27Mar/1031
If a bartender can refuse to serve a drunk patron, can a restaurant, then, refuse to serve an obese one?
I don't mean this to sound judgmental at all. But what is the rationale for a bartender to refuse to serve a very drunk person -- assuming s/he has already taken away keys, called a cab, whatever? If it is for health reasons, should the same principle apply to very obese people indulging in super-sized fast food meals? Society has been made very aware of the health risks associated with obesity; it is even called an epidemic. So please don't read this as though I'm bashing anyone, but more a question rising out of social concern. Thoughts?
Tagged as: bartender, drunk, obese, patron, refuse, restaurant, serve
Leave a comment
Pages
Categories
- health risks associated with obesity
- health risks from smoking
- health risks mobile phones
- health risks of abortion
- health risks of alcohol
- health risks of bulimia
- health risks of coffee
- health risks of energy drinks
- health risks of obesity
- health risks of smoking
- health risks of steroids
- health risks of tattoos
- health risks smoking
March 27th, 2010 - 13:02
LOL You’re a goof.
March 27th, 2010 - 13:37
lawsuits
March 27th, 2010 - 13:39
I agree with you. Although, the public would never stand for it.
March 27th, 2010 - 14:26
A person who eats too much and is obese is not gonna cross the yellow line and kill a family, a drunk will
March 27th, 2010 - 15:19
If a bartender refuses a patron it is a public saftey issue and the bar can be fined if they do not do this. Court actions have been taken and the bars have lost thier liqour license for serving someone after they were hammered. People leave the bar get killed kill some one else and the bar is liable.
March 27th, 2010 - 16:05
With an obese person, they are hurting their own health.
With a drunk person, they can hurt or kill not only themselves but also others.
Big, big difference between drunks and obese people.
March 27th, 2010 - 17:00
It’s apples and oranges and very judgmental. You can’t assume that each case of obesity is caused by only overeating.
March 27th, 2010 - 17:04
I don’t believe so.
People who are not sober can be a threat to those around them. They can commit various crimes and such.
An obese person is simply overweight. They are not a threat to anybody.
I don’t see the connection you’re attempting to make.
March 27th, 2010 - 17:09
haha no, the only reason bartender’s refuse “intoxicated” people service is because that person could be harmful to himself or other people.
March 27th, 2010 - 17:47
They can refuse service to anyone they please as long as it is posted in plain view of the public.
March 27th, 2010 - 18:35
Maybe because not all obese people are obese from eating. All drunks are drunk from alcohol. Just a thought.
March 27th, 2010 - 19:26
the drunk presents a danger to *others*
the fat guy is a danger only to himself……though- he will drain our wallets, in the future, when he’s on medicare and suffers from 10 different gluttony-related illnesses/conditions…and we have to cough up the cash to treat him.
March 27th, 2010 - 19:56
Your analogy would be accurate if the reason were for health concerns, but it isn’t. It’s for liability and safety concerns. The bar couldn’t care less if their patrons want to ruin their livers. However, they do care about an incident happening on the premises, another patron being hurt due to a drunken brawl (which they could be sued for), and a host of other liability concerns that could backfire on them legally in the long run.
March 27th, 2010 - 20:35
I think the difference is that alcohol is a drug, can cause alcohol poisoning, and can cause the drunk person to lose their inhibitions to the point that they can endanger themselves and others, even if their keys have been taken away. An obese person is not going to hurt anyone but themselves, and they are sound in mind enough to know what they want to eat, and are aware of the consequences it might have. So I think drunkenness and obesity as social concerns are mutually exclusive, and cannot be compared to one another in that situation.
March 27th, 2010 - 21:03
A drunk person driving a car not only kills him/herself but can kill others too!! A fat man with an extra big mac may die young but wont kill others because of extra burger,
March 27th, 2010 - 21:36
Hehehehe! I guess the main difference is that a fat@ss can only hurt themselves by overeating, whereas a drunk can harm others. I mean, when’s the last time you ever saw someone get pulled over for DWIATC?
(Driving While In A Twinkie Coma)
But I like the way you think, little missy!
March 27th, 2010 - 22:30
Well considering food dont get your drunk and make you impaired there is a difference. I see it if people are wanting to stuff there faces non stop until they have major heath problems then that is there (not so good) choice. This is only my opinion!
March 27th, 2010 - 22:57
It won’t happen. Give a drunk 10 beers and they could possibly be a danger to others. Now give an obese food addict 10 double cheeseburgers and they’re only hurting themselves. If alcohol didn’t cause irrational behavior there wouldn’t be a limit. Look at soft drinks, cigarettes, and even candy.
March 27th, 2010 - 23:20
Bartenders refuse to serve severely intoxicated customers, because it is a liability issue. If that person leaves the bar, and causes an accident, or gets arrested for public intoxication, anything like that, technically, the bar can be pursued in a lawsuit, because they were the establishment that served them their last drink. Even if they were trashed when they walked in, and had one more drink there…they are liable. It’s a direct public safety issue as well.
The reason that this wouldn’t apply to obese people, is because the intoxication is much more direct. Obese people wont walk in being in great shape, and walk out weighing 400lbs.
March 27th, 2010 - 23:47
lol…I kinda agree with u….but the refusing to serve a drunk is more for the safety of others and to protect the establishment from being liable incase they go out and kill someone on the road. Some obese people do not eat as much as we all think, so to refuse them food at a restaurant would be discrimination. Plus….I never heard of someone eat a super-sized meal and then run over someone’s kid. lol
March 28th, 2010 - 00:39
It is not up to anyone else except the person to say what they can eat . Fat people don’t harm others because there fat . Drunks can start fights , shoot people or a lot of other bad things . Bartenders don’t give a hoot about their health .
March 28th, 2010 - 01:28
Ha! That’s a good one. The difference is, even though the drunk person is going to leave in a cab, the bartender has no idea whether or not he will then leave the cab and drive a car. Also, the drunk person could fall in the parking lot and sue the bartender for serving him another drink. The obese person is not a danger to others, unless he falls on someone. But it is an interesting idea. If it happened, of course, the restaurant will be sued by the obese person for discrimination. It all comes down on how to avoid a lawsuit.
March 28th, 2010 - 01:47
WOW! And to think I thought I heard everything. Don’t get me wrong, I, as a former bartender, think this is an excellent question. There are serious health risks related to being obese and serving them more and more food is contributing to their obesity. I see your point. However, as a bartender, we don’t cut people off for health reasons, we cut them off so that they don’t go out and kill that innocent family on their way home from somewhere. I don’t see too many obese people killing people to get to the buffet line. I know that sounds cruel, but it’s true. As a society, when it comes to others inflicting pain upon themselves (whether it’s alcohol, drugs or food), we look the other way…until it begins to affect those around them.
March 28th, 2010 - 01:57
Because someone can die of alcohol poisoning if they drink too much in too short a period of time. It’s also a liability issue. If the bar continues to serve the drunk person and that person gets into an accident, gets injured, whatever, the bar may be held responsible and could lose their liquor license or be the target of a lawsuit.
March 28th, 2010 - 02:36
i agree, and i want to even go further, fast food should be banned from the streets and some buildings, just like smoking, and there should be a fast food detector in every apartment, like the ones for smoke, and they should write on the big macs “eating this kills”
March 28th, 2010 - 03:09
First, a restaurant can refuse to serve ANYONE the management wants to refuse and they don’t need a rationale. A restaurant is a privately onwed business.
Second, the rationale for not serving a drunk person is generally this: the drunk person might be driving himself back home that night, and if the bartender continues serving alcohol to the drunk person, he contributes to a potentially dangerous situation. Generally speaking, I doubt that the servers are refusing service on the basis of the drinker’s health, rather on the possibility that the drinker could fatally harm some innocent person’s health.
Third, as stated before, a restaurant can refuse service to drunks, obese people, bulemic people (waste of good food), flatulent people, shirtless, shoeless, pants-less people. Anyone they want.
March 28th, 2010 - 03:36
NO! It is wrong and extremely impolite. the bartender does it for the safety of the drunk and the innocent citizens; if a restaurant refused to serve an obese person, I think that person should file a complaint.
March 28th, 2010 - 03:37
Come here………
closer…………
a little closer…..
BAM BAM BAM
I just hit you in the head with the “Are you Serious” hammer.
What part of that scenario did you not understand. Any place of business has “The right to Refuse Service to Anyone”.
In the Bar scene it is especially true as when the patron leaves the bar intoxicated at the service of the Bar then they become partially responsible for the actions of the patron as they allowed him to reach that level of intoxication via their service.
When other people’s lives are at stake it is especially necessary to protect the general public at large from drunk drivers as that is the biggest expense on claims for insurance companies nowadays.
So the rationale that they have is not only to protect the establishment, it is to protect the rest of the people outside of the bar from the patrons in an intoxicated state. Any more questions?
…………….think about it…………….
March 28th, 2010 - 04:17
i agree, but i think they would just find somewhere else to eat.
March 28th, 2010 - 04:50
It’s not for health reasons. Being drunk in public is against the law (haven’t you heard of people being picked up for “drunk and disorderly?). Driving drunk is against the law. Being fat might be disgusting and unhealthy but it’s perfectly legal. Besides, us fat people keep restaurants in business.
March 28th, 2010 - 05:33
I wholeheartedly serve both fat and skinny chicks.