Gun Photos are “Offensive” at Walgreens

[stan_hurst]

Reply from Wallgreens

Dear Stanley,

Thank you for taking the time to contact us regarding our photo content policy.

 

It is not a Walgreens policy to reject printing of photos including "firearms", rather a judgment call that is being investigated and addressed with the customer involved. Walgreens does however have the right to deny the printing of photos pertaining sexual content. Walgreens does not intervene in any other situation involving the content of a customer's order. If an employee is uncomfortable printing any image because of it's content, he or she may request that another employee process those particular images.

 

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact us with your comments. We hope to serve you in the future. .

 

Sincerely,


Kristen B.

Consumer Response Representative

[Cabin4]

So in other words, they are admitting to not printing the photos of firearms and they are blowing out the smoke screen with the all encompassing and ambiguous so called "judgment". Which is corporate code phrase for we'll do whatever the heck we please and go screw off if you don’t like it.

Sounds like the 2000 Jeep commercial BS untill enough people got pissed off and a petition was circulated. Jeep (Chrysler) finally pulled the commercial and released a public appology. In that commercial, Jeep was mocking deer hunters and making them look like fools while at the same time buying add space in all the outdoor magazines.

[mirage1988]

I wonder if Wallgreens has the same corporate policy as Walgreens? Read the original post again, the typo (is it a typo- or two different stores?) is obvious. No wonder gun owners are viewed as ignorant!
 Dear remington- I bott this rifle bicuz my ucle said it is a gud calibber, i catn find 300-o6 boolits aniwere, wat a pees uf jonk.
 If you are going to complain about a store policy, at least pretend to be as intelligent as the desk jockey you are bitching at.

[stan_hurst]

Yesterday I waz conceited, today i found out you can not be concited
and perfuct.
So now i is just perfuct.

whish you waz perfuct to.

[Cabin4]

I wonder if Wallgreens has the same corporate policy as Walgreens? Read the original post again, the typo (is it a typo- or two different stores?) is obvious. No wonder gun owners are viewed as ignorant!
 Dear remington- I bott this rifle bicuz my ucle said it is a gud calibber, i catn find 300-o6 boolits aniwere, wat a pees uf jonk.
 If you are going to complain about a store policy, at least pretend to be as intelligent as the desk jockey you are bitching at.

Your consistent ability to advertise your ignorance is amazing. Can you please tell us how it feels to constantly act like a male donkey around here?


You win the grand prize for the least substantive posts on GBO, uncontested.

[mirage1988]

Yeah-
I'm a jackass because I didn't fire off an e-mail to WALGREENS regarding WALLGREENS policy about photoprocessing because someone told someone else that they found their film offensive. Good one c4

[Cabin4]

Yeah-
I'm a jackass because I didn't fire off an e-mail to WALGREENS regarding WALLGREENS policy about photoprocessing because someone told someone else that they found their film offensive. Good one c4

No, you were a jackass long before your involvement in this subject. But it does appear you have an issue with this origins of this thread. Why don't you take that up with Matt since he started this instead of dropping your dung all over the place as a means to just simply stink up the thread...

[Matt]

I posted this issue because I had information from a reliable source that walgreens had in fact refused to process photos based solely on the fact that they were of firearms. I myself do not do business with them nor do I plan on it in the future as I do not need any of the services they offer. I thought it was an issue that those who believe in the Constitution would be interested in and I had no idea it would turn into a pissing contest... though I guess I should have. I myself am still waiting on a response to my email to them about this issue and am holding my comments until then.

mirage, if you have a problem with my posts then I suggest you refrain from reading and replying to them.


Matt

[Cabin4]

Matt,

I appreciate you posting this and the many other similar issues you alert us to here at GBO.

[mirage1988]

oops, double
 

[mirage1988]

Matt, I only responded because I found a little humor in the posts, i'm sorry you missed the sarcasm. I promise to be a good little boy from now on.....

Just wondering though, can I take my hunting pictures to wallgreens or, should I take them to walgreens to get them processed? (Get it?) Read thru the posts again and you will find two different stores mentioned.

[Cabin4]

Mirage,

The original post has a link that takes the reader to the correct corp web site. So I think there's little chance that someone will venture to the wrong web site. That is unless your a just a male donkey......then you might go to the wrong one....Do you have anything to confess?

[Graybeard]

Throttle it back you two. NOW!

It is as I said it likely would shake out based on the reply Stan got. There is no corporate policy against guns nor any other photo content except sexually explicit photos and to be honest I'm surprised at that even so long as the subjects appear of legal age. If there is any doubt of them being legal tho the store really has no choice in the matter of what to do assuming they don't wish to go to jail for it.

We have a case of a dumbass manager in a super liberal state known for dumbass antics and you are surprised he refused? Why? I'd be surprised if in that state there wasn't at least one likely more store managers who'd take such a stance and then likely sue Walgreen's if they get fired for abusing corporate policy. I hope they fire him but you can bet that if they do they will be taken to court over that. They are between a rock and a hard place on this and no matter what they do someone is gonna be on their case for an act done by one person at one of their 30,000+ stores without corporate knowledge of it in advance.

[rockbilly]

I “spiced” up Matt’s recommended letter a bit and sent it out last night.  I got the pat answer back, a carbon copy of the one posted by Stan.  I also made it a point to contact the manager of one of the local Walgreen’s stores.  He informed me they had no such policy regarding gun photos and that several of his employees were hunters.  He said the only area they were concerned with was nudity and child porno and enforced the no print policy on those.

I think this might be a regional thing with corporate backing of those who do oppose printing pictures of firearms.

[sagegrouse715]

Thank you, Mr. Graybeard.  I think your thoughts are wise.

[red alder ranch]

can't help but comment that this is not "censorship" nor does it have anything to do with the RKBA. This is a case of a particular store manager deciding that he doesn't want someone as a customer. As far as I'm aware, there is no constitutional right to demand that any particular business must perform any particular service for you.

Also, digital cameras are cheap, plentiful and easy to operate.

[MGMorden]

This is a case of a particular store manager deciding that he doesn't want someone as a customer. As far as I'm aware, there is no constitutional right to demand that any particular business must perform any particular service for you.

Unfortunately if it is true (as GB said, this might not be), it's not up to a manager to decide on his personal whims whether or not he wants the business of a particular person.  He is the paid representative of a corporation - he does NOT own the store and does not dictate the terms under which it conducts business.

Also, while you are technically correct that there is no constitutional guarantee that a private business must service you, it is also true that as a group, persons with common goals have long held up the option of using boycott to financially pressure a business into behaving differently.  Personally I still haven't seen anything that truly faults the company itself, but if it turns out that they DO allow/condone this type of behavior, then I have no problem taking my business elsewhere.  As we have no constitutional right to force them to process our photos, neither do they have any constitutional right to your business.

Also, digital cameras are cheap, plentiful and easy to operate.

Your point being?  People still often need/want hard copies of their photos.  I have several digital cameras that I use extensively (my Canon Digital Rebel XT is my favorite).  However, when I need a hard copy I still have to have a photo processor produce it (unless you print at home, which is both more expensive when factoring in ink costs AND produces an inferior result).  I actually got the impression that this was actually what was being done here as they specifically referred to printing the photos (whereas photos derived from film as more commonly referred to as being developed).  I don't personally use Walgreens for this (I use a web service called WinkFlash), but I DO have a problem with them refusing it.

[red alder ranch]

I get that this is insulting and aggravating, and I totally get why gun owners would consider boycotting such a business. My point was just that it is not "censorship" and it does not infringe on anyone's second amendment rights to keep and bear arms. Both of these things were thrown out there in this discussion, and I don't think either one of those things apply here.

[slim rem 7]

 well mirage ..since you are definitly talking about hayseeds like me.. i m so glad to finally hear from a fella who doesn t make misstakes.. someday mabe you can post a long post ..i ll then show it to my son an let him point out any misstakes.. then i ll get back widyou.. 
 ps i never let it bother me much if someone critiques my use of words on a post..it lets me know  they equate literary skill with intelligence..that can get you in trouble, friend.. it shows a major weakness on your part ..they might see you as easy prey,if they be the bullying kind..but im not prone to be that way..
 but alas.. me,, who don t believe in judging folk much,,or denying them the right to be who they are,,have in fact judged you by a few words you posted..so i ll take back what i said about you .. yall have a good day now.