Civvies on Broughton $20 browsing fee for white people condemned: Savannah, Georgia vintage store outlet forced to retreat from policy.
A vintage clothing store in Georgia has been accused of being ‘racist’ after announcing a newly adopted policy that waives a refundable fee for non-white customers.
In a since-deleted Facebook post, Civvies on Broughton in Savannah said it would be requiring white customers to pay a $20 deposit to book an appointment to browse inside the boutique, while people of color, black people & indigenous groups would be exempt from the charge.
‘As a mostly white staff with white ownership, we do not feel comfortable upholding a digital and financial barrier which could prevent BIPOC from shopping at our store at this time on top of the limitations already made by online booking,’ Civvies posted last week reports WJCL.
The store, which sells ‘new and recycled’ clothing, told potential white patrons that they could decline to pay the deposit on the booking form and a manager would reach out to discuss other options.
Civvies emphasized the store would not accept appointments with any white customers who are simply refusing to pay the fee because they believe it’s ‘unethical’.
Because white people are rich & privileged
The owners of the store defended the $20 fee on Sunday, saying indigenous and other people of color are likely the most effected by poverty and the on-going coronavirus pandemic, and that a refundable deposit would provide an additional barrier to their shop.
Civvies added that it wasn’t aware of any legal precedent that would suggest waving a fee to a minority group would be discriminatory, or that the fee adds limitations for white customers based on their race.
The store also added Sunday that they haven’t denied any appointment requests because of someone refusing to pay the refundable fee.
Which is to wonder, can one make the argument that white people are rich & privileged & therefore ought to pay a levy? And conversely is one’s blackness, or brown skin the reason why they may have failed to achieve wealth?
Store forced to apologize after widely condemned
Not less than 24 hours later after making their weekend policy, the store owners in a Monday statement, apologized for any offense caused by the new promotion, while confirmed they’d deleted all social media posts related to it.
‘It was not our intention to act in any way that might be perceived as discriminatory and for that we apologize,’ the owners, who were not named in the statement, wrote.
The store’s manager, Raine Blunk, told WJCL that some angered customers have threatened legal action over the new fee and filed complaints with the Department of Labor.
‘Most of the feedback about our decision to waive this refundable deposit is racist because it favors black people, indigenous people and people of color,’ Blunk said.
‘Obviously it is unfortunate to have thousands of people commenting and messaging us saying that they are going to sue us and have contacted the Department of Labor because this is a violation of their rights. We believe that what we are doing is within the confines of the law.’
Blunk added that the few was not based on ‘racial preference’ but was aimed to help those ‘most likely to be affected by a loss of historical equity.’
More than 1,700 people had commented on the store’s Facebook apology by Wednesday, with many insisting they were unmoved by the statement.
‘“I’m sorry you interpreted what I did negatively” is not an apology,’ Jimi Foster wrote in response. ‘You have only demonstrated that you have learned nothing from this.’
‘Do you not see you are the racist when you try to divide people by color. You need to take a look at yourself and realize you are the problem with what’s going on in this country,’ said Tom Howe.
‘If you dont want to be perceived [sic] as discriminatory you never should have mentioned skin color and booking fees,’ added Laura Watts. ‘Either everyone gets a booking fee or no one does. Skin color should decide who pays a booking fee. That is absolutely disgusting and racist.’
While Jonathan Warner posted, ‘Based on your FB cover page picture I see you’re promoting utilizing stolen land to make yourself a profit. How is that acceptable? Why didn’t you give the land back? If you’re leasing the building then why didn’t you break the lease since it’s stolen property?’
