Manager of Texas Whataburger Refuses to serve Police Officers

Good job in finding the law that applies in this case. For the purposes of this case ... the business is public.

 

Do rules allow changing the title like that - changing "employee" (who was fired) with "manager?"

The employee was fired, Whatburger and manager both apologized. This thread title and OP is as false as it gets.

 

BS. I live right down the road (Texas wise) and the two officers were interviewed on the local stations, they said the employee refused service and they left then went back and asked the Manager if it was true they did not serve police officers and the Manger said that is was true, and then said nothing else and showed no real emotion, just said it, so they left. You cannot change the facts to suit whatever agenda you may have.

 

In this case, the employee represents the position of the corporate share holders.

They have no right to invoke their personal positions using the corporation as leverage.

They have no freedom to act on behalf of the company beyond what has been afforded them in their positions.

 

As I have already stated, but that has nothing to do with the post I was responding to.

 

Then we've established that neither of us supports the freedom of others to do whatever they want. There are lines.

Government is how a community draws those lines. Businesses can have an impact on communities, they can damage communities. Many communities draw lines to reduce that impact. It's reasonable and legal for them to do so.

Businesses that create walls within a community, like the Woolworth in Greensboro that said they would not serve black people at their lunch counter, divide a community. Communities have a right to decide if that kind of business practice damages them. They can (and often do) legally shut down those businesses if they make that evaluation.

I can see a community having similar concerns about a business that announces it won't serve lunch to blacks and a business that announces it won't serve lunch to blues. You want to draw the line between those two colors... well I won't fault you for that opinion. And I won't fault a community for being more color blind than you.




​

 

Thanks captain obvious. You seem to have missed the part that says "without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." While discrimination against people with funny haircuts and cops is not against the law.

 

Prove it.

 

The law, already has made the distinction.

 

No. It was his religion that prohibited serving police officers. He will probably become the next fruit loop Republucan hero.

 

According to the article, the guy may have been joking. Whether that is true or not I think the firing of the employee is enough. Whataburger had a store in Killen when I was TDY to Ft. Hood. It was mighty good.

 

Oh hellz yeah, Whataburger was the best! Biscuits and gravy to die for. Well hopefully not literally lol... but that stuff's good.

Onto topic, yeah private business owners should have the right to refuse service to anyone, for whatever reason. Now if folks stop coming to buy things/services or what have you, well the business owner maybe should have thought of that first. But it's still their right, as an American private business owner, to run it as they see fit.

 

That is not how a court is going to interpret. For sure "gender" is on the list as is "sexual orientation" and you missed those.

 

I agree on all points,

 

Prove what, where I live? You are an idiot if you think I am going to tell you exactly where I live, not to mention the fact that I have to Prove nothing to you, your importance is over inflated and in you mind.

 

The cops stated that is what they thought until they went back in and asked, it was no joke. Yes they make good food, slow as molasses but good once you get it.

 

Very dumb move on the manager's part.

- - - Updated - - -

Does one justify the other. Especially if those cops had no involvement.

 

No - neither is justified. I was making a comparison about what people here get outraged by.

 

Whining is a popular action on political boards. I concur.

 

Justification means reason. That one reason doesn't apply, well... that doesn't mean no reasons exist.




​

 

Police shoot "Gentle Giant" after robbing store and going for officers gun.

Apoplexia on steroids.

 

That is a QUOTE form the federal statute. The ONY standard that applies in all 50 states. The ONLY standard that applies in Texas. 45 states include gender and 21 include sexual orientation. The others for sure do not.

There is nothing to interpret. You don't have a clue.

 

If he was an owner....as far as I know he can discriminate against cops. But he is not the owner......

 

I bet these flat feet expected the

Policeman's Discount.

Known to civilians as the 5 finger discount.

Let them eat donuts! ​

 

And SCOTUS has no clue either I suppose.

- - - Updated - - -

I do not think being and owner makes any difference.

I do agree that COP's are probably not what is normally referred to as an "identifiable" group for the purposes of anti-discrimination law.