Man Suing Grocery Store For Banning Him After He Refused a “Negroid” Bagger: Freedom of Religion, Property Rights, and the Right to Refuse Service

Where can the idea of expansive positive rights that require the abrogation of fundamental negative rights end? With absurdity like this, via the Longview News-Journal in Texas:

A Hawkins man is claiming his civil rights and religious freedom were violated earlier this year when a black man sacked his groceries and a Big Sandy grocery store owner banned the customer from the business…

[Dewitt Thomas] stated in a nine-page, hand-written lawsuit that he told the grocery sacker, a black man, “Wait a minute, don’t touch my groceries. I can’t have someone negroidal touch my food. It’s against my creed.”

Thomas claimed the cashier was “perplexed” by his request and yelled at him to take his items and leave.

In a telephone interview Wednesday, Thomas said, “It’s pretty simple. They treated me really bad because I told them it was against my creed.”

…The sacker, Aaron Menefee, said he thought Thomas was just kidding around.

“The first time he said it, I thought he was joking,” Menefee said. “Then he just kept repeating it.”

Menefee said once he realized Thomas was serious, he called for someone else to sack the groceries, at which time Menefee went to another part of the store…
When Thomas returned two days later, he noticed the same black man would be sacking his groceries, so he again requested the “Negro” not handle his groceries, according to the lawsuit.

This time, Langston was there. He called police to serve Thomas a criminal trespass warning. While waiting for the police, an employee locked the doors, and the lawsuit claims Thomas was “unlawfully restrained.”

Thomas said Langston broke the law the night he locked him in the store.

“We were closing, and I don’t know of a business that doesn’t lock their doors when they close. It keeps more people from coming in,” Langston said.

Thomas said he doesn’t understand why he had to deal with the same situation twice.
“My question is, why after I told them how I felt and that it was against my creed did this negroid try to impress himself upon me and try to handle my groceries again.” Thomas said…

Thomas said he is going forward with his complaint because Langston has no right to stand against what he believes in.

“If he wants to stand in opposition of who I am, then we are going to go forward with this here thing,” Thomas said.

Meanwhile, in a response to a lawsuit against the birth control mandate by private companies, the Department of Justice argued the freedom of religion includes not having your employer impose their religious beliefs on you, the employer’s freedom of religion and the voluntary nature of employment contracts be damned. Seriously.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • sarcasmic||

    I don't get it.

  • RBS||

    I think we are supposed to be outraged by the guy suing the grocery store?

  • BakedPenguin||

    The asshole thinks he has a right to shop there.

  • RBS||

    I thought he had a right to only be serviced by good clean white boys?

  • BakedPenguin||

    If he wants to be serviced by boys, he should boycott Chick-Fil-A, too.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    After reading this article, I don't know who or what I am supposed to be mad at, but I AM OUTRAGED!!1!1

  • ||

    The store can refuse to deal with anybody, at any time, and for any reason whatso-motherfucking-ever. For all I give a shit, they didn't like your fucking haircut, you opprobrious fucking retard.

    I hope his stupid ass is laughed out of court five minutes after he shows up.

  • ||

    partially correct. they can, as long as they are not discriminating against a protected class for that reason.

    iow, the store, as a place of public accomodation cannot say "i refuse to serve you because you are black (or jewish or whatever)"

    they most definitely can refuse to serve this guy for being an assmunch to one of their employees

  • Adam330||

    But can they refuse to serve him based on his religion (wich apparently requires being an assmunch), which is a protected class?

  • Tonio||

    That's a good question, Adam. IANAL, but the courts have consistently held that religious beliefs, even those of new, small and blatantly bogus faiths (ie, prison religions) have to be accommodated.

    Thomas is a racist piece of shit, but he has the right to free speech. I also support the right of the store (or anyone) to refuse service to him for being a RPOS (or any other reason).

  • The Derider||

    So some racist moron files a handwritten lawsuit that will certainly fail, and this proves that positive rights are absurd?

    Try harder.

  • ||

    joe, you're a moron. Try harder. Or just fuck off.

  • ||

    Aren't you always telling people not to respond to trolls?

  • ||

    joe isn't really a troll, he's an eristic scumbag who used to hang out at HR a lot. He's not sockpuppeting.

  • LauraB||

    I sheepishly admit that I had to look up eristic, but it's become my brand-new very favorite word.

  • ||

    Aren't "troll" and "eristic" basically synonyms?

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    I learned a new word today. Thanks Epi!

  • The Derider||

    He doesn't want any competition.

  • tarran||

    Joe, your arguments aren't as sharp as they used to be. Are you tired? Work in the private sector proving harder than being an urban planner in Lowell?

    BTW, again, I understand why you left city government. As I said in another thread, in my first visit a week ago or so, I found Lowell to be a real dump.

  • Loki||

    in my first visit a week ago or so, I found Lowell to be a real dump.

    Not suprising.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    in my first visit a week ago or so, I found Lowell to be a real dump.

    That's why I suspect he's still there.

    Last year I was drinking in the Garden/North Station bar after a Bruins game while my sister was on the phone, so I started chatting with a trio of attractive girls. When I discovered they were waiting for the train to Lowell, I decided it would be a better plan just to insult it until their train came.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Lowell is great for Vietnamese and other South-East Asian food. I wouldn't stray from the main streets after dark though.

  • Fluffy||

    No. The absence of any limiting principle to positive rights that would render this freak's 9-page handwritten lawsuit proves that positive rights are absurd.

    The guy isn't suing on the basis of a lack of religious accomodation (i.e. that they should have provided a white bagger).

    He's suing on the basis of the fact that once they found out about his religion, they banned him from the store.

    And sorry, but if it's illegal discrimination to say "Jews can't shop in my store!" it's illegal discrimination to say "Christian Identity Movement dickwads can't shop in my store!"

    The only reason his lawsuit is doomed to fail is because the court will (wrongly and unjustly) decide that his religion isn't a "real" religion worthy of protection.

    Unless banning property owners from deciding for themselves who to allow on their property and who to exclude is wrong, the store had no basis for its action. Their only permissible course of action was to refuse to provide the guy with a different bagger, and let him decide if he wanted to stay or go.

  • The Derider||

    Do you think the store banned him because of his religion, or because he was a racist fucktard?

    Banning people based on their religion is bad. Banning people based on their conduct is OK. If your religion requires you to have noxious conduct with others, banning that noxious conduct is different than banning the religion itself.

  • Fluffy||

    I guarantee you that if a Hasidic Jew said he didn't want a woman to bag his groceries at my store, and I told him to get the fuck out, and then locked him in the building to detain him for the police when he came back, I'd get accused of banning the guy due to his religion.

    To me, it doesn't matter if the guy's religion is made-up, stupid, or noxious. As soon as the state passes and enforces an anti-religious discrimination law for public accomodation owners, he deserves to win his stupid and loathsome little lawsuit.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I guarantee you that if a Hasidic Jew said he didn't want a woman to bag his groceries at my store, and I told him to get the fuck out, and then locked him in the building to detain him for the police when he came back, I'd get accused of banning the guy due to his religion.

    Except that Hasidic Jews don't do that. Shaking hands however...

  • gulo gulo||

    Except that Hasidic Jews don't do that

    Except that you're completely wrong, they absolutely DO, and they do much worse as well.

    You don't know every Hasidic Jew ever. Stop pretending otherwise.

  • ||

    ^this

    and banning people based on their religion (in a place of public accomodation) is ILLEGAL.

    banning them based on assmunch conduct (like this guy engaged in)

    is not

  • Fluffy||

    Not if the assmunch conduct is indistinguishable from identifying yourself as a member of the religion.

    If a new church was formed that called itself the "HeMan Fag Hating Religion", and I walked into a store wearing my official "HeMan Fag Hating Religion" membership hat, it would be fucking too bad for anybody who saw my hat and didn't like the word "fag".

    Unless and until the public accomodations discrimination laws are repealed.

  • Ed||

    Unfortunately I think its more likely eventually there's a "federally approved" list of religions that qualify for protections. Veterans' Affairs already does it with what religious symbols are acceptable for soldiers buried at veterans ' cemeteries.

  • Mensan||

    Perhaps surprisingly, Atheist and Humanist are on the list of government approved religions.

  • ||

    i disagree

    i think the law will properly distinguish between CONDUCT and beliefs and uphold the store's authority to ban him.

    i'd like to hear what prof.volokh has to say about this.

  • Fluffy||

    Do you really think I can't come up with a way to claim that identifying yourself as, say, a Catholic, would be offensive to me?

    "Identifying yourself as a Catholic means you support Rerum Novarum, and I consider that incredibly rude! YOU'RE FUCKING BANNED! Get out of here with your damn Ash Wednesday forehead!"

  • ||

    if, as a catholic, you said to the bagger (who happened to wear a yarmulke) "listen, i'm not having no christ killing, dirty jew bag my groceries" the store most definitely could (and most likely WOULD) trespass you - iow tell you to leave.

    again, being a member of a protected class does not give you carte blanche to engage in any activity in a place of public accomodation as long as you can tie it to your religion

  • Fluffy||

    again, being a member of a protected class does not give you carte blanche to engage in any activity in a place of public accomodation as long as you can tie it to your religion

    You're not getting it.

    You're saying that they could ban the guy because the clerk found his comment offensive.

    What I'm saying is that I could very, very easily concoct a reason why it would be offensive to me to merely know that you're a Catholic or a Jew. "You came into my store with Ash Wednesday marks on your forehead? You're telling me you hate gays! Get the FUCK OUT!"

    Why is the clerk's choice to be offended more worthy of protection than my choice to be offended? I imagine for the same reason that this guy's asinine made-up religion is less worthy of protection than all the other asinine made-up religions.

    "Aw, Fluffy, be reasonable. We just want to try to have people get along with each other, and not put up 'No Jews' signs on their stores. We didn't want to let people make up offensive religions and then demand service even though they're dicks." I don't care.

  • ||

    i think there's a reasonableness test. that's how it was explained to me, and like i said, i frequently assist stores/businesses in trespassing people.

    because if the store can't articulate a reasonable cause for trespassing the person, i must consider they are doing it based on the person's protected class (race, etc.)

    let's consider a more extreme example.

    let's say the guy said "i'm not having any N*****r" bag my groceries. my religion prohibits it"

    could they ban him?

    absolutely

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "because if the store can't articulate a reasonable cause for trespassing the person, i must consider they are doing it based on the person's protected class (race, etc.)"

    No offense, but I don't want you deciding who can speak and who is not allowed to speak on what property. Fuck that.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    For the record, I think people should be able to throw someone off their property for any fucking reason they want to...case solved.

  • The Derider||

    You have a right not to be offended by the actions and conduct of one of your customers, and can exclude them for such.

    You do not have a right not to be offended by the IDENTITY of your customers, and cannot exclude them for it.

    Your example is of the latter.

  • ||

    statements =/= identity

  • CampingInYourPark||

    You look a little effeminate. It offends me. You are BANNED!

  • Fluffy||

    You do not have a right not to be offended by the IDENTITY of your customers, and cannot exclude them for it.

    This jackass' identity is that he doesn't want negroids to touch his food.

    Is there a way to communicate that identity that doesn't fall under Dunphy's "We can ban offensive conduct" rule?

    Nope.

  • The Derider||

    I don't think he has a right to "communicate that identity", only not to be excluded because of his identity.

    If he can't find some way to communicate his identity without pissing everybody off, he shouldn't go grocery shopping some place where he knows some black guy might bag his groceries.

  • Scaliwag||

    "You have a right not to be offended by the actions and conduct of one of your customers, and can exclude them for such."

    The right not to be offended? Really, douche bag? Really?

  • Scaliwag||

    " trespass you - iow tell you to leave."

    Why not just say "tell you to leave" then?

  • The Derider||

    They can ban you for wearing the hat. They can't ban you for believing in the religion. If you take the hat off, and they still ban you, THEN you'd have a case.

  • Fluffy||

    I guarantee you that if I took off the hat and they said, "You're still banned!" our quisling courts would come up with some sort of ratiocination to justify it.

  • The Derider||

    So its really not about positive rights, it's about stupid courts?

  • Fluffy||

    They can ban you for wearing the hat. They can't ban you for believing in the religion.

    There is no distinction that I can see between wearing the hat and believing in the religion.

    All the hat does is identify me as a believer in the religion.

    They would be banning me because they found out I believed in the religion.

    I would only be allowed to return in the future if I could not be outwardly identified as a member of the religion.

    If the store had a rule that banned Jews, but let them come back in if they dressed up as Catholic priests, I don't think that would fly.

  • The Derider||

    The hat is simultaneously a signifier of religious identity and a purposefully noxious ornament.

    If you take the hat off, your identity is unchanged, but you no longer piss everybody off.

    They're not banning you for believing in a stupid religion, they're banning you for wearing a stupid hat. If your religion requires you to wear the stupid hat, then you can choose not to patronize establishments that ban stupid hats. Just like Jews can avoid restaurants that serve pork.

  • Matrix||

    I used to be more observant, so I used to wear a baseball cap most of the time when I was out, and often a kippah (yarmulke) on under it and a tallit katan with tzitziyot. If I walked into a store and they said "take your hat off or leave" and I took my baseball cap off but left my kippah on and then they demanded I still leave because I refused to take the kippah off, would that be "okay" for them to do under the law?

    In my libertarian world, they could throw me out for any reason... even if they just hated me because I was a Jew.

  • The Derider||

    If they're forcing everybody to take off their hats, and there's a rational reason to do so, I have no problem telling yarmulke wearers to comply or leave.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    kippah (yarmulke) on under it and a tallit katan with tzitziyot.

    Frum as Fuck!

  • CampingInYourPark||

    ^^This

  • CampingInYourPark||

    @matrix

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "In my libertarian world, they could throw me out for any reason... even if they just hated me because I was a Jew."

    This is the rational solution to the problem of some LEO making decisions about what crosses the threshold for being legitimately offensive or not. If someone doesn't want a bigot, the pope, a homosexual or orangutans in their store they should be able to decide that without a court.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Do you think the store banned him because of his religion, or because he was a racist fucktard?

    In this guys case, that's the same thing.

  • ||

    i think the courts will make the proper distinction.

  • Loki||

    ^THIS^ It sounds like it was late (they claimed they locked the doors because it was closing time), so it's possible there was only the only bagger on duty at the time. The proper response would have been "Sorry sir, but he's the only bagger here. You can either bag the groceries yourself, the cashier can bag them after they ring them up, or you can go shop at another store."

    I worked as a bagger in HS and once had to carry out a racist fuckstick's groceries after he did something similar. I had to be polite and courteous to the SOB. I've never felt dirtier. On the plus side, I did put the bag containing his bread and eggs in a position where they would get crushed by the 24 pack of soda he bought, so there's that.

  • ||

    most likely you had to do that because the store told you to.

    the issue is COULD the store ban a customer for being a racist fuckwad to an employee?

    the answer: yes

    it doesn't matter if he justifies his racism via religion.

    the store could not ban you for your religion. nor could they forbid wearing a yarmulke in the store.

    they most definitely can ban you for conduct, to include being a dickmunch to an employee

  • The Hammer||

    Yes, Joe. It does. Because if positive rights exist, they have to be universally applied. And they can't be, because trying to do so inevitably creates a paradox. Ergo, positive rights are crap.

  • The Derider||

    They create no paradox in this situation.

  • The Hammer||

    Really? So this guy's right to shop at a privately-owned store doesn't conflict with the black kid's right not to be discriminated against?

  • o3||

    the negro was just following orders

  • tarran||

    My prediction: 'public accommodation' property owners are allowed to ban some people based on their ethnicity and racial beliefs but not others.

    The notion that *all* property owners should be free to decide whom they permit onto their property (aka the "Fuck you, that's why" rationale) will neither be considered nor argued by any party.

  • Fluffy||

    My prediction: 'public accommodation' property owners are allowed to ban some people based on their ethnicity and racial beliefs but not others.

    Yes, exactly.

    That will be the outcome here. For no actual principle anyone will be able to name, but "just because".

  • ||

    they aren't banning anbody based on their BELIEFS.

    they are banning him based on his actions - his statements to the bagger

    which is entirely justified under the law, as it is.

  • Fluffy||

    His statements about his beliefs.

    I'm sure there's a bagger out there in America somewhere who would be offended if someone said to them, "I belong to a religion that believes that all races are equal and we should all love each other."

    But if I employed a white supremacist bagger who, after hearing this statement, he came over to me and said, "That nigger over there just told me he thinks we're both equal!" and I laid down the ban hammer as a result, I would not prevail against the guy's inevitable lawsuit by saying that I banned the customer because his "conduct" offended my bagger.

  • ||

    again, i disagree.

    i have zero doubt that a store could ban a customer MERELY FOR USING the "n" word, and the courts would uphold said right.

    i'm going to mention the case to prof. volokh over at his blog and maybe he will cover it.

    again, i'll bet any # of quatloos that this is the case.

    again, you can't discriminate on account of religion in a place of public accomodaton

    it does not therefore follow that a person can say or do whatever they want in a place of public accomodation as long as they can establish a nexus between their behavior/statements and their religion.

  • The Hammer||

    Because in some cases banning the person would make soft-headed politicians feel bad, and in other cases allowing the person to be banned would make soft-headed politicians feel bad. And making politicians feel bad will be illegal.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    "Meanwhile, in a response to a lawsuit against the birth control mandate by private companies, the Department of Justice argued the freedom of religion includes not having your employer impose their religious beliefs on you, the employer’s freedom of religion and the voluntary nature of employment contracts be damned."

    Oh surely, how would anyone know that working for a religious institution employer might involve...religion?!

  • Tman||

    Yeah! That's crazy!

    Cause I don't want the government in my bedroom! But they sure as hell better pay for what's going in my bedroom!

    http://youtu.be/4aFIkK79Of8

  • Coeus||

    I always get a kick out of feminists stymied by the simplest of questions.

  • GILMORE||

    In a telephone interview Wednesday, Thomas said, “It’s pretty simple. They treated me really bad because I told them it was against my creed

    i.e.

    "They discriminated against me because I wont let niggers touch my shit!"

    makes perfect sense. Bigotry, sense-of-entitlement seem to go hand in hand.

    And what the hell does this knucklehead think a 'creed' is, anyway? Its not a religion, and it isn't part of some formal ethical philosophy... this guy just has an inflated sense of his own irrational *opinions* = and he seems to think the outside world is obligated to 'respect' his ungodly idiocy.

  • tarran||

    He's probably a racist from New England... they don't have as much contact with other races here as they do in the south.

  • sarcasmic||

    I dunno. I live in New England and the only time I've ever heard someone say "creed" or "impress upon" was when I was on the phone talking to people in the South.

  • ||

    Careful with such comments, Tarran, or the Department of Justice is going to pick you up on suspicion of possessing Confederate Battle Flags under your mattress.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Maybe he complains about pesky untermenschen when he airs his grievances at Festivus?

  • Scaliwag||

    Perhaps he meant credo?

  • Loki||

    And what the hell does this knucklehead think a 'creed' is, anyway?

    He keeps using that word, I do not think it means what he thinks it means.

    I can't think of a single religion that has racism as one of its central tenets. Maybe there's some weird obscure religions out there, but unless the KKK started a church, I think he's SOL on the 1st amendment front.

  • ||

    there are several.

  • Tonio||

    Dunphy is right. Those religions, such as they are, tend to be of recent vintage and have few followers.

    Uh, you guys won't kick me out of the ACB echo-chamber, circle jerk for this, right?

  • GILMORE||

    I can't think of a single religion that has racism as one of its central tenets

    I think Shinto. also, the Viking thing.

    But I think the most important point would be, there's probably not a single religion, *no matter how racist*, that argues that people of those inferior, mogoloid, bastardized, mud-people races can't even be allowed to bag your groceries or touch anything else lest it be forever tainted by negroidery-virus-funk... I mean, that just don't make *sense*.

    even just plain-old not-creed-having racists would go, "hey man, what's the problem? Let that nigra-boy bag your groceries. You crazy? Also, make him carry 'em to your car. Him touchin it aint gonna do nothin..??"" I sincerely think even trying to play the "religion" card fails miserably, because this isn't simply a guy expressing his 'view' = he's demanding the world accomodate his insane racist preferences. He can't go back to the store and *demand* non-black baggers. He *can* try and find someplace else he prefers.

    And i say this as a descendent of Vikings, who believes you all to be the offspring of Mud Trolls, and I will slay you all in a bezerker rage with the coming of ragnarok. But I will *still let you bag my groceries in the meantime*. Cause I'm a decent dude.

  • Tonio||

    FOR means that a faith that was made up this afternoon with only one adherent is equally valid under the law (in terms of religious rights) as, say, Catholicism.

    YMMV in actual practice, of course.

    IANAL, etc.

  • GILMORE||

    You're anal?... what else is new?

    You I will behead prior to Ragnarok, mud troll. Just for practice.

  • Fluffy||

    I have to respect the *opinions* of Baptists.

    I can't tell them, "You're a baptist? Get the fuck out of my store!" and then go call the cops for criminal trespass.

    Until I can do that, I think the plaintiff here is entitled to prevail.

  • ||

    no

    you can't discriminate based on their opinions/beliefs.

    you can discriminate based on what they DO/Say

    the guy was rude to the bagger. that is cause enough to ban him

    fwiw, i assisted a store in trespassing (banning for one year) a person yesterday...

  • CampingInYourPark||

    Does that mean CFA can ban gays kissing on their property? Think not

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    If they ban only gays from kissing, probably not.

    If they ban all public displays of affection, from anyone at anytime, they've just opened a public school.

  • ||

    well put.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    Using this logic, I would have to ban everyone that spoke in the store, since this is all the bigot did.

  • ||

    rubbish. the issue is can the store ban a person for being rude/making racial comments toa bagger?

    the answer imo is clearly yes.

    fwiw, a few years ago i had a case where a (drunk bipolar) woman blew off a black dude who asked her out. he was walking out of the bar when she said loudly "like i would ever go out with a fucking N****r".

    guy spun and threw his pint glass at her.

    it impacted on her forehead and made the nastiest avulsion i have ever seen in my life. she was rushed to the hospital and i took her statement as they sewed her forehead back on.

    i think she learned her lesson

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "the issue is can the store ban a person for being rude/making racial comments toa bagger?"

    If the assumption is that ANYONE ever making a "rude" comment to a bagger was banned this might make sense.
    Is it your premise that I can ban anyone for any reason I find offensive or are there a defined set of offenses somewhere for which someone can ban another?

  • ||

    So you're saying assault is the proper response to insults? Some cop you are.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I'm completely with you. This guy should win his lawsuit, because that's the way the laws are written.

    The correct solution is to return property rights to the way they should be: you don't lose your freedom of association by running a business.

    I predict that he will lose his lawsuit, because they will use some outcome based thinking.

  • ||

    i disagree that's the way the law is written.

    the law says as a place of public accomodation it cannot discriminate on account of religion, race, etc.

    it most definitely can discriminate on account of CONDUCT.

    the store couldn't prohibit muslims or christians from shopping there

    if, for example, same people sat down in the middle of aisle 7 and started loudly praying, such that they blocked people's movement in the aisle, etc. the store could tell them to knock it off and kick them out if they didn't

    just because conduct is related to religion doe not mean it's always protected.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    True. This is why Rastas can't just smoke a spliff anywhere and anytime they want.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    They aren't saying he's got to deal with a black guy bagging his groceries. They are saying he can't come in at all because he thinks that is a bad thing.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    If his conduct did nothing to harm the other party, then what is the cause to ban him? He said hurtful words?

  • ||

    you most definitely CAN ban a person from your business for saying hurtful words to your employee

    do you seriously doubt that?

    fwiw, i have assisted stores in trespassing (banning) individuals for doing EXACTLY that.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "you most definitely CAN ban a person from your business for saying hurtful words to your employee"

    And then we get to decide who can define what hurtful words are allowed and which are not, which is bullshit.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    And since it would be hurtful for CFA to have any gay talk in it's store it could thus ban all teh gayz

  • CampingInYourPark||

    When they start whistling "amazing grace", they've performed an offensive action(nobody has explained who decides what is offensive so I assume it's you) and you can then you can ban the baptist.

  • Ice Nine||

    All the other crap aside, you've got to admit, "negroidal" is a pretty cool word. I'm secretly hoping that someone refers to me as "caucasoidal" sometime.

  • ||

    "Mongoloid" is the best-sounding of them all.

  • Ice Nine||

    Erm, that would be "mongoloidal" I believe.

  • A Serious Man||

    Now let's not be niggardly with our choice of racial sounding vocabulary.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Wasn't that a Devo song?

  • sarcasmic||

    I was thinking of The Dead Milkmen's Tiny Town.

    "I've got myself a daughter and she's a mongoloid
    because I married my sister and our gene pool's been destroyed!"

  • ||

    mongoloid is a devo song, btw

  • sarcasmic||

    Never heard it. Likely never will.

  • albo||

    It's "negroid" when the person is floating about the solar system, "negro" when the person is flaming through the air, and "negroite" when the person impacts the earth.

    get it right

  • sarcasmic||

    I see this as an example of why laws prohibiting* discrimination are crap.
    This could be a business opportunity.
    A shop owner could advertize that there are no "negroids" working in their establishment, and thus attract Thomas and his friends (assuming he has friends) as customers.
    People who don't want to shop at an obviously racist establishment would be free to keep walking.
    But alas, it will never happen.

    *Not to be confused with laws mandating the practice.

  • RBS||

    Good point, unfortunately for most people not prohibiting equals mandating.

  • Loki||

    They could just change the law so that any business that doesn't hire minorities are subject to a penaltax.

  • Jerry on the road||

    So, why doesn't he shop at an all whites supermarket? Oh, wait...

  • ||

    because Whole Foods is expensive?

  • sarcasmic||

    When I had one nearby I would go there for all my herbs and spices because they sell them in bulk.

    Half the time the bag was so light that it wouldn't even register so I got for free what would have been at least five bucks at the regular grocery store.

  • ||

    nice.

    in seattle, THE go to place for bulk herbs, etc. is PFI.

    way way cheaper than whole foods.

    and they have like every spice and grain under the sun

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Let's drop all this positive rights talk and get to the real meat of the issue:

    Who the fuck says "sack" groceries?

  • RBS||

    People that piss in terlets and open winders.

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    Those responsible for the "sacking" have themselves been sacked.

  • Bardas Phocas||

    [Dewitt Thomas] stated in a nine-page, hand-written lawsuit

    See kids, that's how it's done. Old-school Crazy.
    Hopefully he wrote that in a basement room with a naked lightbulb swinging over head - possibly he was smoking at the time. Sure he could hire a slick Jackie Childs lawyer to represent him and have a pretty para-legal type up a nice lawsuit -- but that's not the American way of crazy.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    In regards to the doors being locked:

    I worked closing shifts in two grocery stores. It was common practice to lock the incoming doors a couple of minutes before the store officially closed so that people wouldn't come in at the least second and stay for 45 minutes. We never locked the outgoing doors while there were still customers in it. I assume if we had (because there was only one door?), we would have someone nearby to let the customers out when they were ready to leave.

  • Fluffy||

    Hey, maybe.

    But if they had called the police to report a criminal trespass, I think it's VASTLY more likely the guy decided to try to bail, and they locked the doors to keep him inside until the cops got there. VASTLY.

    But hey, a lot of people here believe Zimmerman wasn't trying to restrain Martin, so I guess opinions may vary.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    If that's what they did, he deserves to win that portion of the suit as well. I was just explaining the common/reasonable practice since the store is using that practice as their defense for that charge. I doubt they would be so stupid as to detain him, but it's possible.

  • ||

    i agree with this. and fwiw, in my experience these stores (and their managers) are well trained in when they can detain people (i dealt with one yesterday detaining an individual).

    they would tell the guy to leave. the last thing you do to a guy you are trying to ban (for NONcriminal conduct) would be to lock him in

    it makes no sense.

    "leave"
    (locks door)

  • Fluffy||

    "leave"
    (locks door)

    I'm thinking it would be more like:

    "Sir, you have to leave!"

    "I ain't leavin', you can't kick me out for mah creed!"

    "If you don't leave now, we'll call the police!"

    "Youse is discriminatin' against mah creed!"

    "OK, the police have now been called. You're going to jail."

    "Aw, shit! I'm leavin'!"

    "No, now you're waiting until the cops get here." (Locks door.)

  • Auric Demonocles||

    That's how it would have to go down, but I doubt they'd be so dumb as to do it.

    The other option is that they used the standard practice and this guys either didn't understand that they only locked one set of doors or is pissed off enough that he's trying to get more out of the suit.

  • Clay||

    Dang. I always wondered what would happened if I told the grocery store cashier that I didn't want the mentally handicapped, retarded, challenged (whatever the appropriate word of the year is)to bag my groceries.
    Does that make me a dick???
    I mean i love me some smashed bread, squashed by the cleaning products that have been placed in the same, probably soon to be banned, plastic shopping bag.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    As a former bagger, I'll let you in on a secret: saying anything to the bagger other than "Thank you" probably makes them think you are a dick.

  • Clay||

    Seriously, around here the grocery stores employee special needs people to bag. I have worked with these folks at a former job and they where great and very productive but I really don't want someone who may not grasp the concept that one of these things is not like the other and throw all my shit in which ever bag they have in front of them.
    But I can imagine the horror that would result from asking that the special dude not bag my stuff.
    I couldn't care less about your ethnicity, just put cold with cold, dry with dry and don't smash my fucking bread.
    Yep, I must be a dick. Crap.

  • T o n y||

    So this board is a big love-fest right because property owners have a right to ban people from their premises for any reason, including religion?

    If you can ban people because of their skin color, then surely you can ban people because of their stupid beliefs? Property is near-sovereign space here, right?

  • The Hammer||

    Yep. It makes you a dick, but being a dick is not, nor should it be, illegal.

  • T o n y||

    Unless your dickishness is part of a cancer of dickishness on society that affects the creation of a racial underclass.

    You should have a right to participate in your community without systematic discrimination. If you're in a community with no such widespread problem, social norms will take care of the problem. Otherwise apartheid-like situations are correctly nipped in the bud because we know there is no possible way for it to have a positive outcome. The racist assholes imposed big government on themselves by actively suppressing the equality of groups of people.

  • Ed||

    You're a moron. Only government force made Jim Crow possible, not the lack of it. Learn some history.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement