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.

  • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    79
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    If they are a public facing business, they are not within their rights to refuse service to anyone for any reason. There are protected classes, like age/race/sexuality. So if you own a business like a coffee shop, you can’t say “no black people.” However, police and guns are not protected classes, so I think they should be in the clear legally.

    • ZzyzxRoad@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      What happened to the supreme court cases that said it’s ok to discriminate against protected classes as long as it just so happens to be “against your religion”

        • visak@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Of course. They’re patient. They chipped away at abortion for decades before finally getting it overturned in Dobbs.

          Similarly they went from Masterpiece Cake Shop to the Creative LLC case which widened the exception further because it’s a “creative endeavor”. Don’t for a minute think they’re not queing up a case to deny medical services based on a “sincerely held religious beliefs”.

    • felixthecat@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      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…

      • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

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

        So you’re saying people who become cops aren’t interested in the public good and are more interested in power?

      • elscallr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s not like police departments give a shit about robbery anyway. They take a report and tell you to call insurance. Better off with a guy with a gun.

      • Imotali@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

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

        • elscallr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • orclev@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

    • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Also the distinction is “no uniforms, no guns” off duty police are still served. It’s actually a little closer to “no shoes, no shirt, no service”.

      As listed in the article some of the employees and regular customers come from war-torn places or have histories of traumatic interactions with police. Hence the ban comes from a place of limiting PTSD reactions.