okboomer
Regular Member
imported post
Dreamer wrote:
Between the second and third bolded statements: this indicates that an employee was imposing their OWN prejudicial interpretation of the company dress code. This seems to actually be a violation of the company's expected enforcement of their stated dress code.
I agree that the company did not do enough to soothe ruffled feathers ... and I do not see why the offending employee should be fired, rather they should be instructed in depth as to what the company dress code is and how to enforce it ... including how to keep your personal opinion out of the decision-making process. IMHO, too small of a person given too much responsibility without proper instruction or supervision.
:what:
Dreamer wrote:
First bolded statement: is she saying the employee actually PUT HANDS on her? If so, I would definitely have shown him/her that guns are not the only way to inflict violence on someone. NO ONE has the right to put hands on someone else.http://www.ksdk.com/news/national/story.aspx?storyid=202963&catid=28
Six Flags refuses admission to mom with gun tattoos
NBC -- A 30-year-old mother of three said she was refused entrance into Six Flags Over Texas because of her tattoo.
"We tried to enter, one employee grabbed me and said my chest tattoo was offensive and that I may not be allowed into the park," Osborn said. "I was flabbergasted."
She said the employee told her Six Flags was a family-friendly place.
Osborn told the employee she was the mother of three girls.
"She said it was as offensive as a swastika and that she would sell me a $5 shirt to cover myself up and that they didn't let people with swastikas into Six Flags, and that my tattoo condoned violence," Osborn said.
Six Flags' dress code says park management can deny customers entrance if their clothing is deemed inappropriate or vulgar.
The code does not mention tattoos.
The Osborns, determined to celebrate the birthday, eventually entered the park through another line without being bothered, but the damage had been done.
Between the second and third bolded statements: this indicates that an employee was imposing their OWN prejudicial interpretation of the company dress code. This seems to actually be a violation of the company's expected enforcement of their stated dress code.
I agree that the company did not do enough to soothe ruffled feathers ... and I do not see why the offending employee should be fired, rather they should be instructed in depth as to what the company dress code is and how to enforce it ... including how to keep your personal opinion out of the decision-making process. IMHO, too small of a person given too much responsibility without proper instruction or supervision.
:what: