Casa Monica Hotel Not As Classy As We Thought
Oct 21st, 2011, 04:08 AM
#42
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 36,842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Neo, I did not say that I have never patronized this hotel (I have). . .I will never stay there in the future unless they change their policy! Is that so hard to understand?"
No, it's easy to understand. All you had to do was say that you have stayed there, but this is the first time you actually said it. I happen NOT to be a mind reader. Others are saying they will never stay there. Are we supposed to believe they have in the past or were planning to?
No, it's easy to understand. All you had to do was say that you have stayed there, but this is the first time you actually said it. I happen NOT to be a mind reader. Others are saying they will never stay there. Are we supposed to believe they have in the past or were planning to?
Oct 21st, 2011, 05:22 AM
#43
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Neo,
It doesn't matter if I had stayed there in the past or not, what matters is that I will not stay there in the future unless they change their policy.
Neo and Giovanna,
I really did not intend to get into an argument over this. In my first post I simply stated that I would not patronize an establishment that would fire someone over an american flag pin. I appreciate and respect that you have a different opinion and that is fine you are certainly entitled to it. My apologies if I offended anyone!
St. Augustine is one of my favorite places and that is the only reason I got into this discussion. There are many really great B&B's there if you do not agree with CM's policies.
It doesn't matter if I had stayed there in the past or not, what matters is that I will not stay there in the future unless they change their policy.
Neo and Giovanna,
I really did not intend to get into an argument over this. In my first post I simply stated that I would not patronize an establishment that would fire someone over an american flag pin. I appreciate and respect that you have a different opinion and that is fine you are certainly entitled to it. My apologies if I offended anyone!
St. Augustine is one of my favorite places and that is the only reason I got into this discussion. There are many really great B&B's there if you do not agree with CM's policies.
Oct 21st, 2011, 12:21 PM
#45
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 36,842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Neo,
It doesn't matter if I had stayed there in the past or not, what matters is that I will not stay there in the future unless they change their policy."
LOL. So you really think that it doesn't matter if someone has never stayed there or if they have? That's precisely the point that matters if we're talking about 'boycotting' a business. It's not a customer and the establishment isn't losing any business if someone who never stayed there chooses not to in the future. Sorry that seems to be so hard to understand.
It's almost like saying someone who never flies out of the country heard about a policy on Tibet Airlines and declares, "I'll show them -- I'll never fly them". I'm sure that will hurt Tibet airlines tremendously, right? But if it makes them feel good to say that, then good for them. They have a right to feel good about their decision even if there is no outcome from it. And for the record, I was never questioning your right (or anyone else's) not to patronize any business for any reason. I was merely pointing out that if the idea is to "hurt" the business because of their policies -- there will be NO hurt if the person never stays there anyway.
It doesn't matter if I had stayed there in the past or not, what matters is that I will not stay there in the future unless they change their policy."
LOL. So you really think that it doesn't matter if someone has never stayed there or if they have? That's precisely the point that matters if we're talking about 'boycotting' a business. It's not a customer and the establishment isn't losing any business if someone who never stayed there chooses not to in the future. Sorry that seems to be so hard to understand.
It's almost like saying someone who never flies out of the country heard about a policy on Tibet Airlines and declares, "I'll show them -- I'll never fly them". I'm sure that will hurt Tibet airlines tremendously, right? But if it makes them feel good to say that, then good for them. They have a right to feel good about their decision even if there is no outcome from it. And for the record, I was never questioning your right (or anyone else's) not to patronize any business for any reason. I was merely pointing out that if the idea is to "hurt" the business because of their policies -- there will be NO hurt if the person never stays there anyway.
Oct 21st, 2011, 12:27 PM
#46
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 26,243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, by definition, a boycott means abstaining from buying or using something. There's nothing in the definition about having used it previously. It may have less of am impact if someone who never stayed at the hotel before chooses not to stay there in the future, but it's still a boycott. The fact is, if gmoney goes to St. Augustine, he will stay elsewhere --that's a boycott.
Oct 24th, 2011, 06:04 AM
#47
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Neo,
"LOL" pretty rude to laugh at someone for having an opinion!
Do you think that there might be some hotel in the world that you have never stayed at that you might in the future?
If your answer is yes then that is the point. Suppose you are trying to choose between hotel A and hotel B, and then you discover that hotel A engages in a practice that you disapprove of. Which hotel will you choose?
Thank you sf7307, you explained it much better than I could.
"LOL" pretty rude to laugh at someone for having an opinion!
Do you think that there might be some hotel in the world that you have never stayed at that you might in the future?
If your answer is yes then that is the point. Suppose you are trying to choose between hotel A and hotel B, and then you discover that hotel A engages in a practice that you disapprove of. Which hotel will you choose?
Thank you sf7307, you explained it much better than I could.
Oct 24th, 2011, 07:29 AM
#48
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 10,965
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you think that there might be some hotel in the world that you have never stayed at that you might in the future?
Sure, but whether or not I stay won't affect its bottom like. Having a company dress code doesn't compare to, say--apartheid.
HTTY
Sure, but whether or not I stay won't affect its bottom like. Having a company dress code doesn't compare to, say--apartheid.
HTTY
Oct 24th, 2011, 01:15 PM
#50
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 36,842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is getting beyond ridiculous -- particularly suggesting that because someone might possibly one day have gone to Charleston and just by chance might have thought of staying at this place and maybe possibly remembered this policy and then decided not to stay there the establishment should be shaking in their boots that their decision IS affecting their bottom line. I will stand by my opinion that a business is not being affected in their bottom line just because someone has never been there but just might possibly have stayed there in the future.
If people REALLY want change, then how much of the time being "wasted" by posting here that you will never stay there could be better spent by actually writing the place and telling them? And better yet, if you are able to honestly tell them you HAVE stayed there and even include the date, then it might mean a whole lot more to them. Gmoney, since you HAVE stayed there, I assume you have already6 notified them to let them know that you won't stay there in the future due to their policy. Certainly that will do more good that just "arguing" about it here.
If people REALLY want change, then how much of the time being "wasted" by posting here that you will never stay there could be better spent by actually writing the place and telling them? And better yet, if you are able to honestly tell them you HAVE stayed there and even include the date, then it might mean a whole lot more to them. Gmoney, since you HAVE stayed there, I assume you have already6 notified them to let them know that you won't stay there in the future due to their policy. Certainly that will do more good that just "arguing" about it here.
Oct 25th, 2011, 05:27 AM
#53
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"This is getting beyond ridiculous"
Why? because everyone doesn't agree with you! Hardly a reason to call a discussion ridiculous.
And, yes I have sent CM an email expressing my displeasure with their actions.
"Fodors is no place to have a political debate. Someone delete this thread!"
This is not a political debate, it is a debate about a hotels policies, which is indeed travel related. Agree if this discussion offends you stay away from the lounge!
Why? because everyone doesn't agree with you! Hardly a reason to call a discussion ridiculous.
And, yes I have sent CM an email expressing my displeasure with their actions.
"Fodors is no place to have a political debate. Someone delete this thread!"
This is not a political debate, it is a debate about a hotels policies, which is indeed travel related. Agree if this discussion offends you stay away from the lounge!
Oct 25th, 2011, 07:08 AM
#54
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 36,842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gmoney, I'm sorry if you still don't "get" this, but the problem has nothing to do with your agreeing with me or not.
In fact you still seem to think that the argument is about whether employees should be allowed to wear flag pins or not --and that I probably agree with their policy -- which has virtually nothing to do with the points I've made over and over again. Would it surprise you to find out that I believe the hotel SHOULD allow employees to wear flag pins? If you really don't understand my arguments (which have nothing to do with whether wearing flag pins is good or bad) then it is obviously ridiculous to keep discussing them. Again, agreeing with them has nothing to do with it.
In fact you just said "it is a debate about a hotel('s) policies. . ." Really? I've not debated that at all. But I (and others) did bring up arguments about employees following rules -- not really about the hotel's policies themselves -- unless you're talking about the hotel's policy to fire a person who refuses to follow a rule -- whatever it is. Maybe a small difference to you -- but a whole different issue in my book.
In fact you still seem to think that the argument is about whether employees should be allowed to wear flag pins or not --and that I probably agree with their policy -- which has virtually nothing to do with the points I've made over and over again. Would it surprise you to find out that I believe the hotel SHOULD allow employees to wear flag pins? If you really don't understand my arguments (which have nothing to do with whether wearing flag pins is good or bad) then it is obviously ridiculous to keep discussing them. Again, agreeing with them has nothing to do with it.
In fact you just said "it is a debate about a hotel('s) policies. . ." Really? I've not debated that at all. But I (and others) did bring up arguments about employees following rules -- not really about the hotel's policies themselves -- unless you're talking about the hotel's policy to fire a person who refuses to follow a rule -- whatever it is. Maybe a small difference to you -- but a whole different issue in my book.
Oct 25th, 2011, 08:15 AM
#55
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 26,243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gotta agree with Neo on that point - the argument isn't about the "substance" of the policy at all --- it's about whether an employer has the right to enforce a policy that results in an employee firing you don't favor. They do, by law, end of story 
Oct 25th, 2011, 08:21 AM
#56
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 36,842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sf7307, thanks for seeing and saying what several of us have been saying from the start. It seems some just want to argue about the basic policy itself and not what some of us see as the REAL issue of the original post. Hopefully you have made that clearer.
Nov 2nd, 2011, 06:20 AM
#57
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually some lawyers do believe he has a case since he wore the 'flag pin' for two years before he was terminated.
And while an employer does have the right to decide what an employee can wear to work there are anti-discriminatory laws that protect others' from being terminated who legally can wear articles of clothing to work that make 'religious statements' yet the 'flag' is somehow considered too radical of a statement. PC Dogma takes on a whole new definition in this particular case.
While I agree the patriotic rants are off putting, so is not having sound legislation. Why should 'certain' people be protected by laws that make so called 'statements' yet the one common thread that American's have isn't? It's all nonsense, IMHO.
And while an employer does have the right to decide what an employee can wear to work there are anti-discriminatory laws that protect others' from being terminated who legally can wear articles of clothing to work that make 'religious statements' yet the 'flag' is somehow considered too radical of a statement. PC Dogma takes on a whole new definition in this particular case.
While I agree the patriotic rants are off putting, so is not having sound legislation. Why should 'certain' people be protected by laws that make so called 'statements' yet the one common thread that American's have isn't? It's all nonsense, IMHO.
Nov 2nd, 2011, 11:01 AM
#58
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SOCAL: Actually, and in general, employees have no protections against bans on clothing, etc., that makes a 'religious statement' or a political one. Usually, if an employer has a halfway decent reason for the ban, it stands. There are no 1st Amendment rights in the workplace (unless you work for the gov't, and even then the rights are limited).
Where employers get into trouble is when they allow one group to wear an article but ban another from wearing a different article. That's a recipe for a lawsuit. (For example, if it was OK to wear a Cross, but not OK to wear the Muslim Crescent.)
Where employers get into trouble is when they allow one group to wear an article but ban another from wearing a different article. That's a recipe for a lawsuit. (For example, if it was OK to wear a Cross, but not OK to wear the Muslim Crescent.)
Nov 2nd, 2011, 12:39 PM
#59
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
***SOCAL: Actually, and in general, employees have no protections against bans on clothing, etc., that makes a 'religious statement' ***
interesting.
Note the highlight:
According to EEOC, religion-based charges have increased approximately 50% since 1997, and payouts have increased approximately 160%. If an employer doesn't have solid proof of an undue hardship(good luck with that)the employee is protected.
Religious Tattoos are even protected. I doubt symbolic jewelry is.
Now I GET IT- it's all about an item! Hooray for hair splitting laws!
http://www.adl.org/religious_freedom..._workplace.asp
interesting.
Note the highlight:
According to EEOC, religion-based charges have increased approximately 50% since 1997, and payouts have increased approximately 160%. If an employer doesn't have solid proof of an undue hardship(good luck with that)the employee is protected.
Religious Tattoos are even protected. I doubt symbolic jewelry is.
Now I GET IT- it's all about an item! Hooray for hair splitting laws!
http://www.adl.org/religious_freedom..._workplace.asp
Nov 3rd, 2011, 04:22 AM
#60
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SOCAL: I believe you're mixing apples and oranges (I'm starting to sound like Herman Cain).
"Religion-based" charges usually have to do with the practice of religion, although garb may be included in there somewhere. A typical religion-based charge might be: You gave X the day off for his religious holiday but wouldn't grant Y the day of for his.
And "undue hardship" isn't all that difficult to prove. If I have a three-employee shop, and one of them wants to take off the busiest day of the year as a religious holiday, most courts and the EEOC will recognize the validity of that.
We've gone pretty far afield from wearing a flag pin, but them's the facts.
"Religion-based" charges usually have to do with the practice of religion, although garb may be included in there somewhere. A typical religion-based charge might be: You gave X the day off for his religious holiday but wouldn't grant Y the day of for his.
And "undue hardship" isn't all that difficult to prove. If I have a three-employee shop, and one of them wants to take off the busiest day of the year as a religious holiday, most courts and the EEOC will recognize the validity of that.
We've gone pretty far afield from wearing a flag pin, but them's the facts.
