And what happens when the papers report that the man did not deliver the pizza based on what he "sensed"? Sounds like a civil rights lawsuit waiting to happen.
One that would involve the deep pockets of the town or city that sent its police officers to 'deliver' the pizza. $$$$$$$$$$$$$
Bump to that. Either take the risk one way or take it the other. Of course, the company prefers to take the risk in a way that would subject the driver to danger, where they may simply claim that it was not their policy that endangered the driver but an intervening illegal act by whatever crook shot `em.
Typical. My respect for Papa John's just dropped a notch. I loved eating there in Korea--I always thought they were the best of the big pizza chains--but it won't happen again unless I hear their policy has changed. It's too bad. Their big cheese donated to Bush (although he did contribute to Ben Chandler, too). But I'm not contributing to any wishy-washies if I can avoid it, and there are local places I can get pizza from in Korea anyway (even if it does have corn or some other asinine Korean mix on it).
Plus Domino's has gotten a lot better, and they're pretty well known to be hardcore conservative donors.
Both me and my wife have worked as pizza delivery drivers for extra cash. Most stores will refuse to deliver if the driver feels threatened or unsafe. If a driver has been robbed, that area instantly becomes off-limits. If a potential customer complains about lack of delivery service to their neighborhood, they are told that the drivers safety are more important than their pizza. BTW, my wife works for Papa John's. Pizza Hut has similar policies about armed drivers and dangerous areas.
I guess the right to refuse service doesn't count for much anymore.
I've always thought it was strange that all our "civil rights" seem to vanish when we are engaged in providing a service to to the community.