ChrisL
Diamond Member
- Jul 24, 2014
- 83,563
- 22,017
THIS is what it is about, government oversights making things difficult for businesses. The handwashing thing was just an EXAMPLE. I certainly hope you aren't as dishonest as that ugly clown faced lady.
"I said I don't have a problem with Starbucks if they choose to opt out of this policy as long as they post a sign that says we don't require our employees to wash their hands after leaving the restroom," Tillis said to audience laughter. "The market will take care of that."
At Jimmy V's Osteria in downtown Raleigh, we saw plenty of employees washing their hands. We spoke to diners who unsurprisingly expect nothing less.
"I absolutely would like everybody in the restaurant industry to wash their hands and be required to do so," said Jennifer Knox.
"I also wash my hands before I cook a meal and so I would think that everybody should, yes," said Margaret Eagles.
Tillis and his town hall host laughed about the comment.
"Well I'm not sure I'm going to shake your hand", the host said to more audience laughter.
However, Tillis' off-hand comments did raise eyebrows in Washington. There was a flurry of headlines about it.
The comments did raise an age-old Washington question, how much government is too much government?
"I think we're over regulated", said Jimmy V's Head Chef Jeffrey Russell.
Russell insists he'd never cut corners on hand washing requirements for employees, but he agreed that some government rules can be burdensome at times.
"There are many rules that change constantly and we're not always kept up to date. You'll get a health inspection one quarter and the second quarter it becomes an issue," Russell said.
Of course he's using it as an "example".
The point is, it's a really bad example that no one in their right mind could actually support.
I agree. I ALREADY stated that I think the states have every right to regulate the restaurant industry but NOT the feds. If the federal government is thinking of getting involved in ANOTHER issue that has absolutely nothing to do with them, they should go screw off.
But they're not. No one has suggested that they should. You made up the "Federal" part in your head.
No, I think he was talking about the federal government getting involved, hence the talk of "Washington."
Why would he be talking about the federal government getting involved, since they're not involved, and no one has suggested that they should be involved?
Why was he instead talking specifically about a state law in the first place, if he wanted to discuss the federal government?
Let me ask you a question. Do you want your government to care for you in every aspect of your life? Do you want a mommy? Is that what this is all about? Liberals need to have a mommy?