>But my above reply was a specific response to the claim that
>ppl in here are suggesting an establishment should be able to
>kick out or deny anyone they want based on race, etc.
>
>The question is based on being a customer or not.

But some people are saying 'for any reason' (maybe not in here but I've definitely seen it on a few news sites). I believe the facebook post netted some of that sentiment as well.

>that if that's the case, shame on them for that...but those
>examples (the woman who gets to use the bathroom, and the
>woman who got to linger for a long time without specifying
>whether she bought something at the jump...and also not
>acknowledging the common difference in leniency in those
>type.of situations when it comes to women compared to men)
>aren't very good examples.

These are perfect examples because the environment is controlled and it's isolated. Regardless if it's because they are Black or because they are men, it is discriminatory and both factors are protected classes (gender and race). If you allow one group of people to do it, you have to allow the other unless there is a logical and legal reason you've elected not to.

>But it seems like examples might be starting to pile up, which
>begs the second question: who are all these millenial
>employees making chump change agreeing to knowingly act out
>racial bias for their corporate overlords? If a boss asked me
>to do that, I'd be like "say what?" No fucking chance. And I
>believe that's most ppl...at least most ppl under 50

I don't think there's a documented policy on whom to keep out but bias is strong...especially racial bias. And in today's political climate, everybody seems to be wearing a badge no matter the age group.