Bakery closes at 9. Customer comes at 9:06. Employees don't serve her. Employees fired.
- Thread starter BGNO
- Start date
The white customers came into the store before the closed. So that's basic.
The black "activist", and two other customers were turned down after they closed.
My understanding is that there were also customer that came in after closing, but one minute before the black woman, and they were served. The employees then told the black woman that they were closed. According to the bakery, the employees were not very customer friendly. I might have fired them too, independent on the person's race.
Thats who im referring to as is KATU.
There were two white women that came in 2 min before Lillian and were told they were closed.
You can see my above posts for details.
While KATU says they were told the white women were told they were closed,KATU doesn't explicitly say they were or weren't served. You would think not if they were told they were closed.
Or are you referring to a third woman?
I haven't seen anything about that
But were the bathrooms open to the public without purchasing? The activist should have said after being turned away if she could use the bathroom. If told no, double whammy. Burn that mother F'er to the ground. Or at least close down for the day to offer sensitivity training. That solves world peace, at least that's what Starbucks wants you to think after delivering a shitty police brutality training.
It's entirely possible the employees messed up by treating someone different only one minute later, but also deserved a second chance. Not legally, but just common decency to your work force. Did the activist woman who didn't get served even call for them to get fired -- or did the bakery just do that?
What very well could have happened is that after a couple people showed up right at closing or a moment after, someone said "that's it, no more". And that's that. That happens alot. You try to give some leeway but then realize you will never stop so they just pulled it then. The color of the customer's skin had nothing to do with it?
Yup lots of factors. Another factor is how courteous the patron was. If one party approached the employee in a courteous fashion versus another was more demanding and less courteous could be a factor as well. Some people act like asses and then expect you to bend over backwards for them
4. Were the two white women that also entered after the Open sign was turned off served?
Yes.
Yes.
Lol, i know.
Thats the owners stance. Im not expecting them to say less.
Im saying KATU got the story from either the employees,witnesses,or customers themselves that the white women were also told the shop was closed.
It doesn't seem logical to tell some one the store is closed, then turn around and serve them anyway.
Maybe they did but id like to see it from another source other than the owners social media accounts.
Not sure why you used a question mark here. My take is the owners can't know if race had anything to do with it, so they shouldn't have fired the employee. But I think it'd be equally wrong to state race did not have anything to do with definitively, because we also don't know that. None of us are mind readers.
dang, good call. a fresh pot pie at 9pm, I could do that. I stand corrected.
Although the pot pie causes munchies, but since the bakery is closed, shit out of luck on an actual baked good.
An employee let's people out. That way nobody comes in after closing. You've never seen this?
you think angry black lady outside a locked door, looking in on happy white customers, would have went over well?
Just about everyone with a call phone is prepared to record. It literally takes 5 seconds.
Who else records something like this ?
She came in late. Everyone else had odered except the 2 women who were either turned down or served depending on who you believe.
If she started recording before the incident, she was looking for trouble.
If she started after the incident, she recorded a bunch of people who ordered earlier than 9 and had a right to be there.
You missed the point. Of course everyone has cellphones lol.
My point was when she recorded can dictate her motive
If she recorded before, then yes it wold dictate her motive in this case. Where does it say she record before?
We can only make certain assumptions right now. Based on what the store says after reviewing the video, the woman came in at 9:06, and was told that they were closed, and was told that in a non friendly way. She noticed that white customers where being served. Those white customers came in at 9:05. It seems logical to conclude that the bakery was serving the late white customers, while refusing to serve her.
Taking the race out of it, the employees where likely using poor customer service skills and the business is within it's right to fire them.
I explained the 2 options.
No one said it was unfriendly that I've seen.I showed the tweet from the one gentleman in there who didn't mention anything remotely like that happening
One shows intent and one proves nothing.
Might be worth noting the owner deleted this post since :
"In one statement, the bakery admitted that the employees did not necessarily do anything wrong, "this is more about how a black woman was made to feel" at the business."
Treating someone unfriendly would be doing something wrong according to their mission statement.
Im not sure the cam even has sound. Many if not most don't from my experience.
I also find it curious the employees have been totally silent. I wonder if they got a lawyer who told them stay quiet on the issue.
Last edited:
Similar threads
