Boges Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 (edited) What hypocrisy ? Do you really think had the boy been wearing a ski mask he'd be treated similarly? Edited July 25, 2012 by Boges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 What hypocrisy ? Do you really think had the boy been wearing a ski mask he'd be treated similarly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 (edited) Double post. sorry Edited July 25, 2012 by Boges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Do you really think had the boy been wearing a ski mask he'd be treated similarly? Why is that hypocrisy ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Double post. sorry Looks like a stand-up triple... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Nobody knows, but even the LCBO is saying that it may have been out of cultural sensitivity. Link? LCBO spokesman Chris Layton [...] sen[t] out an email stressing that staff are required to ask customers to remove face coverings, but that they may have been attempting to be "culturally sensitive" in all three cases. link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 LCBO spokesman Chris Layton [...] sen[t] out an email stressing that staff are required to ask customers to remove face coverings, but that they may have been attempting to be "culturally sensitive" in all three cases. link Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 I am willing to say that the clerks felt awkward about dealing with this person. So what ? What does it mean ? What are we supposed to do about this ? And, most of all, where is the hypocrisy ? Are 14 year old boys going to be wearing dresses again, like they did in the 80s ? Is this really a fear or transgender behavior masquerading in a burqua of xenophobia ? Oh, I had better be careful, or the outrage volcano may erupt on us again... I'm in agreement with MH on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 Convenience stores are probably better equipped to ensure underage people don't get alcohol because of all the scrutiny over tobacco sales. The reason we are treated like children in Ontario is to protect the union wages of LCBO and beer store staff. Dalton doesn't give a damn about social responsibility, only ripping the people of Ontario off. Covenience stores would be worse since on average the person saying yay or nay takes (or not) the profits,not to mention the lousy selection we would get. Protect the wages? Uh no, perhaps the profits (which I am glad they do) but not the wages. Throw in the superior knowledge of staff and you have a pretty good system. Yes I pay slightly higher prices, dont care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 Covenience stores would be worse since on average the person saying yay or nay takes (or not) the profits,not to mention the lousy selection we would get. Protect the wages? Uh no, perhaps the profits (which I am glad they do) but not the wages. Throw in the superior knowledge of staff and you have a pretty good system. Yes I pay slightly higher prices, dont care. Well it wouldn't do away with the current LCBO system. Obviously if you want a Single-malt scotch or some Sambuca You'd still have to go to the Lickbo. We already have wine outlets in grocery stores with a limited Ontario-only wines wines. You can get better and cheaper wines at the LCBO still but the grocery outlets can be more convenient. In rural communities where it's not profitable to have an LCBO; grocery stores already offer liqour and beer, I'm told. This just means that you can get a limited supply of beer and/or wine at a wider variety of places like everyone else in the developed world has access to. And it would keep the outlet in business considering the dwindling number of people that smoke and/or get their tobacco off the reserves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 Who is "we"? It isn't me! I think teens should be allowed to drink. Not a 26'er of vodka, but a beer or two won't kill them.In most province teens and even children are allowed to drink in their own home with the permission of their parent(s) or guardian(s). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 If a private bar owner served Sambuca to a 14-year-old, their Liqour License would have been pulled so fast.Licenses aren't typically pulled unless there are repeated offences, especially after warnings to be more careful. A single underage person served isn't going to result in the bar losing its license. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 We already have wine outlets in grocery stores with a limited Ontario-only wines wines. You can get better and cheaper wines at the LCBO still but the grocery outlets can be more convenient. In rural communities where it's not profitable to have an LCBO; grocery stores already offer liqour and beer, I'm told. Yup, I have one near me, selection sucks but in a pinch it works. Doesnt work well with the returns though, only get a credit thats useable that day ONLY This just means that you can get a limited supply of beer and/or wine at a wider variety of places like everyone else in the developed world has access to. And it would keep the outlet in business considering the dwindling number of people that smoke and/or get their tobacco off the reserves. I pass by no less than 4 LCBO stores on my way to the cottage. Having stores offer it would be no convenience for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 Again it's not that a 14-year-old was served alcohol it's that the clerk didn't verify what the person looked like, likely because asking a Muslim woman in a Burqa to show her face would have caused trouble. If the kid came in wearing a Spiderman outfit would the clerks have acted in a similar fashion? I doubt it. First of all, many Muslims avoid all alcohol entirely for religious reasons (even though some interpretations of the text allow for some exceptions like sambuca and vodka). So a burqa wearing Muslim in a liquor store is uncommon enough. Then the number of kids that are going to wear a burqa to be able to buy booze underage is going to be considerably fewer. In fact, it would be so exceptionally rare that someone wearing a burqa going into a liquor store is underage that it's a non-starter. So your proposal is that for the handful of cases where someone's wearing a burqa out of the millions of liquor sales that happen each year the clerk should ask Muslim women to take off their burqas every time they go to the checkout? Don't you think checking someone's ID would be the logical and reasonable first step? In the case of the OP, the clerk didn't even ask for ID. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 What happened has nothing to do with the amount of people carded in a year or kids stealing liquour, it has everything to do with selective enforcement of the law. That, in my opinion, is absolutely unacceptable. Actually, if you read the law as it was posted, it is discretionary. It's up to the discretion of the clerk to determine the age of the person shopping. If they suspect (yes, that's IF they suspect) the person is underage, then they are to request ID. It does not say that they may request someone wearing a burqa to disrobe. It does not say that they MUST ID everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 Actually, if you read the law as it was posted, it is discretionary. It's up to the discretion of the clerk to determine the age of the person shopping. If they suspect (yes, that's IF they suspect) the person is underage, then they are to request ID. It does not say that they may request someone wearing a burqa to disrobe. It does not say that they MUST ID everyone. And what happens if a clerk makes a mistake, CC? What happens if a waitress fails to realize a patron is too drunk to drive and he has an accident on the way home? In both these cases, if anything happens the clerk is held responsible! If so, then how can they dare show any discretion, even if it is allowed? My Utilitarian gland is paining me again! Something doesn't work here! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 And what happens if a clerk makes a mistake, CC? What happens if a waitress fails to realize a patron is too drunk to drive and he has an accident on the way home? The bar owners liability policy picks up the resultant lawsuit. In both these cases, if anything happens the clerk is held responsible! No she/he isnt. The establishment is , but not an individual Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 In both these cases, if anything happens the clerk is held responsible! Regardless how many exclamation points you use, that's simply not true!When someone gets drunk at a party and kills someone driving home it's the party's host that's held responsible, not the LCBO clerk that sold the alcohol. When someone gets drunk at a bar and kills someone driving home it's the server at the bar that's held responsible, not the LCBO clerk that sold the alcohol to the bar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 Regardless how many exclamation points you use, that's simply not true! When someone gets drunk at a party and kills someone driving home it's the party's host that's held responsible, not the LCBO clerk that sold the alcohol. When someone gets drunk at a bar and kills someone driving home it's the server at the bar that's held responsible, not the LCBO clerk that sold the alcohol to the bar. Hmm. Good points, I must admit. I think I should do some googling myself, just to see how the law is actually written for these situations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 The difference is that the LCBO clerk is not serving you the alcohol. They're simply selling you a product with no control over how it will be used once in your possession. The person that actually serves the alcohol to someone is held at least partially responsible for that person's action. One example I failed to include was, you get drunk by yourself in your home, then hop in your car and kill someone and you're held personally responsible, not the clerk at the LCBO. That's because the clerk didn't serve you alcohol. You purchased the alcohol yourself and served it to yourself. The clerk has no way of knowing if you're going to knock back an entire bottle yourself in a few hours, over a week, or share it with others. As such they can't be held responsible because they're not actually serving it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 Regardless how many exclamation points you use, that's simply not true! And neither is this, in absolute terms ....When someone gets drunk at a party and kills someone driving home it's the party's host that's held responsible, not the LCBO clerk that sold the alcohol. When someone gets drunk at a bar and kills someone driving home it's the server at the bar that's held responsible, not the LCBO clerk that sold the alcohol to the bar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.