have been mistreated.

[Condunum]

No, again, not true. It's completely unclear what the situation was, because we don't know much. What is clear is that a group of 25 people were requested to be moved by a customer who was seated in that area, and the size of the group alone is enough to cast doubt on this being a racial issue.

I suppose so. There really isn't a lot of information about it is there?

That's the problem with initial reports.

[Solaray]

I suppose so. There really isn't a lot of information about it is there?

That's the problem with initial reports.

Pretty much

[Blasveck]

Actually, it's not. There's a high chance it was, but it's not clear.

Even if it wasn't race related, it could be considered treating customers improperly wrongly asking a group of twenty-five to leave over one baseless complaint. Yet I'm being told I'm a bleeding heart liberal screaming outrage over racism, because I call into question how a group of customers may have been mistreated.

^ This.

Even if it is/isn't a race issue, it's still absurd that a business would kick out 25 regulars for one person.

One person.

[Luveria]

Even if it wasn't race related, it could be considered treating customers improperly wrongly asking a group of twenty-five to leave over one baseless complaint. Yet I'm being told I'm a bleeding heart liberal screaming outrage over racism, because I call into question how a group of customers may have been mistreated.

^ This.

Even if it is/isn't a race issue, it's still absurd that a business would kick out 25 regulars for one person.

One person.

Twenty-five regular customers kicked out after being there for two hours, when there was only one person making a complaint and no one else. That alone should call it into question, when taking into considering this group of twenty-five regular customers was upset enough to turn down the free meal offered after. Their removal could have been a poor decision made by the manager trying to quickly resolve the complaint, having assumed the one making the complaint was justified. That doesn't make it acceptable if that's what happened.

[Solaray]

Even if it wasn't race related, it could be considered treating customers improperly wrongly asking a group of twenty-five to leave over one baseless complaint. Yet I'm being told I'm a bleeding heart liberal screaming outrage over racism, because I call into question how a group of customers may have been mistreated.

^ This.

Even if it is/isn't a race issue, it's still absurd that a business would kick out 25 regulars for one person.

One person.

I'm pretty sure one of the #1 guidelines to business is that 25 customers tend to bring in more money than one.

[Luveria]

^ This.

Even if it is/isn't a race issue, it's still absurd that a business would kick out 25 regulars for one person.

One person.

I'm pretty sure one of the #1 guidelines to business is that 25 customers tend to bring in more money than one.

Especially when those twenty-five are regulars, and now too pissed off to ever go back there.

[Fartsniffage]

I'm pretty sure one of the #1 guidelines to business is that 25 customers tend to bring in more money than one.

Especially when those twenty-five are regulars, and now too pissed off to ever go back there.

Was the person who made the complaint a regular? How many were in their group?

[Albion Rhodesia]

At the end of the day, it should be the right of an establishment to serve whoever they wish to serve. After all, restaurants are private endeavors, they're not public institutions, and therefore it should be up to the ownership who they wish to have patronize their establishment.

[Condunum]

At the end of the day, it should be the right of an establishment to serve whoever they wish to serve. After all, restaurants are private endeavors, they're not public institutions, and therefore it should be up to the ownership who they wish to have patronize their establishment.

they are bound by law not to descriminate based on race or sex.

[Albion Rhodesia]

At the end of the day, it should be the right of an establishment to serve whoever they wish to serve. After all, restaurants are private endeavors, they're not public institutions, and therefore it should be up to the ownership who they wish to have patronize their establishment.

they are bound by law not to descriminate based on race or sex.

The problem I have with such legislation, is that it takes power away from the entrepreneur and forces him to abide by things which he may not agree with, and it begins to head down the slipper slope, where the state dictates to the market, how, who and what they should provide.

[Nazi Flower Power]

NSG, your thoughts on the matter?

South Carolina is South Carolina.

Should the restaurant be sued under the anti-segregation portions of the Civil Rights Act?

If the people involved feel like suing.

Should the manager in question be fired?

Depends on how good a job he's been doing apart from this. They should definitely give him a good talking to, even if they decide to give him a 2nd chance.

[Luveria]

Especially when those twenty-five are regulars, and now too pissed off to ever go back there.

Was the person who made the complaint a regular? How many were in their group?

>a group of twenty-five regulars
>one person complains
>the twenty-five regulars are politely told to GTFO

You don't see a situation that may have been handled poorly by the manager?