After Dinner Mints, contd.
Mar 11th, 2005, 05:06 PM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 9,737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After Dinner Mints, contd.
Don't know whether I'm supposed to do this. But couldn't post a response. I suspect the link to Oriental Trading Company may have screwed up the screen. And, to the person who posted it (can't remember who it was), please don't take offense. I'm not trying to be critical. I'm assuming that it was no longer possible to post because the screen got screwed up, not because of the content. As a couple of people remarked earlier, this thread has been remarkably civil despite disagreements.
Mar 11th, 2005, 05:14 PM
#2
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No problem, CAPH52 - I was about to do the same thing! To travelinandgolfin - my reply to you actually meant to say that I didn't think anyone on this board would suggest that what the restaurant owner did SHOULD be illegal, and that I couldn't find any evidence in the posts of that sentiment. Anonymous - actually, the mint that was served at Kauai Pasta WAS like a Velamint, just in different (individually wrapped) packaging.
Mar 11th, 2005, 05:16 PM
#3
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry about the link fiasco. I should've just said, go to orientaltrading.com and search on testamint! Maybe there's just one velamint-shaped item, in two types of packaging -- one portable, one for restaurants.
Mar 11th, 2005, 06:00 PM
#5
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
trvlnglfn (please excuse the omission of vowels) - I wouldn't wish for what the restauranteur did re: mints to be illegal, but I do agree with an above-poster who would like to see the references to God removed from our currency and pledge of allegiance. I'm not particularly concerned about whether or not my personal opinions are P.C., and it wouldn't stop me from airing them (as Kal said much earlier, it's wonderful that as Americans we all DO have this privilege), just as the restauranteur at Kauai Pasta obviously wasn't concerned about the P.C.-ness of his mints.
Mar 12th, 2005, 04:26 AM
#6
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe because it's because I'm a scientist and maddeningly logical, but:
- I don't see any evidence that confirms the motives of the restauranteur for passing out the mints in the first place. We can speculate as to why (to please his mother? because a friend gave them to him? because he's proselytizing?)- but on the basis of what we know, that's all we're doing. As for what was 'politically correct' we can't claim the guy was - or was not -politically correct, when we haven't reached consensus as to what constitutes 'politically correct'.
- The discussion kept changing in focus, which is fine, so long as we understand that that is what happened. For example, the restaurant is not a public place, what was served wasn't a publically (sp? publicly?)funded lunch, so as far as I can tell, there is no 'state' here to separate from church. If I'm right, then as much as I believe in separation of church and state, reference to that principle doesn't apply here.
- Regarding imposition of beliefs: if we're going to talk about defending rights ("I will defend to the death your right to...") then for that claim to have any meaningful substance, there may well be the risk of some form of imposition on somebody. I don't imagine the famous quote would have much impact if it read "I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it, so long as I don't impose on anyone in the process.." Hmmn, such a quote would rank right up there with "Give me liberty, or what the heck, if you can't, just give me a hamburger...."
And now, I must thank you all for an interetsing discussion, but I suspect the inability to reply to the previous thread wasn't a glitch, but Fodors way of telling me the discussion is supposed to be over now. So I must sit on my hands and type no more on the subject.
- I don't see any evidence that confirms the motives of the restauranteur for passing out the mints in the first place. We can speculate as to why (to please his mother? because a friend gave them to him? because he's proselytizing?)- but on the basis of what we know, that's all we're doing. As for what was 'politically correct' we can't claim the guy was - or was not -politically correct, when we haven't reached consensus as to what constitutes 'politically correct'.
- The discussion kept changing in focus, which is fine, so long as we understand that that is what happened. For example, the restaurant is not a public place, what was served wasn't a publically (sp? publicly?)funded lunch, so as far as I can tell, there is no 'state' here to separate from church. If I'm right, then as much as I believe in separation of church and state, reference to that principle doesn't apply here.
- Regarding imposition of beliefs: if we're going to talk about defending rights ("I will defend to the death your right to...") then for that claim to have any meaningful substance, there may well be the risk of some form of imposition on somebody. I don't imagine the famous quote would have much impact if it read "I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it, so long as I don't impose on anyone in the process.." Hmmn, such a quote would rank right up there with "Give me liberty, or what the heck, if you can't, just give me a hamburger...."
And now, I must thank you all for an interetsing discussion, but I suspect the inability to reply to the previous thread wasn't a glitch, but Fodors way of telling me the discussion is supposed to be over now. So I must sit on my hands and type no more on the subject.
Mar 12th, 2005, 06:22 AM
#8
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sue, I appreciate your very well-reasoned post and find parts that I can both agree with as well as disagree with. We certainly have no way of knowing what the owner's motive was, or even that he had one.
However, I would like to address your comment about the restaurant being a "private" place. While it is certainly not a state run facility, it is what is known as a "public accomodation." What that generally means is that by opening it's door to serve the public, it also opens itself up to some forms of governmental regulation. Some of this has already been mentioned, such as they can't refuse to serve someone on the basis of race or sex, etc. They're also subject to various municipal regulations such as zoning and health code restrictions. The government steps in to make sure they can't sell you contaminated food, they keep the place clean, and they don't pay their employees slave labor wages or hire illegal alients, underage children, etc. (Not that everyone follows that!) Some municipalities are even now passing laws preventing smoking. (Which is a whole 'nother subject.) My point is simply that it IS in fact different than going for dinner in someone's own home, so the argument that it's "private" and therefore the owner can do as he pleases doesn't quite hold up.
Having said that, I'm in no way suggesting the government step in and make the disbursement of testamints, or whatever, illegal. As someone else also wisely suggested, this is more of hospitality and comfort issue. I would think that the owner would want his or her customers to feel comfortable, and not want to risk losing them. Personally, I would feel strange. Doesn't mean I would try to prevent him from doing it, or even as has also been suggested feel good if he was prevented from continuing this practice. But I would want to know ahead of time (such as from a travel forum) so I could vote with my feet.
And by the way, I don't for one minute think that giving out testamints once your customers have incurred their monetary obligation to you has anything to do with whether you're a good Christian.
However, I would like to address your comment about the restaurant being a "private" place. While it is certainly not a state run facility, it is what is known as a "public accomodation." What that generally means is that by opening it's door to serve the public, it also opens itself up to some forms of governmental regulation. Some of this has already been mentioned, such as they can't refuse to serve someone on the basis of race or sex, etc. They're also subject to various municipal regulations such as zoning and health code restrictions. The government steps in to make sure they can't sell you contaminated food, they keep the place clean, and they don't pay their employees slave labor wages or hire illegal alients, underage children, etc. (Not that everyone follows that!) Some municipalities are even now passing laws preventing smoking. (Which is a whole 'nother subject.) My point is simply that it IS in fact different than going for dinner in someone's own home, so the argument that it's "private" and therefore the owner can do as he pleases doesn't quite hold up.
Having said that, I'm in no way suggesting the government step in and make the disbursement of testamints, or whatever, illegal. As someone else also wisely suggested, this is more of hospitality and comfort issue. I would think that the owner would want his or her customers to feel comfortable, and not want to risk losing them. Personally, I would feel strange. Doesn't mean I would try to prevent him from doing it, or even as has also been suggested feel good if he was prevented from continuing this practice. But I would want to know ahead of time (such as from a travel forum) so I could vote with my feet.
And by the way, I don't for one minute think that giving out testamints once your customers have incurred their monetary obligation to you has anything to do with whether you're a good Christian.
Thread
Original Poster
Forum
Replies
Last Post
CajunStorm
United States
7
Feb 21st, 2006 03:20 AM
