It worked for you guys the last time.
It won’t go to court because it’s not illegal. How hard is it for you to understand this?
Except no one has any idea if this ■■■■ ever happened, there is absolutely no proof other than this attention seeking moron’s word.
No it isn’t. It’s his right to quit if he doesn’t want to do his job. He should be fired.
He wasn’t denied service. He completed the transaction. Read the article.
Why is he moron?
You libs need to do some soul searching. You’re not who you’ve claimed to be.
Don’t change the subject.
There’s good reasons not to include political views into public accommodation laws. Think on it and get back when you’re not all emotional and reactionary.
It’s aomewhat difficult to pick out the timeline from the story as wrottem, but the denial of service by the one employee may have indeed occurred before Staka attempted to explain himself.
Near as a I can pick out the timeline from the story, this appears how it went down:
*Straka shops for his various bits of equipment, ending at microphones.
*He’s recognized by a customer, who wants to talk to him
*The store employee in microphones overhears the conversation, and refuses services because he feels the equipment will be used for “alt right purposes”
*Straka attempts to explain what it is he actually is doing with #WalkAway, but the salesperson doesn’t want to hear any of it.
*Straka is directed to another employee who completes the sale.
Now- this is all based on Straka’s account of the story, but it is very well possible he was denied service first and THEN attempted to explain himself.
Dont know, there wasnt a timeline established with the tweet. He gave context with the interview, which says he was refused after he started talking about walk away
again why is this a big deal when he completed his transaction with another customer service rep?
Actually, thats exactly what the article said.
Straka said that the employee was a fellow gay man, and that when he tried to explain what #WalkAway was, the employee was not interested in having a conversation. Straka was directed to another employee at the store who completed the sale
Here is the problem. It’s a Daily Caller article. One has to wonder why the author of the article didn’t bother to contact the store and try to get an accounting or verification of the story from their perspective? HMMMMM.
This is also another way to explain the timeline.
It’s a badly written story…possibly intentionally vague to make a bigger deal out of what happened that it actually was.
Where did you get this “timeline” from?
No service was denied - a clerk didn’t want to listen to him rant, so he got a co-worker to complete the sale instead.
So an ■■■■■■■ badgers the clerk, and the clerk hands him off to another clerk because he doesn’t want to be badgered.
Only in Trumpworld could this be a story.
I followed the link in the Daily Caller article to where they got the interview, and yours is the version events. The daily caller article was too vague.
Oh, look fake news headline…