San Francisco’s police union says a city bakery chain has a “bigoted” policy of not serving uniformed cops.

The San Francisco Police Officers Assn. wrote in a social media post last week that Reem’s California “will not serve anyone armed and in uniform” and that includes “members of the U.S. Military.” The union is demanding that the chain “own” its policy.

Reem’s says, however, its policy isn’t against serving armed police officers. It’s against allowing guns inside its businesses.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 20 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Unfortunately that isn't true. Businesses have a right to refuse service for a wide variety of reasons. Like you said though those protected classes are illegal to discriminate against.

That is why you can have rules, like "no shirt no shoes no service". So in this case it is if you bring a gun you will be asked to leave.

Although now if that store was ever a victim of a robbery I would bet the response time is very slow....

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Fun fact, if they can prove the police deliberately delayed their response that's a massive lawsuit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You still gotta convince the city and then who are you really hurting? If the cops had to pay lawsuits out of the FOP pension fund maybe that would matter. If you sue the city you're only hurting your neighbors and yourself.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Payments for those things shouldn't come out of public funds, cops should individually be required to carry malpractice insurance. Cop gets found guilty of violating someones rights? Settlement gets paid by their insurance. I bet you'd see all those "bad apples" suddenly being utterly unemployable once they literally can't find anyone willing to insure their scumbag asses.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments