Re: Bremerton, Washington letter carrier is refusing to enter pot shops to deliver ma
On the contrary, i'm happy to tolerate people i don't like, and what i'm specifically targeting is a public servant whose intolerance has resulted in violating a legal service agreement.
It seems you would prefer to let bigots break laws without consequence. I am glad that most Americans disagree with you.
You are making several ridiculous assumptions (even a few that are demonstrably incorrect). Let me address each in kind.
1. That this employee would have no other reason besides personal distaste to not enter the premises of the pot shop.
There are several valid reasons beyond personal distaste for this employee to not enter the pot shop. Chief among which is that pot is a federally controlled substance. While her entering the store in her federal duties would not likely result in any negative consequences for her, her refusal to do so is defensible and understandable considering the political grey area she finds herself in. You not believing that is a valid legal reason means exactly **** in a legal determination of the validity of such a reason.
2. The employee has a legal obligation to enter the business to deliver mail.
This employee is not legally obligated to enter the premises of any business that she delivers to unless an agreement with the postmaster is already in place (e.g., there is a certified pick-up or delivery bin within the building). She has no obligation to step into the store to make the delivery. Other businesses that she may enter is out of courtesy, not an obligation. The business owner has been made aware of this and requested that the business follow legal requirements by making available an externally available drop-off or meeting the mail at the door to facilitate delivery. You assume otherwise for no apparent reason other than your own emotional response to the situation.
3. That the postal employee is breaking a clear law in handing the mail off to an intermediary to facilitate the last approximately 10 feet of delivery.
There is an arguable point to be made here, but I'm not entirely sure she broke any law here, either. None of her actions here led to any actual crime being committed - the mail was delivered to the appropriate person at the appropriate address is a quick and efficient manner considering the most likely alternative was the delay of delivery by at least a few hours as someone would have either had to go to the post office to pick up the mail later in the day or the delivery would have been re-attempted the following day. Realize that it would have been a felony of the intermediary to open or steal the mail they had been entrusted to walk 10 feet with. You must also acknowledge that the person that the request was made to already clearly demonstrated the ability to do said task, freely agreed to do it, and
actually did it. While this may be less than ideal for the person being delivered to, this represents an attempt at a middle-ground by the employee done in good faith. Considering that the actions in this case likely resulted in a quicker delivery of the mail with minimal-to-no risk of non-fulfillment of delivery, and in light of the owner's ongoing inability and flat out refusal to acknowledge the requests and legal obligations of the USPS, I do not reasonably believe that a case can be made against this employee that would involve punishment of any kind.
And lastly, you're clearly incapable of seeing this situation with anything that resembles a reasonable and impartial perspective. You DO NOT KNOW the motivations of this employee and you have no undeniable proof that any law has been broken. Additionally, you make baseless assumptions about my and others' behavior (why yes, I have read the entire thread and the links therein. Thank you!) and use those assumptions to disregard my opinion. You appear more interested in launching personal assaults against the people who disagree with you than you are with understanding others' points of view. Certainly your actions more closely resemble that of a bigot than of the person who delivers the mail to this pot shop. At least she is making an effort to find middle ground to get them their mail; you aren't even trying to understand the situation as other people see it unless their opinion already matches your own.
You say you are capable of tolerating those you don't like, but that doesn't exclude you from being a bigot right now. In order to not be a bigot you have to be capable of tolerating those you disagree with and not just those you dislike. Now I can admit that perhaps that's pedantic of me; that doesn't make you less a bigot in this situation.
