GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Sign of the Times

by

Liberals made BK take down a sign warning people that they would be banned for having drug overdoses in their restaurant. The bleeding hearts felt the sign wounded the self-esteem of drug addicts.

BK also offered up a groveling apology for hurting the feelings of drug addicts.

“The actions of this Team Member were an isolated incident and do not reflect the Burger King brand values or the values of the Franchisee, who independently owns and operates this restaurant,” a Burger King spokesperson said. “The Franchisee is investigating this incident thoroughly and will take the actions they believe are appropriate.”

Have you ever noticed that liberals are never on the side of normal people?

 

Comments

  4. Maybe that BK should have just put in a pricing scheme. First overdose free, beyond that $250 (making it up) for cleaning expenses, extra staff work, and lost business from other customers staying away for each overdose. Maybe add something to reimburse the city for medical and cop expenses.

    (Then those who are likely to repeat overdoses there can be banned for non-payment of bills.)

  5. Considering how much of their business is from stoners who live in places that turn into food deserts at night, I’m not sure they’re the ones to be passing that kind of judgement.

  6. Maybe that BK should have just put in a pricing scheme.

    Too complicated. Just institute a cover charge.

    True story: way back towards the end of the last century, I was staffing an information table at a moderately popular bar in the city in which I then lived which had, under the current management, started instituting a cover charge of one dollar. While this seemed like a trivial amount, the very implementation raised eyebrows in a town where a cover charge was the kiss of death for a gay bar (or even one which wanted to siphon traffic from the community for a special night here & there).

    At slow times during the evening, the manager would come over to chat with me and in our conversation about the bar trade, I casually mentioned the application of the cover charge, being rather naïve as to how the world of the “tavern guild” worked. Her response was illuminating: “Oh honey, I don’t charge a cover to make money, I charge a cover to keep the riff-raff out!” She went on to explain how disreputable persons would saunter into the establishment and look for patrons who were not keeping close tabs on their beverages and simply swipe them and thus drink for ‘free’. As I recall, she also mentioned other undesirable behaviors, such as casual drug use which was also deterred by a simple upcharge.

    Ever since then, anytime I see a cover charge or similar scheme which seems otherwise unnecessary, I wonder if it is designed to enhance the bottom line or just to reduce potential problems.

  7. And once the “ambience” of that BK sinks far enough, it will close. People will be let-go, the building will be abandoned, and the ever-so-important tax base will shrink.

    And the left will blame capitalism.

    Reminds me of the left’s defense of perverts and bums haunting libraries (and then they wonder why the afflicted libraries wind up closed).

    Florence King once remarked (I think she was writing on living downtown), on the loss of the bohemian lifestyle, how liberals lament that which they destroy.