Walmart is about sick of your shite, Sabrina

Yeah I know but the fact that Wal-Mart is throwing around licking shit (especially food) you don't own as being written into the constitution as a right... I'm curious where the fuck they got that from

Few years ago, people were going into Walmart and licking the vegetables and then putting them back. You've no idea if a person is carrying a disease, such as COVID-19, which can put someone in harm's way. I'm sure there is something constitutional that protects people from intentionally damaging someone's goods/services without paying for them.

Wal-Mart is implying the constitution has a rule that says the exact opposite is the thing.
.
"We have other rules that may INVADE your constitutional rights, like the rule against licking fruits and putting them back."
.
I just want Wal-Mart to show me where the fruit-licker protections act is in the American constitution

may

As many Americans thinks the constitutuon gives them FREEDOM = do whatever they want, so Walmart disallowing you to lick on food "invades" those people's perception of their "constitutional rights".

That's not how any of it works.

@xvarnah- Speaking on American law- the law generally isn’t “playground logic.” It codifies acts of harm. As an example- you own your car. Your car is parked outside. I sit on your car or touch it. What crime have I committed? If the car is not damaged- I haven’t damaged anything. Yes, it is yours. No, I didn’t have permission to touch it- but you can’t argue any quantitative harm I’ve done. If you leave your car unlocked- I can actually go in your car. That isn’t a crime. It wasn’t locked. (This is law, in the US- so anyone who wants to argue, call the Supreme Court. Right or wrong it is how it works.) Your car, parked on a public street, and unlocked- is open to the public the same as a store would be. If the cashier isn’t there but it’s open- you can enter. You commit a crime when you damage or take something.

Now- there are laws about food safety, and laws about bodily fluids. Many are newer laws that developed as risks of contagion developed. But you do not “damage” most fruits by licking them. It is very likely many fruits were licked by animals before or after harvest. Fruit isn’t sterile. It’s grown outside and shipped and stored often exposed. It isn’t “damaging” to clothing to try it on is it? Despite the clothing being now impregnated with your oils and sweat and dead skin cells right?

For some fruits we could argue that your saliva might break them down- is that going to be appreciable or measurable with most fruit? Generally not. You’re touching the fruit already. You’re supposed to wash fruits and produce before consumption anyway- so there is a minimal risk of contamination but still an appreciable one. But in theory- there really isn’t any statistically likely harm from a person licking a fruit which would warrant consideration. The seekers goods have not been damaged or defaced. Their market value is not effected. Someone seeing you lick the fruit may be less likely to buy it- but someone seeing a certain kind of person touching fruit might be too. That’s perception- it’s not a practical issue of something being wrong with the fruit.

You haven’t stolen anything. If the market uses their equipment to measure the fruit, it’s weight hasn’t changed. You’d have to do a lot of licking to alter the flavor or properties of the fruit in a way that could be said to have altered the fruit in any way.

This is an all respects substantially different than licking something like icecream or meat where there is a definitive hazard and common practice and use doesn’t mitigate that. It is certainly not the best practice to lick fruit- but examining it from the stance of practicality- a single person licking a single fruit doesn’t effect the seller.

But Walmart owns the building and the fruit until you buy it- so they are well within their legal rights to dictate to you that you cannot lick the fruit. They don’t want you to- and they can ask you to leave their store if you do. Their store is private property but a public space. That means you have certain rights that don’t apply on closed private land like free access to areas designated or not prohibited to public access. That also means that if they ask you to leave and you do not- you have lost access and are trespassing.

They may revoke your access for any reason that is NOT a protected class. In the USA- protected classes include age, gender/sex, race, religion, ethnicity, and in many cases sexuality as well as disability. They cannot kick you out for being a Muslim for example- which includes certain aspects inherent to being a Muslim. There are conflicts here- a make believe religion that requires you to smoke a ceremonial pipe before eating- a restaurant could most likely require you to leave, or kick you out for smoking inside where smoking isn’t allowed. Even though this is part of your religion- as a practical matter, it is not compatible with the laws and rules and safe free enjoyment of others.

What CAN apply in cases like that- is a “reasonable accommodation.” Where the beliefs or particulars of a persons circumstance are such that it would be unreasonable or unsafe to allow them fair use and enjoyment, but a functionally comparable result can be delivered- it is expected that reasonable accommodations be made. It isn’t practical to kick all the women out of a store because a certain religion finds shopping with women offensive- but you can have curbside service or something similar arranged for minimal effort in their case to accommodate their religious beliefs. An important distinction there however is that offering reasonable accommodations to those who require them due to protected class or intrinsic status does not mean you must offer that same accommodation to anyone who wants it or has a preference which would make them more happy with an alternate accommodation. Curbside pickup simply because a person doesn’t LIKE shopping with women or hates women isn’t the same.

TL:DR- So the argument is somewhat valid. There is no constitutional prohibitions to licking someone’s fruit if that fruit is left where you could lick it, or that person trusts you with proximity to their fruit. Licking the fruit does not generally harm the fruit or change its value. You have not hurt the owner of the fruit or the fruit in a material way- but the owner of the fruit, on their own property, does in fact have the right to ask you to leave if you lick their fruit, and that does not violate your constitutional rights. Now- if you leave a watermelon on the grass in a public park- a stranger can touch it all they want if they don’t damage it. You can ask them to stop- but it is public property and your fruit is not restricted from the public. So they don’t actually have to stop by law. If they aren’t moving your fruit or stopping you from accessing or using your fruit- them touching it may annoy you, but they aren’t depriving you of property or rights and are in public.

Saliva literally contains digestive enzymes that target compounds in items like fruit specifically, and cause rapid contamination, decay, and damage. It also makes the food largely unsellable immediately after the damage is done. Much like someone urinating in clothing in the dressing room, or ejaculating on magazines. Nowhere in the constitution that I can recall does it give anyone free reign to spread their bodily fluids on products owned by other people.
.
I don't really care about rogue watermelons roaming the wilds - they made their choice, they're not Wal-Mart's responsibility.
.
I was more trying to figure out whether Wal-Mart was picking the most ridiculous and non-applicable example imaginable that they could possibly have come up with. And looks like they absolutely did

An interesting argument. And what part of the constitution does it deny anyone free reign to spread their bodily fluids? I don’t believe the constitution addresses bodily fluids directly- you may prove me wrong if you have citations. We can interpret certain provisions about the constitution to apply to bodily fluids and state or federal ability to regulate ones bodily fluids as is conducive to society and in line with the powers and protections of the constitution.

Like I said above- saliva can damage fruits and vegetables. Most of which have a protective outer shell and wouldn’t have the merchantable part of the product damaged- and most produce is in fact already bearing damage and blemish to the outer covering. If you’d like to go try for yourself- buy 2 melons or even apples. Lick one, do not lick the other. Leave them both out until they rot- tell me which rots first. Of course- how would you prove one apple rotted prematurely even if the licked apple rotted first- since the knowledge of when an individual apple is picked generally isn’t available and differences in Fruit can mean that even a “younger” fruit can rot first.

Which was another point I already made and hasn’t been refuted. How do you prove material harm here? If I sit on the hood of your car, my pants COULD scratch the paint. On the molecular level it WILL create imperfections which will dull the transmission of light and thus the luster of your finish, and possibly cause premature oxidation or failure of the clear coat and underlying paint- POSSIBLY leading to rust. But it isn’t a crime to sit on your car, and if you took me to court and there were no visible scratches in the car, they wouldn’t make me pay you to repaint the hood or pay you for the whole car because it COULD rust and be ruined.

You have to prove.... in US law- in a property case, you have to prove that some actual and measurable damage was done and that it was done maliciously or through misconduct or gross negligence on the part of the person you are accusing. I can lick your car you know? That is perfectly legal. There is nothing stopping you from licking most things. Licking things generally isn’t a crime in itself. The girl arrested for licking icecream was arrested for “tampering with a consumer product.” These are state and local laws that differ but usually- such as in Texas where the ice cream controversy happened- the act must result in probable and serious harm or death. Given that licking fruit could accelerate its decay- but that decay would be evident to a consumer- any decent lawyer or half intelligent person would realize that the danger of someone dying or being seriously harmed by eating a fruit which has had its peel licked by a generally healthy person is at risk of neither.

More recently a man licked some items in Walmart and screamed a bunch of stuff about covid 19. He was arrested. Not for licking things. The charges were “making terroristic threats.” You see- by insinuating his spit contained covid, and his intent was to get people sick- he made a terrorist threat. Had he not said those things- they’d have nothing to arrest him on for just licking something. Also recently, a 50 odd year old woman licked the handles of a grocery store freezer. She made a stamens after the fact it was in protect of covid. No arrest, no charges. She didn’t commit any crime you see. Because in general- licking objects is o oh a crime if you damage the object in a measurable way.

Tl:dr and in summary- you don’t have to agree with me. You don’t have to believe me. You can’t argue with me. What I have told you is the way it is. It just is. We can argue that isn’t the right way, or it’s dumb. But it is as I have said. Those are the laws of these United States in general and the principals which inform those laws. The constitution says nothing about licking things- but in broad strokes it, and the law derived from it, say that you can generally lick objects so long as that licking doesn’t contradict any other laws. There may be state or local laws that could be applied to licking produce depending on where you are. It is general common sense that you shouldn’t lock produce. Brining criminal charges for the act alone is generally unlikely- unless say you licked ALL the produce... and a civil case is almost out of the question. Proving damages would be a nightmare and the costs of the trial and lab tests to prove your case about “premature degradation” would outstrip

The $0.20-4.00 you’d likely be able to recover in damages for the act. So in general-
Don’t lick produce, but in general- so long as you don’t break any other laws while doing it- most places in the USA licking produce is legal and not forbidden by the constitution or law. A science museum may allow you to lick samples (not so much anymore) or a tourist attraction may allow people to kiss or lick an object of superstition (think- Blarney Stone etc... and also... not so much anymore...) so the precedent exists that a private space open to the public or a public space has the right to allow or forbid licking objects in their ownership so long as it is otherwise legal. Being disgusting or weird doesn’t make things illegal. Look at the internet.

You know I almost considered reading that, but then I spotted the "You can't argue with me" bit and that made it instantly apparent how worthless any further engagement would be.
.
You have your mind made up that your forefathers felt so strongly about the human right to spread saliva on Wal-mart food that they put it down in ink - right up there with the right to bear arms.
.
I look forward to seeing you featured on the next "people of Wal-Mart" feed

My mind isn’t made up. The law is the law. I’m telling you what fact is. You can’t argue against it. It is fact. I don’t know if you are aware of this- but the constitution doesn’t carry every single law nor lost every single freedom in the United States. It provides the framework by which a federal government ran as a representative republic is to function. Your snarky comments asides, facts are facts. If you don’t believe me- go find the federal law against licking produce. I will wait here. I already told you, a person shouldn’t lick produce, but licking produce by itself is generally not a crime.

Just shut up, man. She's only saying that it ain't an enumerated or protected right and that the employee was stupid to use it as an example. Stop being a pedantic jerk already.

Asking guest_ to stop being pedantic is like asking a shark to stop swimming.

I already told you - I didn't read what you said. I'm not going to because it would be a worthless endeavour. I asked a question, and somewhere along the way you apparently decided that not only were we arguing - but that I am not allowed to take part in the arguement unless I agree with you. I am obliging you by not taking part.
.
I will say that I never said it was a crime (to my recollection I never said it at any rate - if I'm wrong someone can feel free to correct me). I said show me where the right to lick fruit is written into the constitution. If the right to lick fruit isn't in the constitution then it seems a poor choice on the part of the Wal-Mart employee to state that it is a constitutional right.
.
You can continue taking this extremely personally if you like. But if you're going to insist on putting things in my mouth, I'm going to insist you at least buy me dinner first.

lickig produce comes under food tampering laws, if you truly think it's not a crime, go to your local supermarket and start licking them, and see how far you get

@xvarnah- I never said we were arguing. I said that you can’t argue what I wrote. Because it is legal fact. And as is usually the case, I am still correct. You literally cannot argue what I wrote because you did not read it. That which you have no knowledge of, you cannot argue. Therefore nothing I said is not factual. I have answered your question. You may read and accept the answer or not. That is your prerogative, but your question is resolved which is all I came here to do. You can disagree with the answer or dislike it all you like. I dislike that Coca-Cola isn’t as healthy as water. I can say or do as I like, but short of inventing a new formula for Coke, my feelings on the issue change nothing.

Did you really just drag me here to tell me how right you've decided you are? Cause dude there's limited hours in the day, and I don't think you realize that I could literally be peeling the skin off my eyelids instead of this

Dude.

@famousone I don't know where your car is

@guest_
I think that is enough. Now you are being extremely disrespectful. You made your point a while ago that you are sooooo big brained and try to make it look like the rest of us aren't as intelligent as you. You type a novel on almost every single post about how this, that, and the other is wrong. Well guess what. Acting like that is starting to make me lose respect for you in a major way. I used to look forward to your comments. Now my anger rises whenever I see your comments due to the disrespect you show others. I am not very well liked in this community, but I've about had it up to my eyeballs with your comments. Maybe stop being a damn Know-It-All on a website called "FUNSubstance". This isn't Snopes, or a fact checker website. So stop treating it as such.

@guest_
Also. Since you had originally brought it up...
You mentioned entering an unlocked car as not against the law. Try again. That vehicle is someone's property. Entering a vehicle without permission (unless obvious reasons. IE, law enforcement), is considered trespassing. Trespassing is illegal.
Also. Against the law to lick food in a store. It is definitely considered food tampering, and is considered a felony in many states. So a store has every right to deal with someone like that legally.
On top of that. Numerous courts this year have had claims filed from people saying the masks are unconstitutional and businesses can't not serve you if you aren't wearing a mask. The masks are not unconstitutional, according to many courts, such as the Supreme Court in Arizona. Also. The Constitution grants power to leaders and groups such as CDC, The WHO, etc to make decisions to keep the population safe. If mask wearing is in that category, then yeah. It is Constitutional to have to...

@guest_
...wear a mask. Also. The Constitution states nothing about masks, yet it does state the 10th Amendment... which reads...
"All powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".
This amendment gives state legislation the power to pass laws to protect the people, such as requiring people to wear masks.
Now. Argue with THAT.
@xvarnah
I am sorry that you went through what you went through with reading all of this.

Novelus- the legality of entering an unlocked vehicle varies with state and country- but a car is generally property- not real estate. I can’t be arrested for “trespassing” if I step on your shoes, or place a foot in them can I? Also- entering an area that is private property which has no posted signs against entry and is unlocked- open- generally isn’t a crime. A store is private property, malls and gas station parking lots are private property- it isn’t trespassing to walk on to a car dealership lot of the gate has been unlocked and no signs are posted that you cannot. It becomes trespassing when the owner asks you to leave and you do not- as you have now had your access removed. But again- you generally can’t “trespass” inside a car. Laws such as tampering with a motor vehicle generally apply there. Please feel free to cite where a United States law charges trespassing for entering an unlocked motor vehicle on public property.

As for disrespect- perhaps my comments, especially with famousome and xvarnah can be disrespectful at times. Sometimes I feel I should do better and I’m other cases, I feel it is warranted. There is history there and disrespect is a two way street. I’ve indulged certain parties at great lengths for years- if you want to spend thousands of hours looking back at the history you can see it. But you know- at a certain point I’m just not going to take you seriously if you refuse to a knowledge documented fact.

Some things are just true. They aren’t subjective, they aren’t debatable. One can discuss the ethics or effectiveness of philosophy- but they are just true. In that regard, when I speak what is true, cite it, and get just... mush... back, well yes. I am
Human and at some point I’m not going to bother being gentle as gentle if gentle hasn’t worked with certain people.

Lastly on the matter I will say this- for some reason, the way I write, it is common on this board that people think I am being aggressive or otherwise they take offense to my tone, when I am speaking plainly. I often get “calm down” on matters I am perfectly calm about. I am calm as I write this. I am merely writing things as I know them. As to whether my “big brain” or a “know it all”- look.... there isn’t a a to say this which won’t possibly make you think I am being disrespectful... but is it possible that to some people.... things you seem to consider to be “smarty pants” stuff.... IS fun? I mean.... when I was a child I didn’t much care for math problems, it wasn’t until I got older and better at math that I realized math could be fun. So it is possible your idea of fun and my idea of fun are not the same thing?

To the point on the fruit- I say in my posts that the legality varies by state and country- but just as it is illegal in places, it is also perfectly legal in places- so it isn’t accurate to say it is illegal as a blanket statement. But that wasn’t really the point of the discussion was it? The whole thing was illustrative of a concept. And for someone who thinks funsub isn’t snopes... you and others sure seem eager to nit pick and fact check and be pedantic at my posts no? Again- that isn’t disrespect intended- I’m just saying that perhaps the issues you are having and the issues you are stating aren’t the same, given that it would seem hypocritical otherwise?

As to the last part of your post- I.... literally don’t understand what you are saying. Have I at any point said anything that implied that wearing masks was unconditional? I have, for the better part of a year- been saying that the order to wear masks is constitutional. And you don’t have to take my word for it. There are entire branches of government dedicated to this with people who know more about the constitution than me, and maybe even more about it than you- and they seem fine with it. So I don’t... I can’t really respond to the last post you made because I don’t understand the relevance?

@xvarnah- no. I replied to your comment to me. In between your comment and the one I tagged you was a string between famous one and I, and by tagging you I ensured that it was clear I was replying to your comment. Also, my comment doesn’t say how right I think I am. It reiterates simply that I am right. The distinction is important because one is an opinion and another is fact. One is supported by an external body of evidence and one is only supported by ones internal feelings.

Son of a gun he did it again.
.
Look, I'm happy you've decided you're right and all that, but I'mma have to ask you to desist in dragging me back here. I lost interest around 5 days ago, I already unfollowed, and the eyelid peeling is set to commence momentarily.
.
Aside from which this comment chain has been one of the most tedious and valueless things in my entire existence. I'm done with it. You can ramble on about it all you wish but stop tagging me here for this nonsense.

Took 3 days to respond? Jesus I had moved on from this. Look up trespassing laws for vehicles. A vehicle that is not owned by a dealership, and owned by a citizen is private property. That is why you can refuse a police officer access to your vehicle without a warrant. Seriously, it will take you 5 minutes to look it up. Took me less than that to find it.
Another note. You may find it fun what you are doing, but it is not generally fun to everyone involved. Your point about hypocritical? When you make incorrect statements regarding incorrect facts, claiming them to be true, some of us are gonna bite the bullet and call you out on it. American law is not that confusing. Do heavy research before responding, as I may not be pleasant in my next response. I think you've done enough. Move along please.