Portland bakery fires employees for denying black woman service after closing

[Right_in_Virginia]

Portland bakery fires employees for denying black woman service after closing
Komo News, Jun 1, 2018, ABC 30 News

Back To Eden Bakery" released several public apologies and statements following the incident, before letting the employees go. In one Facebook post, the bakery's co-owner wrote, "We are doing business in a gentrified neighborhood in a racist city within a racist state of a racist country.”

In one statement, "Back To Eden Bakery" says that according to its own surveillance video, a black woman named "Lillian", who is well known in the area as a "professional equity activist", entered at 9:06 p.m., after the bakery's closing time. Employees had also turned off the "Open" sign, but several customers (all white) who had already ordered were still inside. Two other white women who went to the bakery two minutes before "Lillian", and were also informed that the business was closed for the night.

The bakery says "Lillian" left the store briefly and began recording video.

The bakery's statement says that even though it does not consider the employees to be racist and that they were following the business's protocol of closing at 9 p.m., they were fired because "sometimes impact outweighs intent." The bakery also says in the statement that the way the employees went about denying the woman service, "lacked sensitivity and understanding of the racial implications at work."

In the statement "Back To Eden" says the employees were fired because the woman and the "clamoring public" demanded they be fired.  In one statement, the bakery admitted that the employees did not necessarily do anything wrong, "this is more about how a black woman was made to feel" at the business.


More:  http://komonews.com/news/local/portland-bakery-fires-employees-for-denying-black-woman-service-after-closing-06-01-2018

[Right_in_Virginia]

Unbelievable.   

[DCPatriot]

Unbelievable.   

Chic-Fil-A simply locks the damned door at 10pm.   End of discussion.   

What we have here, it seems, is that a black woman pulled the race card.  It's bullshit.

Now, OTOH.....let's do something to force them to serve breakfast items to 11am.  LOL!

[Applewood]

Used to be that a business had the right to make rules and establish procedures.  Now they must cater to a noisy minority of malcontents because we can't hurt their "feelings."

I suppose if Lillian had showed up at midnight, the bakery would have had to open up just to serve her.  Insane.

This nonsense has been going on for some time, but it really ramped up underr Obama.  Obama was supposed to be the one to unite the races.  Instead he emboldened black people to demand more and more preferential treatment.  And white people, being indoctrinated to feel guilty about slavery which ended more than 150 years ago, now have to cater to their demands.  Sadly, the courts are complicit in what amounts to blackmail and extortion.

Things have to change.  Otherwise, the majority is going to be ruled by a consortium of perpetually butthurt minorities. 

[Oceander]

Used to be that a business had the right to make rules and establish procedures.  Now they must cater to a noisy minority of malcontents because we can't hurt their "feelings."

I suppose if Lillian had showed up at midnight, the bakery would have had to open up just to serve her.  Insane.

This nonsense has been going on for some time, but it really ramped up underr Obama.  Obama was supposed to be the one to unite the races.  Instead he emboldened black people to demand more and more preferential treatment.  And white people, being indoctrinated to feel guilty about slavery which ended more than 150 years ago, now have to cater to their demands.  Sadly, the courts are complicit in what amounts to blackmail and extortion.

Things have to change.  Otherwise, the majority is going to be ruled by a consortium of perpetually butthurt minorities. 

This was the business rolling over voluntarily, not being forced to it by the law. Given the apparent stated beliefs of the business owners that they are rolling in racism, this is more a case of liberals eating their own.

[jmyrlefuller]

This was the business rolling over voluntarily, not being forced to it by the law. Given the apparent stated beliefs of the business owners that they are rolling in racism, this is more a case of liberals eating their own.

Just remember Arlene's Flowers and Sweet Cakes by Melissa, though, and you'll see that "voluntarily" only goes one way. The views of this particular business happen to align with the laws used against those who hold other views.

[Jazzhead]

This was the business rolling over voluntarily, not being forced to it by the law. Given the apparent stated beliefs of the business owners that they are rolling in racism, this is more a case of liberals eating their own.

Or more of a case of a business seeking to profit from publicity, while of course ruining an employee's livelihood in the process.   The owner's an identity-politics progressive,  so his demonstration of "sensitivity" at the expense of his employee makes perfect sense:  virtue-signaling, he hopes, will bring new customers.  Me, I'd take my business elsewhere.

When my dad had his shoe store,  we'd serve anyone who entered the premises before we locked the door.  Sometimes the door would be locked at 6:00,  sometimes at 6:10.   But if you got your "foot in the door",  we'd sell you a sneaker for it. 

[goatprairie]

This sounds like an apt episode for "Portlandia" the tv comedy series where Portland liberals are lampooned. Fred Armisen and his female co-star Carrie Brownstein could be hippie business owners who get in trouble for shutting their doors at closing time. A black person demands service, and they turn him or her down refusing service after hours.
Then, naturally, they get into trouble and are accused of being racists for refusing service to a black person even though it's after closing time.
Nah, that could never happen. Even Portland liberals aren't that insane...aren't they?

[rangerrebew]

PORTLAND: Bakery Fires Employees For Denying Service To A Black Woman AFTER CLOSING TIME
"Sometimes impact outweighs intent"

George Rose / Contributor / Getty Images
ByPaul Bois

June 1, 2018

In Portland, two employees lost their job at a bakery for denying service to a black woman after closing time.

Following the incident, "Back To Eden Bakery" issued several public apologies. In one Facebook post, the bakery's co-owner wrote, "We are doing business in a gentrified neighborhood in a racist city within a racist state of a racist country.”

The incident sounds all-too-similar to the Starbucks situation, where a manager called the police on two black men who wanted to use the restroom and refused to buy something. Here's how ABC local described the incident:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/31346/portland-bakery-fires-employee-denying-service-paul-bois

[sneakypete]

Portland bakery fires employees for denying black woman service after closing
Komo News, Jun 1, 2018, ABC 30 News

Back To Eden Bakery" released several public apologies and statements following the incident, before letting the employees go. In one Facebook post, the bakery's co-owner wrote, "We are doing business in a gentrified neighborhood in a racist city within a racist state of a racist country.”

In one statement, "Back To Eden Bakery" says that according to its own surveillance video, a black woman named "Lillian", who is well known in the area as a "professional equity activist", entered at 9:06 p.m., after the bakery's closing time. Employees had also turned off the "Open" sign, but several customers (all white) who had already ordered were still inside. Two other white women who went to the bakery two minutes before "Lillian", and were also informed that the business was closed for the night.

The bakery says "Lillian" left the store briefly and began recording video.

The bakery's statement says that even though it does not consider the employees to be racist and that they were following the business's protocol of closing at 9 p.m., they were fired because "sometimes impact outweighs intent." The bakery also says in the statement that the way the employees went about denying the woman service, "lacked sensitivity and understanding of the racial implications at work."

In the statement "Back To Eden" says the employees were fired because the woman and the "clamoring public" demanded they be fired.  In one statement, the bakery admitted that the employees did not necessarily do anything wrong, "this is more about how a black woman was made to feel" at the business.


More:  http://komonews.com/news/local/portland-bakery-fires-employees-for-denying-black-woman-service-after-closing-06-01-2018

Sounds to me like the employees that were fired have a VERY sound basis for a lawsuit to me. The people that fired there are even saying the firing was unfair.

All they need is a prominent law firm with conservative leanings to sign them up. Not going to happen,though. Conservatives talk a lot of crap,but they ain't about to put their money where their mouths are.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Article does not say what the race of the fired employees are.

Anybody want to wager they were not black?  Perhaps that is why the owner said they were not fired for racism.

[Oceander]

Sounds to me like the employees that were fired have a VERY sound basis for a lawsuit to me. The people that fired there are even saying the firing was unfair.

All they need is a prominent law firm with conservative leanings to sign them up. Not going to happen,though. Conservatives talk a lot of crap,but they ain't about to put their money where their mouths are.

On what basis?

[Jazzhead]

Sounds to me like the employees that were fired have a VERY sound basis for a lawsuit to me. The people that fired there are even saying the firing was unfair.

All they need is a prominent law firm with conservative leanings to sign them up. Not going to happen,though. Conservatives talk a lot of crap,but they ain't about to put their money where their mouths are.

They were almost certainly at-will employees.  They can pick up and leave at any time for any reason,  and their employer can let them go for any reason.  In other contexts, that is the state of ideal liberty that some conservatives yearn for, such as a store owner's right to refuse to bake a cake for its customer, and the customer's right to go elsewhere.

The answer isn't a lawsuit - it's to unionize.   

[sneakypete]

They were almost certainly at-will employees.  They can pick up and leave at any time for any reason,  and their employer can let them go for any reason.  In other contexts, that is the state of ideal liberty that some conservatives yearn for, such as a store owner's right to refuse to bake a cake for its customer, and the customer's right to go elsewhere.

The answer isn't a lawsuit - it's to unionize.   

@Jazzhead

Become a bee in the hive? A part of the collective?

<NOPE>,COMRADE!

AND.....,people have a right to assume they won't be fired without cause. It's part of the civil contract that greases the skids of civilization.

[sneakypete]

On what basis?

@Oceander

Unfair termination of employment as well as slander and character defamation ,to start.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

They were almost certainly at-will employees.  They can pick up and leave at any time for any reason,  and their employer can let them go for any reason.  In other contexts, that is the state of ideal liberty that some conservatives yearn for, such as a store owner's right to refuse to bake a cake for its customer, and the customer's right to go elsewhere.

The answer isn't a lawsuit - it's to unionize.   

@Jazzhead

You'd have to think creatively on this one.  As if you were a sleazy plaintiff's side civil rights lawyer trying to push the legal envelope.

I think you could make a non-frivolous argument that it is illegal to fire employees who refuse to treat white customers worse than black customers because of their race.  Because that is at least one way you could characterize their termination.  They were fired for not treating the later-arriving black customer better than the two white customers whom they already had turned away.

In other words..they were fired for not discriminating.

[Free Vulcan]

Sounds to me like the employees that were fired have a VERY sound basis for a lawsuit to me. The people that fired there are even saying the firing was unfair.

All they need is a prominent law firm with conservative leanings to sign them up. Not going to happen,though. Conservatives talk a lot of crap,but they ain't about to put their money where their mouths are.

Depends on the state, and I suspect Oregon may have stricter firing laws than others. I hope ACLJ or similar will take up this torch.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Sounds to me like the employees that were fired have a VERY sound basis for a lawsuit to me. ...

I agree.  If the employees were indeed following the store's written policy, and the policy was applied universally (there were three or four denied service) then this smacks of wrongful discharge.  The key is the written policy.

[Oceander]

@Jazzhead

Become a bee in the hive? A part of the collective?

<NOPE>,COMRADE!

AND.....,people have a right to assume they won't be fired without cause. It's part of the civil contract that greases the skids of civilization.

Uh ... nope.  If it ain’t in a binding legal contract, or in state law, it ain’t a right.  It may be an expectation, and people may often only be let go for cause, but it isn’t a general right.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@Jazzhead


AND.....,people have a right to assume they won't be fired without cause. It's part of the civil contract that greases the skids of civilization.

No, the law generally - and rightfully - doesn't require that.

[Oceander]

I agree.  If the employees were indeed following the store's written policy, and the policy was applied universally (there were three or four denied service) then this smacks of wrongful discharge.  The key is the written policy.

No, the key is whether the employment relationship was at-will or not.

[Oceander]

@Oceander

Unfair termination of employment as well as slander and character defamation ,to start.

Nope. 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

No, the key is whether the employment relationship was at-will or not.

In Ohio, and some other states, you could probably try it as a wrongful discharge in violation of public policy tort.  The public policy in question would be the prohibition against businesses treating customers differently because of their race.

Key here is the white customers who were turned away before the black customer, and the store owner being okay with that.

[Oceander]

In Ohio, and some other states, you could probably try it as a wrongful discharge in violation of public policy tort.  The public policy in question would be the prohibition against businesses treating customers differently because of their race.

Key here is the white customers who were turned away before the black customer, and the store owner being okay with that.

Possibly.  Nonetheless, I wouldn’t wager the farm on winning. 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Possibly.  Nonetheless, I wouldn’t wager the farm on winning.

Perhaps not.  But it's good enough to get past Rule 11, and shake down the defendant!

Anyway, just twist the facts a bit.  A store has a policy of closing at 9 for black people, but 10 for white people.  Unlawful, right?  National outrage, even.

Now let's say it's not a policy, but just the store owner's practice.  Still unlawful.

Now, let's say one employee decides to let in a black employee at 9:10, even though black people are supposed to be barred after 9.  She is then fired by the owner for not enforcing his illegal, racist policy.   I think that's a pretty good Title VII "opposition" case.  Probably even a winner.

So just reverse the races, and we're pretty close to that scenario here.

Hell, I'd absolutely give that a shot.