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

[kaboomkaboom]

She was probably well within her rights, but that doesn't make her right.

Agreed!

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Stubborn]

Is anyone really "all that" surprised that someone dressed like that could be seen in a Walmart? I think most everyone has seen the "People of Walmart" emails that float around from time to time. Personally, I'm disgusted by it, (especially the OC of the catheter bag) but surprised or shocked?...NO. If you don't want to run into someone or something looking like that, don't go to Walmart. There's an old saying, "sleep with dogs, you're gonna get fleas." I'm not saying I never go to Wally World, but I sure try to keep it to a bare minimum. I may spend a little more somewhere else, but thats OK, because I really try to buy as many American made products as possible, and American made anything is an endangered species at Walmart. Just my $.02

[RockBottom]

Is anyone really "all that" surprised that someone dressed like that could be seen in a Walmart? I think most everyone has seen the "People of Walmart" emails that float around from time to time. Personally, I'm disgusted by it, (especially the OC of the catheter bag) but surprised or shocked?...NO. If you don't want to run into someone or something looking like that, don't go to Walmart. There's an old saying, "sleep with dogs, you're gonna get fleas." I'm not saying I never go to Wally World, but I sure try to keep it to a bare minimum. I may spend a little more somewhere else, but thats OK, because I really try to buy as many American made products as possible, and American made anything is an endangered species at Walmart. Just my $.02

American made is pretty much an endangered species anywhere you go. We don't make a lot of stuff in this country anymore and the good paying jobs for the people who weren't the brightest kids in the class but were real good with their hands have vanished also. That's a real shame.

[Spidey2011]

I would've told her "Mam, no here at WalMart is humiliating you, you have achieved that all by yourself!"

I think that Walmart should establish a nationwide store policy about dress code made visible by a clear sign on the entrance that states that all customers must wear shoes and shirts or they will be asked to leave.

I just can't believe that someone would leave the house like that. DISGUSTING!

I don't think they should leave that window open by only saying shoes and shirts. In this day and age, you have to specify the pants too.

[Bark'n]

She should try Saks Fifth Avenue or Neiman Marcus next.

[kaboomkaboom]

She should try Saks Fifth Avenue or Neiman Marcus next.

LOL....

[Brass63]

Let's face it, decency and indecency are, and have always been...driven by cultural standards.
And the reason that this kind of indecency is permitted today is because of a decline of culture/society.
The logic expressed above concerning individual rights necessarily leads to legalization of things like public sex.
(i.e. If you don't like it...don't look at it.)
I do find it odd/inconsistent that communities are legally allowed to have all sorts of zoning laws to protect property value...
while privately-owned retail businesses can't set any kind of dress code at all.
Oh, maybe it's because judges/attorneys live in upscale neighborhoods and feel strongly about not having an 'eye-sore' 2 houses down.

[Hoganbeg]

Well, this was clearly mis-handled by the manager. What he should have done was eject her based on her abusing other customers with foul language. That would be completely sustainable. Instead, they're looking at a lawsuit they'll probably lose. I foresee a management position opening up in the near future!

[DefConGun]

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).

That's right. She doesn't have to be a part of my shopping and she doesn't have to be a part of everyone else's shopping but what about the store owner? What is the store owner supposed to do when this lady drives off his business because of this one customer's right to shop in his store? This one woman doesn't have the right to drive the store owner out of business because she wants to shop somewhere with an exposed leg bag. I'm sure as far as leg bags are concerned, she's not the only one shopping in this store with one. She was, however, the only one that someone said something to because of the indecency of it all. No one is telling the woman she can't shop while wearing a leg beg, plenty of others are doing so without causing an offense.

As far as the disability law goes, the law states that you have to provide "reasonable accommodations". Telling the woman to cover her leg bag is NOT violating her rights. The store will accomodate her shopping with a leg bag, as long as its covered up. This is more about an unconventional appearance, this could very well be a health issue and this lady's rights do not supersede my right to having access to a safe and clean community.

[kaboomkaboom]

That's right. She doesn't have to be a part of my shopping and she doesn't have to be a part of everyone else's shopping but what about the store owner? What is the store owner supposed to do when this lady drives off his business because of this one customer's right to shop in his store? This one woman doesn't have the right to drive the store owner out of business because she wants to shop somewhere with an exposed leg bag. I'm sure as far as leg bags are concerned, she's not the only one shopping in this store with one. She was, however, the only one that someone said something to because of the indecency of it all. No one is telling the woman she can't shop while wearing a leg beg, plenty of others are doing so without causing an offense.

I am truly sorry you are so upset by this...but I wonder why? If you saw some one horribly disfigured from fire, would you expect them to cover their face, (which can very well be as unsanitary and disgusting to see as a bag of pee...tho I fail to see how covering a bag of pee makes it anymore sanitary) so you weren't offended? What about someone who walks with a jerking movement of the legs and wild swinging of the arms? Or a severely retarted childin a wheel chair out for a few hours at the store with her care taker? WHO DECIDES WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE? The store, by inviting the public in for business reason must meet certain requirements by law. Allowing equal access to those with disabilities is just one. Corporations have no "Rights". Only individuals do... what happens is A consensus is built that something is 'disgusting' ... essentially a collective opinion that isn’t necessarily reflective of anybody’s private view. People get away with this because the collective good (or “team”) trumps the individual — a socialist concept. Provocateurs, or agitators, often believe themselves to some how have a "better vision" of what is, or at least what they believe should be acceptable, because for some reason they believe they no what is best for everybody. But what these pros really do is to work the group over to ensure a predetermined outcome which they call a ’consensus.” In this case, the "consenses is "What was she thinking...that is gross and shouldn't be allowed".

Resisting such tactics will get you labeled as a resister or worse. I Count on, and am regulary ridiculed, pressured and ostracized by the members of different "the group" when I refuse to engage in their politically correct consensus. I Just remember that this has always been the price paid by individuals who refuse to surrender their conscience to collective thought. Individual rights are what I believe to be the only thing..THE ONLY THING that can bring us back to the great nation we once were, and restore our freedoms to what this country was founded on.

Remember, group’s goal is to assimilate you into the Borg of politically correct thought. They’ll tell you that resistance is futile, but I stand my ground anyway. So long as I refuse to give in to the groupthink, I win.

The freedom to think for oneself is of inestimable value. Sacrificing that freedom for the sake of psychologically manipulative conformity is simply unacceptable. Above all, do not fear the willingness to assert your freedom of conscience when the manipulative cry " that person doesn't conform!! They must be stopped, indoctrinated in the right way, or suffer the consequences".

In a free society, holding unpopular opinions should not be a crime. Nor should clumsy, insensitive, juvenile dress or behavior be criminalized just because a few overly sensitive people blew someone’s poor manners out of proportion.

If there was ever a time our society needed individuals who are unafraid of thinking independently, it’s now.

As far as the disability law goes, the law states that you have to provide "reasonable accommodations". Telling the woman to cover her leg bag is NOT violating her rights. The store will accomodate her shopping with a leg bag, as long as its covered up. This is more about an unconventional appearance, this could very well be a health issue and this lady's rights do not supersede my right to having access to a safe and clean community.

Maybe you are right, tho I doubt it...I believe in this case, years from now, we will be able to see if the courts agree with you.

With intended Respect to you, and your individual right to think, and believe what you wish...

kaboom kaboom

[babarock]

You guys can have this when I'm done.

Attachment 52297

I hope it comes in the 50 gal drum size

[ncsteveh]

What ever happened to “We reserve the right to refuse service”?

How about the fact that it is private property and if they ask here to leave and she doesn't it is trespassing, whats good for the goose (us) is good for the gander (her).

[RockBottom]

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).

A majority may have no right to vote away the rights of a minority, but we do it all the time. Otherwise, nudists would be able to happily stroll anywhere they wish and anyone that they might offend could just go somewhere else. After all, the majority must not oppress the minority.

[DefConGun]

Maybe you are right, tho I doubt it...I believe in this case, years from now, we will be able to see if the courts agree with you.

With intended Respect to you, and your individual right to think, and believe what you wish...

kaboom kaboom

First of all I apologize if I gave the impression that I'm angry at you because I'm not. I also do not wish to convey a disrespectful tone to you and if I have done that then I apologize for that as well.

Please allow me to point out that noone has made this out to be a discrimination case against individuals with disabilities. Noone is telling persons with disabilities that they can't shop at said Wal-Mart. To suggest that a person with a disability is "indecent" in the context that we have been talking about is offensive in and of itself. IT IS NOT indecent to be "someone who walks with a jerking movement of the legs and wild swinging of the arms, Or to be a severely retarded child with a wheel chair that is out for a few hours at the store with her care taker" To even suggest that the two are the same is offensive, dishonest and insincere. If I were a burn victim and my face was truly a health hazard then I would do whatever necessary to cover any oozing sores, etc. so that I won't be a health hazard, etc. Indecency implies that there is a lack of judgment and in the execution thereof within the context of social norms. A disability is not a willful assault against society. The two are separate conditions. To be indecent is to be in violation of social norms, persons with disabilities are not a willful assault against society.

I'm sure according to a legal definition or perspective, corporations don't have rights per se. Rights, however, do not exist in a vacum. Individuals, for example, forego rights all of the time and give these rights up to organizations, institutions and corporations. There are people, for example, that can't place a workshop in their back yard or keep a bass boat in their driveway because this would be in violation of a home owners association standard. When I went to college, I lost my right to keep a firearm in my room, etc. Rights exist within the context of a contract whether it be a legal contractual agreement or a social contract, etc.

When you enter Wal-Mart or any other business, you are agreeing to abide by certain rules that are a contingency per doing business at said market place. I don't make Wal-Mart policy and if I buy something at Wal-Mart then I have to deal according to their policies. If this isn't true then please explain to me how the AT&T kiosks don't have to accept cash when you go in to pay your bill. Isn't that in violation of my rights?

Before we allow our eyes to glaze over with sentimentality as far as rights go, let's examine the consequences and the cost of allowing individuals full unadulterated rights.

For the sake of argument, let's say that an exposed catheter bag is not a health hazard. I'm willing to go out on limb and say that someone that doesn't appear to be as hygienic as she could possibly be just might not be as hygienic and show due diligence about her leg bag care/maintenance. Now how do you like the thought of her walking past the dress isle where the racks are so close together that you can't help but to brush against them as you pass? Her dirty leg bag rubbing against the dress that you have just bought for your wife. Not a very appealing thought is it? Before you say that you don't have to shop there, what if you don't find out that this happened until after you had bought the dress and had given it to your wife? Are you going to be as understanding and show as much compassion to the cashier that's checking you out if he/she is doing so with an exposed colostomy bag? How would you feel if you found out that the chef at the restaurant that your'e eating at has an exposed colostomy bag when he's cooking your meal? It's not a very appealing thought is it?

I am obviously not anti-rights and am not trying to rob anyone of their rights. Let's not, however, turn rights into an idol. Pragmatism is not the solution to preserving rights IMO.

[kaboomkaboom]

How about the fact that it is private property and if they ask here to leave and she doesn't it is trespassing, whats good for the goose (us) is good for the gander (her).

It's not "private property". A store is considered a "Public House" and must meet the requirements thereof... It is the same reason your house doe not have to be handicapped accessible, but a store, restaurant, ect..(public business) does...when you license certain types of businesses, you agree to abide by these conditions, or your business license is revoked and you may face legal action...this does apply only to "protected classes" tho...in other words, a public house can ask you to leave (refuse service) for no reason, but they can not ask you to leave for reasons that are protected. Ultimately the best thing for this manager to do would have been to just ask her to leave, and given No reason other than the wish to refuse her service. That is legal. He could have mentioned the abuse to other patrons (not protected) but not her dress or disability. (Protected) Again, the best course would have been for him to give no reason. He is not required to. Then , if she refused he could tresspass her

( Oh...no biggy, but the GANDER is the male...the female is the Goose....)