Issue date: 1/24/10 Section: News and Opinion

As an American, I expect certain things. I expect some things to be concrete and immutable, that something in relation to me and how I live as an American citizen that is unquestionable. Some might say we are entitled to certain "self-evident truths" and "unalienable rights". Along these lines, I have expectations regarding the authority of my rights as validated by the government, so when some ignorant Wal-Mart cashier refuses to sell me a case of beer because my 100% authentic Georgia license looks "suspicious", I get pretty damn angry.

I am 22 years of age. I have never once attempted to purchase alcohol before the age of 21. Yet because this one cashier scratches herself and comes to the staggeringly well-thought-out conclusion that the security hologram on my driver's license - which was made for the sake of authenticity in the first place - is actually a piece of tape (the irremovable kind with a hologram of "Georgia" written on it, apparently) used to cover up my actual birth date, I was denied my purchase. I asked to speak with a manager, expecting some level of competence from a someone who raised himself to the lofty positions of Wal-Mart management (which I now, after speaking with the man, assume includes the requirement of being able to wipe yourself without getting a rash). He told me that based on this cashier's suspicions, which I must again stress was based on ignorance, the glorious state of South Carolina forbids Wal-Mart to sell alcohol to me. I told them that if they can't verify that the card is fake, which I again say was totally authentic, then they have no right to bar me from purchasing it. The manager told me that, in fact, they do. So in essence, a suspicion from a Wal-Mart cashier overrides a government sponsored license. What a concept.

Ignoring the fact that I gave the manager a similar Georgia ID that a friend possessed to prove that the "tape" in question was in fact a security hologram, the manager still refused to sell to me, claiming that my ID number was already in the system and there was nothing he could do. I told him that with all do respect, I was never going to shop at that particular Wal Mart anymore due to their total lack of respect, competence, and willingness (or ability) to see reason and left without my beer.

I can almost forgive the incompetence of Wal-Mart. It is, after all, a Wal-Mart, the place where Bi-Lo drop outs go to work. But that law the manager used to defend his cashier's actions leaves a terrible taste in my mouth. The suspicion that I was lying was enough. The suspicion that I was attempting to commit a crime was enough. Even when I had the backing of a government document to verify that I was who I said I was, a suspicion from a person who lacks any sort of formal training in spotting false IDs was enough to deny me the right to purchase alcohol. What constitutes a suspicion, exactly? A shifty look in my eye? An excessive number of blinks? Am I not wearing glasses like I am in the photo? Is my hair different, did I shave, is there a nervous tremor in my voice? Or in my case, a new model of government license that the cashier may simply not be familiar with?

Continued...

Page 1 of 2 next >

Article Tools