DC wrote:Dude, if you want to read your first 2 replies in this thread and then the subsequent replies to ppl anwering you, I think you'll find it was you that started crossing the 2 topics into one. The reason for the hat rule is for security, that's it. If you choose not to understand the legitimacy of that reason it's up to you.
Oh that's rich. Did you suddenly forget how to read? Perhaps you're hoping against hope that no one will go back up a few pages in this thread. Nowhere do I confuse taking my hat off for civility, and taking my hat off because I'm on a security cam. N-O-W-H-E-R-E. It's the "ppl" I'm responding to (e.g. you) who keep bringing up reasons other than security for removing their hats indoors. Go ahead. Prove me wrong.
DC wrote:But within minutes of having the rule enforced upon you, your mind was already made up. 'discombobulated'... in laymans terms, you were pissed off because you'd just been yelled at.
"In laymans terms..."?!! Gee, Professor DC, what amazing insights you have into the human psyche that permits you to tell others what they were thinking. No bud, when I wrote "discombobulated," I meant discombobulated. Read stoned. I was enjoying my smoke and unwilling to harsh some employee who didn't come up with the policy.
DC wrote:The cameras are pointed at the doors, not at the stoners chilling out. Only some coffeeshops do it because only some need to, location, size, local patrons, profits on premises and council/police involvement due to 'issues' together make up the reason why. Other types of business do what they need to in order to secure their business.
Hey, I don't have a problem with businesses having security cameras to protect their investments. That's alright and good. But I do object when consumers of soft drugs like yourself and yours truly, are seen as being less trustworthy and reputable than other people. Now I will concede this argument at any time if you can provide examples of other commercial institutions requiring their patrons to remove their hats. I have never heard of it outside the coffeeshop industry. Until that happens, I feel that coffeeshop customers are being unfairly singled out from the rest of the pack. And yeah, that pisses me off.
DC wrote:A high class restaurant will not only ask you to take off your hat, but may ask you to put on a jacket and a tie before you're allowed in and that's got nothing to do with security or cameras at all.
Uh, yes, I would agree. Perhaps you're confused again. See paragraphs 1 and 2 of this message.
DC wrote:'House rules' don't always make sense or seem right to everybody, but that doesn't mean they're wrong or stupid. The fact that you use a department and jewelry store together, shows what I'm referring to. Open floors and large spaces with multiple cameras compared to one room without a guard or automatic lockable doors and only one camera, require different approaches to security and just because you 'don't get it' doesn't mean it's dumb. Especially considering you're in a weak minority that feels it is and have a problem. Like all businesses, if you don't like what they do....then don't go there.
Once again, I'm not objecting to small businesses having in-store surveillance so please stop trying to imply that I am. What I object to is coffeeshop patrons being targeted. Obviously other places of business have security cams. Where the cams are, what the layout of the shop happens to be, etc...are entirely irrelevant to the argument.
DC wrote:You just seem to like repeating yourself while contradicting at the same time.
The reason why I keep repeating my argument is that you choose not to respond to it. Making coffeeshop customers take off their hats when other institutions do not, is simply discriminatory behavior.
DC wrote:You know nothing of the patrons of Amsterdam coffeeshops other that what you see when your here only holiday. Considering a percentage of coffeeshops are actually run by criminals, having cameras on your door is a sure way of both keepin cops happy and arseholes out. If you don't like it and don't go back to these shops, well then I guess the latter must've worked.
Nice way to work in a personal attack. And no, I don't work at a coffeeshop, or even a former coffeeshop, but that doesn't mean I don't know discrimination when I see it.
DC wrote:When McDonalds sell G13 Haze burgers, expect cameras on the door and a 'no hat' policy to be implimented.
G13 Haze burgers sound awesome, but do they have to be Mickey Ds? I'd rather have bus station chili.
titus wong wrote:
Whatever rituals and taboos may be codified within a particular religion does not mean that individuals will necessarily observe them, so it's perfectly reasonable to assume a Sikh might show up in a coffeeshop. I know many Christians who don't go to church on Sunday, covet their neighbor's wealth, etc., and they go to coffeeshops too. What about an orthodox Jew wearing a yarmulke? If one showed up in a coffeeshop, would he be asked to remove it?
DC wrote:When religious ppl get hypocritical but still want to wave their religious freedom at me then yes I would.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...right. Good luck with that. Expect a civil suit rammed up your ass faster than a scud missile. That would probably spell the end of your business too.
DC wrote:Businesses should have the right to enforce their rules on anybody if it's in their own best interests and not against the law. Considering religion is a fukt up idea that one day will be seen on the same par as believing in the tooth fairy, whatever laws are attached to it are only tempory.
Oh yeah, we should totally disregard the rights of religious people because they're so clearly deluded...why am I bothering to argue with you as yer obviously a twit.
DC wrote:I'm not advocating or reveling in anything related to this topic, just explaining or indicating if you prefer, with visual aids....you're too fuking late, it's already here. Bitch all you like about it, but it's probably all you'll ever do.
If bitching about it is all I ever do, it's more than you have done. Here's some visual aids for ya...
Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa......
Time for Titus and DC to take this argument to PM's 
