Black man bagging your groceries? Violates civil rights!

[SirNitram]

The Racism, It Burns Hypernova.

BIG SANDY -- A Hawkins man is claiming his civil rights and religious freedom were violated earlier this year when a black man sacked his groceries and a Big Sandy grocery store owner banned the customer from the business.

DeWitt R. Thomas filed a federal lawsuit in July against Keith Langston, owner of Two Rivers Grocery & Market.

According to the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Tyler, Thomas entered the market on March 5 to buy food.

He stated in a nine-page, hand-written lawsuit that he told the grocery sacker, a black man, “Wait a minute, don’t touch my groceries. I can’t have someone negroidal touch my food. It’s against my creed.”

Thomas claimed the cashier was “perplexed” by his request and yelled at him to take his items and leave.

In a telephone interview Wednesday, Thomas said, “It’s pretty simple. They treated me really bad because I told them it was against my creed.”

According to the lawsuit, Thomas went on to explain he meant a black person when he used the term “negroidal.”

The sacker, Aaron Menefee, said he thought Thomas was just kidding around.

“The first time he said it, I thought he was joking,” Menefee said. “Then he just kept repeating it.”

Menefee said once he realized Thomas was serious, he called for someone else to sack the groceries, at which time Menefee went to another part of the store.

“I didn’t feel physically threatened,” Menefee said. “I just felt verbally assaulted.”

Langston wasn’t in the store at the time, but his employees told him about the incident.

“I decided when I heard about what happened that I was going to file a criminal trespass against him,” Langston said. “I just had to wait for him to be present so he could sign it.”

When Thomas returned two days later, he noticed the same black man would be sacking his groceries, so he again requested the “Negro” not handle his groceries, according to the lawsuit.

This time, Langston was there. He called police to serve Thomas a criminal trespass warning. While waiting for the police, an employee locked the doors, and the lawsuit claims Thomas was “unlawfully restrained.”

Thomas said Langston broke the law the night he locked him in the store.

“We were closing, and I don’t know of a business that doesn’t lock their doors when they close. It keeps more people from coming in,” Langston said.

Thomas said he doesn’t understand why he had to deal with the same situation twice.

“My question is, why after I told them how I felt and that it was against my creed did this negroid try to impress himself upon me and try to handle my groceries again.” Thomas said.

Thomas said his religious beliefs are based on Vedism, which he said encompasses Hinduism.

“Vedism translates into knowledge. I am not this way because I am ignorant. Ignorance is the enemy,” he said.

Thomas said he has not broken any laws and was exercising his religious freedom and the rights he has been given.

“White people are to be protected under the civil rights law just as anyone else,” Thomas said. “It would be the same as if you asked that a congoid (a person from west/central Africa) not touch your food.”

Thomas’ based his claim that his civil rights were violated on that criminal trespass order. He also said Langston is wrong for trying to tell him who can touch his groceries and refusing to serve him.

“When I go through (a store) and buy groceries, those groceries become my property,” Thomas said.

Langston said he is not trying to tell Thomas what to believe or how to live, but his store is a privately owned business.

“He was banned because he was using racial slurs, but he has turned it into a religious thing,” Langston said.

Langston said Thomas would have been allowed to come back had he said he preferred to sack his own groceries.

“We have a few people who want to sack their own groceries, but it’s not for the same reasons DeWitt gave,” Langston said. “They do it because they just like to have their stuff bagged a certain way, certain groceries in certain bags.”

Thomas said he is going forward with his complaint because Langston has no right to stand against what he believes in.

“If he wants to stand in opposition of who I am, then we are going to go forward with this here thing,” Thomas said.

Langston said he wants the whole thing to just go away, but insists Thomas will never be able to come back into his store. He said Thomas told him he would drop the complaint if he dropped the criminal trespass.

“I’ve had several people say they would’ve touched a hell of a lot more than his groceries if they had been in line behind him,” Langston said.

Good on the store, but this is a new one. Your religious freedom lets you discriminate? I think this might catch on..

[Darksider]

"negroidal?"

[General Zod]

The laugh is this is the same sort of logic that homophobes use. I'd love to see them defend it.

[TheHammer]

Not sure what the laws in Texas are regarding the right to refuse service. I'm guessing they are pretty well in favor of business given the Republican climate, so its unlikely he would have a case on those grounds. Which is why I think the lawsuit seems to focus on Thomas being "Unlawfully restrained". If the store did in fact lock the doors and refuse to allow Thomas to leave then I think he might actually have a case there. But that doesn't seem clear at this point.

[TronPaul]

I worked at a retail outlet where we would lock most, if not all, of the entrance doors at closing time so more shoppers could not enter (they constantly tried to do this). The manager on duty would stand near the doors and let shoppers out as they came to the door. I'm fairly certain this is the practice in many stores. Not sure how accurate the locked description is in this case. I'm sure we'll hear more soon.

[Dominus Atheos]

He called police to serve Thomas a criminal trespass warning. While waiting for the police, an employee locked the doors, and the lawsuit claims Thomas was “unlawfully restrained.”

A store or other business absolutely has the right to hold someone for criminal trespass until the police arrive.

[Ultonius]

To be honest, this 'creed' sounds like something he's made up to justify his racism. The only references to 'Vedism' I've been able to find online refers to the Historical Vedic Religion, which preceded modern Hinduism, with the main differences being the maintenance of certain ancient rituals and oral traditions. As I understand it, while foreigners had no place in the Hindu caste system, and certain Hindus would have avoided contact with them, race was not a factor beyond the division between Indian and non-Indian. Thomas's religion would perhaps be slightly more consistent with Hinduism if it forbade non-members of any race to touch the food of members.

[TheFeniX]

Not sure what the laws in Texas are regarding the right to refuse service. I'm guessing they are pretty well in favor of business given the Republican climate, so its unlikely he would have a case on those grounds. Which is why I think the lawsuit seems to focus on Thomas being "Unlawfully restrained". If the store did in fact lock the doors and refuse to allow Thomas to leave then I think he might actually have a case there. But that doesn't seem clear at this point.

I'm not aware of any Texas laws that apply to the right to refuse service. Other states have such laws, but I believe Texas relies on the Federal Civil Rights act and American's with Disabilities Act. Age discrimination is ok, but about anything else is out. From my reading, it's usually better for a business to give no reason for ejection rather than a bad reason, just like it comes to when firing someone.

That said, this story is just stupid:

Menefee said once he realized Thomas was serious, he called for someone else to sack the groceries, at which time Menefee went to another part of the store.
“I didn’t feel physically threatened,” Menefee said. “I just felt verbally assaulted.”"

Right there is a good reason to kick him out. They actually tried to comply with his request even after he made a scene and he instead moved off somewhere else. Where it gets shady is here:

This time, Langston was there. He called police to serve Thomas a criminal trespass warning. While waiting for the police, an employee locked the doors, and the lawsuit claims Thomas was “unlawfully restrained.”

You can't arbitrarily call the cops for criminal trespass without first informing someone they are trespassing, especially in a service business. Telling someone "You're now trespassing" then stopping them from leaving is actually an unlawful detention (if that's actually what happened). If you tell someone to leave and they don't, that's when you call police. After that, you can "arrest" them, but it's generally a bad idea because you're trying to charge someone with the crime of not leaving when they're trying to leave. Let them go and let the cops decide what to do after the fact. "Restrained" also has a certain legal meaning IIRC. That means someone physically stopped him from leaving in addition to locking the doors.

It's probably a bunch of lies from a racist, but the store should have handled things better in the first place.

[kc8tbe]

Menefee said once he realized Thomas was serious, he called for someone else to sack the groceries, at which time Menefee went to another part of the store. “I didn’t feel physically threatened,” Menefee said. “I just felt verbally assaulted.”

Right there is a good reason to kick him out. They actually tried to comply with his request even after he made a scene and he instead moved off somewhere else.

Menefee is the sacker. It reads as if the sacker, not Thomas, had moved to another part of the store.

If they had asked him to sack his own groceries before kicking him out then I think this would probably be an open-and-shut case. What is looks like, though, is the store manager refusing to serve Thomas because he used a "racial slur". I don't know what the laws are in Texas. It's probably possible to refuse service, or at least get a criminal trespass, if the customer uses obscene language. I don't know if "negroidal" (WTF?) counts as obscene.

[DPDarkPrimus]

It's obviously a racial slur, so sure it's obscene.

[CJvR]

"negroidal?"

He obviously wanted to use another N-word.

[kc8tbe]

It's obviously a racial slur, so sure it's obscene.

Well it's Texas we're talking about, so they already have this. Neither the Texas laws for disorderly conduct nor obscenity make explicit references to racial slurs, although I'm sure there is plenty of wiggle room in a court regarding the definitions of "vulgar" and "obscene".

[Frank Hipper]

To be honest, this 'creed' sounds like something he's made up to justify his racism. The only references to 'Vedism' I've been able to find online refers to the Historical Vedic Religion, which preceded modern Hinduism, with the main differences being the maintenance of certain ancient rituals and oral traditions. As I understand it, while foreigners had no place in the Hindu caste system, and certain Hindus would have avoided contact with them, race was not a factor beyond the division between Indian and non-Indian. Thomas's religion would perhaps be slightly more consistent with Hinduism if it forbade non-members of any race to touch the food of members.

While I freely admit this is purest supposition on my part, it sure smells to me like the guy is trying, in fine Neo-Nazi pseudohistorian fashion, to make a link to ancient "aryans".

[Ultonius]

While I freely admit this is purest supposition on my part, it sure smells to me like the guy is trying, in fine Neo-Nazi pseudohistorian fashion, to make a link to ancient "aryans".

If so, it's quite refreshing that he realizes that Aryans actually came from India, and that 'Aryan' isn't simply synonymous with 'Nordic'.

[Ahriman238]

While I freely admit this is purest supposition on my part, it sure smells to me like the guy is trying, in fine Neo-Nazi pseudohistorian fashion, to make a link to ancient "aryans".

If so, it's quite refreshing that he realizes that Aryans actually came from India, and that 'Aryan' isn't simply synonymous with 'Nordic'.

The Aryan horse-peoples conquered the ancient Indians in the Vedic Age, and the Vedas are their holy texts which were sort of assimilated in the general Hindi religion. There is/was a theory that the Aryans were Indo-European based largely on certain odd similarities between anceitn Indian and European languages, which people largely won't touch because of the association with Hitler, who claimed the Aryans were ancient Germans and that the ancient conquests of the Aryans proved the supremacy of white Germans because... reasons.

The Aryans assimilated into the Indian culture, and formed the uppermost tier of the caste system, the Brahmins and V-something. The warrior caste.

So if read the Vedics, and claim to follow the Vedic religion as distinct from Hinduism (which no one has done in a very long time) and assume dark skin= low caste, it's reaching but sort of works.

Mind, it's the same as being an asshole to everyone and saying it's my religious freedom to do so because I believe in the Egyptian Gods, and the ancient Egyptian religion teaches me that non-Egyptians are inhuman. It may even be true, there is some evidence that sort of implies it, but mostly I'm just an asshole.

I am really skeptical about a white Texan reviving a long-dead Indian religion, and doing so sincerely.

[Darth Wong]

Why does a store have to justify refusal of service by saying the guy was a threat? Why can't stores refuse service to someone simply because he's being an asshole? Can a guy walk into a store and rant for ten minutes about how ugly the women in the store are, and still expect service?

[General Zod]

Why does a store have to justify refusal of service by saying the guy was a threat? Why can't stores refuse service to someone simply because he's being an asshole? Can a guy walk into a store and rant for ten minutes about how ugly the women in the store are, and still expect service?

Oh boy, if they refused to service someone for being an asshole stores would lose about half of their business. Customers can get away with all sorts of bullshit before a store's willing to kick them out if my time in retail is any indication.

[Darth Wong]

Why does a store have to justify refusal of service by saying the guy was a threat? Why can't stores refuse service to someone simply because he's being an asshole? Can a guy walk into a store and rant for ten minutes about how ugly the women in the store are, and still expect service?

Oh boy, if they refused to service someone for being an asshole stores would lose about half of their business. Customers can get away with all sorts of bullshit before a store's willing to kick them out if my time in retail is any indication.

Yes, but that seems more like a voluntary policy. Doesn't the store still have the legal option of refusing service to someone for being an asshole?

[General Zod]

Why does a store have to justify refusal of service by saying the guy was a threat? Why can't stores refuse service to someone simply because he's being an asshole? Can a guy walk into a store and rant for ten minutes about how ugly the women in the store are, and still expect service?

Oh boy, if they refused to service someone for being an asshole stores would lose about half of their business. Customers can get away with all sorts of bullshit before a store's willing to kick them out if my time in retail is any indication.

Yes, but that seems more like a voluntary policy. Doesn't the store still have the legal option of refusing service to someone for being an asshole?

Probably, but I doubt most of them are going to be very eager to actually use it. It seems to me that most stores are just fine letting their employees get abused by irate customers as long as they get their sales. Especially if a lot of it boils down to the employee's word vs the customer's.

[Col. Crackpot]

Why does a store have to justify refusal of service by saying the guy was a threat? Why can't stores refuse service to someone simply because he's being an asshole? Can a guy walk into a store and rant for ten minutes about how ugly the women in the store are, and still expect service?

Oh boy, if they refused to service someone for being an asshole stores would lose about half of their business. Customers can get away with all sorts of bullshit before a store's willing to kick them out if my time in retail is any indication.

Yes, but that seems more like a voluntary policy. Doesn't the store still have the legal option of refusing service to someone for being an asshole?

Establishments do have that right. Furthermore those who chose to ignore being denied service and persist can in fact be arrested for trespassing. If i had a dollar for every asshole i banned from the bank for telling my tellers to go fuck themselves i could retire.

[Flagg]

This guy has as much chance of winning his dumbass lawsuit than somone who sues a store for saying 'Happy Holidays' instead of 'Merry Christmas'. It's my understanding that barring a few things protected by law (like race, gender, etc.) a store can pretty much ban you for anything.

[Dillon]

Why does a store have to justify refusal of service by saying the guy was a threat? Why can't stores refuse service to someone simply because he's being an asshole? Can a guy walk into a store and rant for ten minutes about how ugly the women in the store are, and still expect service?

Oh boy, if they refused to service someone for being an asshole stores would lose about half of their business. Customers can get away with all sorts of bullshit before a store's willing to kick them out if my time in retail is any indication.

Yes, but that seems more like a voluntary policy. Doesn't the store still have the legal option of refusing service to someone for being an asshole?

You've clearly never worked in retail. Take it from a 2.5 year veteran of Wal-Mart; management will let customers yell, curse and sometimes even assault employees without repercussion if it means keeping customers happy.

[Flagg]

Oh boy, if they refused to service someone for being an asshole stores would lose about half of their business. Customers can get away with all sorts of bullshit before a store's willing to kick them out if my time in retail is any indication.

Yes, but that seems more like a voluntary policy. Doesn't the store still have the legal option of refusing service to someone for being an asshole?

You've clearly never worked in retail. Take it from a 2.5 year veteran of Wal-Mart; management will let customers yell, curse and sometimes even assault employees without repercussion if it means keeping customers happy.

That's because your management were cunts, not out of any legal obligation.

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

While I freely admit this is purest supposition on my part, it sure smells to me like the guy is trying, in fine Neo-Nazi pseudohistorian fashion, to make a link to ancient "aryans".

If so, it's quite refreshing that he realizes that Aryans actually came from India, and that 'Aryan' isn't simply synonymous with 'Nordic'.

You're using too much of your thinking mush. The guy probably heard that "Vedism" was the religion of the ancient Aryans, and claimed it as his without looking any further into it.

As far as "negroidal," my impression is that the guy was trying to sound smart, and failing badly.

[Col. Crackpot]

You've clearly never worked in retail. Take it from a 2.5 year veteran of Wal-Mart; management will let customers yell, curse and sometimes even assault employees without repercussion if it means keeping customers happy.

That's because your management were cunts, not out of any legal obligation.

Exactly. Wal-Mart is the bottom of the barrel when it comes to retail managers. A good company (and a good manager) doesn't allow it's associates to be berated with vulgarity and racial slurs.