The Chainlink

No backpack rule at Pete's fresh market: discriminatory to cyclists?

At the Pete's where I regularly do groceries on Madison by Western, they've started to get more vocal with me about their enforcement of their no backpack rule (the security folks at the door have). I think this discriminates against cyclists (discrimination doesn't have to be targeted, it can be a naturally occurring result). I've yet to take it up with their management, just wondering what the chainlinkers think about this.

Of course it's their store and I understand security concerns. I understand I could not shop there, but I like the convenience and selection and I would think security can just catch shoplifters the same way other stores with less restrictive backpack rules do.

I just think it isn't very nice to not accommodate cyclist shoppers! We tend to have backpacks so we can carry our groceries etc (I also have bike baskets but I like carrying my phone and wallet and any extra groceries that don't otherwise fit - in the backpack). It's not like we can leave the backpack in the car (their suggestion is for me to take it and leave it with customer service- I don't feel safe leaving my stuff with them and I'd have to enter the exit and then go all the way back around to do my shopping and come back and wait to get my backpack before I can check out- not very practical!)

Views: 2862

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I never asserted that they're not entitled to have their policy. In my original post I said I understand it's their store. It is discrimination though. It's what's called unintentional, "disparate impact" discrimination (see what I quoted on page 1). I understand, as I stated numerous times in this thread, that they have an interest in security of their products. I never alleged a right that was being infringed. I am merely expressing my disagreement with the policy. I never even said I'm going to stop shopping there. I'm not sure how my expressing my disagreement, on a bike forum, equals entitlement.

We are entitled to decide where we want to shop.  I really don't care if Pete's doesn't allow backpacks.  I just know I have no interest in shopping there, if that is their policy.  But I don't hate them or want to organize a boycott...

Nor do I.

It's discrimination (disparate impact or otherwise) to the same level Pete's is discriminating against nudists by forcing them to wear clothing inside the store.  

I realize it may just seem like word choice to you in the abstract, but to label this as "discriminatory" (even to the degree it fits in some inactionable, technical definition of the word) in order to call out what many would view as an inconvenience (justifiable at that in some people's minds) is going to rub some people the wrong way when actual, actionable discrimination to protected classes in this society is hard enough to get people to pay attention to.  That's where (speaking for myself) this whole conversation being framed in terms of "disparate impact" and "discrimination" starts to smack of entitlement.    

I don't get discriminated upon by anyone for wearing a fanny pack :-\

They're making a come back!

If we aren't prepared to deal with putting in a small amount more effort in going about our business, we wouldn't ride bikes. 

Wow! I'm also a TreeKeeper. This is one reason why I only carry my tree pruning tools with me around the neighborhood or if I'm doing to do some work in a specific location.

RSS

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service