Can a business ask someone to leave if it is hurting their business? [Archive]

Pika...

2012-07-06, 07:23 PM

In fact I was talking to my dad just last weekend about restaurant "dining rules" and whether or not they can really be made clear or enforced, specifically with regard to young children. It applies across a whole spectrum, though. A potential customer wearing a dirty, sweaty t-shirt who eats with his hands? Sure, he might be willing to pay, but is he really the sort of customer you want? He might be putting off other customers, and ruining the atmosphere. Do you - can you, even - ask him to leave, or refuse him entry on that basis?

This from another thread reminded me of a sad situation for a business (at least I believe it was sad) that I saw on the news last year. It occasionally passes my mind, asI am not sure what is the right side/answer to this dilemma.

Basically, a woman had been eating at a local diner for years. She later on developed a physical condition so bad that when she ate food would go everywhere, she was basically drooling the food on the table, and it was disgusting to the other costumers (Maybe even unsanitary?).

The restaurant ended up asking her not to come by anymore, and was willing to send her food straight to her door (I believe at no charge even). It was clear their business would go under if she continued to come. However, she started the process to sue them and it hit the news. That was the last I heard of it.

What are your opinions on this? Is this discrimination, or does a business have a right for it's owners to protect it's livelihood?

Crow

2012-07-06, 09:35 PM

You can refuse business to anyone...in theory.

After that it comes down to how good your lawyers are.

dps

2012-07-06, 09:42 PM

Crow

2012-07-06, 09:47 PM

It depends on the laws in the jurisdiction in which the business is located.

In the US, you can generally refuse service to anyone as long as you aren't discriminating on the basis of race, sex, national origin, etc.

It's making the case that it wasn't one of those things that caused you to refuse them service that is the tricky part. But if you can, you're generally good to go.

Sadly, in most cases the cost of fighting it out in court is not worth what it would have cost you to just serve the people in the first place.

Basically, whatever infraction caused you to refuse them service has to be applied to everyone who uses your service. So for instance, a dress code that applies to everyone is solid, whereas not serving Bill the Hobo because his shirt always smells is going to be (potentially) more difficult to win.

DaedalusMkV

2012-07-06, 09:54 PM

Businesses are not obligated to extend their services to everyone. A business owner can decline to make a sale to or otherwise serve a customer at any time, for any (or no) reason, provided that they have not entered into a contract. That's the law, and it's there to protect businesses from just this sort of destructive behaviour.

dps: Actually, you can choose to refuse service based on age, religion, sex or gender, both in the United States and in Canada (as well as every European legal system I know). It happens all the time; Women's health centers refuse to serve men, daycares refuse to host adults, churches refuse to marry homosexuals. While it's generally accepted (and good business practices) that you should have a good reason, it is perfectly legal to refuse service for whatever criteria you want, up to and including "he smells bad" and "she is Jewish". Unless you have a written or verbal contract promising something, no business is ever obligated to do anything for you. Ever. Not even then.

Now, some people will try to argue based on "verbal contracts", but unless they have explicit proof that a contract was in place (reliable, unbiased witnesses, etc), they will always lose. This was the very second thing we learned in Business Law, after how contracts work in the first place.

dps

2012-07-06, 10:11 PM

Businesses are not obligated to extend their services to everyone. A business owner can decline to make a sale to or otherwise serve a customer at any time, for any (or no) reason, provided that they have not entered into a contract. That's the law, and it's there to protect businesses from just this sort of destructive behaviour.

dps: Actually, you can choose to refuse service based on age, religion, sex or gender, both in the United States and in Canada (as well as every European legal system I know). It happens all the time; Women's health centers refuse to serve men, daycares refuse to host adults, churches refuse to marry homosexuals. While it's generally accepted (and good business practices) that you should have a good reason, it is perfectly legal to refuse service for whatever criteria you want, up to and including "he smells bad" and "she is Jewish". Unless you have a written or verbal contract promising something, no business is ever obligated to do anything for you. Ever. Not even then.

This isn't quite correct, at least in the U.S. Yes, there are some exceptions (which is why I used the term "generally" in my earlier post in this thread), but for the most part, you can't refuse service to someone based on their membership in a protected classification of people. Those protected classes are those based on race, gender, religion, etc. A discount department store simply can't legally refuse to sell its merchandise to blacks or Jews. On the other hand, any business can throw you out if you're drunk (even a bar--in fact, in most states, a bar legally isn't allowed to sell a drink to someone who is already obviously intoxicated).

MonkeyBusiness

2012-07-06, 10:33 PM

The Glyphstone

2012-07-06, 10:43 PM

If the world was as tolerant as that all around, it'd be a much better place.

The problem, though, and for this hypothetical discussion, is when the drooling adult (for whatever reason they might be drooling) is causing loss of business from less tolerant customers that it becomes - as mentioned above - a potential choice between refusing service to them or having to close/sell the business. It's not so easy to make that choice, or to condemn someone who does, when their livelihood and possibly that of their family, depends on said decision.

WarKitty

2012-07-06, 11:31 PM

SamBurke

2012-07-06, 11:42 PM

The restaurant ended up asking her not to come by anymore, and was willing to send her food straight to her door (I believe at no charge even). It was clear their business would go under if she continued to come. However, she started the process to sue them and it hit the news. That was the last I heard of it.

She's an idiot. Someone offered to send her food, to her door, delivery, whenever she wanted, FOR. FREE? and she sued them?

Seriously, woman. Hand. Feeding you. Don't bite it.

And almost literally.

As far as jurisdiction, it does give a huge amount of liberty to ownership.

The Glyphstone

2012-07-06, 11:42 PM

If it's in the U.S. it also depends on what state. Disability is a protected class in many areas, so it might not be issue-free for them to refuse service in this case.

There's also that, yeah.

Anxe

2012-07-07, 12:29 AM

It is discrimination, but from the description it was the legal kind. They made an honest effort to accommodate her. It was clear that they weren't discriminating based on the condition, but based on the effects of the condition. Since they were discriminating based on someone's actions, it is acceptable to say they can't come anymore. They also tried to do the moral thing as well and send her meals. I sympathize with her frustration as well. I feel she's accomplished the goal of her lawsuit, in drawing media attention to her condition. However, I don't think its going to change anything. She's nasty now and society doesn't want her out in public anymore.

As to the babies thing, we don't particularly want babies out at restaurants either... When I go out to eat there usually aren't babies at the restaurant.

GnomeFighter

2012-07-07, 02:49 AM

I dissagree with most of you. The business was wrong and by the sounds of it braking the law in the US. It would definatly be illigal in the UK. They refused her service due to a dissablility. Part of the service is to sit in the restaurant.

Put it this way, there are some people who would be offended because someone who was Middle eastern or black was eating in the restaurant. Would the owner be right to go up to this person and say "your upsetting our customers. How about we serve you where your not seen by others?". No, that would rightly be illigal. Moraly and, i think and hope, legaly, the owners were in the wrong. Or how about two men having a romantic meal together? Many people would be upset by that. Refusing someone service or giving them a lower level of srevice due to race, creed, dissability, sexuality etc is wrong.

She's an idiot. Someone offered to send her food, to her door, delivery, whenever she wanted, FOR. FREE? and she sued them?

Seriously, woman. Hand. Feeding you. Don't bite it.

If you can't understand why this woman sued and think it's nasty you clearly have never sufferd from discimination.

She was being told she was not wanted and she should not be seen in public. Do you have any idea what that is like? To feel you are being told your too discusting to be seen by others?

It is discrimination, but from the description it was the legal kind. They made an honest effort to accommodate her. It was clear that they weren't discriminating based on the condition, but based on the effects of the condition.
They didn't. They tryed to hide her and offer her a lower level of service, unless they were going to go to her house, lay a table, keep a waiter there to serve her, get drinks, etc and wash up.

To separate the condition from the effects of the condition is just a silly argument. On that basis shops have no obligations with wheelchair users. Can't get in to the shop because there is a step? Well we are not saying your not aloud in to the shop due to your dissability, but because that dissability means you use a wheelchair we are not letting you in!

dps: Actually, you can choose to refuse service based on age, religion, sex or gender, both in the United States and in Canada (as well as every European legal system I know). It happens all the time; Women's health centers refuse to serve men, daycares refuse to host adults, churches refuse to marry homosexuals. While it's generally accepted (and good business practices) that you should have a good reason, it is perfectly legal to refuse service for whatever criteria you want, up to and including "he smells bad" and "she is Jewish". Unless you have a written or verbal contract promising something, no business is ever obligated to do anything for you. Ever. Not even then.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong. In all discrimination law there is specific parts relating to having a good reason for refusel of service due to the examples you give. You must have a very good reason for this. A womens health center clearly offers specific services for women, but they could never say "sorry, your not white"

Now, some people will try to argue based on "verbal contracts", but unless they have explicit proof that a contract was in place (reliable, unbiased witnesses, etc), they will always lose. This was the very second thing we learned in Business Law, after how contracts work in the first place.
Verbal contracts are not that weak, and anyway a restaurant offering food is not a verbal contract. The menu is a written offer with terms and conditions a combination of what is on the menu and excepted practice.

a potential choice between refusing service to them or having to close/sell the business. It's not so easy to make that choice, or to condemn someone who does, when their livelihood and possibly that of their family, depends on said decision.

That is the same argument used by small businesses about minimum wage, health and safty and a raft of other rule, rules that were put in place because people can't be trusted to do the right thing. There are restaurants that make exactly the same argument about keeping food safe, or throwing away food past its sell by date. The answer is if you can't manage to run your business within the law get in to another business that dose not require you to serve the public, or employ people, or whatever. Again, back to the race issue. Would the loss of income from a black memeber of staff in some areas of the US make it ok to fire them, or because you had a racist regular who spent allot of money?

Sorry for the rant but the way people with dissabilitys are treated realy gets to me. Too often they have no voice but get treated in a way that if it was because of their race or sexuality would be roundly condemed.

The Glyphstone

2012-07-07, 08:05 AM

That is the same argument used by small businesses about minimum wage, health and safty and a raft of other rule, rules that were put in place because people can't be trusted to do the right thing. There are restaurants that make exactly the same argument about keeping food safe, or throwing away food past its sell by date. The answer is if you can't manage to run your business within the law get in to another business that dose not require you to serve the public, or employ people, or whatever. Again, back to the race issue. Would the loss of income from a black memeber of staff in some areas of the US make it ok to fire them, or because you had a racist regular who spent allot of money?
.

The point is that it's easy for you, and us, to condemn the people who made that decision because it's not us doing it. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do by any means - discrimination is discrimination, but can you honestly say (to use some hyperbole, because we know nothing of the situation) that in a choice between refusing service to one disabled customer and, maybe, losing the business you had owned, sending yourself and all your employees to the unemployment line in a miserable economy? Maybe you also employ family, and/or need your income to put a child through college or take care of an aging family member. What I'm saying is that we have no idea what circumstances were involved beyond the very vague 'customer was causing severe loss of business', and taking the moral high ground is easy from our padded internet armchairs; it could be likened to race, but it could also be compared to a severe alcoholic who always shows up drunk and causes a similar level of disruption - their ability to live without booze at that level of alcoholism is about as voluntary as a more typical physical disability, yet it becomes okay to refuse service to them instead.

Elemental

2012-07-07, 08:19 AM

I shall now speak from my padded Internet armchair.
In my opinion, there was no right or wrong answer. The diner did their best to ensure that it would not have been a problem by offering free delivery, but unfortunately, they offended her.
Should they have done what they did? It's iffy.
On one hand, it's discrimination. On the other hand, the business is likely to be their livelihood. But, I shall avoid repeating everyone else and merely state that there is no correct answer.

However, they should never let her in again after she brought legal action against them.
The whole thing's been blown out of proportion.

GnomeFighter

2012-07-07, 08:45 AM

The point is that it's easy for you, and us, to condemn the people who made that decision because it's not us doing it. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do by any means - discrimination is discrimination, but can you honestly say (to use some hyperbole, because we know nothing of the situation) that in a choice between refusing service to one disabled customer and, maybe, losing the business you had owned, sending yourself and all your employees to the unemployment line in a miserable economy? Maybe you also employ family, and/or need your income to put a child through college or take care of an aging family member. What I'm saying is that we have no idea what circumstances were involved beyond the very vague 'customer was causing severe loss of business', and taking the moral high ground is easy from our padded internet armchairs; it could be likened to race, but it could also be compared to a severe alcoholic who always shows up drunk and causes a similar level of disruption - their ability to live without booze at that level of alcoholism is about as voluntary as a more typical physical disability, yet it becomes okay to refuse service to them instead.
As someone with a dissability who has faced discrimination and refusal of service, no I'm not "taking the moral high ground is easy from our padded internet armchairs". This effects me in a very real way.

The comarison too an alcoholic is nonsense. An alcoholic has made a choice, and it is not a dissability, and more than a smoker can complain about banning smoking in public places. And as someone who used to smoke 40 a day I know how difficult it is to stop an addiction, but the two are not comparable. You cannot chose to stop being dissabled, no matter how hard you try. You can stop an addiction, with enough willpower and the right help. Any ex addict will tell you that they can stop. It may be difficult but the ones who don't are the ones who won't accept that the choice is there, the ones who don't accept that it is down to them. The two are in no way comparable, and the laws all around the world recognise that.

Brakeing the law and discriminating against people is not excused by the poor argument of "I'm just trying to support my family". How would you feel if because of something about you, your hair, glasses, eye colour, or whatever, shop after shop refused to let you shop there? To me there is no difficult choice. The laws say you cannot discriminat, and the moral choice is clear to me. Don't want someone with a dissability in your shop? Like I said it is exactly the same argument people use for serving spoilt food or not giving people propper safty gear.

I guess you have never faced discrimination, and until you do you will never know the utter humiliation and pain it causes. The fact that this discussion is even being had shows how far we have to go for people with dissabilitys to get fair treatment. If they had asked someone to sit away from the window, never mind not come in, because of there race, there would be no question and no argument about the owners choice.

There we go

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990

Title 3, Without question, what we are talking about is illigal, under a 22 year old law.

"no individual may be discriminated against on the basis of disability with regards to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, or accommodations of any place of ...dining,"

The key bit being full and equal.

The Glyphstone

2012-07-07, 09:01 AM

You're still avoiding the issue, that regardless of our own personal experiences, we have no right to condemn these people if we have not been put in a Morton's Fork (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morton%27s_fork) of our own. Yes, you can empathize with the person because you are also disabled. But I'm guessing as well that you have never been faced with the choice of helping a stranger or ensuring your continued livelihood - say, permanently surrendering whatever disability-related financial aid you receive and giving it to someone else? I've never been discriminated against, but I've also never been in a position where I had to make that choice, because I'm self-aware and honest enough to realize that it's easy to say 'Oh, I'd do the right thing' right up until it becomes a decision between not discriminating and seeing my son go to college. People do bad things out of necessity. This does not make them bad people.

tensai_oni

2012-07-07, 09:11 AM

In that case, do we likewise have no right to condemn those who refuse service to black people, because their clientele is racist and would stop coming then? Or women? Or Jews?

The Glyphstone

2012-07-07, 09:18 AM

In that case, do we likewise have no right to condemn those who refuse service to black people, because their clientele is racist and would stop coming then? Or women? Or Jews?

Can you describe a situation where it would be a choice between refusing one specific black person, or one specific woman, or one specific Jew (and how would you even recognize a Jewish person on sight if they weren't wearing those special hats?), and losing an entire population of customers? In no case was this a case of 'we don't serve those with disabilities', the original argument was related to a specific person whose disability-caused eating habits were driving away so much business that the alternative was closing their doors.

She later on developed a physical condition so bad that when she ate food would go everywhere, she was basically drooling the food on the table, and it was disgusting to the other costumers (Maybe even unsanitary?).

tensai_oni

2012-07-07, 09:25 AM

No, I cannot. However, the assumption that if the restaurant refused service to this one particular woman, it would be forced to close its doors, is also only an assumption. All that was said is other customers were disgusted. Some of them. Not all. The silent majority rule applies - when one or two people complain, it suddenly becomes a problem even if twenty people do not mind and stay silent.

So until proof is provided, I refuse to believe the restaurant would close down. And thus its owner had an option between:
-continuing to serve the woman and MAYBE hurt their income as some customers leave
-refuse service and break the law by doing so

This is no longer a Morton's Fork scenario. The odds are stacked too much.

Raddish

2012-07-07, 09:30 AM

It does say it was clear that the business would go under if they continued to come. I don't know but it seems to imply it's more than a baseless assumption.

tensai_oni

2012-07-07, 09:32 AM

My bad. I missed that sentence.

However, there is still the law thing. It is against the law to refuse service based on disability. So tough may it be, it is still the correct thing to do to let the woman come and serve her as she wishes.

Also, this is not a hypothetical scenario where there are only two options and nothing else is available. This is the real life, and there is always a third way. Such as seperating each table from the others with some kind of screens, to provide more privacy for everyone.

The Glyphstone

2012-07-07, 09:40 AM

Serving the woman would 100% undoubtedly be the legally correct thing to do, yes. They broke the law by refusing her, she exercised her legal right in return (even if it was rather douchey, considering they had tried to compensate by giving her what sounds like unlimited free food with delivery service) by suing their pants off. The moral question is where it gets more complicated though - we know who would be hurt by one decision (the customer), we don't know who would be hurt by the other decision (the restaurant owner, an unknown number of employees, the possible families of all of the above?)

From a position of hindsight, it's obvious that they could have taken a third option of some kind - I'm just saying it's not fair for us to denounce these people as evil, disabled-hating monsters when we both don't know all the details and have never been forced into such a no-win situation ourselves.

tensai_oni

2012-07-07, 09:47 AM

You are exaggerating. We are not denouncing anyone as heartless monsters, only stating that what they did was wrong. You are right that even decent people make bad decisions. But the fact they are decent does not make their decision not bad.

The Glyphstone

2012-07-07, 09:56 AM

Themrys

2012-07-07, 10:02 AM

In that case, do we likewise have no right to condemn those who refuse service to black people, because their clientele is racist and would stop coming then? Or women? Or Jews?

You cannot compare that. Today, most white men aren't offended if there are black people or women present, so there would be not much money lost if, say, some sexist or racist people wouldn't go to the restaurant any more. There would be enough other customers to make up for that.

Of course, in today's society, we all assume that almost everyone is tolerant and no one is discriminated against. But it could well be that this is not the case with disabled people who are a bit "disgusting". I don't know whether the restaurant owner waited whether a large number of customers were complaining or staying away. I don't know whether the business was hurt so severe that jobs were in danger. Therefore, I can't really say whether it was an understandable decision.

The right decision would have been to tell complaining customers that this woman is a regular customer and that it would be incredibly rude to ask her to leave just because she has a disability. But most people are no saints, and won't sacrifice their livelihood for principles. I do not feel entitled to condemn others for something I might do likewise if I were in their situation.

MonkeyBusiness

2012-07-07, 11:46 AM

I agree with Gnomefighter.

The whole point to eating out is the social experience. To offer to send food to a person so she can stay isolated in her apartment because people feel it's too hard for them to look at her, is not trying to cooperate or compromise.

It is wrong as well as illegal to refuse someone service because "some of our customers are uncomfortable with you". Too often a person does not fight back against this sort ofnonsense, because she is ashamed, or because she is tired of always having to fight. So I think this woman deserves admiration for her courage in standing up for herself.

.

Anxe

2012-07-07, 11:47 AM

EDIT: Looking back at this post, it fell too closely to "professional legal advice." It was a response to Gnome Fighter referencing a different part of Title 3 in the Disabilities Act that supported the business refusing service. I probably don't have the proper training to make a real call on this. The interpretation probably does depend on how good each side's lawyer is. Gnome Fighter has already linked the wiki article which also contains lots of links to the text of the actual Act. You can check it out for yourself and make up your own mind.

Asta Kask

2012-07-07, 11:52 AM

I agree with Gnomefighter.

The whole point to eating out is the social experience. To offer to send food to a person so she can stay isolated in her apartment because people feel it's too hard for them to look at her, is not trying to cooperate or compromise.

It is wrong as well as illegal to refuse someone service because "some of our customers are uncomfortable with you". Too often a person does not fight back against this sort ofnonsense, because she is ashamed, or because she is tired of always having to fight. So I think this woman deserves admiration for her courage in standing up for herself.

.

And if the restaurant has to close due to this, will you and Gnomefighter pay the family's bills? In a more direct way than through your taxes, I mean.

tensai_oni

2012-07-07, 02:28 PM

And if the restaurant has to close due to this, will you and Gnomefighter pay the family's bills? In a more direct way than through your taxes, I mean.

Resorting to ad hominem? How charming.

thubby

2012-07-07, 03:34 PM

the case law is complex and spotty.
restaurants are licensed in the US, and as such have to meet certain criterion, some of which include having handicap accommodations.

groups like the AOH (christian irish men's club), are legally distinct from a restaurant and are in premise not open to the public.

honestly, i dont fault the owner. he's just trying to protect his business and livelihood.

Asta Kask

2012-07-07, 03:38 PM

Resorting to ad hominem? How charming.

It's not an ad hominem because I'm a) not attacking them, and b) I'm not making an argument here.

This is getting too political for me. I shouldn't have posted in the first place.

Anarion

2012-07-07, 04:52 PM

Regardless of right or wrong, the woman's case is almost unwinnable unless somebody wrote down in official records that they asked her to leave because she was disabled.

The blackletter rule in most states is that you have the right to refuse someone service for no reason, you just don't have the right to refuse them service for a prohibited reason.

The actual doctrine for how to differentiate is basically a mess, but in this case would look something like the following (not actually done in order, just the order that it's analyzed)
1. The woman suing has to establish a prima facie case.
That would probably mean saying that she was a member of a protected class (disabled people) and that she was treated differently from members of the unprotected class
2. The manager has a chance to rebut the accusation by saying that he either had no reason or had a reason that was not a prohibited reason. Losing business is an acceptable reason, so is disliking somebody's face or clothes (unless you have a pattern of doing so for a protected class), and so is saying you had no reason and just felt like it.
3. The woman would need to put forward some further evidence demonstrating discrimination. This could be an e-mail or a witness that heard the management comment about disabled people, or maybe a record of several customers complaining they didn't want to eat with someone with a disability.
4a. If the woman's follow-up evidence isn't enough, the restaurant wins
4b. If the woman's follow-up evidence is enough, the restaurant still might get another round to present it's own evidence explaining why her evidence is wrong.

Again, although I numbered that, in practice everyone just submits everything they have at once and then a judge goes through and sorts it out based on how I just organized it.

This has been today's lesson in U.S. civil procedure. For the long version, be aware that the Supreme Court has hit this problem 5 different times and they still can't agree on how you're actually supposed to prove these cases in full detail.

dps

2012-07-07, 05:17 PM

I agree with Gnomefighter.

The whole point to eating out is the social experience. To offer to send food to a person so she can stay isolated in her apartment because people feel it's too hard for them to look at her, is not trying to cooperate or compromise.

For most people nowdays, I'd say that 95% of the times we eat out, it's not for the social experience, it's for the convenience.

It is wrong as well as illegal to refuse someone service because "some of our customers are uncomfortable with you". Too often a person does not fight back against this sort ofnonsense, because she is ashamed, or because she is tired of always having to fight. So I think this woman deserves admiration for her courage in standing up for herself.
.

Legally, discrimination based on disabilities is different that discrimination based on most other classifications. Take race, for example. With some rare exceptions, it's just flatly illegal to discriminate in hiring or in serving the public based on race. But discrimination based on disabilities isn't flatly illegal under U.S. federal law; rather, businesses are require to make "reasonable accomodation" to persons with disabilities, and it's legal to discriminate based on disabilities for which reasonable accomodations can't be made. And unfortunately, the law is very vague on just what accomodations are "reasonable", and there's not a whole lot of case law yet--the Americans With Disabilities Act is a fairly new law. Also, not all medical conditions are defined as disabilities under the ADA, so people with medical conditions that aren't defined as disabilities aren't protected by its provisions.

MonkeyBusiness

2012-07-07, 08:38 PM

Hm. This conversation is fascinating. I've learned a lot particularly from Anarion and dps. Interesting stuff.

There is one thing I'd like to say. Before I say it I'd like to preface it with a request that this that, when you read it you imagine me saying it in a friendly tone, not an accusing tone. Also not a bragging tone. Okay? Is that possible? I hope so because here I go ...

So one thing that bothers me is this: there's been a challenge (at least that is how it feels to me) issued that only someone who has walked in the penny loafers of the business owners has any business criticising the business owners. Well, I don't think that's true at all. But setting that aside ... if we do accept only another business owner in this dilemma has the proper perspective to expound, well then I do have that perspective. My moniker is "Monkey Business" for a reason.

I was once told by a customer that I had "too many gays" in my store, and that was a "bad idea", since I also had a lot of children there. He felt my gay customers were a "potential threat". The customer spent lots of time and money in my store. I told him his idea was ridiculous that I had no intention of making gay people feeling less welcome just because he was a bigot. When he continued to try to persuade me, I told him he was wasting his time, and he'd be happier shopping at another store. I even named two alternatives for him. He shut up. But I could tell he was angry that I didn't comply, and eventually he did go elsewhere.

I did lose some significant business there. On the other hand, although what I said was not public knowledge, and certainly not part of a design on my part, I did notice that my business slowly gained new customers from the GLBT community. I was proud of that. And in the long run it balanced any business lost from Mr Soandso.

I had to do this kind of thing quite often. I was shocked at how bigoted people can be, and how they tried to manipulate me with their money. Some customers did not want to deal with transexuals. Others didn't like women. One objected to the presence of a person who had survived a traumatic accident and was badly maimed. In every case, the complaining customer wanted me to "fix it" so that contact with someone they didn't like could be minimized or eliminated.

My response was generally to point at the front door and say, "You won't have to deal with that person at all if you step outside that door."

But what was almost as offensive as the bigotry was the implied control these bigots assumed they had over me. They seemed to think that because they spent money at my place, I was somehow dependent on them. Or that I owed them something. And that was revolting.

People go into business for themselves for many reasons, but one of the big ones is the idea that "no one can tell you what to do" and that "you'll be your own boss".

What a joke. The truth is, the moment you open up shop, every ding-dong that crosses the threshold tries to tell you what to do. A few have real pull (like the IRS or the landlord) but most of them are talking out of their butts.

The situation the restaraunt owners are in is unenviable, I admit that. But I have little sympathy for them. Part of that is my personal feeling that the lack of compassion here is reprehensible. But part of it is also that they (evidently) are portraying themselves as the perpetual victims: beset on one side by the Charybdis of a woman who is suing them, and on the other by the Scylla of judgemental customers"forcing" their hand. The idea that the owners are helpless in the face of the wills of the customers is suspect to me, as well as pathetic.

My experience is this: if you sell something people want to buy, they will buy it. From time to time every business loses customers. In my experience, if you err on the side of tolerance, one tends to gain customers in the long run. It has to do with the reputation and the atmosphere you build around your business.

I have more to say about this, but frankly I am tired. I spent a lot of time thinking about my response. I wanted to respect people here, but also respect people who are (or have been) associated with my business, and not reveal anything personal.

Meanwhile, may I ask that we try to talk to each other here with a tad more compassion, and give each other the benefit of the doubt? The debate seems to be heating up, and I don't think we want it to feel in our beloved forum the way it must have felt in that restaraunt.

-Monkey

.

Anxe

2012-07-07, 09:19 PM

I wish every primate was as tactful as you.

The Glyphstone

2012-07-07, 09:21 PM

The situation the restaraunt owners are in is unenviable, I admit that. But I have little sympathy for them. Part of that is my personal feeling that the lack of compassion here is reprehensible. But part of it is also that they (evidently) are portraying themselves as the perpetual victims: beset on one side by the Charybdis of a woman who is suing them, and on the other by the Scylla of judgemental customers"forcing" their hand. The idea that the owners are helpless in the face of the wills of the customers is suspect to me, as well as pathetic.

I think you're already misunderstanding the situation that was presented to us, or misreading it. This wasn't a case of bigoted customers saying "kick her out or we leave" - by the implications, they may have already tried that and were refused. They had kept this woman as a loyal customer, despite her worsening condition, until it reached a point where retaining her business and taking the moral high ground meant that they would lose the restaurant. You're accusing the pro-restaurant arguers here of a 'reprehensible lack of compassion', but it's equally fair to say that you are displaying a reprehensible lack of compassion for the restaurant owners; this wasn't a Scylla and Charbydis of 'lawsuit' vs 'customers', it was a choice between doing the ethical thing and having a livelihood.

That's the 'you can't judge a person till you've walked in their shoes' argument you're percieving...it's not that you have to be a business owner, but that you have to be put in a situation where there is no 'right' answer, only varying degrees of wrong. While you may have been a business owner, it doesn't sound like your business was ever at the point where you had to decide between sticking to your principles and closing up shop.

Moreso, you (and some other people) are assuming that there is only bigotry involved here at all...undoubtedly some of the people who left were bigots, because they exist everywhere, but by the description in the OP, I wouldn't blame anyone within line of sight of the woman in question to have simply lost their appetite through nothing more than physiological reaction. And there's no point in going out to eat in a place where you can't actually eat your food, regardless of how compassionate you are towards the disabled, so you're going to eat elsewhere.

tensai_oni

2012-07-07, 09:27 PM

The Glyphstone

2012-07-07, 09:31 PM

But Glyphstone, if you lose appetite at the sight of a person struggling with their food and know (or strongly suspect) that the person has a disability that makes this act difficult for them - then you are a bigot.

You don't need to believe all people with disabilities should just disappear off your life to be prejudiced against them, just like you do not have to believe all women have to stay in the kitchen to be a misogynist. There are subtler forms of intolerance, and that subtlety is what makes them harder to notice and eliminate. And the worst part is that even when well-meaning, you can still exhibit them - and not even notice them.

That's like saying your bigoted against people who get in car accidents because seeing a thirty-car pileup with dismembered body parts everywhere makes you throw up.:smallconfused: The strength of your stomach/gag reflex/tolerance for things that could cause nausea or loss of appetite is in no way connected to bigotry or lack thereof.

tensai_oni

2012-07-07, 09:33 PM

There is a difference in scale. If a person has problem eating and makes a mess, then disliking this also means (an example already given in this thread) that you should also dislike when people bring their little children to restaurant and have them make a mess. And hell, accidents happen for even ordinary people - everyone can make a mess or otherwise do something distasteful they did not intend to do every once in a while. It doesn't mean they should be refused service.

KnightDisciple

2012-07-07, 09:36 PM

That's like saying your bigoted against people who get in car accidents because seeing a thirty-car pileup with dismembered body parts everywhere makes you throw up.:smallconfused: The strength of your stomach/gag reflex/tolerance for things that could cause nausea or loss of appetite is in no way connected to bigotry or lack thereof.

This is a salient point. It sounds like some people were just having a bad reaction to the sight. Does that sound terrible? Yes. Is it something they totally consciously control? Not really. When eating, some people (myself included) can be more susceptible to being "grossed out", and it's not really pleasant (especially if I've dropped a fair bit of money on it).

Considering we're getting this story second-hand, it's difficult to say what exactly the visuals were like, what their typical customer traffic was, and so forth. Honestly I'd like some links to the actual story.

EDIT: Tensai, it really depends on the scale of how obvious the mess was.

That said, I don't really like it when people bring small, fussy children to a sit-down restaurant. It does sort of lessen my enjoyment of the meal if there are 3-year-olds constantly whining and screaming 3 tables away. Kind of hurts conversation, among other things.

The Glyphstone

2012-07-07, 09:42 PM

This is a salient point. It sounds like some people were just having a bad reaction to the sight. Does that sound terrible? Yes. Is it something they totally consciously control? Not really. When eating, some people (myself included) can be more susceptible to being "grossed out", and it's not really pleasant (especially if I've dropped a fair bit of money on it).

Considering we're getting this story second-hand, it's difficult to say what exactly the visuals were like, what their typical customer traffic was, and so forth. Honestly I'd like some links to the actual story.

Considering it happened at least a year ago by Pika's rememberance, or possibly more, that could be difficult. My google searches are turning up nothing.

EDIT: Tensai, it really depends on the scale of how obvious the mess was.

That said, I don't really like it when people bring small, fussy children to a sit-down restaurant. It does sort of lessen my enjoyment of the meal if there are 3-year-olds constantly whining and screaming 3 tables away. Kind of hurts conversation, among other things.

It's quite off-topic, but I'm also of the opinion that a family should not bring children out to eat if said children can't behave themselves - there's a reason babysitters were invented. That really doesn't have anything to do with this topic, though.

Worira

2012-07-07, 09:46 PM

And hell, accidents happen for even ordinary people - everyone can make a mess or otherwise do something distasteful they did not intend to do every once in a while. It doesn't mean they should be refused service.

There is a difference in scale.

Are you really not seeing the irony here?

The Glyphstone

2012-07-07, 09:47 PM

Are you really not seeing the irony here?

...TBH, I'm not seeing the irony here, and I'm arguing against him.

KnightDisciple

2012-07-07, 09:49 PM

Considering it happened at least a year ago by Pika's rememberance, or possibly more, that could be difficult. My google searches are turning up nothing. Well bother.
Because right now we're going on heresay and opinion, and no hard facts. Though I suppose at this point it's more a general discussion.

It's quite off-topic, but I'm also of the opinion that a family should not bring children out to eat if said children can't behave themselves - there's a reason babysitters were invented. That really doesn't have anything to do with this topic, though.
I dunno. I'd personally say a restaurant would be entirely justified in politely requesting a family with disruptive children take their food to go and leave because they're disrupting other people, and add on a request to not bring their disruptive children back.

Different cause, but same general idea, isn't it?

The Glyphstone

2012-07-07, 09:54 PM

Well bother.
Because right now we're going on heresay and opinion, and no hard facts. Though I suppose at this point it's more a general discussion.

I dunno. I'd personally say a restaurant would be entirely justified in politely requesting a family with disruptive children take their food to go and leave because they're disrupting other people, and add on a request to not bring their disruptive children back.

Different cause, but same general idea, isn't it?

A better analogy might be if the family kept coming back, over and over, with their kids and the kids where loud and disruptive every single time, or getting more disruptive every time they visited.

EDIT: To be honest, I'm amazed neither side has tried to back up its arguments with references to the slippery slope fallacy, though they are inevitable. Can we just bring on the Hitler comparisons and get this over with, before the so-far-polite debate starts losing its civility?

Worira

2012-07-07, 09:57 PM

...TBH, I'm not seeing the irony here, and I'm arguing against him.

The irony is in rejecting your example based on a difference in scale, and then immediately turning around and presenting an example which differs in scale.

EDIT:

EDIT: To be honest, I'm amazed neither side has tried to back up its arguments with references to the slippery slope fallacy, though they are inevitable. Can we just bring on the Hitler comparisons and get this over with, before the so-far-polite debate starts losing its civility?

YOU KNOW WHO ELSE USED SLIPPERY SLOPE FALLACIES? HITLER

Fiery Diamond

2012-07-07, 11:07 PM

TheThan

2012-07-07, 11:20 PM

Anecdote time!

I was talking to my folks one time about an interesting situation that happened to them.

My mother went to a salon to get a haircut. While she was waiting for her turn (this is the sort of place where you sign in and wait), another woman came in with a tenish year old son. This kid was wearing a shirt that was well, profane and offensive to pretty much everyone else waiting in line (I never found out what was actually on the shirt). One of the other customers, and older gentleman stood up and complained to the woman about the shirt her son was wearing. She promptly refused him (and got a bit mean herself about it). So then this gentleman talked to the owner about it.

The owner of the store, refused to have her and her son removed from the establishment, despite it clearly upsetting multiple other customers. The result was that several (my folks, the older gentleman, his wife and two or three other people), straight up left the salon without getting their hair cut.
So because this business refused to remove (and by extension refuse service to) a single customer that was offending other customers, they actually lost more business than they could have by removing the person causing the problem.

/Anecdote

so considering this situation, this businessman refused to refuse service to a single customer, the outcome of which, he lost more customers and therefore more money. He was clearly OK with this situation.

In my mind there is no real difference between this anecdote and the OP's situation. One customer was refused service because it was causing the business to lose other customers. Since you pay per order, a single family of four brings in about 4 times the revenue of a single customer. So with this in mind, i can see how a restaurant business could stand to lose a lot of revenue due to this situation, if say, two or three family threaten to walk out (or actually do).

on the other hand, I clearly see the disabled person's point of view. She clearly believes she was wronged, and is seeking recompense. Despite the restaurants' efforts to accommodate her in as reasonable a fashion as they could muster.

I do not believe this restaurant was being discriminatory, there was a customer that was causing the business to lose customers, and they took steps to remove that customer in as a discrete and accommodating manner as they could come up with. If this business has had a history of removing disabled people, then i would be more willing to "call them on it" as it were.

WarKitty

2012-07-07, 11:39 PM

*snip*

The difference to my mind is that the kid could have chosen to not wear that shirt, and could have come back the next day wearing a different shirt, and would have been served. The woman could not choose to not be disabled in this way, and she couldn't come back later.

TheThan

2012-07-07, 11:46 PM

edit: forgot qoute:

The difference to my mind is that the kid could have chosen to not wear that shirt, and could have come back the next day wearing a different shirt, and would have been served. The woman could not choose to not be disabled in this way, and she couldn't come back later.

By that reckoning, this woman could have chosen to not eat at that restaurant that day, and not have been removed for causing others to leave (even if she didn't mean to).

What could have happened doesn't really matter. What happened does. in both cases, someone one was causing a problem for other people. In one that person was removed, in the other that person was not.

People are not put on trail for a what they could have chosen to do (commit a crime). They are put on trial for what they chose to do (commit a crime). then the court decides if that person is guilty or innocent and dishes out an appropriate punishment (if any).

additional edit: I case I wasn't clear, in the anecdote I presented, the customer causing the disruption was served, and the people that were offended left, causing the business to lose those customers.

mangosta71

2012-07-07, 11:58 PM

Typically, "accommodation" refers to access ramps and parking so that disabled individuals can enter the place of business. It often includes restroom stalls with the little bars that help them get up and down.

In this case, she can't be suing for refusal of service because the restaurant notably did not refuse to serve her. They offered to take her food to her home (free of charge!) so that she could eat it there. If that's not reasonable accommodation, I don't know what is.

WarKitty

2012-07-08, 12:04 AM

edit: forgot qoute:

By that reckoning, this woman could have chosen to not eat at that restaurant that day, and not have been removed for causing others to leave (even if she didn't mean to).

What could have happened doesn't really matter. What happened does. in both cases, someone one was causing a problem for other people. In one that person was removed, in the other that person was not.

People are not put on trail for a what they could have chosen to do (commit a crime). They are put on trial for what they chose to do (commit a crime). then the court decides if that person is guilty or innocent and dishes out an appropriate punishment (if any).

additional edit: I case I wasn't clear, in the anecdote I presented, the customer causing the disruption was served, and the people that were offended left, causing the business to lose those customers.

The point there is choice. In the shirt example, the young man is choosing to take an action that will likely restrict his participation in the public sphere. If he's upset about the consequences, he can choose not to do that again. But the woman isn't choosing to do anything that would restrict her access and interaction with society.

Sorry, but I do think intent matters immensely to morality. I understand the businessman's dilemma, but I think there's a vast difference between refusing someone based on an offensive shirt and based on a disability. I think we are obligated to try to make everyone able to participate in the normal activities of life as much as we can, as a basic principle of justice.

I don't know what the right thing for the restaurant owner would have been. I do think the customers who complained were doing something wrong - if they were having trouble, the proper thing to do would have been to ask for their food to go or choose a different time to eat.

Edit: Disability accommodation is actually a fairly complicated and somewhat tricky field. A lot of places will use "but we put in a ramp!" as an excuse to ignore anything else - even though that type of mobility impairment comprises only a small part of the range of disability. It's not that simple, and there's a lot of both legal and moral issues around it.

Jayngfet

2012-07-08, 12:31 AM

There is no combination of moves that end with her eating in that restaurant. You have to remember that if she ate there enough in her condition it might put enough people off to get the place closed down. If it closes down she can't eat anyway.

The problem is that by trying to stay not only could she not eat there, she's depriving everyone else of a dining experience for the rest of their lives. If being in the restaurant itself was so important to her then she should probably be caring about what happens to everyone else inside of it.

It'd be great if she could just eat there without problem but the reality of the situation is that involves changing how every single person in the restaurant thinks on an instinctual level. Maybe there SHOULD be change but such a change would take far longer than a local business had.

Starwulf

2012-07-08, 12:42 AM

I wish Pika would come back to this thread so we could at least figure out what city this took place in, or perhaps even a link to an actual article written about this(which surely there must be one somewhere, I can't imagine this going without at least major regional notice). I'd really like to get some more facts on the whole situation.

TheSummoner

2012-07-08, 01:04 AM

EDIT: To be honest, I'm amazed neither side has tried to back up its arguments with references to the slippery slope fallacy, though they are inevitable. Can we just bring on the Hitler comparisons and get this over with, before the so-far-polite debate starts losing its civility?

Ok, so what about this... What if it had been HITLER who was eating in the restaurant and the other customers were offended because... You know, he's Hitler, and...

What? You asked...

Sorry, couldn't resist. Serious time though. I don't see how what the restaurant owner did was discrimination. Discrimination is treating someone differently based on their memership (actual or believed) in a certain group or category. Does anyone disagree with that definition?

So... For example, lets say there's a man whose racist against black people. He's a bigot. He treats black people worse than other people based on the fact that they are black. However, he doesn't treat some black people good and some black people bad. He discriminates against them based on race, and based on race, he treats them worse than others.

The restaurant didn't ask her to leave because of her disability. They asked her to leave because she was disturbing other customers. Because what she was doing, regardless of the cause of it, was negatively impacting the other people in the restaurant and harming business. They weren't going up to every person in a wheelchair or every blind person and telling them they weren't welcome, they were talking to one specific person who was causing a problem in the restaurant. I don't blame them at all for asking her to leave given the situation.

Anarion

2012-07-08, 01:21 AM

The restaurant didn't ask her to leave because of her disability.

This is the heart of the issue though. If a person can't eat in any other way because of the disability, then is asking her to leave because of her disturbing way of eating the same as asking her to leave because of her disability?

Now, personally, I think it's not, or that it doesn't matter and I would ask her to leave anyway, relying on the fact that you can ask someone to leave for no reason if you want. It's a physical reaction that was upsetting other customers due to their gag reflex, not any kind of discrimination. But I'm also not terribly sympathetic to disabilities when people try to act like they don't have them. I think that people with serious disfigurements, weeping wounds, or similar things that cause others distress should do their best to hide such disabilities, rather than expect to be treated normally when some aspect of their selves is physically distressing to others.

But my opinion is not universal, and there's a strong counterargument that many people don't have a choice about what happens to them and that asking them to hide from society is cruel and unjust.

TheSummoner

2012-07-08, 01:27 AM

This is the heart of the issue though. If a person can't eat in any other way because of the disability, then is asking her to leave because of her disturbing way of eating the same as asking her to leave because of her disability?

The two are linked, but I wouldn't say they are the same. Again, the reason they wanted her gone was because her way of eating was disturbing to the other customers, not because she had a disability.

Had it been, say, an electronics store or a movie rental place, with the exact same people involved (her, the owners, the other customers), then it wouldn't have been in issue at all. It was specifically because of the way she ate, and not the disability itself, even if the way she ate was caused by the disability.

dehro

2012-07-08, 07:23 AM

For most people nowdays, I'd say that 95% of the times we eat out, it's not for the social experience, it's for the convenience.

the convenience of paying 3-10 times more for the dish than if you made it yourself just so you don't have to run the dishwasher?:smallconfused:

snip

is it wrong that in my mind I now picture you running a shop where you sell sex toys?.. it would make the so called bigots' stance all the more ridiculous..but be slightly awkward since you mentioned children

This is a salient point. It sounds like some people were just having a bad reaction to the sight. Does that sound terrible? Yes. Is it something they totally consciously control? Not really. When eating, some people (myself included) can be more susceptible to being "grossed out", and it's not really pleasant (especially if I've dropped a fair bit of money on it). .
about the being grossed out by other people's eating habits. I do not intend to offend anyone, yourself included, but seriously..that is no argument at all. in any eating place something might go wrong and someone might have to spit out a bite of food, or splutter it all over himself in a fit of laugher or any such thing that might gross out someone. If someone is grossed out by someone else's eating habits, from experience, the issue more often than not, lies with the first individual, not with the latter.
Do my eating habits disgust you? if I'm being uncivilized and deliberately disruptive and obnoxious, by all means, call the manager.. if I can't help it because I'm disabled, do yourself a favour and look away.. really that's all it takes.

Of course we know less than nothing about this whole case, but the way it is presented reeks to me of the business owners not being completely honest in stating their case. I find it very hard to believe that the eating habits of one single individual would disrupt normal service in such a way as to cause a notable dip in profits. For one thing, it is reasonable to assume that the majority of their customers never get to see the woman or notice her.
1) people tend to focus on their table, their conversations and their plate.
2) most people who do notice something wrong at another table may stare a little or look away, but generally won't make an issue of it.
3) most people would be at the diner at times different from this particular customer.. I'm guessing here..but I don't think she'd go to the place at opening time and sit through the entire service, from lunch to dinner, eating at a snails pace... it doesn't sound plausible, even allowing for disabilities severe enough to create the problem but not enough to leave her homebound and free of a caretaker's presence.
Also, most places have at least one or two tables that are a bit more secluded/hidden from view. I find it hard to believe that this woman on her own could disgust an entire diner full of guests...unless they had her sit at the window near the entrance.
In other words, I find it very hard to believe it could really cause a substantial loss of business.. to the point that they would be in a situation where either they chose to serve their faithful client or they lose the business.

It smells to me like they're brought on the brink of foreclosure (if the place really is doing badly and it's not a cheap excuse) by other problems, the credit crunch, wrong business practices, bad financial planning or something else, and are taking it out a little on this particular case who may at most cost them a few tables worth of diners. If a business like this cannot survive losing a few customers amongst many, it's got bigger issues than a messy eater. If the business doesn't have many customers and can't afford to lose them..maybe it's time to consider other avenues of employment... or a strategic rethink of what you're doing...I'm told Gordom Ramsay does these things for free.. call him up.

as for the solution they devised.. much would depend on how they handled it...and the nature of the disability.
if the disability impaired movement (that is, other than, say, giving the woman a reduced control over her jaw), and they introduced it as a special service so that she doesn't have to go through all the trouble of getting to the place in the first place, then she might have bought it... provided of course this outing wasn't an integral part of her daily routine and the only social event in her life (something the owners would know, what with her being a long time regular). If they went straight out and told her she wasn't really welcome anymore because of drooling and told her they'd bring the food to her..then she has a right to be insulted and seek reparations more so than if they'd played it out differently. The substantial discrimination would still be there in the first case..but it would have had a different outcome..

How it all went down is really important because it would establish another circumstance; namely whether for instance they offered to take the food to hers, she refused and THEN they refused her service.. In this case, they're definitely guilty of something because she has as much right to be served as anybody. (on the surface.. I am not familiar with US law system)
If they only hinted at the possibility and without going into details as to why and she jumped on the wagon and started thinking about suing..well.. I don't live in a lawsuit-happy country like the US.. so it's harder for me to relate.
Most often when discrimination occurs in one place, I don't go back to it..at most taking the time to actually tell them why they just lost a customer. Ultimately, most people do this where I'm from, and the place eventually is likely to close down for lack of business.

Whiffet

2012-07-08, 11:05 AM

It sounds like this woman was a regular customer. It's also worth pointing out that it's much easier to ignore someone who does something gross for one bite than someone who is gross throughout the entire meal, and many people eat meals at similar times so it's likely the same people saw her there more than once.

With that in mind, I'd like to ask everyone something. Suppose you go to a restaurant several times, and you repeatedly see one person who disgusts you with her eating habits. At first you try to ignore her, but she continues eating this way and you find it increasingly difficult to think about anything else. Could you just go at a different time? That might be viable if you go for dinner, but people have schedules. Sometimes they have to eat at certain times because of their obligations. Even if people have flexible schedules, they're still used to having their meals at certain times. I can't speak for everyone, but if I try to deviate from my meal schedule my body protests. It says "Hey, I'm not hungry yet! Wait another hour and a half!" or "OH MY GOODNESS I AM SO HUNGRY EAT SOMETHING NOW."

Maybe you wouldn't consider this enough reason to stop going to the restaurant, but isn't it possible that enough people would? Enough people to put the restaurant in trouble, especially if the woman tended to show up at peak times? That's all it takes.

Asta Kask

2012-07-08, 11:24 AM

If it's someone with Tourettes who feels compelled to yell the n-word repeatedly, would that be the same situation?

What about someone who has an early frontal dementia and and paws any woman who comes close to him? And the opposite for women with frontal dementia?

Believe me, I can come up with worse disabilities than that.

dps

2012-07-08, 12:39 PM

the convenience of paying 3-10 times more for the dish than if you made it yourself just so you don't have to run the dishwasher?:smallconfused:

More the convenience of, after having worked all day, not having to spend time cooking before you can eat. Or, on your lunch break, being able to get a hot meal when you don't have time to go home, cook something, eat it, and get back to work on time.

Of course, when you're going to an expensive restaurant, it probably is for the social experience. But most people eat out more frequently at fast food places than at nice places, and I don't think anyone over 10 eats out at a fast food place for the social experience.

AtlanteanTroll

2012-07-08, 12:46 PM

snip

Babies get banned from businesses all the time. In some countries they aren't allowed in first class in planes, so I'm not sure your point actually stands as well as you would hope.

dehro

2012-07-08, 01:21 PM

@dps
fair enough. then again, fast food meals aren't very expensive, usually.. and I would expect that a loss of a couple of tables worth of people wouldn't undermine the business. as I said, I doubt that quite that many people would be grossed out by this woman to the point of not returning.

With that in mind, I'd like to ask everyone something. Suppose you go to a restaurant several times, and you repeatedly see one person who disgusts you with her eating habits. At first you try to ignore her, but she continues eating this way and you find it increasingly difficult to think about anything else. Could you just go at a different time? That might be viable if you go for dinner, but people have schedules. Sometimes they have to eat at certain times because of their obligations. Even if people have flexible schedules, they're still used to having their meals at certain times. I can't speak for everyone, but if I try to deviate from my meal schedule my body protests. It says "Hey, I'm not hungry yet! Wait another hour and a half!" or "OH MY GOODNESS I AM SO HUNGRY EAT SOMETHING NOW."

Maybe you wouldn't consider this enough reason to stop going to the restaurant, but isn't it possible that enough people would? Enough people to put the restaurant in trouble, especially if the woman tended to show up at peak times? That's all it takes.

I like to think that I have enough control over myself that I can ignore the elephant in the room, however gross, if I so choose to.. and failing that, which wouldn't happen, but for debate's sake, that I have enough control over my need for food intake to be able to eat when I want..not when my stomach tells me it is hungry.
If my schedule were set by factors other than my free will, and the spectacle was so abysmally unbearable (but I've seen 5 siblings go from mother's milk to solids passing through baby food, and worked for a year with disabled individuals so it takes quite something to impress me), I could always ask the owner to put me at a table behind an obstacle, door, wall, panel or whatever.. or simply turn my back at her.
No, I do not believe that it is actually possible for enough people to be that grossed out by the woman that they'd cause the place to go bankrupt. it sounds like a claim put out by the managers to try and justify their bad decision. If the place really was on the verge of closing down and this was so to speak the last nail in the coffin.. well.. the problem there is the other nails..
frankly, if anyone gets queazy to the point of not being able to handle it just because someone is drooling in their plate because of a handicap, I suggest they take a good hard look at themselves in a mirror, and at how good they have it after all.

KnightDisciple

2012-07-08, 01:34 PM

Keep in mind this may not be a big place of business. There are plenty of places that can't seat more than 30ish people in one big square room, with no obstacles.

More than that, with the economy being what it is, I imagine on the best of days they've been operating on a slim margin. Add in a half-dozen regulars deciding they don't want to deal with this particular spectacle, and you can see where it would a.)snowball into more and more people not coming in, and b.)their business getting worse and worse.

I think you're assigning too much ill intent to people here, dehro. I think that not everyone would have the same reactions and thought processes as you, so it's quite probable a lot of people said "forget it, I'm going somewhere else".

The Glyphstone

2012-07-08, 02:05 PM

It was described as being a diner. Diners can range from 'cafe-sized' tiny to moderately sized, but they're rarely if ever large.

cucchulainnn

2012-07-08, 04:33 PM

unfortunately i don't have enough information to from an opinion. we don't know how disgusting the eating habits are, or if at all. we don't know how long it went on for, and if the owner made any efforts other then offer of delivery to come up with a suitable solution and or how willing the disabled person was willing to work it out.

if we are talking about two or three occasions. and the owner went strait to leave. and offered delivery after a complaint was made. then i have no mercy for the restaurant.

if on the other hand this person came in multiple times a week for several months. and the owner sees a drop of in business every time this customer comes in. and then they made several offers to the disabled customer that either didn't work out or where refused by the customer. in an effort to try to find a workable solution then i side with the owner.

yes, in this economy the difference of a few hundred dollars a month can be the difference between being open and closed. as the owner do you stop taking pay, (no longer fulfill your personal financial obligations) do you cut the pay of your staff, pay your suppliers late or not at all, ask your landlord to cut you some slack and lower your rent? it is easy to be indignant when it is some one else's business.

THAC0

2012-07-08, 04:37 PM

I think an important question is whether or not the eating created a sanitary issue.

Katana_Geldar

2012-07-08, 05:18 PM

On the kids issue, restaurants can do something about not having children. Like not having high chairs or a children's menu. And most of the time people go to these restaurants to get away from kids.

As for the lady, I don't know, it's a tough one. If she was deliberately being messy or offensive, by all means throw her out. But she isn't, so there's no right answer. I hope they at least we're polite about it to her.

junglesteve

2012-07-08, 08:13 PM

I'm going to pipe up with a different perspective on this.

To me, the issue is that people with disabilities are expected to become invisible. This is far more offensive to me than a person who drools.

I once had a student with cerebral palsy, and she ate with her hands and drooled partly chewed food everywhere. I got used to it. Anyone can.

And I repeat: any one can. We have to see babies in high chairs at restaurants eating with their hands and drooling all over the place. How is this any different? Why do we decide and adult is more disgusting for drooling than a baby is? And why do we show an adult less compassion? If we can tolerate drooling in a child, we can tolerate it in an adult.

If she were drooling because, say, she was drunk, or if her behavior was truly disruptive then there would be valid grounds for complaint. But sitting at her own table, doing her best to eat a meal and carry on with her life? No.

My nephew has cerebral palsy and already at five years old there are people who are uppity about his drooling. His paralysis is very mild to where he has full working order of his left side (although you can tell he was meant to be a righty) so I always wonder what those stares and passive aggressive "HUMPH"s would be like if his paralysis was worse.

People really don't seem to realize how sensitive children are and how those passive aggressive noises and gestures are not going un-noticed. There is always a part of me that wishes I could walk up to those people and scream in their face or just smack their food right out of their hands. BAH!

Well in any case as far as I know you can refuse service to anyone in the united states but as people have stated prepare to have good reason if they lawyer up.

Synovia

2012-07-10, 11:48 AM

Tyndmyr

2012-07-10, 11:56 AM

She's an idiot. Someone offered to send her food, to her door, delivery, whenever she wanted, FOR. FREE? and she sued them?

Seriously, woman. Hand. Feeding you. Don't bite it.

And almost literally.

As far as jurisdiction, it does give a huge amount of liberty to ownership.

This is, IMO, a very reasonable attempt at accommodation. It's unfortunate that she was causing people to not eat there...but thems the breaks. The business owner is trying to behave responsibly, and the business going broke does nobody any favors.

Trying to find a solution that still provides her with convenient food and also prevents the business from losing customers is a good plan. It's too bad she's unsatisfied with it.

Tyndmyr

2012-07-10, 02:07 PM

Whip-poor-will

2012-07-10, 05:45 PM

I got used to it. Anyone can.

And I repeat: any one can. We have to see babies in high chairs at restaurants eating with their hands and drooling all over the place. How is this any different? Why do we decide and adult is more disgusting for drooling than a baby is? And why do we show an adult less compassion? If we can tolerate drooling in a child, we can tolerate it in an adult.

I have to disagree with you here. I find a baby playing in their food just as disgusting as an adult doing the same. Just because they can't help it doesn't make it any less disgusting.

Tyndmyr

2012-07-11, 09:32 AM

I have to disagree with you here. I find a baby playing in their food just as disgusting as an adult doing the same. Just because they can't help it doesn't make it any less disgusting.

Well, a lot of things that repulse us are baked into us for sound evolutionary reasons. Someone acting strange while eating food repulsing us from eating is very much a survival trait. Thus, people will react increasingly severely to increasingly unusual eating. This'll vary overall from person to person, but for an extreme example, someone vomiting will put basically everyone off from eating. Drooling/spitting bits of food everywhere is slightly less disturbing...but only just.

Now, yes, sometimes(as in this situation), the response in our heads is not really tailored for the situation...but it still happens, and it's quite natural.

Kaiser Omnik

2012-07-11, 10:04 AM

Being disgusted by a disability is natural?

You people don't get that this is what discrimination against disabled people IS like. Not just because of the "idea" of being disabled!

News flash: living in a society means accomodating oneself to other people, different people, and striving to go beyond one's preconcieved notions and so-called "natural" reactions. We humans can learn to live with a lot of things. If we want an inclusive and just society, people need to be much more reflexive about their mentality.

Including in this supposedly open boards where people rationnalize discrimination, but have the time and energy to cry for one kitten's accidental death and evoke the beating of said kitten's owner without any kind of shame...

dehro

2012-07-11, 10:19 AM

ahem.. yes, being disgusted by someone's eating habit may be natural.. but so is trying to mate with every female of breeding age you come across that isn't defended by an alpha male who's thumping his chest and screeching at you.

you'd think that if we can restrain ourselves from the latter, because the rules of a somewhat evolved society tell us that it's not a nice thing to do, we should be able to restrain ourselves in the first instance as well.

evolution, at least of the rules that dictate social mores and proper interaction should move with the times and count for something.
A few hunderd years ago, someone who was showing manifest signs of disability was very much at risk of being banished from society, from their family and pushed into begging/fleeing town etc etc..if not of being killed outright.
We've moved on from that. Can we also please move on from not being able to control our reactions when we see someone who today's common knowledge tells us cannot be held accountable for their disability induced behaviour?

Mono Vertigo

2012-07-11, 10:20 AM

As a side note, just because it's natural doesn't mean it's good or desirable.
Venom is natural.
Medicine is unnatural.
Raw meat is natural.
Cooking is unnatural.

Instinctive reactions of avoidance or rejection are natural. That doesn't mean we should express them or let them guide our behavior every time we feel them.
That's all.

Ninja'd. At least I was concise this time?

Emmerask

2012-07-11, 10:28 AM

The thing is its pretty easy to take the moral high ground, we are not the ones who have to life in a tent city afterwards or on the streets or maybe even die because we can´t get the medical attention because we don´t earn any money anymore...

We life in a deeply amoral system where profit and success are the most important things and overall society doesn´t give a single **** why someone fails or succeeds. You don´t get better treatment just because you failed because of morally high ideals, you are still treated like dirt.

So after long ramblings...

Is it right? Of course not!
Can I understand what they did because of the system we live in? Of course I can...

It would be nice awesome if the system would award morally good decisions, but it does not and so I don´t blame people for not taking the high road especially since I know I did not always take it myself...

/sry if this goes a tiny bit into politics but its hard to justify what I wanted to say without that little excursion :-/

/edit btw is there any way to tell when to use life and when live for a not native english speaker? always get it wrong -.-

TheSummoner

2012-07-11, 11:00 AM

Being disgusted by a person's eating habits is perfectly natural. If you choose to read that as being disgusted by disabilities, that's your call.

The restaurant offered to accomidate for her by delivering the food to her house. What else should they have done? Let her continue to do it, disgusting and potentially driving off other customers and possibly causing sanitary issues? Put some sort of wall around her so she could eat there without it disturbing other customers?

The fact is, the restaurant doesn't owe her anything. People pay, people are given food. That is the extent of it. They tried to help her out by offering free delivery and she turned around and sued them for it. It was a sucky situation with no right answer until that point, but after that she lost all sympathy she'd get from me.

Needs (or in this case, desires anyways) of the many. Needs of the few. One woman's desire to eat at a privately owned business does not outweigh the desire of the rest of the customer's desire to eat there without being disgusted every time they catch a glimpse of the way she eats. One woman's desire to eat there does not outweigh the owner's actual need to turn a profit to continue to keep the place running and continue to improve the place. Her disability is irrelevent in this. It makes the situation more unfortunate because she cannot help it, but it does not change it.

/edit btw is there any way to tell when to use life and when live for a not native english speaker? always get it wrong -.-

"Live" tends to be used when you're talking about what someone is doing. Examples: "I still live with my parents." "I live at such and such place"

"Life" tends to be used when you're talking about it in general. Examples: "Life is precious." "It sucks, but that's life."

I hope that makes sense.

Kaiser Omnik

2012-07-11, 11:39 AM

By your reasoning, a majority being "digusted" by anything or anyone means it can impose its will on any minorty as long as laws permit it.

Thinking that habits and perceptions cannot be changed and taking for granted that a restaurant or shop or any company doesn't have any other choice than satisfy people who can't live with difference is the main reason why discrimination continues in our societies.

No, it's not just "people pay, people get food". A private company is still part of society just as people with disabilities are. You cannot simply hide people you don't want to live it and pretend it's a fatality (and the laws of the economy). We need to forget this aberrant mentality of thinking of people only as consumers. We need to learn NOT to accept things that appear necessary like discrimination (or poverty and a lot of other things...).

What you call taking the moral high ground, I call not only crying about the "unfortunate" nature of injustice and doing nothing about it, but actually trying to change mentalities and achieve meaningful social change.

Tyndmyr

2012-07-11, 11:47 AM

Being disgusted by a disability is natural?

No. Being disgusted by extremely unusual eating is natural. This almost certainly evolved as a reaction to poisonous, spoiled, or otherwise inedible food. The fact that the same effect is caused by disabilities is unfortunate, but the disability is not the direct cause here.

You people don't get that this is what discrimination against disabled people IS like. Not just because of the "idea" of being disabled!

This isn't about discrimination against disability...it's about disability causing unfortunate reactions. Like an earlier poster mentioned, tourettes can cause you to involuntarily shout out highly offensive language. This means you probably won't have a job as an announcer on the radio, since your disability makes the resulting situation untenable.

In other situations, there may be no such problem.

News flash: living in a society means accomodating oneself to other people, different people, and striving to go beyond one's preconcieved notions and so-called "natural" reactions. We humans can learn to live with a lot of things. If we want an inclusive and just society, people need to be much more reflexive about their mentality.

So-called "natural" reactions? They are natural. People would be reacting the same way if she was acting the exact same way out of choice instead of disability. In fact, they'd probably be MUCH more hostile if it were out of choice.

Therefore, it's very obviously a reaction to the manner of eating, not just to the fact that she's disabled.

Including in this supposedly open boards where people rationnalize discrimination, but have the time and energy to cry for one kitten's accidental death and evoke the beating of said kitten's owner without any kind of shame...

How are these at all related?

Additionally, I don't recall it being terribly common to suggest beatings. I am certain that such things were not among my suggestions, so I can't see what you're going for here.

By your reasoning, a majority being "digusted" by anything or anyone means it can impose its will on any minorty as long as laws permit it.

Within limits. For instance, I definitely dislike noisy children, and will avoid venues that expose me to lots of them, especially while dining. Some places will cater to families, of course, and some will cater to people like me.

I see nothing wrong with this situation. It doesn't apply to this particular example, but it DOES work for a great many instances where different people have differing preferences.

Thinking that habits and perceptions cannot be changed and taking for granted that a restaurant or shop or any company doesn't have any other choice than satisfy people who can't live with difference is the main reason why discrimination continues in our societies.

A single diner cannot effectively change public attitudes about this issue. That's not a viable choice here.

No, it's not just "people pay, people get food". A private company is still part of society just as people with disabilities are. You cannot simply hide people you don't want to live it and pretend it's a fatality (and the laws of the economy). We need to forget this aberrant mentality of thinking of people only as consumers. We need to learn NOT to accept things that appear necessary like discrimination (or poverty and a lot of other things...).

Well, that relationship is what forms the basis of a diner, sure. They need money, you need food, and a trade occurs.

The woman in question is not being denied access to food(which would be terrible, to be sure). The company did try to make accommodations for her, which I feel is an indication that they ARE being good contributors to society.

The diner going out of business over this would not be a gain for society, though.

What you call taking the moral high ground, I call not only crying about the "unfortunate" nature of injustice and doing nothing about it, but actually trying to change mentalities and achieve meaningful social change.

The injustice is in the disability. Things simply cannot be 100% equal between the disabled and the able. Disability IS a disadvantage. Making accommodations where possible is the reasonable solution. They tried that.

Attempting to "change mentalities" is not a reasonable option for the diner. I'm not seriously going to change my worldview just to eat at a diner, and I doubt many others would. Not to mention, changing people's outlook on life is not quick or easy. It's not going to stop the diner from going bankrupt.

Reluctance

2012-07-11, 12:01 PM

ahem.. yes, being disgusted by someone's eating habit may be natural.. but so is trying to mate with every female of breeding age you come across that isn't defended by an alpha male who's thumping his chest and screeching at you.

It's one thing to not actively do so and skeeve everybody out. It's quite another to tell me not to want to. It's not "natural = good", it's "natural = most common desire".

You're not really ragging on the manager here, who had to decide which evil was the lesser one. (And when it came down to one lady vs. his family, his employees, and their families, I can't say I blame him.) You're ragging on each and every customer who decided that the ambience was destroyed by slobberella. Which yes, perfect world it wouldn't happen. In the real world, unless you're willing to get as indignant about everybody's personal choices, it seems like so much ineffective self-righteousness.

Telonius

2012-07-11, 12:20 PM

While I do think that people should be able to handle a disabled person eating next to them - in this case, it's pretty obvious that they didn't. So what's the solution? Track down the people who "voted with their feet" and decided not to go to the restaurant, and fine them? That's not really practical, even if it were legal to force somebody to eat at a restaurant they didn't want to eat at.

So we're left with just the owner and the disabled customer. I'm going to assume that the owner will actually have to close if he doesn't do something about the situation. (If that's not really the case, it changes the whole argument - but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt). He tried to accommodate the customer as best he could, even offering to take on additional trouble and expense to do so. This sounds a lot like due diligence to me, but the customer didn't accept the deal.

So the owner's only two options are to ask her to leave, or to close his business. If he asks her to leave, she doesn't get to eat at her favorite restaurant and feels disrespected. (I don't mean that last bit to be snide, I really do think it actually weighs in on the morality of it). If he closes, she doesn't get to eat at her favorite restaurant; neither do any of the other patrons who stayed; the owner is out of a job; any wait and kitchen staff are out of a job; and the neighborhood loses a diner.

I'm reluctantly on the owner's side in this case. You can't stop jerks from being jerks. It sounds like he's trying to find a way through that, that gives his customer as much respect as he possibly can. (As far as I can tell, nobody else but her would be offered that special delivery service). As much as I'd love for this to be a win-win, the situation is a lose-lose. And less is lost if the restaurant stays open.

It truly sucks for the customer. Maybe she should be getting some form of extra assistance from her insurance, or the county, or ... somebody? ... to help her eat properly. If she's really that incapacitated, there ought to be some kind of assistance available.

dehro

2012-07-11, 12:32 PM

It's one thing to not actively do so and skeeve everybody out. It's quite another to tell me not to want to. It's not "natural = good", it's "natural = most common desire".

You're not really ragging on the manager here, who had to decide which evil was the lesser one. (And when it came down to one lady vs. his family, his employees, and their families, I can't say I blame him.) You're ragging on each and every customer who decided that the ambience was destroyed by slobberella. Which yes, perfect world it wouldn't happen. In the real world, unless you're willing to get as indignant about everybody's personal choices, it seems like so much ineffective self-righteousness.

very true..I'm not blaming the manager for sharing the view of his less than tollerant customers..I have no reason to believe he does. If I had been there I would have spoken up for the lady, be it as the manager or as a casual bystander.. if blame is to be assigned, the first culprits are the moronic snooty customers who can't see past a disability or recognize one when they're staring at it.
The vehicle of the entire episode however, and who bears the final responsability, is the manager. In his shoes, I would have said to those customers that the woman is a long time customer (which they would know if they were too..and if they weren't, then who, comparatively, cares about them?) who is affected by a disability and that she doesn't have much else going in her life.. other than her daily outing to the diner... I would then have asked if they would be more comfortable sitting with their back turned towards her (because really that's all it takes).. if possible, I would have injected a bit of shame in the speach too...it's not that hard to do without antagonizing your listener.

And yes, I would do so in the face of risking an economic downturn because of it. I am not just talking from the safety of my armchair.
I am a salesman and I always side with my customers on principle, when I feel they are right ... even when this goes to the disadvantage of the company I represent, which then directly affects my commissions, meaning less income for me. In the long run they appreciate me for it and it pays dividends.

Reluctance

2012-07-11, 12:46 PM

I would then have asked if they would be more comfortable sitting with their back turned towards her (because really that's all it takes)

You mean the former customers who are no longer patrons? Tracking them down would be kinda difficult.

if possible, I would have injected a bit of shame in the speach too...it's not that hard to do without antagonizing your listener.

Yes. Because when I think about having an evening out, my first thought is a place that will shame and guilt-trip me.

TheSummoner

2012-07-11, 12:55 PM

By your reasoning, a majority being "digusted" by anything or anyone means it can impose its will on any minorty as long as laws permit it.

I wasn't aware that "people with disgusting eating habits" counted as a minority group.

Thinking that habits and perceptions cannot be changed and taking for granted that a restaurant or shop or any company doesn't have any other choice than satisfy people who can't live with difference is the main reason why discrimination continues in our societies.

When the thinking habits and perceptions relate to eating habits and sanitation, why would it be a good thing for them to change? I am disgusted by people who chew with their mouths open. I am disgusted by people who don't wash their hands after using the restroom or before/after handling food. I am disgusted by people (in this case, almost always children, but let's be all-inclusive here) who play with their food.

By what right do you have to say that I am wrong for thinking that way? I don't care why someone is dribbling their food all over. I don't care if they're doing it because they're a young child, or if they're doing it because they have a disability, or if they're doing it simply because they're a disgusting pig. It makes no difference, it's disgusting regardless of the reason, and if I saw it as a regular occurance in a restaurant, I would stop eating at that restaurant.

Maybe not everyone feels that way, but if enough people did, then the restaurant loses customers and loses money. If it loses enough of either, it goes out of business and the owner and all his/her employees lose their jobs and source of income.

So I have two questions for anyone who says the restaurant was wrong.

1) What should they have done? It's easy to claim the moral high ground and say they were wrong for doing what they did, but it's a bit harder to come up with the better answer. What would the better option have been? What could the restaurant done without harming itself and its employees that would've been better than what it did?

2) Why is it wrong for people to be disgusted by that sort of eating habit and why should they have to tolerate it? Is it an issue of equality? Equality is a nice lofty concept on paper, but in practice, it's an impossibility. Some people are stronger than others. Some are born into better situations. Some people are smarter. Treating people as equals and non-discrimination are fine and good, but true equalty is a lie.

And as for treating people equally, I really doubt the restaurant's customers would've been any less disgusted had she not had any sort of disability and had had disgusting eating habits out of rudeness instead. If anything, it's more discriminatory to treat her as someone who should be coddled and given priority. Reasonable accomidations for people with disabilities (such as wheelchair ramps or even offering to deliver the food to her home free of charge) are one thing, but pretending her disability doesn't exist and that her eating habits are acceptable in public are another.

No, it's not just "people pay, people get food". A private company is still part of society just as people with disabilities are. You cannot simply hide people you don't want to live it and pretend it's a fatality (and the laws of the economy). We need to forget this aberrant mentality of thinking of people only as consumers. We need to learn NOT to accept things that appear necessary like discrimination (or poverty and a lot of other things...).

And you cannot simply pretend that something unacceptable is acceptable because the person doing it has a disability. Yelling in a movie theater is considered unacceptable. Public nudity is considered unacceptable. Disgusting eating habits in a public place are also considered considered.

For a more extreme example, you would allow someone with a mental disability to fly a plane, would you? This hypothetical person is still a part of society, and must still follow society's rules.

What you call taking the moral high ground, I call not only crying about the "unfortunate" nature of injustice and doing nothing about it, but actually trying to change mentalities and achieve meaningful social change.

What I call taking the moral high ground is claiming the restaurant is in the wrong without offering a better solution for what they should have done. And again, harming the restaurant's employees for the sake of one woman is not a better solution.

Tyndmyr

2012-07-11, 01:26 PM

The vehicle of the entire episode however, and who bears the final responsability, is the manager. In his shoes, I would have said to those customers that the woman is a long time customer (which they would know if they were too..and if they weren't, then who, comparatively, cares about them?) who is affected by a disability and that she doesn't have much else going in her life.. other than her daily outing to the diner... I would then have asked if they would be more comfortable sitting with their back turned towards her (because really that's all it takes).. if possible, I would have injected a bit of shame in the speach too...it's not that hard to do without antagonizing your listener.

Seriously, a patronizing, guilt trip of a speech is not more likely to make me eat at an already uncomfortable place.

Lord Seth

2012-07-11, 02:06 PM

/edit btw is there any way to tell when to use life and when live for a not native english speaker? always get it wrong -.-Life is a noun. Live is a verb or adjective (depending on context).

Synovia

2012-07-11, 03:29 PM

And yes, I would do so in the face of risking an economic downturn because of it. I am not just talking from the safety of my armchair.
I am a salesman and I always side with my customers on principle, when I feel they are right ... even when this goes to the disadvantage of the company I represent, which then directly affects my commissions, meaning less income for me. In the long run they appreciate me for it and it pays dividends.
The situations aren't analagous at all. Like you said, treating your customers right pays dividends. In his case, treating this one customer right to the exclusion of others will put him out of business.

He's not being asked to side with a customer over the company, hes being asked to side with a customer, over many other customers. The choice is, drive her away, or let her drive away lots of customers.

There's no right answer here. Is her having a nice dinner more important than the rest of your customers having a nice dinner? Because she actively prevents that. Is the good of the many more important than the good of the few?

Asta Kask

2012-07-11, 03:51 PM

News flash: living in a society means accomodating oneself to other people, different people, and striving to go beyond one's preconcieved notions and so-called "natural" reactions. We humans can learn to live with a lot of things. If we want an inclusive and just society, people need to be much more reflexive about their mentality.

Having an inclusive and just* society is a laudable goal. That does not mean that you get to use other people to reach that goal.

*just by whose standard, btw

Katana_Geldar

2012-07-11, 05:28 PM

Sounds like a question for Mr Spock.

IMHO, the manager tried to pleasd both parties with his solution but, as often happens, ended up pleasing neither. The woman is pissed off and sues, his restaurant may be hurt by the suit if it goes her way.

And I may be seen as bad in saying this, but I don't like people screaming discrimination as an excuse for their reaction to someone else's behaviour. It's like when someone unjustifiably accuses someone else of racism in an Internet debate. Racism never came into it, the person was simply being a prat.

I don't want this discussion to go into the topic of racism (it was an example), but it does apply to the situation as I think this woman was rather unjust in accusing the restaurant of discrimination.

Squark

2012-07-11, 06:13 PM

I think the real question is; Was the restaurant a) Genuinely in danger of going out of business if the woman didn't stop eating there, and b) was loss of business due to the woman's eating habits the sole factor (And how was this identified? Did a lot of people come up to the owner and ask to have her removed)?

Ultimately, there are 2 discussions from this point; legal and moral. Legal... well, ultimately, that's a question for the courts. As for the moral side... If the business was genuinely on the line... We've got an ugly situation with no easy choice.

Karoht

2012-07-11, 08:06 PM

Lets flip this around for a second.

Suppose it was the business owner who were to sue, for loss of business caused by the disruptive customer?

Now, in this example, we will make some assumptions. That the customer is in fact has some form of disability, and that the business owner has sufficient proof to prove that the loss of business is directly due to this person.

So, is the business owner okay to sue this person?

Granted, no business owner would ever do this in their right mind, as the media backlash would be aweful. I doubt we could actually find a meaningful example of this ever taking place. But just suppose for a minute the business owner did go ahead and sue. What then?

PS-My actual opinion is that the business owner was very much in a rock and a hard place. I can't say what I would have done here.

dps

2012-07-11, 11:01 PM

By your reasoning, a majority being "digusted" by anything or anyone means it can impose its will on any minorty as long as laws permit it.

Well, yeah, pretty much. That's what democracy is--majority rule. We temper that by putting certain limitations on it with the goal of keeping the majority from having tyranny over the minority (and we're all in the minority at some point).

Thinking that habits and perceptions cannot be changed and taking for granted that a restaurant or shop or any company doesn't have any other choice than satisfy people who can't live with difference is the main reason why discrimination continues in our societies.

No, it's not just "people pay, people get food". A private company is still part of society just as people with disabilities are. You cannot simply hide people you don't want to live it and pretend it's a fatality (and the laws of the economy). We need to forget this aberrant mentality of thinking of people only as consumers. We need to learn NOT to accept things that appear necessary like discrimination (or poverty and a lot of other things...).

What you call taking the moral high ground, I call not only crying about the "unfortunate" nature of injustice and doing nothing about it, but actually trying to change mentalities and achieve meaningful social change.

And who, exactly, gets to decide gets to decide what mentalities are "abberrant" and which habits and perceptions need to be changed (and what they need to be changed to)? You? What makes you better than any of the rest of us, and gives you the right to tell us not just how society should handle different situations, but how we should think?

Karoht

2012-07-11, 11:14 PM

"If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything"
Semi-relivant platitude aside, businesses do have to acknowledge that they are more than just paid for goods and services. I have to moderatly agree with Kaiser for a moment, what damage has this business done to the community by saying that someone has to be denied service based on a disability?

Apologies if the above sounds like exaggeration for sake of arguement, but I think you get the point.
Thoughts?

Kaiser Omnik

2012-07-11, 11:35 PM

Well, yeah, pretty much. That's what democracy is--majority rule. We temper that by putting certain limitations on it with the goal of keeping the majority from having tyranny over the minority (and we're all in the minority at some point).

And who, exactly, gets to decide gets to decide what mentalities are "abberrant" and which habits and perceptions need to be changed (and what they need to be changed to)? You? What makes you better than any of the rest of us, and gives you the right to tell us not just how society should handle different situations, but how we should think?

You don't get that sometimes, often even, laws aren't enough to protect everyone from discrimination?

Don't kid yourself. We're on a forum; everyone is judging everything by their own standards. Always funny when people pull out the "who are you to say that and impose your view!" card, especially right after they just "imposed" their own views ("majority rule").

Check any thread around here and tell me people don't give their view on what is good, what is ethical, etc. Anyway, I can't actually forcefully make you think what I want (unless I'm psychic), now do I? So relax...

Synovia

2012-07-12, 12:32 AM

I think the real question is; Was the restaurant a) Genuinely in danger of going out of business if the woman didn't stop eating there, and b) was loss of business due to the woman's eating habits the sole factor (And how was this identified? Did a lot of people come up to the owner and ask to have her removed)?.

I don't think A is even relevant. They don't need to be in danger of going out of business. They need to be in danger of losing significant revenue.

There's no reason her priviledge to have a nice meal should be more important than everyone elses.

dps

2012-07-12, 12:32 AM

You don't get that sometimes, often even, laws aren't enough to protect everyone from discrimination?

Of course they aren't, nor should they be, because the only way they could would be if they were the laws of a benevolent totalitarian dictatorship, and good luck figuring out a way to have that (hint--the totalitarian dictatorship isn't the hard part).

dehro

2012-07-12, 02:24 AM

Sipex

2012-07-12, 08:30 AM

I'm in the camp that the restaurant did everything in it's power to try and come up with a good outcome for everyone and that the woman is the one 'in the wrong' for refusing to give a little in this situation. The restaurant went half way to resolve a problem so she needs to meet them there, it's all give and take.

Now, nobody is going to change their minds, this thread is just going to keep going until a moderator locks it (that's how every single one of these threads ends up, let's face it) so I'm gone before someone tells me I'm wrong for not agreeing with their view.

((also, before someone tries to discredit me with some off comment about how I'm not sticking around or some such))

Synovia

2012-07-12, 08:33 AM

dps

2012-07-12, 09:34 AM

If people thought like this, you'd have no businesses in cities smaller than about 100K population. `

Even in big cities, a most businesses are dependent on repeat customers. The main exceptions are those that cater to the tourist trade (and even some of those count on the same people coming back each year).

Marillion

2012-07-12, 09:39 AM

If I ran or worked at a diner of which the business plan and very existence hinged on the continuos permanence of basically all of my regulars and little else, I'd start looking for another job long before tackling the issue of Mrs. Drool scaring off a few customers.

You may think so, but a small restaurant is often just one really slow month from being in serious financial trouble, regardless of how good the food is or how much people like it. In mine, if it weren't for the 5 or families who come in twice a week and drop 200+ dollars per meal, we probably couldn't even be open through the summer months because of how painfully slow they are.

cucchulainnn

2012-07-12, 09:43 AM

dehro not sure if you know this but the average profit margin nation wide is only about %5. with that said if your restaurant moves say 500 (number is pulled out of my but and only for sake of argument with out knowing how many the restaurant actually moves) customers a month and loses 25 guess how many months they can keep this up before going under.

the above number is really low so let me try and come up with some that are a little more realistic. say they moving 50 customers a day and earning the %5. if they lose 3 (actually 2.5 lets round it off) per day on average they no longer cover the %5 profit margin and are now braking even. if they lose 17 customers a week then they are in jeopardy of going under. hopefully those 17 will be replaced by 17 others. once the place gets a rep about what some people consider poor dining conditions. will they attract replacements or even grow? in a perfect world this would not be a problem. others customers would be understanding about the disabled customer but we do not live in a perfect world and have to deal with perceptions regardless of whether deserved or not or even accurate. once word gets out about a perceived nasty customer that hangs around there, how many replacements are going to come in?

i can only assume you work for some one and have never tried to run your own business. as some one who has (never ran a restaurant) i can easily assume they the owner probably has a few hundred thousand in loans, pay roll, vendors, commercial rent, resident rent, and whole host of other obligations. you would be surprised how much income that eats up.

other wise i agree with you small business has no excuse for existing and should start out big or not at all. after all if you don't pull in $100,000 per year in profits you have no right to exist and should close shop right now.

small business are very very fragile and live off tight margins. most business start small and hopefully grow, most don't and stay small or go under. not every one can be wallmart or mcdonalds.

Tyndmyr

2012-07-12, 09:57 AM

I still maintain that if a diner is in such a situation that even the loss of a couple of tables worth of clients a day can put it out of business, which is what the argument of the owners was, then there are deeper issues with the diner itself than the inconvenience of potentially grossing out a few off their customers.

Average profit margins for a US restaurant varies from 1.8 to 6 percent, depending on type. Even assuming that you're on the profitable end of that spectrum, losing a couple of tables of clients a day is going to be bad economically.

Currently, the economic situation is...not great. Lots of businesses that are normally pretty healthy are in a marginal position. Diners are generally very small businesses, and don't seat huge quantities of people. Hell, some I've eaten at have literally been the size of a railway car. Losing several tables worth of people per day is not trivial.

If I ran or worked at a diner of which the business plan and very existence hinged on the continuos permanence of basically all of my regulars and little else, I'd start looking for another job long before tackling the issue of Mrs. Drool scaring off a few customers.

I'm assuming from this that you've never run a business, then. Most businesses, including food service, rely on having a nice supply of happy regulars that come back routinely for repeat business. Attracting new customers is expensive and hard, pleasing the existing customers is basically always going to be a goal.

Yes, a lawsuit on these grounds when I've made an effort (which I still morally condemn but I'm trying to be practical here even though it would go against my nature to put practicality ahead of morals) is not a nice thing. Then again, I don't have experience with living in a lawsuit happpy country. lawsuits and trials drag on onto eternity here in Italy and are a pain for everybody involved.. so it's unlikely that it would happen here. I would expect this to be a less onerous issue in the States..but then..I don't know.

Lawsuits are considered pretty long and painful here, too. They are generally best avoided if possible, IMO.

all I can say, my moral standpoint (and consequent decision) would have kept the woman happy and possibly scared off a few other clients.. but would ultimately have avoided the lawsuit, and it's far more outreaching repercussions...which in the end means that it would have turned out to be the right decision after all...even from a practical standpoint.

And you'd probably be bankrupt, it appears.

Note that a lawsuit, while annoying, need not be terribly expensive. If you have a lawyer on retainer(hell, I have legal coverage for this, and I'm not even running a business currently), you may not have to cover fees at all. It's...a bit like insurance. Additionally, recouping court costs from the loser is sometimes a thing.

cucchulainnn

2012-07-12, 09:59 AM

i just reread my post and it comes off as far more rude then i intended. please don't take it as such.

cucchulainnn

2012-07-12, 10:23 AM

lets check some numbers.

here in NYC which is on the extremely high end. renting restaurant space is going for around $60-300 per square foot. which means easily $10,000 to $50,000 per month.

http://www.loopnet.com/New-York/New-York_Restaurants-For-Lease/

food will be about %25 of selling price.

there is also utilities like electricity here in NYC it can easily be $400-600 per month.

then you have the employee pay. if it is very small every one will be family and not taking pay or very little. other wise your talking about (not sure about wait) less then minimum most pay comes from tips.

cooks and chefs start around $19,000 and go up to around $50,000 unless famous.

we can assume that the little chinese take out join or pizzeria on the corner needs to pull in about $15,000 per month to stay open.

it doesn't take much to not only push some into bankruptcy but catastrophic bankruptcy.

dehro

2012-07-12, 10:34 AM

I see your arguments and my experience is a little different..as in, I come up with different numbers and situations..but then, I live in a country that has indeed a large influx of tourism...which in many areas in the country severely affects the numbers we're talking about.

just for reference, I am self employed (a sales rep, which is not 100% accurate and doesn't give the idea of all the different aspects and tasks my job entails, but it's as close as).. have been self employed for years.. and have also spent a few years as employee.
then there's my family
my mother has worked in tourism and hotels and other forms of "front desk" activities most of her life.
one sister works for Hilton (yes, the hotels), climbed her way from reception to lower management (so far).. she used to work reception and serving breakfast at a small privately owned hotel and restaurant.
Another sister works two jobs, one of which as a waitress at a small restaurant...
A brother teaches cooking classes to (mostly american and australian) tourists besides manning and managing a bar and a restaurant within a privately owned hotel..
My own job takes me, as a customer, to all sizes and levels of restaurants, diners and hotels..all over Italy now, all over Europe until a few years ago..before I shifted from export to import... so I do think I have a decent ...if second hand... grasp of how these things work.

That said, I can't claim I've ever run through the numbers myself and my fundamental objection to the choices made by the managers here is of moral quality rather than practical, so I guess this is where I will stop arguing my case...
my current situation? the company I represent here in Italy is being hit hard by the credit crunch in that the market isn't buying as much as last year... I've got a loss of sales these first 6 months of about 15-20% and little hope of recouping in next semester. does that put me out of a job? no, I still make enough money to live by, if not in luxury. I am however looking for a second company to represent and if a better job opportunity came along I'd take it.. because when you're on a downward trend, that's what you have to do, so that, in case things went wrong, you at least fall on your feet. I have learned this the hard way, by not doing it the first time around and being unemployed for almost a year.
that's what I meant by "if you're working at a place that has such small margins you should consider alternatives" (not a quote, but that was the sense of my previous post).

Synovia

2012-07-12, 10:40 AM

That said, I can't claim I've ever run through the numbers myself and my fundamental objection to the choices made by the managers here is of moral quality rather than practical, so I guess this is where I will stop arguing my case...

Just curious, but what is your moral objection here?

Why is it morally less offensive that this woman can't control her drooling, vs the other customers not being able to control their disgust?

that's what I meant by "if you're working at a place that has such small margins you should consider alternatives" (not a quote, but that was the sense of my previous post).

There are entire sectors of industry where this simply isn't an option. Food service is one of those.

You're saying that rather than toss a disruptive customer, this man should ditch his proffession?

dehro

2012-07-12, 10:57 AM

I spent a year working with disabled people. together with me there was a guy who was quite squeamish and didn't really know how to handle being around someone whose face was.. a bit of a mess, who was mentally disabled or who, indeed, drooled every time she spoke.
he learned to deal with it.

someone who is not ready or simply doesn't want to learn to cope with seeing someone drool, can just sit with their back turned..and not look.

someone who cannot help drooling due to a handicap, cannot be expected to "learn not to drool".

so the "woman wo can't control her drooling vs people who can't control their disgust" comparison is something that in my experience doesn't make sense.

my moral objection was that whilst practical and clearly a sign of making an effort, the attempt made by the owner to basically hide the disabled person from view was at least in fact if not in intention, discriminatory and therefore offensive. Would I sue over it? I don't know..I'm not disabled and can't really tell if I would react the same way.
I have been discriminated against for being a foreigner, an italian, a dutchman, a jew, an agnostic, a shortarse my whole life (though the shortarse thing stopped after school I shall concede..)..
to tell a woman, however nicely, that what is possibly her only social outing isn't going to happen anymore because of something she has no way to do anything about is something that I would find objectionable and if I were in the position not to have to tell her, I would take that chance, however unpractical.

dehro

2012-07-12, 11:03 AM

There are entire sectors of industry where this simply isn't an option. Food service is one of those.

I know..that's one of the main reasons why my sister has 2 jobs in different sectors and is studying for a degree in yet something different.

cucchulainnn

2012-07-12, 11:11 AM

dehro i hope my last few post haven't come across as callus in regards of the disabled customer. i am not, and feel it would be a far better world if people would be more considerate and show understanding toward disabled people. unfortunately the world is full of hard choices and shades of gray. yes it would be wonderful if the restaurant had enough customers that they could afford to lose some. or even better if none of the other customers where bothered by the a for mentioned eating habits.

personally i would do every thing i could to make the disabled customer happy and would be more then willing to lose a few customers. but i do not know how long i could do this. a month, a few months, a year, there will be a breaking point eventually. i would hope that i could hold out longer then i think i could but also realize that eventually i would have to give in. i hope i am never in the position to find out.

Tyndmyr

2012-07-12, 11:15 AM

Reluctance

2012-07-12, 11:16 AM

dps

2012-07-12, 11:25 AM

that's what I meant by "if you're working at a place that has such small margins you should consider alternatives" (not a quote, but that was the sense of my previous post).

If you're an employee of a very small business, looking for another job is probably at least a long-term goal anyway, because you have very limited opportunities to advance otherwise; and if the business is very marginal, you probably want to get out ASAP before it potentially goes under.

OTOH, if you're the owner, you probably want to stay in business even if you're just barely eking out a living, because otherwise you'll be giving up your independence to work for someone else.

TheSummoner

2012-07-12, 11:43 AM

my moral objection was that whilst practical and clearly a sign of making an effort, the attempt made by the owner to basically hide the disabled person from view was at least in fact if not in intention, discriminatory and therefore offensive.

Oh, I disagree. The owner treated her exactly as he would've treated anyone else drooling all over their food and causing a disturbance. He was probably nicer about it because he understood the woman's situation and realized she couldn't control it, but it doesn't make the way she ate any less disgusting or disturbing to the other customers.

Setting aside the fact that she was driving away customers and threatening the restaurant's ability to stay in business, one woman's desire to enjoy a nice meal does not outweigh the desire of everyone else in the restaurant to do the same. What would be disciminatory would be to have given her priority. Positive discimination perhaps, but no less offensive.

Socratov

2012-07-12, 12:06 PM

snip

That is the same argument used by small businesses about minimum wage, health and safty and a raft of other rule, rules that were put in place because people can't be trusted to do the right thing. There are restaurants that make exactly the same argument about keeping food safe, or throwing away food past its sell by date. The answer is if you can't manage to run your business within the law get in to another business that dose not require you to serve the public, or employ people, or whatever. Again, back to the race issue. Would the loss of income from a black memeber of staff in some areas of the US make it ok to fire them, or because you had a racist regular who spent allot of money?

Sorry for the rant but the way people with dissabilitys are treated realy gets to me. Too often they have no voice but get treated in a way that if it was because of their race or sexuality would be roundly condemed.

First off, the situation is not talking about the condition the restaurant is in. therefore I assume the owners keep a clean and nice restaurant. So In my opinion it's nto hte same argument.

Now assuming (yes, I'm going on a limb here)the owners don't want to refuse her the act of delivering food (an argument they can make pretty solid when they tell her they will deliver the food at no extra cost) they are not discriminating. The fact that they ask the person in question not to scare away any further customers is not an unreasonable request (I would be sent away for much less, but then again, I'm not in any of the protected segments). The fact that they are willing to accomodate said person with food with an increased level of service (you try and get a non delivering restaurant to deliver something to your doorstep) shows that they are indeed willing to serve her. Though through consequences caused by said person's disability they can't operate a business . they don't use the person's disability as grounds for refusal of service in their restaurant, but by the effect caused by her appearence.

Onto the contract and menu, a menu is not a contract. It is a listing of the possible services which could, if both parties involved can reach to an agreement to whether or not to make a deal (food and service in exchange for money or other valuable means), take place. A contract, even a verbal one is always centered around a few things:
1) the exchange of goods and/or services (money included),
2) the fact that both parties have agreed upon said exchange.
The rest is just optional (penalty clauses, declarations of intent etc.). The fact that an agreement is only made when a businessowner accepts an order form a customer. No sooner, no later.