Black Tips Matter

“ .... Arguing with server over the button or even mentioning it in any way was foolish”.

My comment did not relate to him not leaving a tip, which only became any kind of issue because he verbally objected to the button (even though he “consented” by ordering food and staying there to eat).

If he just shut up about it and then did not tip, that’d be okay too.

But if me, I would have just gotten up and left, without commenting.

“ .... Arguing with server over the button or even mentioning it in any way was foolish”.

It appears you concede to, or to use your term perhaps "consent" to, a system in which anyone objecting to the BLM message deserves to be retaliated against, even to the point of losing their job.

Much like those who are confronted at a restaurant and forced to cower and say "black lives matter" by the mob.

He was unfairly retaliated against by his employer for expressing his first amendment protected speech. He does not have to support BLM as a condition of employment any more than any other customer at a restaurant of their choosing.

“It appears you...”.

Don’t debase yourself by debating like a leftist - setting up a straw man and inferring things I did not say and do not believe so you can attack that.

I made no comment about whether or not the retaliation against him was justified. The server is not his employee. So it is up to the employer to voice any objection to the wearing of any buttons. Otherwise the servers can wear what they want just as the employer can decorate the business how they want.

Would you walk into a Hooters and start complaining about scantily dressed waitresses? Of course not, and even if for some reason it did bother you as soon as you saw this you would walk out, but you would not try to shame the waitresses for how they dressed.

My comment was solely related to questioning the wisdom of him speaking up, not to whether or not any retaliation against him was justified.

“Much like those who are confronted at a restaurant and forced to cower and say “black lives matter” by the mob.”

Also that is something entirely different.

The customer looked at the menu. The customer looked at how the waitress appeared. The customer looked at the ambience of the business. And then the customer placed an order, which implied “consent” to all of the above.

The customer did not consent to being menaced by an outside mob, which is a crime.

Finally, to anticipate your next question, the most his employer should’ve done was to give them a warning which could go in his file. Firing him over this was excessive.

As a public figure, he must conduct himself appropriately when out and about, which in this case means not trying to socially reengineer a private business when he objects to how its employers are dressed. Aside from any unanticipated events that might happen after ordering his meal (such as under/over cooked meat), if there was anything he didn’t like about the business before that, he should’ve just walked out - nothing more.

He was off duty, didn't have on a uniform or give any other indication he was a public servant. He left after one drink (probably after he saw the BLM button -- there goes your "consent" semantic nonsense) because he was offended by the Marxist button of an organization that is so far responsible for $2 billion in damages to businesses, residences, and government infrastructure not to mention irreparable damage to race relations. He let the manager know why he was leaving, emphatically, without assaulting anyone. He paid his bill but not a tip, as was his right.

Who pursued retaliation to the point they complained to his employer?

Bowers quoted one AG’s office employee, a person of color, who wrote that “now that I know he demonstrates such extreme racial bias and prejudice … I no longer feel comfortable or safe to work with him.”

Insane. This is one of the "reasons" he was fired. She apparently belongs to a special class of people that have a right not to be offended even indirectly, and even though her view assumes all black people support the BLM organization.

I wonder what would have happened if they found out he posts to FR (who knows, maybe he does). Would this also be in the report?

As for you, well, you rationalize support for the 'cancel culture', which of course is decidedly one-sided in its targeting.

I have no way expressed support for cancel culture.

Also, as I have repeatedly said:

I also have no problem with him not tipping.

I also think he should not be fired for this.

The following summarizes what is really a minor distinction between our two positions:

You think it’s fine for him to walk out and also emphatically tell the manager why he’s walking out - because the waitress had a BLM button.

I also think it’s fine for him to walk out, but since he is a public figure, I think it’s foolish for him to publicly announce a reason for him to be leaving that he knows, or should know, would be controversial.

I don’t know why you want to blow it up into more than that, unless you’re trying to pull some kind of cancel culture on me for - Gawd forbid - having a slightly different view than you.

Splitting hairs — you think it’s okay for him to put on a public display of his displeasure, but he can’t say why — that would be improper!

If he says why, he deserves a pubic lynching? What if he had said his drink had a roach in it, and he swallowed it? Would that have resulted in all the publicity of this incident? No, of course not, he was pursued because he attacked a sacred cow. The investigator’s comments betray this conclusion.

And of course if he hadn’t been pursued by revenge-seekers, it wouldn’t be in the news. Doxxing is a primary weapon of the cancel-culture movement.

Yet you defend the malicious bureaucrats that fired a fine investigator who’s considered to be an ally of the police force (making him a natural nemesis of BLM), because he made the mistake of revealing the real reason behind his displeasure with the restaurant’s tacit endorsement of BLM? It’s a cowardly view, one that implies opposition to BLM is something to be ashamed of. Or, in your own words, anything “controversial”, meaning any statement that may be construed, or misconstrued, as offensive to the most delicate snowflake (I provided her quote), the least common denominator working in his office, whether he’s ever met them in person or not.

The entire incident reeks of hypocrisy, retaliation, and corruption — maybe his bosses wanted him fired anyway because he’s old and they could use this to deny his pension, and replace him with a cheaper, younger applicant for his position.

I say he should get a good lawyer and seek justice. Perhaps we can agree on that.

1. “ If he says why, he deserves a pubic lynching? What if he had said his drink had a roach in it, and he swallowed it?“

1. Again I did not say he deserves a public lynching. You keep going back to that, regardless. I just said it was bad judgment for him to speak up. Also, expressing displeasure over how badly a waitress does her job is different than expressing displeasure over aspects of her character you dislike. The more apt comparison would be if she were transsexual. Should he then walk out without saying why, or should he proclaim the reason?

2. “Yet you defend the malicious bureaucrats that fired a fine investigator who’s considered to be an ally of the police force (making him a natural nemesis of BLM), because he made the mistake of revealing the real reason behind his displeasure with the restaurant’s tacit endorsement of BLM? It’s a cowardly view”.

2. Again I do not defend how he was treated. Let’s say a husband calls his wife fat, and then she hits him. I can still say it was foolish for the husband to call his wife fat without being accused of also saying that it was OK for her to hit him - two different things. What you call cowardly, I call prudence.
From the article:

“Vincent said she was respectful and cashed them out. At that point, according to witnesses and the AG’s investigation, Steiger confronted another young employee he thought was a manager and angrily confronted him about the BLM buttons. That conversation ended with Steiger swearing and flipping the young man off.”

If me calling this foolish or imprudent is cowardice, then do you view the above actions as wise and/or brave?

3. “ I say he should get a good lawyer and seek justice. Perhaps we can agree on that”.

3. Yes, we can. His impudent public display did not warrant the excessive actions taken by his employer.

I just said it was bad judgment for him to speak up.

That's the coward's choice every time -- don't speak up. Never confront those who stomp on the flag, never betray your contempt for those tearing down our most fundamental institutions, don't make the protester mad -- just go along to get along. That's the coward's creed.

And all enforced because of a fear of retaliation, the whole purpose of doxxing. Not just for public officials, it's effective on just about anyone. They call your place of employment and bombard your boss with harassing pressure, or publicize a boycott of your business, or expose your social media posts, harass your neighbors, etc. etc.

He never identified himself as an investigator during his outburst (though I strongly suspect that's why he was targeted) -- he was acting as an outraged public citizen. He was not violent, he wasn't threatening anyone, he was upset. So what.

I'm sick of people not standing up for what's right, out of fear. I say good on him, any waiter who wears a BLM pin doesn't deserve a tip, and needs to know why. They deserve to be embarrassed. TAKE A STAND.

“Never confront those who stomp on the flag”.

Not the same thing.

Would you get angry with someone wearing a BLM pin out in public, confront them and tell them why it’s so bad for them to wear that pin?

I wouldn’t, but if you did, I wouldn’t argue with you about it.

I make a distinction between what happens out in public and what happens in a private business. Walking into a private business is like walking to a persons home. Out of courtesy you owe the owner more deference to how they choose to conduct their business. And if it’s something you can’t tolerate you should just walk out.

If by mistake you walked into an Islamic bakery would you scold them if they had a copy of the Koran on display?

Also, there is BLM the slogan and BLM the organization. For many donning BLM buttons or shirts they are only aware of the slogan and support that on just a surface level. And particularly if they watch the leftist media they are not aware of the violent radicals that the BLM organization sends out to riot. Hence whether it is an employee or somebody out in public I would not be inclined to confront either. But I’d be more than ease confronting the person in public as I would not feel any sense of duty to defer to what they do in their space.

If I confront someone out in public and they don’t wanna argue with me they can walk away. If I confront an owner or employee at work, they can not leave. However, I can leave. And since it is their business and their workspace, if I don’t like it, then that’s what I should do.

You can rant and rave about cowardice all you want. IMHO, that’s just good manners.

By way of comparison:

Let’s say instead of the BLM button he was upset that the owner was playing an NFL game on the TV. Because of all the players kneeling during the anthem he thinks no one should be watching the football games.

But apparently that view is not shared by anyone else there, who are either watching the game or are tolerant of it being on the TV. So when the bartender refuses to turn off the game, he pays for the drink he says you’re not getting a tip because you have the game playing on the TV.

You apparently would think that is fine.

I think it’s out of line because he walked into that bar and should have respect for how they want to conduct their business. If you saw the game on TV in abducted he could’ve left. If he didn’t notice the game on the TV until after ordering he should’ve finished his drink and left, and if not leaving me a tip, should not have mentioned why.

He clearly walked into a business that did not share his values. Regardless, he should not interfere with those who do not share his values and simply want to peacefully go about their business in that restaurant.

Is it the customer’s duty to impose his values on a business? If that is the case, where does it stop? How are you any different than a gay or lesbian customer telling a Christian baker how to run their business?

The football game programming analogy is a straw man argument — there are significant differences in situational control, influence, and degree that must be considered, though I agree some sports programming recently is politically charged and that is itself offensive. But by comparison sports programming is passive. You can’’t assume the bar supports BLM because a few sports players kneel, and of course the bar does not control what the sports players on TV wear. The bar does control what the servers wear — in fact it’s policy that comes directly from management, which has foremost on its mind consideration of the concept of customer service. Don’t allow your servers to wear political campaign buttons. Your servers represent the bar directly, so don’t have them provoking customers with political grandstanding. Have you ever seen a server wearing a political campaign button? Of course not. BLM is much more offensive than a Biden or Trump button — this is a self-declared revolutionary movement terrorizing ordinary citizens and is responsible for an estimated $2 billion in damages, so far.

If he didn’t notice the game on the TV until after ordering he should’ve finished his drink and left, and if not leaving me a tip, should not have mentioned why.

Yeah right, insert tail between legs, run for the exit. Take the cowardly way out. Don’t risk getting doxxed! It’s just a button, we don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings, we are guilty of privilege, who are we to question their Marxist pin collection? They have a right to rub our privileged face in BLM propaganda, but we as nice compliant weasels just want to get along. Go along to get along! Don’t challenge the revolution, maybe they won’t come for you.

Let me tell you, they may as well wear Nazi armbands — there is no functional distinction between the evils of Marxism and Naziism — BLM is a Marxist movement, just ask the founders and leaders of BLM. This is not a game. It’s a threat to the very foundations of our country.

I don’t blame him for being upset, or for arguing with some other numbskull employee he thought was the manager, who for all we know was the antagonist in the ensuing argument.

And I certainly don’t care about sparing anyone’s feelings — like Ben Shapiro says, if we have freedom of speech and BLM Marxists take full advantage of that fact and then some — why should we let them off the hook, EVER? They are responsible for $2 billion in damages and counting — and it continues because average citizens cower before them.

The man was doxxed and suffered from retaliation because he attacked the sacred cow of BLM at a time when white guilt and white privilege are recurrent BLM themes, endorsed by the MSM and tolerated by spineless citizen sheep, many of whom won’t even show up to cast a secret vote to end it in November.

So if you don’t like the football game analogy, then try the Christian baker allergy.

Whose side are you on?

The Christian baker that wants to run their business as they see fit?

Or the gay customer who gets angry and argues (or worse) because they won’t bake the cake that they want?

Explain to me how the customer who gets angry and argues over the BLM button instead of quietly walking out is any different than the gay customer also gets angry and argues that the private business won’t do what they want, instead of quietly taking their business elsewhere - something you continually referred to as cowardice.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.