Occasionally I make some social commentary. Well, okay I frequently make social commentary, and this morning is no exception. Scrolling down my “feed”, got to love these new terms we use today, I read a story concerning a Walgreens pharmacy. Located in the city of Chicago it had experienced a high rate of theft, installed security features that failed to curb the theft and eventually the store was closed.

With the information I do have, which is often biased or misleading, I venture this opinion. The store closed because they were losing money. That is my guess anyway. But, according to the story the neighborhood residents that used that store are claiming the whole thing is just racist. City politicians are considering a lawsuit charging just that. The story didn’t go into a lot of detail, but I am left to assume those residents belong to a minority group.

The article did not mention the race or ethnicity of the residents of that neighborhood. They did mention that it was occupied by low-income people and that was possibly the reason for the thefts. Those folks are struggling, just trying to get by, and stealing from the pharmacy may be their only means of obtaining those goods.

Walgreens is just being insensitive to the needs of the community. Walgreens is racist, discriminating against those people in the neighborhood. I’m going out on a limb here, but I’m saying those residents are predominately black or Latino. I have yet to hear about any white people filing a complaint about being discriminated against. I know, not supposed to say that out loud!

I’m left scratching my head at times. If I’m reading this right the residents are the ones that were robbing the store. Measures were taken to curb theft, cameras installed, locks placed on high value items, and security personal hired. Those same residents then figured a way around all of that and the thefts continued. The store was forced to close its’ doors.

As a result, the residents are now without a pharmacy and want to sue Walgreens for discriminating against them for robbing the store. Walgreens didn’t restrict who could shop at their stores, there was no bias, no discriminating there, they just closed a store that was losing money. I can’t see that as discrimination; it is simple economics 101. Look, I’m not opening a both to sell tanning oils in Alaska or pork ribs in Iran.

The complaint is that the older residents cannot get their medicines and other medical supplies. That isn’t fair to them. Well, it’s true that the older residents are most likely not the ones robbing the store. That leads you to question just who is? Well, if they are the younger residents, wouldn’t that indicate they are the children or grandchildren of the older residents? Seems reasonable enough to me. So, just who is being discriminated against by whom? Just who is resonable for the store closing?

I hear about white privilege all the time. I hear that I’m just a racist, that racism is systemic in America. I can’t understand the issues, the problems being a minority in America presents. In fact, I should be paying repreparations for the injustices of the past because, well, I’m a white guy. Sounds a bit discriminatory to me but that isn’t how that works in America. When color doesn’t work, just call it “hate.” You can be sued for that as well and when you do something that offends some other marginalized group. Careful with those pronouns now.

But beyond all of that I fail to see how Walgreens can be sued for discriminating against those that robbed the store? I don’t care one-bit what color, race, creed, or anything else you are, identify yourself as, or believe yourself to be; if you are a thief, you are a thief. I will attempt to stop you from stealing my goods, products or services. If that fails, I’m moving my business elsewhere! Simple as that. I will not enable your thievery! No, I’m not going to support that at all. That should be obvious! Nothing personal, just business.