I wanted to take one more look at the eavesdropping, social justice waitress because I think that story nicely illustrates the insidious side of the social justice advocacy. As I showed in my last posting, the best evidence to date indicates that the waitress didn’t want to serve the elderly people because she eavesdropped on them and overheard them say some mean things about a trans customer.
Notice how she framed the issue in her Oct 12, 8:06 pm Facebook posting: I got sent home from work early because I refused to serve a table who were making transphobic remarks about guests at one of my other tables.
But her social justice rage goes further than this. Her all caps posting on Oct 13, 12:30 pm argued, ” ALLOWING HATE SPEECH TO TAKE PLACE IN YOUR PLACE OF BUSINESS IS NOT NEUTRAL.”
Oh, so it’s not truly about having to serve “a table who were making transphobic remarks.” It’s about the restaurant ALLOWING HATE SPEECH TO TAKE PLACE.
So how did they allow it? By not kicking the elderly couple out of the restaurant. In other words, it would not have been good enough for the owners to allow another waitress to serve the elderly couple. The social justice waitress wanted the couple thrown out of the restaurant. That’s the only interpretation that makes sense of her all caps complaint. She is mad because the old man and woman were not punished. They were allowed to remain. Unpunished.
On the next day, she posts the following on Facebook (Oct 14, 8:38 pm ):
The point of all of this was to support our trans friends and to make sure the owners of this businesses see that by allowing behavior like this to take place, they are furthering the issue of transphobia and that that in itself is just as bad as making the comments themselves.
See? But allowing the private comments “to take place,” you are just as bad as someone making those mean comments.
Think I am reading too much into her virtue signaling? Think again. If you read the comments section of her Oct 12, 8:06 post, someone named Anne Hablewitz writes:
“I feel like they should have asked those customers to leave”
Brittany Rossio-Spencer, the social justice waitress, replied: you’d think
Of course, the social justice waitress is not alone. Sarabeth Caplan, a member of the “Friendly Atheist” team, makes the same point:
The debate we ought to be having is whether that couple deserved to be kicked out of the restaurant, not whether a waitress deserved to be fired for not wanting to serve that table.
Thar she blows!
That elderly couple “deserved to be kicked out of the restaurant” because they said a few negative things about a trans customer while talking to each other during their private conversation.
That, in a nutshell, is “social justice.” Throw an old man and old woman out of a restaurant because they are not “woke” enough for the hypersensitive sensibilities of the consistently offended social justice advocates. In essence, social justice fundamentalism on display.
The good news is that neither the social justice waitress nor the social justice atheist blogger suggested the elderly couple needed to be punched.
Not yet, that is.