Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumWant Guns With That? Chefs Find Politics Hotter Than Kitchen
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/01/us/chefs-find-political-waters-anything-but-tepid.htmlCLEMSON, S.C. Pete Matsko expected a little pushback when he posted a sarcastic sign banning concealed weapons from Backstreets Pub & Grill, his beer and burger bar in this college town, but he did not expect to become a national target.
Within weeks, he was slammed with so many online attacks and harassing phone calls that he changed his number and started asking the police to open his mail.
A new concealed-weapons law in South Carolina turned his pub into a battlefield in Americas culture wars. Like an increasing number of bar and restaurant owners around the country, Mr. Matsko discovered that his politics can matter more than what he serves.
As the position restaurants hold in American culture grows, so too does the list of issues on which chefs are asked to make a stand. Refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding, requesting that a woman not breast-feed at the table or trying to prevent a diner from wearing a gun can have serious business implications.
(excerpt, remainder of article at link)
It should be noted that not once in the entire article is the word douchebag (the term the restaurant owner used to describe people who carry concealed) mentioned. Instead, they say the sign used a derogatory term used for an obnoxious person, leaving the reader with the impression in could have been something as innocuous as jerk.
nykym
(3,063 posts)All restaurants I would imagine carry an insurance policy.
In general what is the insurers policy towards guns in a restaurant?
I know when some school districts planned to allow school personnel to carry guns their insurance carries said if you do we will drop your coverage.
You may have the right to carry a gun but you do not have the right to jeopardize someones business exercising that right.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)So be it a restaurant, book store, food store, etc, if a customer carries a gun and uses it inside the business, the business would not normally be liable.
On the other hand if a employer chooses to allow or require an employee to be armed, then they become liable for the employee's actions. That's why so many companies have some form of no guns or no weapons allowed on premises written some where in the employee rules/hand book
bossy22
(3,547 posts)there were many other ways to tell potential customers that he does not want guns in his restaurant but he chose to do it in an insulting manner. It's like a doctors office having a sign saying "we do not accept lazy, drunk, loser patients who have medicaid"
He decided to be an ass and now he is getting it in return
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)Jenoch
(7,720 posts)The difference is that the signs I have seen simply state " This restaurant) bans guns on these premises." None of these restaurants has made national news because of their sign banning guns as far as I am aware.
Pete Matsko chose to post a sign that refers to CCW permit holders as losers and douchebags.
http://www.cbc.ca/asithappens/mobile/touch/features/2014/04/01/when-pete-matsko-decided-to/
petronius
(26,602 posts)Fairly or not, the public 'face' of a restaurant leads to conclusions about the sort of dining experience one might have there, and a belligerent or offensive or cutesy or otherwise unattractive tone at the point of entry is often a deterrent. It may have been personally satisfying and/or entertaining, but I doubt it was a good business decision...
DonP
(6,185 posts)I'm sure all the gun control supporters will be sending him checks and going there for meals to show their financial support to reward him for taking a principled, if rude, stand.
Ha, like gun control people ever spend their own money.
Maybe they'll wait for Bloomberg to host a brunch there and wait for him to pick up the check.