Quaker Steak & Lube just went Anti!

[peter nap]

Done.

Me Too!

 

[Marco]

Me Too!

Ditto!

Musing here.

Wonder if an employee or guest would have standing to sue if they got injured/robbed at a OS&L location, being they have different rules for "SAFETY" at different locations.

I know when we put cameras in our elevators at one hotel we had to at all the others, so we had the same safety measures across the board.
Same as when mgrs decided to disarm all SO except supervisors or special events because the other properties didn't allow their SO to be armed.


My wife's brother-in-law was awarded money because he was shot at work and they didn't have a security officer after hours at his location like the others that were part of the same chain.

Don't know if this would apply in VA as all the above was in NV or if it would apply to a franchised location.


With all that being said, I don't want them to apply the no weapons ban at the other locations, they should remove them all... they don't work!!!

 

[45acpForMe]

Response from Corporate - Franchise Owners get to make their own rules

Here is the response I got:

Thank you for taking the time out to write to us concerning the Conceal Carry policies in our Quaker Steak & Lube restaurants.
I can certainly appreciate and understand your concern and position to the policy set forth in Newport News VA.
We are continually monitoring the situation and also trying to keep up to speed on the way this is handled and we have looked into may resources to try to do the right thing for all involved.
Our current position as far as a brand is to have the individual restaurant ownership groups choose what is done locally on their behalf based on current state laws and those of their desire.
Obviously it is a very sensitive area and I can respect your opinion as I also have a permit to carry firearms.
I just wanted to clarify our position as a corporation and we believe it is best left to the individual restaurant owners on what policy that they would like to adhere to.
We do appreciate letting us know your concern on the matter and we are trying to do what we can do on behalf of our franchise owners.
I would be happy to speak with you personally on this if you would like to do so.
I do regret if this has cause any inconvenience for you.
Thanks again for your note.



Bob Mentrek
VP Franchise Operation
Quaker Steak & Lube[SUP]®[/SUP]

 

[peter nap]

Ask to meet with you and discuss it,,,,,at Hooters!

 

[45acpForMe]

Ask to meet with you and discuss it,,,,,at Hooters!

Hooters is anti also.

 

[peter nap]

Hooters is anti also.

Are they, I haven't been there for years but the last time I did OC.
The staff had BIG GUNS too

I need to put up my unfriendly to gun owners site this week. I'll add the unfriendly Gun Shop Section too.

 

[45acpForMe]

Are they, I haven't been there for years but the last time I did OC.
The staff had BIG GUNS too

I need to put up my unfriendly to gun owners site this week. I'll add the unfriendly Gun Shop Section too.

I guess it depends on which Hooters. I have heard of people having no problem at Waterside but the one or two on the Peninsula have asked people to leave.

I talked to a person at one of them on the Peninsula and they said that they usually had a no concealed carry sign up but since at the time you couldn't legally conceal carry because they served alcohol they left the sign off in VA. They thought that the sign would be added once the law changed. OC-ers were asked to leave. I didn't investigate it further than that and simply stopped giving them any of my business.

I also know Buffalo Wild Wings is Anti so I am still looking for a good wings place that isn't.

 

[peter nap]

I guess it depends on which Hooters. I have heard of people having no problem at Waterside but the one or two on the Peninsula have asked people to leave.

I talked to a person at one of them on the Peninsula and they said that they usually had a no concealed carry sign up but since at the time you couldn't legally conceal carry because they served alcohol they left the sign off in VA. They thought that the sign would be added once the law changed. OC-ers were asked to leave. I didn't investigate it further than that and simply stopped giving them any of my business.

I also know Buffalo Wild Wings is Anti so I am still looking for a good wings place that isn't.

This was in Richmond and it has been years.

 

[Grapeshot]

Originally Posted by 45acpForMe

I guess it depends on which Hooters. I have heard of people having no problem at Waterside but the one or two on the Peninsula have asked people to leave.

I talked to a person at one of them on the Peninsula and they said that they usually had a no concealed carry sign up but since at the time you couldn't legally conceal carry because they served alcohol they left the sign off in VA. They thought that the sign would be added once the law changed. OC-ers were asked to leave. I didn't investigate it further than that and simply stopped giving them any of my business.

I also know Buffalo Wild Wings is Anti so I am still looking for a good wings place that isn't.

This was in Richmond and it has been tears.

Though I do not subscribe to it, some would say it was unmanly to cry. Besides don't you have pictures archived? :lol:

Yes Waterside Hooters is or was friendly. Had several meet-ups there after Norfolk City Council meetings several years ago.

 

[45acpForMe]

Though I do not subscribe to it, some would say it was unmanly to cry. Besides don't you have pictures archived? :lol:

Yes Waterside Hooters is or was friendly. Had several meet-ups there after Norfolk City Council meetings several years ago.

I think it has to do with the local manager whether they enforce the corporate policy or not. If I were a manager and saw 20-30 hungry people walking into my restaurant I would just smile and welcome the business. They may be more willing to kick a small party out if only one at the table is OC-ing.

So I know with Fuddruckers it became the corporate policy to ban weapons (before they went bankrupt) so we avoided all Fuddruckers since some of the monies spent at a 2A-friendly store would still make it back to corporate. What do we do with a corporate office (QS&L) that allows individual franchises to choose their own policy? I will avoid the NN QS&L but don't think the franchises that do support the 2A should be punished. I wish we could push a bill through the legislature that made business owners 100% liable for any and all damage done to a person on their property if they ban weapons. The way the law is now they can ban weapons and shun any responsibility since they don't condone what a criminal chooses to do on their property. They would have to be criminally negligent somehow before they would be suable.

 

[peter nap]

Though I do not subscribe to it, some would say it was unmanly to cry. Besides don't you have pictures archived? :lol:

Yes Waterside Hooters is or was friendly. Had several meet-ups there after Norfolk City Council meetings several years ago.

I was really hoping to change before anyone saw it:uhoh:

 

[Grapeshot]

I think it has to do with the local manager whether they enforce the corporate policy or not. If I were a manager and saw 20-30 hungry people walking into my restaurant I would just smile and welcome the business. They may be more willing to kick a small party out if only one at the table is OC-ing.

So I know with Fuddruckers it became the corporate policy to ban weapons (before they went bankrupt) so we avoided all Fuddruckers since some of the monies spent at a 2A-friendly store would still make it back to corporate. What do we do with a corporate office (QS&L) that allows individual franchises to choose their own policy? I will avoid the NN QS&L but don't think the franchises that do support the 2A should be punished. I wish we could push a bill through the legislature that made business owners 100% liable for any and all damage done to a person on their property if they ban weapons. The way the law is now they can ban weapons and shun any responsibility since they don't condone what a criminal chooses to do on their property. They would have to be criminally negligent somehow before they would be suable.

There is much to be said about maintaining and protecting corporate image. Consistency counts.

How far does local management discretion go? Signage and decor? Menu items? Generally anything deviating from a standard, approved format is discouraged/forbidden. Not only does the customer come to know what to expect, but the bottom line is better directed toward the desired end - profit. The more that is left to local decision, the more variance there will be in the results.

Starbucks took a stand and set policy - their bottom line has been outstanding. In recent memory, Red Lobster and Olive Garden, having analyzed all of the bean counter data, chose to follow state laws as apparently Longhorn and Outback Steakhouse have done. Frankly, a vast majority of restaurants locally chose to allow LAC the right to protect themselves. In this time of intense competition, why anyone would discourage a segment of the population known to be amongst the most honest and law abiding is beyond me.

Isn't it time that owners, franchisees and managers got together and agreed that it is how the customer acts, not how he accessorizes that determines his impact on them. BTW - that is precisely what we do. When staff act unfriendly........we go somewhere else.

Tuesday night, we had a group for dinner at a local spot. Tickets totaled about $360.00 for the house and better than $90.00 for the server. We've had larger groups and don't mind rewarding good service. Always see the staff smiling when we come back.

 

[gearup]

Petition?

https://www.change.org/petitions/qu...ve-and-rescind-the-no-weapons-sign-and-policy



Here is an online petition I started. It is generic but each signer can add his or her own comments. I have never done one of these but I will give managing it a whirl. What say you? If you think this is a bad idea just say so.

 

[Uber_Olafsun]

Hooters is anti also.

You wouldn't know it from the one outside the Dulles expo center. They send their girls over to do tickets and stamp hands to help get people to go over after the gun show. Never had any issues there or at the fairfax and Woodbridge ones.

 

[WhatTimeIsIt?]

I think it has to do with the local manager whether they enforce the corporate policy or not. If I were a manager and saw 20-30 hungry people walking into my restaurant I would just smile and welcome the business. They may be more willing to kick a small party out if only one at the table is OC-ing.

So I know with Fuddruckers it became the corporate policy to ban weapons (before they went bankrupt) so we avoided all Fuddruckers since some of the monies spent at a 2A-friendly store would still make it back to corporate. What do we do with a corporate office (QS&L) that allows individual franchises to choose their own policy? I will avoid the NN QS&L but don't think the franchises that do support the 2A should be punished. I wish we could push a bill through the legislature that made business owners 100% liable for any and all damage done to a person on their property if they ban weapons. The way the law is now they can ban weapons and shun any responsibility since they don't condone what a criminal chooses to do on their property. They would have to be criminally negligent somehow before they would be suable.

While I too wish all businesses were carry-friendly, that is not the answer. Making business owners liable for the actions of criminals is totally wrong. Yes, convincing businesses to go carry-friendly is a lot of work and we'll never convince all of them, but we need to resist that temptation of going to the government to force other people to do what we want. It is their property, it's up to them to determine what is and isn't allowed.

 

[45acpForMe]

While I too wish all businesses were carry-friendly, that is not the answer. Making business owners liable for the actions of criminals is totally wrong. Yes, convincing businesses to go carry-friendly is a lot of work and we'll never convince all of them, but we need to resist that temptation of going to the government to force other people to do what we want. It is their property, it's up to them to determine what is and isn't allowed.

While I agree that more government is usually not the answer I find no other way to hold them liable for the increased danger they put their customers in. Yes we can not give them our business but what about the oblivious sheeple that go to the restauarant and don't care about 2A rights? They suffer too since criminals know it is a weapons free zone, their likelihood of robbery goes up with a lowered level of resistence available. I am just saying that if they choose to restrict my rights on their property, they should accept all responsibility on their property for what that decision enables.

This is kind of the flip argument of a parking lot bill where they ban firearms in cars because their insurance requires it because of liability issues. I say if your business follows state and federal law your liability should be reduced. If you create policies above and beyond what the law states you should then be more liable for any havok that ensues.

Yes I agree that it is their property and they should be able to do what they want with it but if I create a dangerous environment on my property I am still liable. So far the courts have not seen a weapon ban as a dangerous environment like I see it. The law/bill would define such a term such that banning of weapons for law abiding people should be seen as creating a dangerous environment.

 

[peter nap]

While I agree that more government is usually not the answer I find no other way to hold them liable for the increased danger they put their customers in. Yes we can not give them our business but what about the oblivious sheeple that go to the restauarant and don't care about 2A rights? They suffer too since criminals know it is a weapons free zone, their likelihood of robbery goes up with a lowered level of resistence available. I am just saying that if they choose to restrict my rights on their property, they should accept all responsibility on their property for what that decision enables.

This is kind of the flip argument of a parking lot bill where they ban firearms in cars because their insurance requires it because of liability issues. I say if your business follows state and federal law your liability should be reduced. If you create policies above and beyond what the law states you should then be more liable for any havok that ensues.

Yes I agree that it is their property and they should be able to do what they want with it but if I create a dangerous environment on my property I am still liable. So far the courts have not seen a weapon ban as a dangerous environment like I see it. The law/bill would define such a term such that banning of weapons for law abiding people should be seen as creating a dangerous environment.

I don't like making them liable either. Too damn many laws already.

The best way I've ever found is to boycott them.
The restaurant business is one of the hardest to succeed in. A place can be on top of the world this year and bankrupt the next.

Convince enough people to go somewhere else and you win.

 

[Grapeshot]

The power of the dollar AND the public awareness. A good image is... well good. A negative image, too much adversity is something most businesses would choose to avoid.

Nice thing is that we let them decide which public face they wear.

 

[Old Virginia Joe]

It is their property, it's up to them to determine what is and isn't allowed.

Is that right? Some decades ago, that argument was put forth when the good ole gubmint forced business owners to permit any and every one to walk in their privately owned business, but enough do-gooder folks thought "don't matter, he can't decide who comes on his business property. Taint nice!" Now, years later, here we are, still bemoaning the fact that business owners are still trying to make the rules for their own property. What a concept. Just heard in Pennsylvania where a mom-pop restaurant is being investigated for religious descrimination because they dared give a 10% discount to church goers who present the bulletin after church for lunch! Imagine that! Atheists got their panties in a wad!
I'm with Peter D., if you don't like the policy, stay the heck away!

 

[45acpForMe]

I am all for private property rights even to the point of they can serve or not serve anyone they want.

What I am saying is that while on their property if their policies increase the risk or create a dangerous environment that they should accept that liability and our laws common-law or otherwise should recognize just that.

What is missing is the courts recognizing the fallicy that disarming law abiding patrons makes anyone safer. We should be able to use crime statistics that states allowing concealed carry showed drops in crime. Legally it would have to be recognized that armed citizens dissuade criminals and full out state that if you are banning customers from defending themselves you accept the liability for their safety.