Arbys Employee Refuses to Serve Police Officer

[GodIsSalvation]

What do you mean he has every right to deny to service to anyone he wants? Can you explain? He has the "right" meaning, he has the freedom to deny it? Well, that's true. I mean, the government is standing behind him with a gun, "Serve or We'll shoot!"
Neither is Arby's.

Maybe the better statement is: "He has the POWER to deny service to anyone he wants."

But does he have the "right"?

No. Arby's is his employer. The man took the job, agreed to serve the general public who visit Arby's.
No. The apostle Paul teaches a principle in Colossians 3. When you serve your earthly master, do so as unto the Lord.
Yes. The man has the "right" to deny service. According to himself and his own standard, yes. He has the right. But Arby's has the POWER/AUTHORITY and the right to run him through the beef shredder, that is, put their boot up his you know what and out the door, that is "You're Fired. And you're lucky we're doing the firing, and not a police officer who's gone postal."

Now go to Arby's. Order a Roast Beef. And don't complain about being short changed, being served a cold RB sandwich, a dirty table, and all that and more. They have a right!

Your reasoning is better than some, but one point to be made; in the story in the OP it says his direct superior explained at the time he has the right to deny service. Therefore he did not violate the will of his earthy master.

 

[Galahad]

If I go into a business and they refuse me service I'll move on and shake the dust off my feet.

So can the man refuse service to the cop and the woman refuse to condone sodomites or does the man have to serve everyone and the woman has to condone sodomites. Pick which side you're on, can't have you're cake and eat it too.

I have a right to have my cake, and eat it too. I'll tell you how. Suppose I have a standard size round cake. Okay. I have it on a plate with a fork. Yummy.

So I take a bite. Then another. And another. Guess what. I still have my cake.

And I eat it too.

So that old saying really don't make much sense.

Kinda like the thrown statement "He has a right to deny service to anyone he wants to." That carries very little meaning whatsoever. It's empty. Vain.

It's actually more aligned with anarchy. You know, those disobedient liberals who throw rocks into business and spray paint walls and jump on cars. "We have a right."

Now I've got some cake. And I'm going to eat some.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

I have a right to have my cake, and eat it too. I'll tell you how. Suppose I have a standard size round cake. Okay. I have it on a plate with a fork. Yummy.

So I take a bite. Then another. And another. Guess what. I still have my cake.

And I eat it too.

So that old saying really don't make much sense.

Kinda like the thrown statement "He has a right to deny service to anyone he wants to." That carries very little meaning whatsoever. It's empty. Vain.

It's actually more aligned with anarchy. You know, those disobedient liberals who throw rocks into business and spray paint walls and jump on cars. "We have a right."

Now I've got some cake. And I'm going to eat some.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you put it in your stomach or put it in its case.

 

[nw2u]

So, here's what confused me.



Was the officer paying for his food out of his earned income or getting it through the credit card issued for on the job expenses?
Does that matter to you?

Well, it never did to me in the past. They protect the restaurants they patronize, which give them food and beverages for free, better than most other places. Is that what the clerk was protesting? I see most of the posts assume the clerk and manager just hate police officers and law enforcement in general. In reality, we don't know what the reason for the refusal was. That officer is a human being and could even have made some inappropriate remarks in previous encounters.

Would an uneducated clerk or student know how to handle this kind of treatment? Would they or you fear retaliation and unfair treatment if you had to report something?

So, what about doctors and lawyers? They protect and help folks. In some cases they save lives. What about EMT's? Today's world has brought these questions up for me. I don't have an answer. I do know that both sides in most of these arguments/discussions/debates seem to assume quite a bit.

I'm not accusing the officer or the clerk of anything. I'm just giving food for thought. And yes, I would not have accepted the food, if I was that officer. I would not have thought it was important enough to file a report, though. I would just have come back later and talked with the manager. Aren't LEO's trained how to handle these situations? Seems like the only way he would need to file a report would be if he was concerned that the clerk would file one first. If he did nothing wrong, there was nothing to worry about.

Something is wrong with this situation.

Oh, and yes, I do care about LEO's and don't want them to be treated badly. The nature of their jobs are going to place them in that situation. They don't need extra trouble from "law-abiding" citizens. I'm sure LEO's are trained well. I'm sure they are not stupid.

By the way, I looked up the law about this. Restaurants like this are not allowed to refuse service except in a few situations. It doesn't matter if they have signs up or not. Here is a quote and a link where I got the quote:

[h=3]What Conditions Allow a Restaurant to Refuse Service?[/h] There a number of legitimate reasons for a restaurant to refuse service, some of which include:

• Patrons who are unreasonably rowdy or causing trouble
• Patrons that may overfill capacity if let in
• Patrons who come in just before closing time or when the kitchen is closed
• Patrons accompanied by large groups of non-customers looking to sit in
• Patrons lacking adequate hygiene (e.g. excess dirt, extreme body odor, etc.)

In most cases, refusal of service is warranted where a customer’s presence in the restaurant detracts from the safety, welfare, and well-being of other patrons and the restaurant itself.
- See more at: Restaurants: Right to Refuse Service | LegalMatch Law Library

I have my suspicions that this was just a simple matter of disliking "all" LEO's because of what the media prints. It's more likely the media just played a part in a problem this particular clerk has in his/her life with that officer or LEO's in general(less likely, though possible). I think advertising this is bad for LEO's. I think the best thing to do would be for the nation's LEO's to get their union reps together and start a campaign to educate the public, not advertise that one more cop was nasty to a clerk or one more clerk was nasty to a cop.

 

[Galahad]

Your reasoning is better than some, but one point to be made; in the OP it says his direct superior explained at the time he has the right to deny service. Therefore he did not violate the will of his earthy master.

GodisSalvation, Okay, his superior is not, however, the policy maker. His superior also has two concerns. Does he, the superior, have the "right" to compel the employee to serve the guest. And then the opposite concern, does he, the superior, have the right to ignore or allow the employee to not serve the guest.

I actually feel for the superior. Here's why....

The superior doesn't see two people or just two options. No sir.

He sees and thinks , "Boy, this is tricky. No matter what I do, social media, lawyers, thieves and thugs, Obama, left wingers, right wingers, helicopters (moderates, I just made that up, pretty good!), atheist, Catholics, Mormons, Buddhist in China, Eskimos in Alaska, Homosexuals, Evangelicals, Illegals, Legals, umpires, the Clintons, and many others are going to come down hard on me. Mom, help me!"

I bet the guy was sweating bullets. He saw the news choppers hovering above. Protesters. All Lives Matter was a ringing through his ears. Hands up don't shoot. Can't breath, can't breath.

Poor supervisor.

So he made the call.

And then BAM! Hell broke loose.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

So, here's what confused me.



Was the officer paying for his food out of his earned income or getting it through the credit card issued for on the job expenses?
Does that matter to you?

Well, it never did to me in the past. They protect the restaurants they patronize, which give them food and beverages for free, better than most other places. Is that what the clerk was protesting? I see most of the posts assume the clerk and manager just hate police officers and law enforcement in general. In reality, we don't know what the reason for the refusal was. That officer is a human being and could even have made some inappropriate remarks in previous encounters.

Would an uneducated clerk or student know how to handle this kind of treatment? Would they or you fear retaliation and unfair treatment if you had to report something?

So, what about doctors and lawyers? They protect and help folks. In some cases they save lives. What about EMT's? Today's world has brought these questions up for me. I don't have an answer. I do know that both sides in most of these arguments/discussions/debates seem to assume quite a bit.

I'm not accusing the officer or the clerk of anything. I'm just giving food for thought. And yes, I would not have accepted the food, if I was that officer. I would not have thought it was important enough to file a report, though. I would just have come back later and talked with the manager. Aren't LEO's trained how to handle these situations? Seems like the only way he would need to file a report would be if he was concerned that the clerk would file one first. If he did nothing wrong, there was nothing to worry about.

Something is wrong with this situation.

Oh, and yes, I do care about LEO's and don't want them to be treated badly. The nature of their jobs are going to place them in that situation. They don't need extra trouble from "law-abiding" citizens. I'm sure LEO's are trained well. I'm sure they are not stupid.

By the way, I looked up the law about this. Restaurants like this are not allowed to refuse service except in a few situations. It doesn't matter if they have signs up or not. Here is a quote and a link where I got the quote:



I have my suspicions that this was just a simple matter of disliking "all" LEO's because of what the media prints. It's more likely the media just played a part in a problem this particular clerk has in his/her life with that officer or LEO's in general(less likely, though possible). I think advertising this is bad for LEO's. I think the best thing to do would be for the nation's LEO's to get their union reps together and start a campaign to educate the public, not advertise that one more cop was nasty to a clerk or one more clerk was nasty to a cop.

The article in the OP answers a lot of your wonderings. These are fair ponderances. It would seem by the article there is no real valid reason, but nevertheless the clerk was within his right to refuse service as his manager said at the time.

Also according to the article the cop used credit card.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

GodisSalvation, Okay, his superior is not, however, the policy maker. His superior also has two concerns. Does he, the superior, have the "right" to compel the employee to serve the guest. And then the opposite concern, does he, the superior, have the right to ignore or allow the employee to not serve the guest.

I actually feel for the superior. Here's why....

The superior doesn't see two people or just two options. No sir.

He sees and thinks , "Boy, this is tricky. No matter what I do, social media, lawyers, thieves and thugs, Obama, left wingers, right wingers, helicopters (moderates, I just made that up, pretty good!), atheist, Catholics, Mormons, Buddhist in China, Eskimos in Alaska, Homosexuals, Evangelicals, Illegals, Legals, umpires, the Clintons, and many others are going to come down hard on me. Mom, help me!"

I bet the guy was sweating bullets. He saw the news choppers hovering above. Protesters. All Lives Matter was a ringing through his ears. Hands up don't shoot. Can't breath, can't breath.

Poor supervisor.

So he made the call.

And then BAM! Hell broke loose.

I think the manager maybe a woman given the name, but not sure.

I feel too that the manager was put in a hard spot, but that goes with the territory, that's what they're there for. I think the manager handled the situation shrewdly by taking it into his/her own hands. Maintaining the employees right to refuse service, but trying to serve the customer him/herself.

EDIT: Just the same the cop was within his right to want a refund and to complain to those higher than the manager.

 

[nw2u]

The article in the OP answers a lot of your wonderings. These are fair ponderances. It would seem by the article there is no real valid reason, but nevertheless the clerk was within his right to refuse service as his manager said at the time.

Also according to the article the cop used credit card.

The article in the opening post doesn't really answer my questions. I know the officer handed the clerk a credit card. If you reread my post which could have been confusing and I apologize for that, I asked if the card was one issued by work for expenses or if it was his own personal card paid with earned income. I hope to write more succinctly in the future, but for now, I'm doing my best to make my thoughts as clear as possible.

If you check the link I posted, the laws state that the clerk was not within his right to refuse service. The cop wasn't dirty, smelly, nor looking to eat inside. He was at the drive-thru window, if I am not mistaken.

 

[kaylagrl]

What? That's the point?

I thought the point was that the man has the right to deny service like his boss said and just like the woman has the right to deny condoning sodomy. Fair is fair.

But not according to the law...

 

[Galahad]

http://cds.arbys.com/images/press-room/pembroke-statement.pdf
A Message Regarding The Pembroke Pines, FL Incident
[FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]We take this isolated matter very seriously as we respect and support police officers in our local communities. As soon as the issue was brought to our attention, our CEO spoke with the Police Chief who expressed his gratitude for our quick action and indicated the case is closed. We will be following up with our team members to be sure that our policy of inclusion is understood and adhered to. Further, we will be following through with disciplinary action up to and including termination of the employees involved, as appropriate.
[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[GodIsSalvation]

The article in the opening post doesn't really answer my questions. I know the officer handed the clerk a credit card. If you reread my post which could have been confusing and I apologize for that, I asked if the card was one issued by work for expenses or if it was his own personal card paid with earned income. I hope to write more succinctly in the future, but for now, I'm doing my best to make my thoughts as clear as possible.

If you check the link I posted, the laws state that the clerk was not within his right to refuse service. The cop wasn't dirty, smelly, not looking to eat inside. He was at the drive-thru window, if I am not mistaken.

I get what you mean here.

I read the link you posted and I am actually surprised the Civil Rights Act defense wasn't put forth before. The clerk is still within his right to refuse service though both by word of the manager and by virtue of his own conscience regardless of any policy or law. He may have dealt unwisely, he may have to face consequences, but he may still refuse service to anyone he wants.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

But not according to the law...

If the law tries to make lawful that which is lawless, then it has no point and is illegitimate.

 

[kaylagrl]

Yes exactly the whole mentality to punish all for what one did is just a lame thing to do !!!








Where do you get this ideal for I see police officers given and accepting free food form gas stations and restaurants all the time around the Kansas city metro area.

Go to the Quick Trip on Lees Summit road and 23rd in Independence, MO around 3 AM and you will see them given free donuts from there.






Same as the punishments go that all should not pay for what one did, also not all officers should reap the benefits of a wrongful act of not being served that was only done to the one.

Only the one wronged should be compensated, and the one who did the wrong needs to pay for it !!!

Cops may be accepting free food but they should not be.I had a friend who owed a local restaurant and would give cops free meals. A new sheriff came to town and told my friend he was to give no more free food to cops.My friend said he didn't mind doing it at all and he said it could look like they were favoring him over other citizens. Cops should not look like they are showing favor.So he had to stop.

 

[Galahad]

I think the manager maybe a woman given the name, but not sure.

I feel too that the manager was put in a hard spot, but that goes with the territory, that's what they're there for. I think the manager handled the situation shrewdly by taking it into his/her own hands. Maintaining the employees right to refuse service, but trying to serve the customer him/herself.

EDIT: Just the same the cop was within his right to want a refund and to complain to those higher than the manager.

And the employee is there to serve the guest. Goes with the territory.
By whose "right" can he refuse? If it's his "right" then what do you mean his "right"? He does not have the "right" according to Arby's. The supervisor is not the policy maker.

Kinda like the president. He does not have the right to officially order the US military to arrest every US Senator and Representative. The military leaders made oath to the Constitution. And that arrest would be unconstitutional. Likewise, the employee signed a statement that he would follow the policies of Arby's restaurant. The supervisor was wrong. So the employee needs to serve the guest or quit and leave the premises. Go home. Shew. Leave.

 

[nw2u]

And the employee is there to serve the guest. Goes with the territory.
By whose "right" can he refuse? If it's his "right" then what do you mean his "right"? He does not have the "right" according to Arby's. The supervisor is not the policy maker.

Kinda like the president. He does not have the right to officially order the US military to arrest every US Senator and Representative. The military leaders made oath to the Constitution. And that arrest would be unconstitutional. Likewise, the employee signed a statement that he would follow the policies of Arby's restaurant. The supervisor was wrong. So the employee needs to serve the guest or quit and leave the premises. Go home. Shew. Leave.

First of all, it doesn't matter what Arby's policy is regarding who they will serve. The law states they cannot refuse someone, even by some arbitrary notice on the wall inside and outside.

Sending the employee home, immediately, would have been the correct decision. Informing the franchise owner or another superior would have been appropriate. Now, they will both lose their jobs, and they should.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

And the employee is there to serve the guest. Goes with the territory.
By whose "right" can he refuse? If it's his "right" then what do you mean his "right"? He does not have the "right" according to Arby's. The supervisor is not the policy maker.

Kinda like the president. He does not have the right to officially order the US military to arrest every US Senator and Representative. The military leaders made oath to the Constitution. And that arrest would be unconstitutional. Likewise, the employee signed a statement that he would follow the policies of Arby's restaurant. The supervisor was wrong. So the employee needs to serve the guest or quit and leave the premises. Go home. Shew. Leave.

By his own right and his conscience he can refuse service. Might be unwise, might come with consequences, but he certainly has the right to serve or not serve whomever he pleases.

 

[Nautilus]

What? That's the point?

I thought the point was that the man has the right to deny service like his boss said and just like the woman has the right to deny condoning sodomy. Fair is fair.

But would it be fair for her to deny a heterosexual couple that frequently engaged in sodomy?

 

[GodIsSalvation]

But would it be fair for her to deny a heterosexual couple that frequently engaged in sodomy?

Yes, it would be fair.

 

[nw2u]

By his own right and his conscience he can refuse service. Might be unwise, might come with consequences, but he certainly has the right to serve or not serve whomever he pleases.

Nope. All he can do is go home, use PTO or Holiday/Vacation time, or hope his manager is really forgiving. If that's what you mean by refusing service, he is within his rights to do those things. He can also ask for another person to serve those or suddenly visit the men's room for a few minutes every time this cop comes by, but those things will also get him questioned and reprimanded/fired. His best bet would have been to make a formal complaint of his own after serving this LEO his/her order. Sorry, I did get the clerk and cop's genders confused in previous posts.

Still, this has more to do with something personal to those two individuals than it does any societal changes.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Nope. All he can do is go home, use PTO or Holiday/Vacation time, or hope his manager is really forgiving. If that's what you mean by refusing service, he is within his rights to do those things. He can also ask for another person to serve those or suddenly visit the men's room for a few minutes every time this cop comes by, but those things will also get him questioned and reprimanded/fired. His best bet would have been to make a formal complaint of his own after serving this LEO his/her order. Sorry, I did get the clerk and cop's genders confused in previous posts.

Still, this has more to do with something personal to those two individuals than it does any societal changes.

Nay, he can refuse service and he all ready did. As I said, it may be considered unwise, he may have to face consequences, but he is within his right to refuse service to anyone even for the most petty of reasons.

EDIT: I agree though that by the way the story is told it seems personal, but it is what it is.