Ibid.
10 ch
Ibid.
10 ch
It worked for you guys the last time.
It wonât go to court because itâs not illegal. How hard is it for you to understand this?
Except no one has any idea if this â â â â ever happened, there is absolutely no proof other than this attention seeking moronâs word.
No it isnât. Itâs his right to quit if he doesnât want to do his job. He should be fired.
He wasnât denied service. He completed the transaction. Read the article.
Why is he moron?
You libs need to do some soul searching. Youâre not who youâve claimed to be.
Donât change the subject.
Thereâs good reasons not to include political views into public accommodation laws. Think on it and get back when youâre not all emotional and reactionary.
Itâs 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.
*Heâs 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 âalt right purposesâ
*Straka attempts to explain what it is he actually is doing with #WalkAway, but the salesperson doesnât want to hear any of it.
*Straka is directed to another employee who completes the sale.
Now- this is all based on Strakaâs 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. Itâs a Daily Caller article. One has to wonder why the author of the article didnât 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.
Itâs a badly written storyâŚpossibly intentionally vague to make a bigger deal out of what happened that it actually was.
Where did you get this âtimelineâ from?
No service was denied - a clerk didnât want to listen to him rant, so he got a co-worker to complete the sale instead.
So an â â â â â â â badgers the clerk, and the clerk hands him off to another clerk because he doesnât 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 headlineâŚ