After considering the recent article â€œCoffee is not a crime,â€? I discovered that in spite of her obvious outrage, Nancy Billings provides no rational evidence to support her claim that the companyâ€™s policy is unjust. Her anger was crystal clear, but I had difficulty determining if she realizes the policy is enforced for safety and liability reasons.
The owners of The Movie Experience must have decided that the added cost of liability insurance for allowing customers to carry hot liquids into the theater would ruin their profitability. We may never know, but Iâ€™d like to think that the owners were also considering customer safety while protecting their bottom line. Perhaps after considering the probability of an extremely hot beverage being accidentally dropped onto a seated audience member by someone trying to reach an open seat, the company decided to implement the only practical preventative measure and get rid of the risk of hot liquids passing above seated men, women, and children.
If you look at it from this perspective, the policy in question no longer looks like the plot of a cruel dictator whose solution for total control is to prevent theater patrons from catching a caffeine buzz.
I think Nancy Billings must be so irrational that she is unable to follow the reasoning behind such a policy. Or, if this isnâ€™t the case and she simply disagrees with the policy, then it seems she isnâ€™t socially conscious enough to willingly comply in the interest of safety.
San Luis Obispo