What pissed you off today?

[Lady Reiha]

Customers
a "friend" who went a little too far.

 

[BiBunny]

Hypocrisy.

 

[Sir_Winston54]

I don't shop at Hobby Lobby - well, often, anyway - and certainly not the one in Louisville, KY, but this still pisses me off. Have these morons not heard of the Constitution???

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x95/Sir_Winston54/081610-003-hobbylobbynotice.jpg

 

[intothewoods]

I don't shop at Hobby Lobby - well, often, anyway - and certainly not the one in Louisville, KY, but this still pisses me off. Have these morons not heard of the Constitution???

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x95/Sir_Winston54/081610-003-hobbylobbynotice.jpg

Interesting, thanks for sharing. As far as employees go, sadly, you have no right to privacy in your desk or space at work. Now, the store is privately owned, so as a consumer you don't have the same rights you would have if questioned by a police officer or other agent of the government. By entering the store you agree to their rules. On the other hand, there are limits. A store can detain someone they suspect has been stealing, and it's not uncommon to do purse pat downs in areas where there are a lot of students, shoplifting, etc. I don't know if they could really go as far as is described in the sign and defend that practice if someone sued. In reality the sign is probably more strongly worded than is the actual practice.

 

[nitaspankin]

......

 

[Sir_Winston54]

Interesting, thanks for sharing. As far as employees go, sadly, you have no right to privacy in your desk or space at work. Now, the store is privately owned, so as a consumer you don't have the same rights you would have if questioned by a police officer or other agent of the government. By entering the store you agree to their rules. On the other hand, there are limits. A store can detain someone they suspect has been stealing, and it's not uncommon to do purse pat downs in areas where there are a lot of students, shoplifting, etc. I don't know if they could really go as far as is described in the sign and defend that practice if someone sued. In reality the sign is probably more strongly worded than is the actual practice.

The part that gets me is their assertion that they have the right to search and question any person entering the premises, including freakin' automobiles in the parking lot! Esscooooze meeee??? No fucking way, José! If you want to search my person or my car just because I entered your store, you'd better have probable cause, by the courts' definition, or your ass is going to be paying for my luxury home, luxury car, and my poker tournaments from now until hell freezes over.

If, on the other hand, you have reasonable suspicion - again, by the courts' definition - to believe that I have attempted to leave your store without paying for something, or that I may have dropped off a WMD in your store, you *may* detain me, explain your suspicions to a certified law enforcement officer, and ask that *he/she* search me. If the officer agrees that your suspicions are indeed reasonable, I'll submit to his/her search... and *then* sue you afterward, and probably still win. We haven't gotten to a complete police state yet.

 

[Stella_Omega]

The maggot in the Authors' Hangout forum. Like Reverend Phelps, his filth is protected by Laurel as "free speech."

I have my opinion about her compos mentos because of that.

 

[intothewoods]

The part that gets me is their assertion that they have the right to search and question any person entering the premises, including freakin' automobiles in the parking lot! Esscooooze meeee??? No fucking way, José! If you want to search my person or my car just because I entered your store, you'd better have probable cause, by the courts' definition, or your ass is going to be paying for my luxury home, luxury car, and my poker tournaments from now until hell freezes over.

If, on the other hand, you have reasonable suspicion - again, by the courts' definition - to believe that I have attempted to leave your store without paying for something, or that I may have dropped off a WMD in your store, you *may* detain me, explain your suspicions to a certified law enforcement officer, and ask that *he/she* search me. If the officer agrees that your suspicions are indeed reasonable, I'll submit to his/her search... and *then* sue you afterward, and probably still win. We haven't gotten to a complete police state yet.

I missed the automobile part the first time because the whole thing is so hard to read. But the thing is that "probable cause" does not apply because they're not police officers. You keep talking about an individual's rights as to these guys as if they're the government. They're not. Different rules apply. Owners of private property can ask for whatever they want as a condition of entering their property. They can't make you open the car for them, no matter what the security guards say. They can't break into your car to search it either. But if they ask and you do it willingly (even if they demanded it and they didn't tell you that you had a choice), then you can't sue after the fact (well, you can, but you will lose). You can refuse and they can then kick you off the premises or call the police. The bottom line is that they can set whatever rules they want (as long as they apply to everyone equally) as a condition of being on their property, and you are free to follow or not follow them as long as you're not breaking any laws. If you don't follow them, they can then kick you off the property or detain you and call the police. As a practical matter, they probably won't call the police unless they have some suspicion you've broken a law. But they could call the police for whatever reason they want. They're ordinary citizens like you and me.

ETA - If it's the phrase "right" that bothers you, it's true the store doesn't have the right to search you like a police officer does. That's why security guards will ask first - even if it sounds like a demand. But they do have the right to set whatever rules they want as a condition for entering their property. Again, you don't have to comply with those rules. It's not like a police officer. You're both private citizens. The only thing that's egregious is that people (especially kids) may believe that the store and its employees, security guards, etc. have rights akin to a police officer because they seem to be in a position of authority.

 

[JMohegan]

Harry Reid.

Funny how a pending election shrinks a man's balls.

 

[intothewoods]

Harry Reid.

Funny how a pending election shrinks a man's balls.

Nooooooooooo! That sucks. On a positive note, I kind of have a new respect for Bloomberg after all this. He's pro-gay marriage too. Who knew?

 

[JMohegan]

Nooooooooooo! That sucks. On a positive note, I kind of have a new respect for Bloomberg after all this. He's pro-gay marriage too. Who knew?

Bloomberg's been outstanding on this, it's true. The President's speech on Friday was also great.

 

[WriterDom]

Harry Reid.

Funny how a pending election shrinks a man's balls.

The kicker is he didn't have the balls to comment himself but sent his press guy out with a statement.

I'd like to see him go, but with 25 million in his pocket to spend, he might just pull it out.

 

[intothewoods]

Bloomberg's been outstanding on this, it's true. The President's speech on Friday was also great.

Speaking of Jews, the ADL was a real blow. I agree about Obama's speech. But what did you think about his "clarification" the next day? I wasn't thrilled.

 

[Homburg]

By entering the store you agree to their rules.

Change the wording to, "By entering this store, customers agree to provide oral sex to any employee that requests it." Yes, I consider this a serious test of the legality of the concept. If I can't put a "You consent to anal sexing if you enter" sign on my business' door, this sort of shit should not fly either. If a police officer, whose authority eclipses that of the general citizenry, cannot search me without PC, then I can't really say that a store employee can either.

At the end of the day, a private citizen placing hands on another person without their express consent is committing assault (barring emergency procedures designed to mitigate harm under good samaritan laws, and similar situations). We've seen many times the phrase "you cannot consent to assault" on these boards. What is the difference here? While the comment can be made that entrance after seeing that sign is consent, again, you cannot consent to assault. Barring probable cause to detain/search, it's assault.

But the thing is that "probable cause" does not apply because they're not police officers.

I'm going to disagree here, recognising your background and respecting that. Security guards are private citizens as well, but every DCJS security cert I've gone through stressed VERY strongly that you do not detain, seize, search, etc without probable cause. If you do, you lose the protection the law provides in such situations and invite lawsuits and possible arrest. And I know people who have faced those sort of lawsuits for doing exactly that, as well as a couple that were arrested. Probable Cause may be aimed at police, but it is valid legal procedure for anyone in the business world who is acting as de facto law enforcement. While narrow interpretation of the law certainly goes along with what you are saying, effective practice, at least on the security officer's end, does not.

I do not think they are breaking the law on posting this sign. I think it is unsupportable bullshit, but not illegal. If, however, it is acted on beyond the request level, they will be facing prosecution, and are very likely to lose. At minimum, you would not see me shopping there, and there would likely be letters to the local newspaper, TV, etc protesting the attempt at breaking with, at minimum, the spirit of the law.

 

[CutieMouse]

Every freaking time I skim FetLife and see another "He said submissves always do XYZ [oral, anal, nude pictures, blahblahblah] on the first meeting... is that true? Do I have to?" it makes me want to thwap someone upside the head. Especially when the person asking the question is (more often than not) well over the age of 18.

What planet do these women live on, that being submissive means being brainless?

 

[Homburg]

Every freaking time I skim FetLife and see another "He said submissves always do XYZ [oral, anal, nude pictures, blahblahblah] on the first meeting... is that true? Do I have to?" it makes me want to thwap someone upside the head. Especially when the person asking the question is (more often than not) well over the age of 18.

What planet do these women live on, that being submissive means being brainless?

The incidence of idiocy within the BDSM community is statistically the same as in the vanilla population.

 

[CutieMouse]

The incidence of idiocy within the BDSM community is statistically the same as in the vanilla population.

How depressing...

 

[Homburg]

So, as of Sept 3rd, I will no longer be employed by my current firm.

Oh, but, hey, I have the option of staying on as a 1099 contractor. Whee. The best part? Same pay, but as a contractor I eat all the expenses.

Fuck em. Fuck em in the eye.

 

[Homburg]

How depressing...

Why? Is there some sort of thought that the sort of person that gets damp in the nethers over a beating should somehow be brighter than vanilla folks? Pfft. People are people. The only difference here is in the psychosexual wiring.

And give the person some credit. While they're obviously not really bright enough to be in gen-pop on their own, at least they were bright enough to ask the question of people who are capable of being responsible for their own well-being.

 

[CutieMouse]

Why? Is there some sort of thought that the sort of person that gets damp in the nethers over a beating should somehow be brighter than vanilla folks? Pfft. People are people. The only difference here is in the psychosexual wiring.

And give the person some credit. While they're obviously not really bright enough to be in gen-pop on their own, at least they were bright enough to ask the question of people who are capable of being responsible for their own well-being.

I mean how depressing in the generic societal lack of common sense sort of way... and thinking about it, you're right that it isn't kink specific; it's pretty much everywhere.

And yes, kudos to the person who pauses long enough to go "wait a second...", but there's something about someone my age (or older) going "But he swears everyone gives a blow job in public on the first date! Is that true? Do I have to?" that makes me go W.T.F?!?!

 

[WriterDom]

Every freaking time I skim FetLife and see another "He said submissves always do XYZ [oral, anal, nude pictures, blahblahblah] on the first meeting... is that true? Do I have to?" it makes me want to thwap someone upside the head. Especially when the person asking the question is (more often than not) well over the age of 18.

What planet do these women live on, that being submissive means being brainless?

It's tough to have standards when the only requirement for membership is a password. Little things like that kind of stupidity used to piss me off but I'm only responsible for my behavior. If someone asks for my opinion I'll give it, but like so many things in life it comes down to Caveat Emptor.

 

[Homburg]

I mean how depressing in the generic societal lack of common sense sort of way... and thinking about it, you're right that it isn't kink specific; it's pretty much everywhere.

And yes, kudos to the person who pauses long enough to go "wait a second...", but there's something about someone my age (or older) going "But he swears everyone gives a blow job in public on the first date! Is that true? Do I have to?" that makes me go W.T.F?!?!

Meh. Stupid is everywhere.

 

[intothewoods]

Change the wording to, "By entering this store, customers agree to provide oral sex to any employee that requests it." Yes, I consider this a serious test of the legality of the concept. If I can't put a "You consent to anal sexing if you enter" sign on my business' door, this sort of shit should not fly either. If a police officer, whose authority eclipses that of the general citizenry, cannot search me without PC, then I can't really say that a store employee can either.

At the end of the day, a private citizen placing hands on another person without their express consent is committing assault (barring emergency procedures designed to mitigate harm under good samaritan laws, and similar situations). We've seen many times the phrase "you cannot consent to assault" on these boards. What is the difference here? While the comment can be made that entrance after seeing that sign is consent, again, you cannot consent to assault. Barring probable cause to detain/search, it's assault.

Here is a distinction that I think will make this clearer. There is a difference between an individual's freedom to engage in behavior (e.g., I can enter your store, you can ask me to hand over my bag to search its contents, I can tell you to screw off, you can put up a sign that says whatever the heck you want) and legally enforceable rights. Also, what actually happens isn't always legal (racial discrimination in bank loans, for example).

Finally, your right to be free from search and seizure by the government is a constitutional right. Another person (private citizen) takes your shit without your consent and it's called theft, robbery, assault. A security guard detains you for too long and you can sue - it's a civil matter. I think the tort is unlawful imprisonment or something.

So you can put that sign on your door, but I don't think that business would last very long. And of course, private citizens can't rape other private citizens or assault them. The rules that any store sets out as a condition for entering aren't actually enforceable (unless the rule prohibits behavior that's also illegal -- theft, loitering, etc), other than the fact that the store has the authority to toss you out and, of course, they can always call the police. But the store can put out those rules and try to enforce them. It's kinda like the waiver of liability on the back of a parking garage ticket. Totally false but companies still print it on tickets because the average person may have no clue.

I'm going to disagree here, recognising your background and respecting that. Security guards are private citizens as well, but every DCJS security cert I've gone through stressed VERY strongly that you do not detain, seize, search, etc without probable cause. If you do, you lose the protection the law provides in such situations and invite lawsuits and possible arrest. And I know people who have faced those sort of lawsuits for doing exactly that, as well as a couple that were arrested. Probable Cause may be aimed at police, but it is valid legal procedure for anyone in the business world who is acting as de facto law enforcement. While narrow interpretation of the law certainly goes along with what you are saying, effective practice, at least on the security officer's end, does not.

I'm not surprised that this is the practice. It just makes good business sense. There also may very well be local ordinances or state laws even that apply to security guards and require them to detain people only if they have probable cause to do so. Also, if it's the company policy, and a security guard violates that policy and then there's a lawsuit, the policy and whether it was followed would certainly be important.

Again, I'm not saying the company has a right to search a person or their property. What I'm saying is there is no constitutional protection against a private business setting any legal rules they want as a condition for entering the store. You are always free to shop elsewhere and you are free to refuse the search.

I do not think they are breaking the law on posting this sign. I think it is unsupportable bullshit, but not illegal. If, however, it is acted on beyond the request level, they will be facing prosecution, and are very likely to lose. At minimum, you would not see me shopping there, and there would likely be letters to the local newspaper, TV, etc protesting the attempt at breaking with, at minimum, the spirit of the law.

I agree that ultimately the rules are not enforceable, other than with a call to the police or a request to leave the property. As for what actually happens, I've seen the whole gamut, including security guards who behave terribly and no one is held accountable. It all depends. But that's another discussion.

 

[JMohegan]

The kicker is he didn't have the balls to comment himself but sent his press guy out with a statement.

I'd like to see him go, but with 25 million in his pocket to spend, he might just pull it out.

Well, 25 million + the fact that his opponent is a total fucking whackjob.

Speaking of Jews, the ADL was a real blow. I agree about Obama's speech. But what did you think about his "clarification" the next day? I wasn't thrilled.

"I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there."

If you mean that quote, it doesn't bother me a bit. (Though press coverage characterizing that as a "retraction" certainly does.)

His point, forcefully made Friday, is that they've got the right to build a religious center - same as Christians and Jews and anyone else. And the decision on whether to build it there, or at some other legal location, is none of the government's business.

Nobody asks the President, or senatorial candidates in Nevada, whether it's wise for Catholics to build churches two blocks from elementary schools in this country. Nobody polls Americans asking them if placing clergy members so close to little boys would be insensitive. From Obama, on Friday:

"The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are. The writ of the Founders must endure."

 

[Homburg]

Here is a distinction that I think will make this clearer. There is a difference between an individual's freedom to engage in behavior (e.g., I can enter your store, you can ask me to hand over my bag to search its contents, I can tell you to screw off, you can put up a sign that says whatever the heck you want) and legally enforceable rights. Also, what actually happens isn't always legal (racial discrimination in bank loans, for example).

Finally, your right to be free from search and seizure by the government is a constitutional right. Another person (private citizen) takes your shit without your consent and it's called theft, robbery, assault. A security guard detains you for too long and you can sue - it's a civil matter. I think the tort is unlawful imprisonment or something.

So you can put that sign on your door, but I don't think that business would last very long. And of course, private citizens can't rape other private citizens or assault them. The rules that any store sets out as a condition for entering aren't actually enforceable (unless the rule prohibits behavior that's also illegal -- theft, loitering, etc), other than the fact that the store has the authority to toss you out and, of course, they can always call the police. But the store can put out those rules and try to enforce them. It's kinda like the waiver of liability on the back of a parking garage ticket. Totally false but companies still print it on tickets because the average person may have no clue.

I'm actually laughing out loud here. Not at what you said, but at the fact that I ended my post with a paragraph on "Release of Liability" forms and deleted it before posting because I wasn't 100% solid on how solid my handle on the relationship between the two concepts was. Glad to see that I was in the right area.

I'm not surprised that this is the practice. It just makes good business sense. There also may very well be local ordinances or state laws even that apply to security guards and require them to detain people only if they have probable cause to do so. Also, if it's the company policy, and a security guard violates that policy and then there's a lawsuit, the policy and whether it was followed would certainly be important.

I was handed to us as a combination of law and best practices. The instructors made the distinction clear, but made certain that we knew that best practices was to err very much on the side of legality.

Again, I'm not saying the company has a right to search a person or their property. What I'm saying is there is no constitutional protection against a private business setting any legal rules they want as a condition for entering the store. You are always free to shop elsewhere and you are free to refuse the search.

I agree that there is no Constitutional protection here. But I do think that there are definite legal protections. As you said above, much of what is listed in that note would result in charges of assault, robbery, etc.

I agree that ultimately the rules are not enforceable, other than with a call to the police or a request to leave the property. As for what actually happens, I've seen the whole gamut, including security guards who behave terribly and no one is held accountable. It all depends. But that's another discussion.

Oh, yeah, VERY familiar with security guards behaving badly. I've been called in the middle of the night to go out and replace someone who shouldn't have been hired in the first place. Ugh.