Ep. 40 - Two People Fired For Not Serving A Black Customer After Closing
Two employees were fired from a bakery for refusing to serve a black customer after the store had already closed. Let's talk about this insane and chilling case, and how it reflects the situation in our society as a whole.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
So I want to talk about a case that's pretty chilling, especially on the heels of the whole Starbucks thing.
And you remember, of course, with that, two black people were escorted out of Starbucks in Philadelphia by police after they entered the establishment and sat down at tables and refused to buy anything.
Even though the manager requested and told them, if you want to stay here, you have to buy something.
And she even offered to serve them at the table.
She was going out of her way to enforce the policy in a very polite way.
But they refused to leave and they refused to buy anything.
So she called the police. Only thing she could do.
And then she was fired for...
Or at least she was removed from that Starbucks and she was defamed by the CEO of Starbucks, all for following the policy and following the rules and trying to enforce the rules.
And I can only pray that she sues Starbucks.
I haven't read anything about that manager suing Starbucks, but I hope that she sues them into oblivion because I think she really has quite a case.
But on the heels of that episode, We have this story out of Oregon.
A pair of employees at Portland's Back to Eden Bakery were fired after refusing to serve a black woman.
Okay, that's at least the headline that we're supposed to focus on, is that two people refused to serve a black woman.
So clearly it's racism.
Obviously, that's the only explanation.
I mean, they refused to serve.
But why did they refuse to serve her?
Oh, because the store was closed.
They refused to serve a black woman after the store was already closed.
And they were fired for it.
Okay, this actually happened.
They were fired for the crime of closing the store at closing time.
So for a little context, the store...
Closed at 9 o'clock at night.
At 9.04, two customers walked in.
They happened to be white. And they were informed that the store had just closed, and so they were going to be the last customers.
This is pretty standard procedure.
If you've ever been to a store right at closing time or a minute after closing time, Or restaurant or bar or something, you may be told, okay, fine, you're the last one, right?
Very often, the first customers to come in right after closing, they will get the honor of being the very last ones, and they'll be told that.
Or think about if you're in a grocery line, and the light has just turned off, but you slide into the line quickly, and then many times the cashier will say, okay, you're the last one.
So, they were the last ones.
They were given that distinguished honor.
And then a couple minutes after that, another woman walks in.
She happens to be black, and her name is Lillian Green.
She's informed that the women in front of her are the last ones and the store is closed.
So what does she do?
She proceeds to take out her phone and start filming.
And she starts filming and she accuses a store of racism for refusing to serve her after the store had already closed.
This apparently is the first time she'd ever encountered the concept of a closed establishment.
Lillian Green has never heard of stores closing before.
She had no idea that that happened.
She was shocked by it.
She thought that all stores everywhere are open all the time.
So she took a video and it went viral.
And very quickly, the employees were fired.
Now, the bakery owner, John Blomgren, is his name, which just seems like a perfect name for everything going on.
I don't know why. It just seems like the perfect name.
So Blomgren issues a lengthy statement on Facebook, which has since been deleted for some reason.
He issues a lengthy statement talking about why he fired the employees and explaining the whole situation.
And it's an incredible...
It's a truly incredible statement.
So Blomgren says that, he says himself, that the employees who denied service to the black woman who came in after closing, they are not racist.
He says that himself. He knows that they're not racist.
And he knows they didn't have racist intentions.
He knows that too. Yet, and I'm quoting here, in this situation, it doesn't really matter if Because Lillian felt like she had been discriminated against.
So she felt like she had been discriminated against.
So it doesn't really matter what was intended.
All that matters is how this woman felt about it.
He goes on to say that sometimes impact outweighs intent.
And when that happens, people need to be held accountable.
Since both Lillian and the clamoring public were demanding that these staff members be fired, that is what we did, putting these two women out of work.
It was an incredibly difficult thing for us to do, especially when they felt they were just upholding our closing time of 9 p.m.
But the way in which they went about it lacked sensitivity and understanding of the racial implications at work.
Oh, oh my gosh.
So what do we have here?
And then, by the way, Blomgren also said in a statement that Back to Eden Bakery is 100% committed to being a welcoming and supportive environment for all customers who share our values of inclusivity and dismantling the white supremacist heteropatriarchy.
So it's not going to surprise you to learn that this is a vegan bakery, by the way.
You probably won't be surprised to learn that.
But that's not the point. The point is that he admits...
That the employees didn't actually do anything wrong.
But all that really matters is how the poor, aggrieved Lillian feels about it.
And he even admits that he fired his employees because of the clamoring public.
He came out and said, yeah, I got rid of them because of the pitchfork mob, so that's what I did.
What else am I going to do?
The right thing? Come on.
It matters what the clamoring public wants, according to Blomgren.
It matters how Lillian feels.
What doesn't matter is what actually happened.
That's the only thing that doesn't matter here, according to Blomgren.
The only thing that doesn't matter is the reality of the situation.
That's what doesn't matter. But the hallucinations and the delusions of Lillian Green and the clamoring public, that's what matters.
So two innocent employees had to lose their livelihood as a sacrificial offering to the aggrieved masses.
Now, how does this relate to the situation and the culture generally?
Well, because this, whether it's this or the Starbucks thing, And I think you've got a real precedent here with Starbucks and with this.
I mean, this is a really dangerous precedent.
And it certainly is making me very thankful that I don't work in the customer service industry.
And then when you add in all the stuff with the Christian bakeries and the LGBT mob that's been targeting them, we'll see what happens with the Supreme Court case.
That'll be announced in the next few weeks.
But if the Supreme Court fines against the Christian Bakers, then we're really going to be in a position where you just can't operate as a business owner anymore in America.
So this is the inevitable result when people are empowered to interpret something however they want to interpret it and then impose that interpretation on everyone else.
This is what happens.
So, look at it this way.
In any human conversation or interaction, there are basically three things.
There are three factors at work here.
So, number one, anytime something is said to another person, there's three factors.
Number one, there is what is actually said.
Okay, so that's one factor.
What was actually said.
The second factor, what was meant to What did the person mean when they said it?
Okay, that's the second factor. Third factor, what did the person who was being spoken to, what did they hear?
How did they interpret it?
Those are the three elements of any human exchange, right?
Now, things go really smoothly if all three of those things line up.
If the speaker means what he says and says what he means and the hearer hears what is said and understands what is meant, that's how you have a successful human interaction.
That's when you can give each other a high five and say, yes, we interacted as human beings in a satisfactory manner.
Because it's such a rare thing these days that you really have to stop and appreciate it when it happens.
But a breakdown occurs when one of those three factors falls out of step with everything else, when there's a disharmony among those three factors.
So if what a person says doesn't line up with what they mean, there's going to be a miscommunication.
And if what a person hears doesn't line up with what was said or what was meant, Then there's a miscommunication.
But here's the thing, okay?
This is the really important point that I want everyone to, we all need to understand.
If I speak clearly and honestly, and I use the appropriate language to convey my meaning, And yet you hear something entirely and completely different from what I said or meant, that's on you.
That's your fault.
That's not my fault.
I don't need to apologize for it.
I shouldn't get fired for it.
I'm not responsible for your misinterpretation in that case.
I have done my job.
I said what I meant.
I said it clearly.
And that's all I can do.
Now the ball's in your court.
I cannot be held accountable for your unwillingness or inability to understand something that was clearly communicated to you.
So if I say to you, for instance, oh, I'm sorry, the store is closed for the evening.
I can't serve you.
That's a clear...
If I say that, that's a very clear statement.
And any person with at least more than seven or eight brain cells in their head understands what that means.
It's a very clear, clearly conveyed idea.
So if that's what I say and that's what I mean, and that statement indeed reflects my intentions and my meaning, and yet you hear...
Yet what you hear in your head is, we don't serve your kind here.
Get out. This is for white people only.
If that's how you hear it, when all I said was, we're closed, and you hear this is a store for white people, that we're segregated, well, that's your fault.
That's on you.
I shouldn't be punished for it.
You're the one who owes me an apology for wildly misconstruing some very simple statement.
You owe me. You should apologize to me.
I demand an apology from you in that case because I did my job.
You didn't do your job, which was to just simply listen to what I said and understand it.
So likewise, if I say, oh, these tables are for customers only.
I need you to buy something if you're going to sit here.
Which is what the Starbucks manager said to the two black gentlemen that were at the Philadelphia Starbucks.
If I say that, and you hear only white people are allowed in Starbucks, yet again, that's on you.
That's your fault.
You owe me an apology for misconstruing what I said.
I communicated my meaning and intention as clearly as humanly possible, yet you snatched it out of the air and twisted it into the weirdest little pretzel that you could, and then you beat me over the head with it.
Now I need the apology.
I am the victim in that scenario, not you.
You're the bully.
My only job In an exchange with you, is to convey my meaning clearly and understandably.
Your only job is to understand my meaning.
If I fail to be clear, if I communicate in a way that's very vague and doesn't make a lot of sense, then your misunderstanding is my fault, and I owe you an apology.
But if I do my job well, and if I do everything I can on my end, then the ball's in your court.
And if you mess it up, and you bungle it somehow, Well, then that's your fault.
So, Mr.
Blomgren says that all that matters is how Lillian Green felt.
No. That's precisely the thing that doesn't matter.
That's the only thing in that situation that doesn't matter.
What matters is...
What matters in the case of the bakery?
Two things matter. Number one, that the store was closed.
And number two, that the employees told her that the store was closed.
That's literally all that matters.
Those two things. That's the only...
That's it. Precisely the thing that doesn't matter is how Lillian Green felt.
Doesn't matter how you feel about the fact that the store's closed.
Makes no difference whatsoever.
That is not... It's not my job to...
To somehow protect your feelings in relation to the fact that the store is closed.
What am I supposed to do? What were the employees supposed to do?
Should they take down the number of every racial minority in the greater Portland area and call all of them individually on the phone before closing to ask them if it's okay if they close?
Yes, I guess that's what they're supposed to do at this point.
That's what is required now.
If I say hello to you, And you feel like I just called your mother fat?
Well, no, I don't owe an apology to your mother because I didn't say that.
Now, you can claim that, yeah, you said hello, but what you really meant is that my mother is fat.
Well, you can claim that, and I guess there's a possibility that you're correct.
I can't prove you wrong because you can't read my mind, and I cannot prove to you what was in my mind.
But that is not a reasonable interpretation of the statement, hello.
You see, it's not reasonable for you to assume.
Yes, there is a world in which possibly, I mean, someone could say hello and they really mean it as an insult against your mother, I guess.
But all we can do is reasonably interpret the behaviors and statements of those around us.
That's all we can do. This is not a reasonable interpretation.
So I don't owe your apology.
If I tell you that it's raining outside, and you feel like what I really said was, it's sunny, it's sunny out, or if I say it's raining outside, but you feel like my intention was to tell you that it's sunny, and so you walk outside without a jacket on or without an umbrella, and you get drenched, the fact that you're drenched is not my fault.
It's your fault. I told you.
Again, I did my job.
This has become...
I mean, this is maybe the number one problem with the way...
with our communication in this country.
It's the number one source of all the miscommunication.
Is that people think they have the right to just...
to essentially...
Tell you what you meant by what you said or did.
You say something, someone hears it, and that person thinks they have the right to tell you what you meant.
And if you try to clarify and say, no, this is what I really meant, it doesn't matter.
They'll accuse you of meaning something, and it doesn't matter.
You could try to clarify it all you want, and they'll say, no, it doesn't matter.
How do you know what you meant?
I know what you meant.
You don't know what you meant. Who's going to be the authority here on what you were thinking, me or you?
Well, obviously me. No.
What matters is what is said, and yes, the intention behind it.
But you cannot impose or imbue a statement with unreasonable intentions or intentions that are completely disconnected entirely from what was actually communicated.
So now, let's very quickly, you know, an example on the other end of the spectrum, okay?
An example on the other end of the spectrum, let's take the Roseanne situation from a couple days ago.
So she tells a joke on Twitter saying that a black woman who was born in Iran is the love child of the Muslim Brotherhood and Planet of the Apes.
Okay. Now later she claims that she didn't mean that to be racist, but in that case...
It is very reasonable for people to interpret a comment like that as racist.
That, in fact, is the most reasonable interpretation of what was said.
So in that case, even when she comes back after the fact and says, oh yeah, I said something blatantly racist, but I didn't mean it in a racist way.
Well, no, that doesn't work, because now you're being the unreasonable one.
In that case, you said something very clear.
Your statement was very clear.
You said a black woman is the love child of Planet of the Apes.
That's a clear statement. And the meaning is very clear.
And now you're trying to backtrack later, and you yourself are trying to imbue that statement with a meaning or an interpretation that is completely disconnected from what was actually said.
So yeah, you can't do that either.
So, like, if I say to you, your mother is fat, and then later I say, no, no, no, I just meant to say hello.
Well, no, I can't do that, because that's not what I said.
If I wanted to say hello, I should have just said hello.
Roseanne was trying to claim that she's just trying to say that Valerie Jarrett was ugly, or something like that.
She was trying to make a comment about her looks, which, I mean, is still not a nice thing to do.
But that's not what she said.
She could have said, Valerie Jarrett looks funny, or she's ugly.
Still not a necessary thing to say, but she could have said that.
She didn't. She said very specifically, she's from Planet of the Apes.
So that's, you know, it's racist.
So we all have a responsibility in this regard to say what we mean and to use language that clearly conveys our meaning.
And as long as we have done that, then we're in the clear.
And however people misinterpret it or whatever they do with it, they take it, they put it in a blender, they turn, you know, they...
They slice it apart.
They do whatever. You know, they make a Frankenstein monster out of your statement.
That's all on them. Or at least it should be.
All right. I hope I conveyed my meaning clearly enough.
Thanks for watching, everybody. Thanks for listening.