This is simply the rudest example of retail snobbery I've ever read about. Sure, the store can reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. It's just nasty to do so in such a hurtful way.
There is always two sides to a story. With these stories I usually look between the lines for hints of the customer's bad behavior. This time I can't discern anything like that. But the manager's letter praising the employee's stunningly rude behavior takes the issue to a whole other level that doesn't even require the customer's sad experience to condemn the retailer.
What bothers me about this is that these people value their esthetic over basic human decency. I'm not impressed that their espoused clientele is the likes of Kim Kardashian. Gag. But that doesn't matter. They can sell whatever goofy stuff they want to, they just shouldn't treat their fellow humans like that. It betrays such a shallow, empty soul.
Someone moved my effing cheese.
The picture that accompanied the article showed a "closing sale - 90% off" sign on the side of the store. I wonder if they're going under, and just don't care, anymore?
Either way, the letter from the manager was appalling. And, yes - the fact that he consistently used "whom", where he should have used "who", in an apparent attempt to seem more sophisticated, did make it even worse, imo. (We won't even get into his comma fetish.)
Lisa, lucky mama of Kelly (3/93) , Emma (5/03) , Evan (7/05) , & Jenna (6/09)
Loving my amazing dh, James & forever missing Aaron Ambrose (11/07)
OK, I love how they kept misusing 'whom' as well. If they were as upscale as they claim, they would know that "Chris whom served you is a qualified stylist whom has a sixth sense for fashion" is WRONG WRONG WRONG. Chris is the actor in the both of the clauses, and it should be WHO both places.