Horrified and Embarrassed Walmart Customer Demands that Store Apologize to Her - News

This is a discussion on Horrified and Embarrassed Walmart Customer Demands that Store Apologize to Her - News within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Originally Posted by Agave Open carrying a cath bag? She owes Wal Mart an apology. She owes everyone with eyes an apology!...

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 88
Like Tree56Likes

Thread: Horrified and Embarrassed Walmart Customer Demands that Store Apologize to Her - News

  1. #46
    VIP Member Array 357and40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    St. Charles, Missouri
    Posts
    2,321
    Quote Originally Posted by Agave View Post
    Open carrying a cath bag? She owes Wal Mart an apology.
    She owes everyone with eyes an apology!
    babarock likes this.
    "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain."
    - Roy Batty

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #47
    VIP Member Array gottabkiddin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    North Georgia
    Posts
    6,991
    Quote Originally Posted by LanceORYGUN View Post
    It appears that she never married.
    Humm, I can't imagine why...
    "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." – Luke 22:36

    "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." – Thomas Jefferson

  4. #48
    Member Array kaboomkaboom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    186
    For what it is worth... First if she was accosting other customers verbally or physically that is a different matter. I am only addressing the clothing issue. what if I find it objectionable that you don't wear dress clothing to fly? Or if you wear the "real oak camo" to the mall?

    The Unruh Civil Rights Act prohibits businesses from denying any person access to public accommodations or stores based on specified classifications. This case,: re Cox, supra.; the supreme court of California ruled in Cox, a shopping mall attempted to eject a young man based solely on the appearance of his companion "who wore long hair and dressed in an unconventional manner." (In re Cox, supra, 3 Cal. In re COX [3 Cal. 3d 205] :: Volume 3 :: Cal. 3d Series :: California Case Law :: US Case Law :: US Law :: Justia.) The court held the Unruh Civil Rights Act barred such treatment; in fact, the court held the Act "prohibit[ed] all arbitrary discrimination by business establishments." (Id. at p. 216, italics added.)Re affirmed in Harris supra, subsequently found that the Act precludes discrimination based on unconventional appearance. (Harris, supra, 52 Cal. 3d at pp. 1155, 1161.)

    I find her dress objectionable...but she might find my Hawaiian shirt objectionable...if a few people complained about my shirt, should I be removed from the premises?

  5. #49
    Distinguished Member Array DefConGun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    1,685
    Quote Originally Posted by kaboomkaboom View Post
    For what it is worth... First if she was accosting other customers verbally or physically that is a different matter. I am only addressing the clothing issue. what if I find it objectionable that you don't wear dress clothing to fly? Or if you wear the "real oak camo" to the mall?

    The Unruh Civil Rights Act prohibits businesses from denying any person access to public accommodations or stores based on specified classifications. This case,: re Cox, supra.; the supreme court of California ruled in Cox, a shopping mall attempted to eject a young man based solely on the appearance of his companion "who wore long hair and dressed in an unconventional manner." (In re Cox, supra, 3 Cal. In re COX [3 Cal. 3d 205] :: Volume 3 :: Cal. 3d Series :: California Case Law :: US Case Law :: US Law :: Justia.) The court held the Unruh Civil Rights Act barred such treatment; in fact, the court held the Act "prohibit[ed] all arbitrary discrimination by business establishments." (Id. at p. 216, italics added.)Re affirmed in Harris supra, subsequently found that the Act precludes discrimination based on unconventional appearance. (Harris, supra, 52 Cal. 3d at pp. 1155, 1161.)

    I find her dress objectionable...but she might find my Hawaiian shirt objectionable...if a few people complained about my shirt, should I be removed from the premises?
    Excellent post. Great point.

  6. #50
    VIP Member
    Array atctimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    NSA Headquarters
    Posts
    6,390
    kaboomkaboom is quoting California case law. This incident happened in Oregon and is not bound by the ruling of one hyper liberal judge. IMO the lawsuit is frivolous and should be thrown out.
    It is surely true that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. Nor can you make them grateful for your efforts.

  7. #51
    Member Array kaboomkaboom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    186
    Quote Originally Posted by atctimmy View Post
    kaboomkaboom is quoting California case law. This incident happened in Oregon and is not bound by the ruling of one hyper liberal judge. IMO the lawsuit is frivolous and should be thrown out.
    ACTUALLY...you are mistaken about where it happen... The case happened in San Rafeal California, and you are also mistaken that it was "one liberal judge". The ruling was re affirmed ( means other courts upheld or used as precedent in other cases) many times... It has been case law since 1970...when even liberal judges were more conservative than conservative judges are now...and it wasn't one judge who made the decision anyway...( The Opinion by Tobriner, J., expressed the unanimous view of the Supreme court, of which he was an Associate Justice of the Cali. Supreme Court from 1962-1982.
    Last edited by kaboomkaboom; August 2nd, 2011 at 03:58 AM. Reason: just adding this was the California Supreme court in an Unanimous decision!

  8. #52
    Member Array RockBottom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    349
    I'm not familiar with the case other than what I have read and everything I have read has just presented Ms McMillin's side of the story. She's shocked and horrified and thinks she was singled out because of her dress. I see dress like that in Walmart quite often. Her dress may have caused other customers to complain, but I think that it is far more likely that they were complaining about her strolling through the food section wearing a catheter with drainage bag taped to her leg. From the original post .... She also had a catheter on her that day, which emptied into a bag on her ankle, which was also all in view.

    My speculation is that something like that might cause some customers to complain and might lead an associate to suggest that Ms Mcmillin cover herself. I don't know if exposed catheter drainage bags in the food section cause any health concerns in Oregon, but if they don't, they should.

  9. #53
    VIP Member
    Array atctimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    NSA Headquarters
    Posts
    6,390
    I stand corrected.
    It is surely true that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. Nor can you make them grateful for your efforts.

  10. #54
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,285
    Ya know, I think she looks horrendous. If I saw her in WM, I'd give her a wide berth. But that's a personal opinion and feeling. I do think the cath bag was a bit "over the top" or more honestly, disgusting.

    That said, keep in mind that the way we are percieved (you know, all us "gun nuts" on gun forums)isn't that different from how we see the WM shopper shown above.

    Kinda like this:



    Some people don't understand the concept of decency. Ignore them. If they fail to get the attention they crave... they might just stop acting out to get it.
    Attached Images
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  11. #55
    Member Array RockBottom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    349
    Quote Originally Posted by oakchas View Post
    Ya know, I think she looks horrendous. If I saw her in WM, I'd give her a wide berth. But that's a personal opinion and feeling. I do think the cath bag was a bit "over the top" or more honestly, disgusting.

    That said, keep in mind that the way we are percieved (you know, all us "gun nuts" on gun forums)isn't that different from how we see the WM shopper shown above.

    Kinda like this:



    Some people don't understand the concept of decency. Ignore them. If they fail to get the attention they crave... they might just stop acting out to get it.
    Damn, now you've gone and done it. I've seen that guy (or his twin brother) some place before............I just can't remember where it was.

  12. #56
    Member Array kaboomkaboom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    186
    Spoke with a colleague of mine a bit ago and this subject came up...he had an interesting point RE: the Cath Bag...he thought she might have an action based on the Americans with Disabilities act... Title III - Public Accommodations (and Commercial Facilities)
    See 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181–12189.
    Under Title III, no individual may be discriminated against on the basis of disability with regards to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation. "Public accommodations" include most places of lodging (such as inns and hotels), recreation, transportation, education, and dining, along with stores, care providers, and places of public displays, among other things.

    I want to clarify that had I had the experience of meeting her coming around the corner in the store I would have thought it was disgusting, may have even left the store...but my point is it's not to far from (as long as you are not breaking community standards for obscenity) saying someone can't wear a bikini top,ugly shorts and a cath bag, to you can't wear a gun, or a loose fitting shirt that might conceal a weapon.

    A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

    The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other people.

    Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. ( ie., You don't like what is in the store, you have the "right" to leave the store...but not the right to impose your feelings or belief in place of another person's "Rights") As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating anothers rights.

    When one choose to attack another's right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, he puts himself in a trick bag.For surely someone will come long who doesn't like the cut of your jib!

  13. #57
    VIP Member Array Sheldon J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Battle Creek, Mi.
    Posts
    2,285
    What ever happened to "No Shirt, No Shoes, No service" yeah I know only in resturants.....
    msgt/ret likes this.
    "The sword dose not cause the murder, and the maker of the sword dose not bear sin" Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac 11th century

  14. #58
    Member Array RockBottom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    349
    Quote Originally Posted by kaboomkaboom View Post
    Spoke with a colleague of mine a bit ago and this subject came up...he had an interesting point RE: the Cath Bag...he thought she might have an action based on the Americans with Disabilities act... Title III - Public Accommodations (and Commercial Facilities)
    See 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181–12189.
    Under Title III, no individual may be discriminated against on the basis of disability with regards to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation. "Public accommodations" include most places of lodging (such as inns and hotels), recreation, transportation, education, and dining, along with stores, care providers, and places of public displays, among other things.

    I want to clarify that had I had the experience of meeting her coming around the corner in the store I would have thought it was disgusting, may have even left the store...but my point is it's not to far from (as long as you are not breaking community standards for obscenity) saying someone can't wear a bikini top,ugly shorts and a cath bag, to you can't wear a gun, or a loose fitting shirt that might conceal a weapon.

    A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

    The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other people.

    Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating anothers rights.

    When one choose to attack another's right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, he puts himself in a trick bag.
    I think you're stretching it. Personally, I think asking someone to cover up isn't unreasonable. Certainly, she can continue shopping, but having to explain to a four year old why a lady is walking around with a bag of pee strapped to her leg shouldn't have to be part of your grocery shopping.

  15. #59
    Distinguished Member Array bigmacque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,771
    Interesting concept, "rights." One of the best lecturers I had in college noted that my right to swing my fist stops just short of the end of his nose.

    She was probably well within her rights, but that doesn't make her right.
    I'm in favor of gun control -- I think every citizen should have control of a gun.
    1 Thess. 5:16-18

  16. #60
    Member Array kaboomkaboom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    186
    Quote Originally Posted by RockBottom View Post
    I think you're stretching it. Personally, I think asking someone to cover up isn't unreasonable. Certainly, she can continue shopping, but having to explain to a four year old why a lady is walking around with a bag of pee strapped to her leg shouldn't have to be part of your grocery shopping.
    She doesn't have to be part of your shopping!That's your right! You have the Right to shop elsewhere...It might be a good opportunity to teach that 4 year old that while you don't think her appearance is acceptable and explain the reasoning why you would never go out in public like that, that in this country, the Right of the INDIVIDUAL is what our whole system is based on.Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

catheter customer at walmart
,
disgusting people
,

disgusting walmart shoppers

,
ignore keep out
,
man with leg bag exposed at walmarts
,
missouri woman embarrassed at walmart
,

nuts with guns

,
page all american guns
,
political gun fail
,
united states concept weapons
,
walmart customer removed because of dress
,
walmart customers dress
Click on a term to search for related topics.