Walmart Alcohol Policy...anyone else been denied a sale??

[naturalmwa]

I don't get this, and I usually get you.

What's not to get? If I want to buy your product and you tell me individually I can't because the company I keep isn't allowed or even worse simply can't prove they are allowed, I think that's wrong. The transaction is between the store and me. Who shows up at the store with me should not be relevant.

 

[Fan In Black]

It happened once to my and my brother in law. Pretty ridiculous but I don't shop there enough to care.

 

[The Tradition]

This is obviously the lawyers' fault. Some 21-year-old came to a Walmart with some underage friends, bought some beers and a tragedy happened. And of course, the lawyers went after the deep pockets and viola, you have a stupid new policy.

 

[MitchL]

If this happened to me, i probably would have a cart full of groceries that they would have to put away...
but I don't shop at Wal Mart too much. I can count on one hand how many times I have stepped foot in that place this year.

You got something against customers in pajama pants with tats? Arrogant jerk!

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Never had this happen. So if if the wife and I go to Walmart with our kids and buy a bottle of wine or something they can refuse us the sale because our kids are there?

Doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[Derekd3408]

Never had this happen. So if if the wife and I go to Walmart with our kids and buy a bottle of wine or something they can refuse us the sale because our kids are there?

Doesn't make any sense to me.

Correct. I can understand if the purchasing party looks close to 21 and has, what appear to be, underage people with them. However, I don't understand it when derekd and Mrs derekd go to HyVee and they card my wife as well. That makes no sense.

 

[MitchL]

Correct. I can understand if the purchasing party looks close to 21 and has, what appear to be, underage people with them. However, I don't understand it when derekd and Mrs derekd go to HyVee and they card my wife as well. That makes no sense.

Now you just opened yourself up to the inevitable... "pic of wife".

I'm assuming your avatar is NOT your wife, because if it is, well done!

 

[Derekd3408]

Now you just opened yourself up to the inevitable... "pic of wife".

I'm assuming your avatar is NOT your wife, because if it is, well done!

Yes, that is my wife. I've showed multiple pics of her. And thank you.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Correct. I can understand if the purchasing party looks close to 21 and has, what appear to be, underage people with them. However, I don't understand it when derekd and Mrs derekd go to HyVee and they card my wife as well. That makes no sense.

Yeah I've never had this happen but I'd likely make a complaint with management and go buy my Alcohol at Meijer or someone else who's interested in selling me alcohol.

Meijer has a better selection anyways.

 

[markfromj]

And of course, the lawyers went after the deep pockets and viola, you have a stupid new policy.

WOB?

 

[linkshero]

I bought a trailer hitch from Walmart last week. Probably the first time I'd been in one of their stores in easily a year's time. I cannot believe how depressing that place is. The clerks were all foreign, barely able to speak English, and culturally very dissimilar from me (and I fit in well here).

The contrast to a place like HyVee or Target was just shocking. I don't have any desire to go to Walmart again.

I was trying to think what the last thing I purchased at Wal-Mart was, and it was a trailer hitch and ball about 4 years ago. They must be the place to go when you need one. It's like Menards, I go their for all my lawn irrigation supplies, and that is pretty much it. But they do have decent pricing on lights.

 

[linkshero]

WOB?

maybe, but probably not. The o, and the I are just transposed. But, I guess they thought viola was the same thing as voila. One's an instrument, the other, an expression.

 

[HawkAttackDial911]

The last time I was in Wal-Mart I was in the back of the store looking at coolant and had my cart stolen. I had two small items in the cart at the time. Someone took the items out and took my cart. There were three people back there at the time, one guy without a cart and a couple who magically had a cart. I politely asked them if they took a cart that was sitting right there. The wife wouldn't look up at me and the husband denied it. I decided I didn't want to fight a poor at Wal-Mart and went back up to the front and got another cart. Never been back.

 

[theIowaHawk]

What's not to get? If I want to buy your product and you tell me individually I can't because the company I keep isn't allowed or even worse simply can't prove they are allowed, I think that's wrong. The transaction is between the store and me. Who shows up at the store with me should not be relevant.

And you want a law forbidding this? Like a freedom of association type issue? Would you, then, remove all criminal liability from sales to people of age, regardless of what they do with it after?

 

[theIowaHawk]

Never had this happen. So if if the wife and I go to Walmart with our kids and buy a bottle of wine or something they can refuse us the sale because our kids are there?

Doesn't make any sense to me.

Probably depends on age of kids, it is supposed to be about potentially illegal purchases, i.e. buying for a minor. You aren't likely to be buying for a 1-10 year old. 16? probably.

 

[KitingHigh]

And you want a law forbidding this? Like a freedom of association type issue? Would you, then, remove all criminal liability from sales to people of age, regardless of what they do with it after?

We should remove that liability. And while we are at it sterilize the POS lawyers that caused it in the first place.

 

[The Tradition]

So, this "WOB" thing is something the board throws out if someone misspells a word?

 

[naturalmwa]

And you want a law forbidding this? Like a freedom of association type issue? Would you, then, remove all criminal liability from sales to people of age, regardless of what they do with it after?

Probably. I thought it was clear the freedom to associate thing was a bit of hyperbolic fun, but I see no reason not to have a law that forces businesses to deal with all customers equally based exclusively on that customer's individual rights. Selectively pulling associates into the mix with the intent to discriminate against the customer on the basis of the characteristics of those the customer associates with strikes me as a violation of civil rights.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Probably. I thought it was clear the freedom to associate thing was a bit of hyperbolic fun, but I see no reason not to have a law that forces businesses to deal with all customers equally based exclusively on that customer's individual rights. Selectively pulling associates into the mix with the intent to discriminate against the customer on the basis of the characteristics of those the customer associates with strikes me as a violation of civil rights.

So, in essence, you are probably ok with the discrimination....but it has to be specifically against the person of whom the discrimination is against. You can turn down an under-18er, but not the over-18er they are with. You can kick out a smelly drunk, but not the non-smelly/drunk that he is with.

 

[theIowaHawk]

We should remove that liability. And while we are at it sterilize the POS lawyers that caused it in the first place.

So you want the law to be only against whom? The minor?

 

[The Tradition]

Probably depends on age of kids, it is supposed to be about potentially illegal purchases, i.e. buying for a minor. You aren't likely to be buying for a 1-10 year old. 16? probably.

Yeah, that's how this stuff works. The plaintiff's lawyer will argue that the Walmart cashier knew or should have known that the customer was purchasing the product for an illegal use.

This means Walmart has to depend on the judgment of their minimum wage cashiers?

Unconscionable.

 

[naturalmwa]

So, in essence, you are probably ok with the discrimination....but it has to be specifically against the person of whom the discrimination is against. You can turn down an under-18er, but not the over-18er they are with. You can kick out a smelly drunk, but not the non-smelly/drunk that he is with.

That's an odd expansion of the conversation. How about you ask me a question more on point.

 

[naturalmwa]

Yeah, that's how this stuff works. The plaintiff's lawyer will argue that the Walmart cashier knew or should have known that the customer was purchasing the product for an illegal use.

This means Walmart has to depend on the judgment of their minimum wage cashiers?

Unconscionable.

The presumption should always be that legal products are bought for legal reasons by those legally able to make the purchase, in my completely non legally educated opinion.

 

[dgordo]

This thread makes me sad. Hrot is dying. Back in the day we all had personal assistants to do this crap for us. The poors are taking over this place.

 

[MitchL]

Yes, that is my wife. I've showed multiple pics of her. And thank you.

Who's the ugly guy in your avatar?

 

[The Tradition]

Who's the ugly guy in your avatar?

Looks like Jack Black.

 

[Derekd3408]

Who's the ugly guy in your avatar?

 

[KitingHigh]

So you want the law to be only against whom? The minor?

I want to remove liability from a store that sells to an adult. Whatever the adult does with the alcohol afterwards is not the responsibility of the store. They should not have to guess whether the person of age is going to turn around and give the alcohol to a minor. As long as they ensure that the person buying the alcohol is of age they should not be liable for what happens after that.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I want to remove liability from a store that sells to an adult. Whatever the adult does with the alcohol afterwards is not the responsibility of the store. They should not have to guess whether the person of age is going to turn around and give the alcohol to a minor. As long as they ensure that the person buying the alcohol is of age they should not be liable for what happens after that.

I'm fine with that, just figuring out your parameters. Also no liability for a store who knowingly does this? Like old weird guy stands outside store, visibly takes money from kids, buys the booze, hands it to them...rinse and repeat? Still no violation under your law, right?

But criminal liability for the supplier directly to underagers?

 

[theIowaHawk]

The presumption should always be that legal products are bought for legal reasons by those legally able to make the purchase, in my completely non legally educated opinion.

Presumption? So no questioning people who look young for ID either?

 

[theIowaHawk]

That's an odd expansion of the conversation. How about you ask me a question more on point.

I think this is perfectly on point: "So, in essence, you are probably ok with the discrimination....but it has to be specifically against the person of whom the discrimination is against. You can turn down an under-18er, but not the over-18er they are with. You can kick out a smelly drunk, but not the non-smelly/drunk that he is with."

But let me try to rephrase. You are ok with the actual discrimination, i.e. discriminating based on age....it just needs to be directed at the correct person, i.e. the person underage. So you approve the actual discrimination, but might ban the association-discrimination.

Again, no problem discriminating against a smelly homeless guy for being smelly and/or homeless, but booting out the non-smelly/homeless guy who is with him should be stopped....because he isn't the one being discriminated against.

 

[naturalmwa]

Presumption? So no questioning people who look young for ID either?

You're trying really hard to pretend I'm not being reasonable. What is your more reasonable position?

 

[PerkyForHerky]

I want to remove liability from a store that sells to an adult. Whatever the adult does with the alcohol afterwards is not the responsibility of the store. They should not have to guess whether the person of age is going to turn around and give the alcohol to a minor. As long as they ensure that the person buying the alcohol is of age they should not be liable for what happens after that.

Should bars be held to over-serving standards? If a guy isn't creating any issues but is clearly tanked, should a bar be held responsible at all if they keep serving said guy and something happens afterwards?

 

[naturalmwa]

I think this is perfectly on point: "So, in essence, you are probably ok with the discrimination....but it has to be specifically against the person of whom the discrimination is against. You can turn down an under-18er, but not the over-18er they are with. You can kick out a smelly drunk, but not the non-smelly/drunk that he is with."

But let me try to rephrase. You are ok with the actual discrimination, i.e. discriminating based on age....it just needs to be directed at the correct person, i.e. the person underage. So you approve the actual discrimination, but might ban the association-discrimination.

Again, no problem discriminating against a smelly homeless guy for being smelly and/or homeless, but booting out the non-smelly/homeless guy who is with him should be stopped....because he isn't the one being discriminated against.

My position is fairly simple, sell legal products to those legally able to buy the product without including other people in the exchange. None of what you write is on point or reasonably inferred from what I typed. If you want to change the topic to if there should be an age requirement to purchase alcohol and what age that should be I'm not opposed, but that's not what we are discussing so far. And personal hygiene has yet to come up at all. Are you drinking now?

 

[theIowaHawk]

My position is fairly simple, sell legal products to those legally able to buy the product without including other people in the exchange. None of what you write is on point or reasonably inferred from what I typed. If you want to change the topic to if there should be an age requirement to purchase alcohol and what age that should be I'm not opposed, but that's not what we are discussing so far. And personal hygiene has yet to come up at all. Are you drinking now?

You said that people shouldn't be discriminated against in sales based on the company they keep. Seemed like a logical tangent. You are, in essence, saying that it is ok to discriminate (for certain reasons), just do it fairly: As in to the person who has those characteristics.

Put another way: Ban gays, but don't ban a guy who is with a gay, that would be wrong.

I can understand the simplicity of it, it just grants one person (the non-gay above) more "rights" than the person with the discriminated-against trait. Seemed unlike you.

 

[hawkifann]

I worked Wal-Mart when I was in college to pay student loans down. They do NOT have the legal right to refuse a sale if you can prove your of age.

I have had to tell at punk cashier who tried to pull this on the lady in front of me with her young daughter. He sold to her after he called his manager over.

There needs to be a sanity check in rules like this that allows the store to have cover so that they're not selling a bunch of booze to people who are obviously just going to be supplying it to the underage without being so tone deaf that a parent can't buy something for the home stash if a kid is with them.

When I lived in OKC, I was out running errands, which included a stop at the liquor store while I had my 3-month-old with me in a car carrier. They told me that nobody under 21 could be in the store and they were dead serious. They encouraged me to leave the kid right outside the front door and an employee would watch the kid while I bought stuff. Screw that, I left. Fast-forward to living in Charlotte and the NC law is better in that it's only the 16-20yos that can't be in the store. Much more reasonable. By the time one of my kids is 16, the kid can wait outside.

 

[naturalmwa]

You said that people shouldn't be discriminated against in sales based on the company they keep. Seemed like a logical tangent. You are, in essence, saying that it is ok to discriminate (for certain reasons), just do it fairly: As in to the person who has those characteristics.

Put another way: Ban gays, but don't ban a guy who is with a gay, that would be wrong.

I can understand the simplicity of it, it just grants one person (the non-gay above) more "rights" than the person with the discriminated-against trait. Seemed unlike you.

I remain unconvinced you are able to grasp the simplicity of my position. You clearly haven't been able to thus far.

The only discrimination present in this topic is discriminating on selling alcohol to those under 21. Its not incumbent on me to defend or criticize that legal standard as that is the reality we all operate under. Nor have I taken a position on it. You are running down that rabbit hole all on your own.

I'm taking a position on using the age of an associate to determine if I have the legal right to buy a legal product. I think the store should transact only with the customer offering to transact with the store.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Probably depends on age of kids, it is supposed to be about potentially illegal purchases, i.e. buying for a minor. You aren't likely to be buying for a 1-10 year old. 16? probably.

That's true my kids are 2 and 11 months plus one unborn one.

However even if the kid is 16, it shouldn't matter. That's Wal-mart who has no expertise in criminal justice matters accusing me of criminal intent with no proof.

And quite honestly if it's my kid, at age 16 I feel that I aught to be able to provide my child alcohol within my own home if I want to. Within reason of course. But giving your child a reasonable amount of alcohol supervised in their own home should be a individual parenting decision.

 

[Pepperman]

Probably depends on age of kids, it is supposed to be about potentially illegal purchases, i.e. buying for a minor. You aren't likely to be buying for a 1-10 year old. 16? probably.

Wait, what? If you're with your family and one of the kids is 16 you think Walmart should have the option to say "no sale"? Granted, a 16 year old is not very likely to want to go grocery shopping with the family, but sometimes it happens.

 

[hawkifann]

They need to just be allowed to factor in context. A 21yo buying booze, snacks and mixers while hanging out with other 19/20yos and I have a pretty good idea that I know where the booze is going to go. But a 30+ something man with his wife or a parent with kids in tow should not elicit the same response from the cashier.