- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 66,828
- Reaction score
- 30,089
- Location
- Rolesville, NC
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
What policies? The USPS and her supervisory Post Master have said she should be delivering their mail to them. They made their determination and it was against the carrier. You are asserting she had a right to do what she did at odds with what reps from the USPS have said.
1. False, i did not speculate on the motives or excuses behind the discrimination, i simply pointed out the discrimination as evidence of intolerance.
2. True, but it's not an assumption, it is proven fact. The employee has an obligation to enter the business. That's why it's stated that way under "Business": because they are expected to enter a business in order to deliver mail.
they did. If the carrier feels that she is breaking the law or laws then nothing can be done for force her to break those laws.Their job is to deliver mail, if you are claiming that they are not obligated to enter a business, find some justification for your claim, after all, i did.
3. True, but it's not an assumption, it is proven fact. The employee has an obligation to ensure that the mail is ONLY delivered to the addressee. If that cannot be accomplished for any reason, the mail should not be delivered.
Again, you are confusing a proven fact with an assumption.
actually she does. She is by law allowed to not deliver something that would put her in a position of violating another law.
pot is not federally legal. therefore her doing anything to further business for that could in fact find her being charged in a criminal event.
it also doesn't say anything about forcing the letter carrier to comply with arbitrary indoor demands.
if the addressee is the business it may be given to any agent of the said business.
mail was delivered as addressed. instructions also refers to delivery instructions according to the postmaster, not the exacting demands on unreasonable customers, just because Ray Kroc said
the customer is always right" does not mean you get to have your mcdonalds service to unreasonable demands. in fact sections 112 and 131 permit the letter carrier to take reasonable accomodations for their safety.
Irrelevant, single story non-office building
again irrelevant, see above.
inagurated service is service provided for within policy. which you've posted no policy requiring hand delivering mail to criminal drug dealers inside their illegal enterprise.
Except it was not delivered "to a stranger, on the street" is was delivered to an individual in that business who may have represented themselves as an agent of the business, and functionally acted as one.
She is delivering their mail, to their door. She is not required to come inside. They are obligated to get the mail from the door or a drop box if they are willing to have one put in.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
She is not delivering to a federal location but a private business location in a state where that business is legal. Again, her Post Master and the USPS have determined she should be delivering to this business. She cannot be so charged in this case, and she knows it. She cannot refuse on that basis.
She is required to go inside.
That is the policy, if that's how mail was delivered before, if the business is open, the mail carrier is REQUIRED to enter. There is no doubt about it, the mail carrier unilaterally deviated from USPS policy and broke the law.
since this is neither discrimination or intolerance then you would be wrong. people need to look up the definition of words and what they mean.
you cannot discriminate against drugs they are not a protected class.
no they don't as someone has already shown you. there is 0 obligation to enter a business. they simply have to drop the mail to the address or to an alternate address of the person.
they did. If the carrier feels that she is breaking the law or laws then nothing can be done for force her to break those laws.
alternate addresses can be done if they are known about otherwise it should be returned to the post office or a note left at the business to go to the post office
to obtain the mail.
yes you do this all the time.
you have been proven wrong on this by several people so why do you continue to say things that you have been proven wrong on?
seattle has already told you that you were wrong on this.
not to mention that this businesses if federally illegal and the post office is a federal department.
Discrimination : recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.
The mail carrier walked in other businesses on that street to deliver mail. The mail carrier recognized a difference between this business and others, and provided disparate treatment based on their personal intolerance.
This is all nonsense. The USPS is expected to provide mail service to licensed businesses.
legal businesses a pot store is not a legal business according to federal law and the FBI raids them on occasion proving that they are not legal.
This is all nonsense. The USPS is expected to provide mail service to licensed businesses.
I read this story, and I'm on the side of the post office worker, regardless of whatever state licneses this business possesses, those licenses carry the same weight as monopoly money under federal law, should a letter carrier be required to deliver mail to marijuana shops?
he is delivering the mail, he's just not entering the shop. the Kitsap Sun article (if you can't read it i apologize, some of the Sun's content requires a subscription, which I have because this is my regions newspaper of record) states the postman has been waiting outside for employees to come pick it up or otherwise has delivered to a nearby arcade that's owned by the same owner as the pot shop.
I think you're right in that respect....but, as a federal employee the mailman also has to obey federal law and as it stands, marijuana is still illegal under federal law.
She is required to go inside.
That is the policy, if that's how mail was delivered before, if the business is open, the mail carrier is REQUIRED to enter. There is no doubt about it, the mail carrier unilaterally deviated from USPS policy and broke the law.
This is all nonsense. The USPS is expected to provide mail service to licensed businesses.
He will never be prosecuted under Federal law. This isn't even worth discussing as a technicality. This is a man who is hired by the state of Washington and has been charged with delivering mail to all businesses legally operating in Washington; that includes marijuana dispensaries. It doesn't matter if it's a "seedy" part of town --that's so ridiculous it's not even worth addressing the obvious falsehood of allowing mailpersons to carry mail only to the places they feel safe in. They have a job to perform that they agreed, of their own volition, to perform.
The farce is made readily apparent here:
Yeah, you do realize that by giving them their mail anyways, just not in the shop, that the Federal government can still count him as aiding and abetting an "illegal" shop, yes? It doesn't matter to them if he enters the store or not? He's just admitted to knowing what they do and made a big deal about all. So this is farce.
No she isn't and you haven't shown any law, rule or even policy that says she is required to enter any the business to deliver the mail.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And mail service is still being provided to this business. What is not required is providing it in exactly the way the business owner wants the mail delivered, even if it causes her some inconvenience.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes, yes i did.
I showed how the business is not forced to provide an outdoor receptacle if the business is open.
I showed how the mail carrier is expected to use elevators.
I showed how the mail carrier is expected to secure delivery to the addressee.
I showed how the official spokesperson for the USPS overwhelmingly affirmed that the business is entitled to receive mail service.
I showed all of this and i have no idea how anyone can still honestly deny that the mail carrier blatantly acted improperly.
No, it wasn't provided. The certified letter was not received and the mail carrier handed their mail off to a stranger.
No. You showed random excerpts that didn't apply to that business. They are not in a those situations mentioned. In door mail service is a curtesy for their situation. Especially inside the particular business. Even if they were inside a building of multiple offices, they would still have a mail drop box outside the business even if inside the building.
As I've pointed out with residential mailboxes, the mail customer does not get to dictate how they get their mail. Inside the business is not a requirement.
We have no idea about the validity of the claim of the certified letter. It's a claim. Nor do we know the situation with the customer getting the mail. The video has no audio and of course the complaining person is going to make claims that support her complaints. Doesn't make them true or correct.
You're right about one thing- the customer doesn't dictate how they get their mail. That's why the precedence of receiving mail inside, by being handed to an employee, is the standard. See, the mail carrier doesn't get to decide, either.
No. Mail carriers are hired by the federal government, they are federal employees, not state employees.
That's correct, I misremembered that. I thought those roles were delegated to local jurisdictions. In any case, that was a small part of my argument. The rest remains painfully true: Whether he delivers it to a different shop or he delivers it to MJ dispensery directly, he's already "aiding and abetting" an "illegal operation." If you give money to a dealer away from where the drugs are manufactured, that's still buying drugs. If you "aid and abet" an operation in the manner he's stating, it's legally irrelevant whether he physically enters the store. It's a total nonstarter of an argument, on top of the total nonstarter that the DEA will never, ever, ever in a thousand years go after this guy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?