Gay couple [claim] abused by Tesco cashier / (skin colour from page nine)

First topic message reminder :

A gay couple were subjected to a torrent of abuse in a London branch of Tesco after they shared a brief kiss in the store. Steve Luetchford, 28, was shopping with his 25-year-old partner Mattia Pievani at a Tesco branch in Brixton on Friday evening when, they claim, a female cashier verbally abused them. The woman is alleged to have said that the couple should be "ashamed" after she witnessed their intimate moment. When they challenged the woman on her views she continued to insult them, it is claimed.
They then requested that two other staff members refer them to the store manager so that they could lodge a complaint.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/11791755/Gay-couple-abused-by-Tesco-cashier.html

Cuchulain wrote:Sassy does not care about this death she uses this as a means to promote hate against Israel. She would love a thousanbd {Palestine children dead to promote her racism.
She is scum, plain and cimple

Wrong thread ya fuckwit

Nems wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:Sassy does not care about this death she uses this as a means to promote hate against Israel. She would love a thousanbd {Palestine children dead to promote her racism.
She is scum, plain and cimple

Wrong thread ya fuckwit

Oh dear, he really is in meltdown.

Someone has put gay porn on one of those Twitter accounts.

sassy wrote:

Nems wrote:


Wrong thread ya fuckwit

Oh dear, he really is in meltdown.

I predict a flounce

Christie wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Christie wrote:

I'm putting you right, that I do not live in Ireland, as you seem to think. Why, I have no idea.

Are you putting m,e right?
I do not think so

I'd be more than happy for admin to confirm I am not from Ireland. But really, is it any of your business where I do live? I really don't think so.

Christie is not Tess just for the record

Nice to see you posting Christie

Whatever the reasons Nems and Rags, it is clear you see complaining on social media as a bigger problem than insulting people in public for showing very mild affection (allegedly or otherwise). Though to be fair, nothing either of you has said in this thread is at all surprising.

Nems wrote:

sassy wrote:

Oh dear, he really is in meltdown.

I predict a flounce

Seriously just show David the posts you made on here, as I am sure he will be very interested in how you have become such a low life scum bag Nems, because you have listened to that other twat of a woman and cannot think for yourself

Such a sheep


Baaaa

sassy wrote:

Nems wrote:


Wrong thread ya fuckwit

Oh dear, he really is in meltdown.

The best thing you, Nems and Rags could achieve for the world,. is if we shipped you off as Jihadi brides to ISIS. They would be so horrified how butt ugly you all are. Plus tormented with the inane drivel that the 3 of you come out with they would no doubt be surrending in droves, begging for mercy

Eilzel wrote:Whatever the reasons Nems and Rags, it is clear you see complaining on social media as a bigger problem than insulting people in public for showing very mild affection (allegedly or otherwise). Though to be fair, nothing either of you has said in this thread is at all surprising.

Your views on this thread don't surprise me either. You automatically believed what these guys claimed without knowing the other side. Is that because they're gay?

I've said that I don't believe it happened the way they claimed. Either they were doing more than they claimed, or they exaggerated her response IMO.

I do think there's a problem with people complaining on social media when it comes to this kind of thing, especially when it involves those who are clearly attention seekers looking for 15 minutes of fame.

I also think there's a problem with the press picking up on it and only telling one side of the story. Let's face it, if this had involved a heterosexual couple, it wouldn't have been in the press. How did the press get hold of the story in the first place? One of the guys was even on ITV - very one-sided it was too.

If it was a fair fight between two people on social media, that would be one thing, but I really don't think this woman can accuse these two of lying without getting into bother at work, so she is at a disadvantage.

Tesco shouldn't have apologised before they had investigated properly either. I know that these companies have a habit of doing that, but they should be loyal to their employees until they know the full facts at least. Actually, I think a lot of the time they're saying one thing to the customer and another thing to the employee.

Cuchulain wrote:

sassy wrote:

Oh dear, he really is in meltdown.

The best thing you, Nems and Rags could achieve for the world,. is if we shipped you off as Jihadi brides to ISIS. They would be so horrified how butt ugly you all are. Plus tormented with the inane drivel that the 3 of you come out with they would no doubt be surrending in droves, begging for mercy

First of all, you don't know what I look like. Secondly, picking on woman for their looks is so sexist and pathetic.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


The best thing you, Nems and Rags could achieve for the world,. is if we shipped you off as Jihadi brides to ISIS. They would be so horrified how butt ugly you all are. Plus tormented with the inane drivel that the 3 of you come out with they would no doubt be surrending in droves, begging for mercy

First of all, you don't know what I look like. Secondly, picking on woman for their looks is so sexist and pathetic.

How is it sexist if you are butt ugly. Its an educated guess that you are butt ugly.
If you cannot take the heat do not dish it out, its that simple but my view we could shorten the war with ISIS by sending you 3 idiots is very plausible.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

First of all, you don't know what I look like. Secondly, picking on woman for their looks is so sexist and pathetic.

How is it sexist if you are butt ugly. Its an educated guess that you are butt ugly.
If you cannot take the heat do not dish it out, its that simple but my view we could shorten the war with ISIS by sending you 3 idiots is very plausible.

Educated guess? Please say what you're basing that on.

You are the one dishing out crap on this thread - and in other threads too. Is this part of your master plan to disrupt this forum? I hope the mods are keeping an eye on you ....

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Whatever the reasons Nems and Rags, it is clear you see complaining on social media as a bigger problem than insulting people in public for showing very mild affection (allegedly or otherwise). Though to be fair, nothing either of you has said in this thread is at all surprising.

Your views on this thread don't surprise me either. You automatically believed what these guys claimed without knowing the other side. Is that because they're gay?

I've said that I don't believe it happened the way they claimed. Either they were doing more than they claimed, or they exaggerated her response IMO.

I do think there's a problem with people complaining on social media when it comes to this kind of thing, especially when it involves those who are clearly attention seekers looking for 15 minutes of fame.

I also think there's a problem with the press picking up on it and only telling one side of the story. Let's face it, if this had involved a heterosexual couple, it wouldn't have been in the press. How did the press get hold of the story in the first place? One of the guys was even on ITV - very one-sided it was too.

If it was a fair fight between two people on social media, that would be one thing, but I really don't think this woman can accuse these two of lying without getting into bother at work, so she is at a disadvantage.

Tesco shouldn't have apologised before they had investigated properly either. I know that these companies have a habit of doing that, but they should be loyal to their employees until they know the full facts at least. Actually, I think a lot of the time they're saying one thing to the customer and another thing to the employee.

What utter stupidity.

Hetrosexuals are not an oppressed minority group, where as homosexuals are.
They have made a claim which does often happen to homosexuals, or does that reality escape your stupidity here?
They have ecery right to bring this to the public because there is an ongoing issue with hate directed at homosexuals.
Its is idiots like you that wish to silence people where they make a claim on abuse.
If this woman has been abusive, then she will face the sack and rightly so.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

How is it sexist if you are butt ugly. Its an educated guess that you are butt ugly.
If you cannot take the heat do not dish it out, its that simple but my view we could shorten the war with ISIS by sending you 3 idiots is very plausible.

Educated guess? Please say what you're basing that on.

You are the one dishing out crap on this thread - and in other threads too. Is this part of your master plan to disrupt this forum? I hope the mods are keeping an eye on you ....

Ahhhhh poor little baby ha ha ha ha

Yes I have no doubt you are very butt ugly

They won't sack her on the say so of a couple of attention seekers. I'm surprised they didn't film the incident - they're the sort of people who have their phones glued to their fingers.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Educated guess? Please say what you're basing that on.

You are the one dishing out crap on this thread - and in other threads too. Is this part of your master plan to disrupt this forum? I hope the mods are keeping an eye on you ....

Ahhhhh poor little baby ha ha ha ha

Yes I have no doubt you are very butt ugly

Based on what evidence?

Raggamuffin wrote:They won't sack her on the say so of a couple of attention seekers. I'm surprised they didn't film the incident - they're the sort of people who have their phones glued to their fingers.

It would be gross misconduct, so yes she would get sacked.
So highlighting homophobia is now attention seeking to you?
What an idiot.
The point of highlighting these issues is to ensure they are dealt with and to show how such hate is wrong

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Ahhhhh poor little baby ha ha ha ha

Yes I have no doubt you are very butt ugly

Based on what evidence?

The ugliness of your views here towards people.
It shows you are a very bitter individual, either spruned by someone you loved or the fact you hate the way you look.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:They won't sack her on the say so of a couple of attention seekers. I'm surprised they didn't film the incident - they're the sort of people who have their phones glued to their fingers.

It would be gross misconduct, so yes she would get sacked.
So highlighting homophobia is now attention seeking to you?
What an idiot.
The point of highlighting these issues is to ensure they are dealt with and to show how such hate is wrong

Why would they sack her if there's no evidence? If she's been there long enough, she would have good grounds to claim unfair dismissal.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Based on what evidence?

The ugliness of your views here towards people.
It shows you are a very bitter individual, either spruned by someone you loved or the fact you hate the way you look.

Do you read your own posts Didge? For someone who admires public displays of luuuurve, you sure don't come across as a very pleasant person to have around.

What does one's views have to do with the way one looks? Is this a science thing?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

It would be gross misconduct, so yes she would get sacked.
So highlighting homophobia is now attention seeking to you?
What an idiot.
The point of highlighting these issues is to ensure they are dealt with and to show how such hate is wrong

Why would they sack her if there's no evidence? If she's been there long enough, she would have good grounds to claim unfair dismissal.

Who says there is no evidence?
If she is seen to be talking to them on CCTV then it would back their claim.
She would have no grounds for unfair dismissal, you cannot in any job be nasty towards people.
A company like Tesco's will have a policy on equality as all companies do, she will have broken this by being very anti-homosexual.
If she is found guilty then she is fucked and should make it publically kknow she is a vile idiot.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

The ugliness of your views here towards people.
It shows you are a very bitter individual, either spruned by someone you loved or the fact you hate the way you look.

Do you read your own posts Didge? For someone who admires public displays of luuuurve, you sure don't come across as a very pleasant person to have around.

What does one's views have to do with the way one looks? Is this a science thing?

I am a lovely to people I like.
You as seen by your views here are a hateful idiot, because you claim two people who bring a claim of abuse are somehow attention seekers.
Its clear to me you are very ugly by your views, which you still have not grasped yet

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why would they sack her if there's no evidence? If she's been there long enough, she would have good grounds to claim unfair dismissal.

Who says there is no evidence?
If she is seen to be talking to them on CCTV then it would back their claim.
She would have no grounds for unfair dismissal, you cannot in any job be nasty towards people.
A company like Tesco's will have a policy on equality as all companies do, she will have broken this by being very anti-homosexual.
If she is found guilty then she is fucked and should make it publically kknow she is a vile idiot.

No it wouldn't because there wouldn't be any audio. All it would show is that she talked to them and they talked to her.

I find it strange that some people automatically believe these men. Do you have a poor view of retail staff or something?

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Do you read your own posts Didge? For someone who admires public displays of luuuurve, you sure don't come across as a very pleasant person to have around.

What does one's views have to do with the way one looks? Is this a science thing?

I am a lovely to people I like.
You as seen by your views here are a hateful idiot, because you claim two people who bring a claim of abuse are somehow attention seekers.
Its clear to me you are very ugly by your views, which you still have not grasped yet

So why do you assume that people you think have "ugly" views must also be physically ugly?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Who says there is no evidence?
If she is seen to be talking to them on CCTV then it would back their claim.
She would have no grounds for unfair dismissal, you cannot in any job be nasty towards people.
A company like Tesco's will have a policy on equality as all companies do, she will have broken this by being very anti-homosexual.
If she is found guilty then she is fucked and should make it publically kknow she is a vile idiot.

No it wouldn't because there wouldn't be any audio. All it would show is that she talked to them and they talked to her.

I find it strange that some people automatically believe these men. Do you have a poor view of retail staff or something?

Does not mattere if there is no audio, it would back up the fact she was talking to them. It would be damning evidence against her, plus it is two people against her view, she is fucked and rightly so.
I believe these men for a simple reason as already stated.
Many homosexuals face discrmination and abuse.
They are not out to seek compensation either are they?
So there is little reason to believe they are lying.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

I am a lovely to people I like.
You as seen by your views here are a hateful idiot, because you claim two people who bring a claim of abuse are somehow attention seekers.
Its clear to me you are very ugly by your views, which you still have not grasped yet

So why do you assume that people you think have "ugly" views must also be physically ugly?

Not all of them, but definately so in your case

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No it wouldn't because there wouldn't be any audio. All it would show is that she talked to them and they talked to her.

I find it strange that some people automatically believe these men. Do you have a poor view of retail staff or something?

Does not mattere if there is no audio, it would back up the fact she was talking to them. It would be damning evidence against her, plus it is two people against her view, she is fucked and rightly so.
I believe these men for a simple reason as already stated.
Many homosexuals face discrmination and abuse.
They are not out to seek compensation either are they?
So there is little reason to believe they are lying.

Oh no! She talked to them! Well that's what staff in supermarkets tend to do - talk to customers.

I find your haste to get this woman sacked without evidence very distasteful. I bet you're rude to retail staff. They should ban you from their shops. Retail staff aren't there for you to use as punchbags you know.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So why do you assume that people you think have "ugly" views must also be physically ugly?

Not all of them, but definately so in your case

Where is your evidence then? Please show me a picture of myself to prove that I'm "ugly".

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Does not mattere if there is no audio, it would back up the fact she was talking to them. It would be damning evidence against her, plus it is two people against her view, she is fucked and rightly so.
I believe these men for a simple reason as already stated.
Many homosexuals face discrmination and abuse.
They are not out to seek compensation either are they?
So there is little reason to believe they are lying.

Oh no! She talked to them! Well that's what staff in supermarkets tend to do - talk to customers.

I find your haste to get this woman sacked without evidence very distasteful. I bet you're rude to retail staff. They should ban you from their shops. Retail staff aren't there for you to use as punchbags you know.

Well the evidence comes from them that she was abusive to them for a peck on the cheek, which is none of her buisness. Only an idiot would think it is their buisness of course. So you want to ban me because I want to see justice done over an employee being abusive to people. Like I said they are not seeking compensation which points more to them telling the truth.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Oh no! She talked to them! Well that's what staff in supermarkets tend to do - talk to customers.

I find your haste to get this woman sacked without evidence very distasteful. I bet you're rude to retail staff. They should ban you from their shops. Retail staff aren't there for you to use as punchbags you know.

Well the evidence comes from them that she was abusive to them for a peck on the cheek, which is none of her buisness. Only an idiot would think it is their buisness of course. So you want to ban me because I want to see justice done over an employee being abusive to people. Like I said they are not seeking compensation which points more to them telling the truth.

That's not evidence, that's just what they claimed.

You clearly have a problem with retail staff, so it's likely that you're rude and obnoxious to them.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


Well the evidence comes from them that she was abusive to them for a peck on the cheek, which is none of her buisness. Only an idiot would think it is their buisness of course. So you want to ban me because I want to see justice done over an employee being abusive to people. Like I said they are not seeking compensation which points more to them telling the truth.

That's not evidence, that's just what they claimed.

You clearly have a problem with retail staff, so it's likely that you're rude and obnoxious to them.

Yes it is evidence, are you saying now people cannot give evidence in court and that testimonies do not count.

What an idiot you truley are.

I have nothing against retail staff, I do have an issue with some employees who are abusive.
So to claim I have an issue with retail staff based on your idiotic beliefs further proves the point you are as thick as shit

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

That's not evidence, that's just what they claimed.

You clearly have a problem with retail staff, so it's likely that you're rude and obnoxious to them.

Yes it is evidence, are you saying now people cannot give evidence in court and that testimonies do not count.

What an idiot you truley are.

I have nothing against retail staff, I do have an issue with some employees who are abusive.
So to claim I have an issue with retail staff based on your idiotic beliefs further proves the point you are as thick as shit

It's not evidence at all. Those guys said that other staff wouldn't back them up, so if the other staff do not agree with their story, what happens then?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Yes it is evidence, are you saying now people cannot give evidence in court and that testimonies do not count.

What an idiot you truley are.

I have nothing against retail staff, I do have an issue with some employees who are abusive.
So to claim I have an issue with retail staff based on your idiotic beliefs further proves the point you are as thick as shit

It's not evidence at all. Those guys said that other staff wouldn't back them up, so if the other staff do not agree with their story, what happens then?

PMSL, what an idiot you really are.
It is evidence

They're not going to sack her on the say so of two customers. They'll ask the Manager to get her side of the story, and they might ask for the views of other staff too. They won't ask any other customers what they saw. If the woman denies it, and the other staff do not agree with the men's version of what happened, nothing more will happen.

If she admits there was an argument of some kind, she might be advised not to get involved in that kind of thing, but they won't sack her.

veya_victaous wrote:

Christie wrote:

I'd be more than happy for admin to confirm I am not from Ireland. But really, is it any of your business where I do live? I really don't think so.

Christie is not Tess just for the record

Nice to see you posting Christie

Hey thanks Veya. I shall try to pop in more often when I find the time, but for now its off to work I go!

Plus, even if they did wrongly sack her, she is free to not only sue them for unfair dismissal, she is also free to put her side of the story on the internet and go to the press herself.

Raggamuffin wrote:They're not going to sack her on the say so of two customers. They'll ask the Manager to get her side of the story, and they might ask for the views of other staff too. They won't ask any other customers what they saw. If the woman denies it, and the other staff do not agree with the men's version of what happened, nothing more will happen.

If she admits there was an argument of some kind, she might be advised not to get involved in that kind of thing, but they won't sack her.

Of course they will sack her if they believe she is guilty.
There is no reason why they would lie about this, which at no point can you make a case for them doing so.
Its just the same crap always from you that you never believe the discriminated and you always back the abuser.

How much does anyone wanna bet this female employee is religious.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:They're not going to sack her on the say so of two customers. They'll ask the Manager to get her side of the story, and they might ask for the views of other staff too. They won't ask any other customers what they saw. If the woman denies it, and the other staff do not agree with the men's version of what happened, nothing more will happen.

If she admits there was an argument of some kind, she might be advised not to get involved in that kind of thing, but they won't sack her.

Of course they will sack her if they believe she is guilty.
There is no reason why they would lie about this, which at no point can you make a case for them doing so.
Its just the same crap always from you that you never believe the discriminated and you always back the abuser.

They won't sack her on the say so of those two men. Which bit of that do you not understand?

There are loads of reasons why they might lie.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Of course they will sack her if they believe she is guilty.
There is no reason why they would lie about this, which at no point can you make a case for them doing so.
Its just the same crap always from you that you never believe the discriminated and you always back the abuser.

They won't sack her on the say so of those two men. Which bit of that do you not understand?

There are loads of reasons why they might lie.

Of course they will sack her, the stores reputation is more importrant than some homophobic twat.
What reasons would they lie?
There is no incentive here for them to do so, which points to them telling the truth.
You do realise there is homophobi idiots out there do you not and this is not the first time Tesco's has had such a situation.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They won't sack her on the say so of those two men. Which bit of that do you not understand?

There are loads of reasons why they might lie.

Of course they will sack her, the stores reputation is more importrant than some homophobic twat.
What reasons would they lie?
There is no incentive here for them to do so, which points to them telling the truth.
You do realise there is homophobi idiots out there do you not and this is not the first time Tesco's has had such a situation.

The store's reputation for what? For treating their employees in a fair manner? They're more likely to be concerned about that than what two customers claimed.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Of course they will sack her, the stores reputation is more importrant than some homophobic twat.
What reasons would they lie?
There is no incentive here for them to do so, which points to them telling the truth.
You do realise there is homophobi idiots out there do you not and this is not the first time Tesco's has had such a situation.

The store's reputation for what? For treating their employees in a fair manner? They're more likely to be concerned about that than what two customers claimed.

They would be being fair by sacking her as she has broken rules on discrmination.
I suggest you look up Tesco's policy on discrmination.
The Stores image will be far more important to them and that they be seen to be acting on this.
I hope they name and shame her also after they sack the homophobic twat, to show zero tolerance to such fuckwits

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The store's reputation for what? For treating their employees in a fair manner? They're more likely to be concerned about that than what two customers claimed.

They would be being fair by sacking her as she has broken rules on discrmination.
I suggest you look up Tesco's policy on discrmination.
The Stores image will be far more important to them and that they be seen to be acting on this.
I hope they name and shame her also after they sack the homophobic twat, to show zero tolerance to such fuckwits

No she hasn't. She didn't refuse to serve them.

I doubt we'll ever know what they do. These chaps have had their moment of fame, so they can go back to posting pics of themselves in their underwear now.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

They would be being fair by sacking her as she has broken rules on discrmination.
I suggest you look up Tesco's policy on discrmination.
The Stores image will be far more important to them and that they be seen to be acting on this.
I hope they name and shame her also after they sack the homophobic twat, to show zero tolerance to such fuckwits

No she hasn't. She didn't refuse to serve them.

I doubt we'll ever know what they do. These chaps have had their moment of fame, so they can go back to posting pics of themselves in their underwear now.

There are many forms of discrimination you dummy ha ha ha

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No she hasn't. She didn't refuse to serve them.

I doubt we'll ever know what they do. These chaps have had their moment of fame, so they can go back to posting pics of themselves in their underwear now.

There are many forms of discrimination you dummy ha ha ha

Well if she did object to them canoodling, she might have the same views on heterosexual people canoodling in supermarkets too, so there would be no discrimination.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

There are many forms of discrimination you dummy ha ha ha

Well if she did object to them canoodling, she might have the same views on heterosexual people canoodling in supermarkets too, so there would be no discrimination.

How is a peck on the cheek cannoodling?
She has no right as an employee to tell people not to kiss

The supermarket cashier who admitted telling a lesbian couple that they shouldn't have babies and should die alone received a warning - she wasn't sacked.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/homophobic-tesco-cashier-tells-lesbian-couple-that-gay-people-should-die-alone-not-have-children-1483221

We don't even know if this latest cashier has admitted anything yet. If she doesn't, they won't do anything because there will be no proof.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well if she did object to them canoodling, she might have the same views on heterosexual people canoodling in supermarkets too, so there would be no discrimination.

How is a peck on the cheek cannoodling?
She has no right as an employee to tell people not to kiss

The guy claimed it was a peck on the cheek.

How a cashier could even see that if they were in the washing powder/dishwasher tablet aisle remains a mystery.

Raggamuffin wrote:The supermarket cashier who admitted telling a lesbian couple that they shouldn't have babies and should die alone received a warning - she wasn't sacked.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/homophobic-tesco-cashier-tells-lesbian-couple-that-gay-people-should-die-alone-not-have-children-1483221

We don't even know if this latest cashier has admitted anything yet. If she doesn't, they won't do anything because there will be no proof.

That is because that abuse was not direct, it was indirect aimed at gay people per say.
In this case it was direct at the couple
You keep making daft assertions as to how the company will act.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

How is a peck on the cheek cannoodling?
She has no right as an employee to tell people not to kiss

The guy claimed it was a peck on the cheek.

How a cashier could even see that if they were in the washing powder/dishwasher tablet aisle remains a mystery.

Easily, the tills in most stores face down an ailse

DOH

It does not matter if it was a peck or not, she has no right as an employee to tell people if they can kiss or not.

How many more times do you need to understand this?