[–] 7 points 1 day ago (1 child)

Sounds great until the other chefs are out sick and some "idiot" (again, your words) orders something on the menu.

Having principles can be tough, but the time to exercise them is when choosing a job in the first place.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 8 points 1 day ago (3 children)

    Some "idiot" wants something... that's on the menu?

    It's not that simple. What if the pharmacist is Catholic and the customer asks for birth control and he refuses because it's against his religion to use birth control? Would that be an acceptable reason for refusing or would he have to violate his beliefs because some idiot wants something?

    See how this works?

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 4 points 4 days ago (1 child)

    I'm not the person you replied to, but even being old enough to understand how huge the campaign was, and how certain ads would run in magazines for specific topics, I still think this one would make for a pretty insane ad, even for a brand that wasn't afraid to get a little "out there."

    Which is why I was also suspicious when I noticed there wasn't any fine print at the bottom of this one, because most ads have some, and especially for stuff like alcohol. My first thought was "maybe it's a parody," as the campaign was widely riffed on at the time.

    But the truth is even weirder.

    The first thing I noticed after doing an image search was the freakin' neckties. Apparently this design was printed on neckties, because someone wearing this would make even more sense, right?

    Aside from the ties, all the copies of the "ad" I could find were also lacking the fine print. So what gives? I think this photo I found explains it:

    The left page is the back of the "ad," and it's clearly a big envelope, which could be like a gift container for something flat like a tie, I guess?

    I still think putting this somewhat edgy design out as an ad would be less likely than printing it on novelty ties that most recipeints would get a chuckle out of and probably never wear.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • view more: next ›