Take it as a learning opportunity in general customer interaction. You're working with a shorter fuse than normal with alcohol dulling inhibition, but usually being open as to why you cannot do something, before assumptions kick in, is helpful. "No, sorry, she's refused it. I cannot. It's the law." "No, sorry, I can't serve intoxicated people." In every customer service training I've ever received, it's been drilled in over and over that you cannot assume a customer's experiences. You cannot know if they were snobbed in favor of white folk in a store that afternoon, or if they were laughed at for applying for a loan last week. There's only so many times you can get hit by something before you react reflexively when someone makes similar motions.
From the text, New York is the one who brought race into the interaction, not the bartender nor Jessie. I got the impression that the author sides with or at least wants to give the leeway to New York in this interaction, but I don't see why. The author says that for New York, this might have been the most recent in a long string of race-based insults and slights, and "[t]hat neither Jessie nor I nor the bartender himself was in a position to say whether this had indeed been one of them, or why it felt like it to New York, or whether she was wrong." So how is the bartender supposed to act in this scenario? He says, "No, sorry, she refused. I cannot. It's the law." and New York says, "Oh, a brown woman can't buy a drink?", and then he responds how? Castigating the bartender for doing his job makes him a scapegoat. If he'd said, "I don't serve black women cuz they get drunk too fast." or "I don't want your money." or something, I'd understand. But as it's written, this interaction tripped one of New York's nerves and she took it out on him and Jessie when they'd done nothing wrong. Maybe that's the point: They'd done nothing wrong, but their very white-ness means it's still on them. There's no actionable course, then. Can't serve her because it's illegal. Can't not serve her because she's now in the mindset that it's because of her race.
You're always going to insult some people you deny service to. Not everyone will be offended, and people who are pissing away their troubles will respond particularly badly. You seem to be panicking that you're going to get in trouble because someone assumed you denying people based on legal requirement was because of race. You won't get in trouble so long as you're not letting the white people get away with it. You're the gatekeeper of your own consistency. If you preempt it as a matter of practice, refer to the denial for the inevitable and obvious attempts to loophole around the law, and do so meticulously across the clientele, you won't have any meaningful problem beyond a belligerent drunk. Those happen. Don't try claim that people of color always get to blackmail white people. Just don't be that guy. Seriously.
Well, I've been fired from many jobs, for many legitimate and illegitimate reasons. I try to excise the elements of my "on the job" personality that have gotten into trouble in the past, and attempt to learn from others mistakes too, you know? I seriously don't want to be fired, and I don't want to give a guest a bad time, and I want to serve people as much alcohol as they can handle because that directly makes me money. So when I read about this interaction, all I can think is, "How would I have done this differently?" and the answer is, "I wouldn't have." and that doesn't make me feel good. That's absolutely true, and I've bolded it because of how much I agree. Do you think the bartender in the story was inconsistent? You point to where I did it, and I'll fix it.You seem to be panicking that you're going to get in trouble because someone assumed you denying people based on legal requirement was because of race.
You won't get in trouble so long as you're not letting the white people get away with it. You're the gatekeeper of your own consistency.
Don't try claim that people of color always get to blackmail white people. Just don't be that guy. Seriously.
Hey, a follow-up. Rereading this interaction, and I see my comments looking a lot more combative or aggressive than I had intended or anticipated. I'm sorry about that. Further up in the thread, #thewoodenaisle deconstructed the situation in a way that makes a lot of sense to me, so know that my opinion on the matter has changed a bit. I wouldn't change my behavior in that scenario (as the bartender), but New York's reaction makes a lot more sense. Thanks for talking to me about this.