The San Francisco Police Officers Assn. claims that a bakery in the Reem's California chain denied service to one of its officers because he was in uniform.

San Francisco’s police union says a city bakery chain has a “bigoted” policy of not serving uniformed cops.

The San Francisco Police Officers Assn. wrote in a social media post last week that Reem’s California “will not serve anyone armed and in uniform” and that includes “members of the U.S. Military.” The union is demanding that the chain “own” its policy.

Reem’s says, however, its policy isn’t against serving armed police officers. It’s against allowing guns inside its businesses.

  • elscallr@lemmy.world
    674·
    2 years ago

    It’s wholly within their rights to refuse service to anyone for any reason. I hope they stick to their… well, I guess “stick to their guns” doesn’t really work here but whatever.

    • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
      614·
      2 years ago

      If they are a public facing business, they are not within their rights to refuse service to anyone for any reason. There are protected classes, like age/race/sexuality. So if you own a business like a coffee shop, you can’t say “no black people.” However, police and guns are not protected classes, so I think they should be in the clear legally.

      • ZzyzxRoad@lemm.ee
        262·
        2 years ago

        What happened to the supreme court cases that said it’s ok to discriminate against protected classes as long as it just so happens to be “against your religion”

          • visak@lemmy.world
            51·
            2 years ago

            Of course. They’re patient. They chipped away at abortion for decades before finally getting it overturned in Dobbs.

            Similarly they went from Masterpiece Cake Shop to the Creative LLC case which widened the exception further because it’s a “creative endeavor”. Don’t for a minute think they’re not queing up a case to deny medical services based on a “sincerely held religious beliefs”.

      • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world
        9·
        2 years ago

        Also the distinction is “no uniforms, no guns” off duty police are still served. It’s actually a little closer to “no shoes, no shirt, no service”.

        As listed in the article some of the employees and regular customers come from war-torn places or have histories of traumatic interactions with police. Hence the ban comes from a place of limiting PTSD reactions.