Posted on 06/14/2016 4:34:26 AM PDT by orchestra
See how quickly even conservatives will think to go the route of litigation these days, instead of laughing about it and going somewhere else.
***********************
Maybe you’ve been asleep for a while... for the last 60 years that is how we lost this country ... by playing fair while the commie left with the ACLU destroyed our society. This is why Trump is winning ,, there aren’t that many people like you left.. willing to be stepped on and then apologizing to the people trampling you.
Lemme guess.
The “workers” were all illegals.
Gang bangers to the core: once one gets in, they pull in their buddies and terrorize anyone else working there into quitting.
Now they’re doing it to the customers. Where is the DoJ Civil Rights division? Parked at a La Raza terrorist event, passing out freebies?
And as for the owner of the hamburger joint, he/she can go to hell in bankruptcy. They’re the ones who did this by hiring the garbage.
As of August 2015 there were 170 locations in the Eastern portion of U.S.
I strongly support the right refuse service for whatever reason. If they don’t want to serve Trump supports, fine. Take the money elsewhere.
Likewise, Christian (or Moslem) bakers should not be forced to provide services to gay weddings or whatever.
Freedom is for idiot Democrats, too..
I would have thought it would be illegal to force that on somebody - compelled speech. Just because you’re an employer it doesn’t mean you can make people endorse something they don’t believe in.
Sue them for refusing to serve heterosexuals.
This is bad news. Cook Out has awesome food, is an excellent value, and prints bible verses on their cups and French fry packs. The employees in Raleigh always tell me to have a blessed day.
It’s totally a Freedom of Speech issue.
By the wearing of those shirts and hats, they were exercising their constitutionally protected right to campaign/”speak” for their candidate.
Would they have been so treated had their worn “Vote for the tax increase for the new animal shelter?” Of course not.
Remember, at law, Constitutionally protected speech is far beyond just the spoken word.
I would respectfully disagree
It’s not a political issue. It’s totally a denial of Freedom of Speech issue.
By the wearing of those shirts and hats, the diners were exercising their constitutionally protected right to ”speak” for their candidate. They were not doing it in such a way to interfere with the operation of the restaurant.
Would they have been so treated had their worn shirts that said “Vote for the tax increase for the new animal shelter?” Of course not.
Regarding not eating there again; such campaigns have historically had little effect, unless they are led by Sharpton or Jackson types. My experience has been that there is nothing like a summons and complaint to get a bad actor’s attention.
Remember, at law, Constitutionally protected speech is far beyond just the spoken word, and the cake baker and photographer were both successfully sued by the so-called “injured party.”
Respectfully
Clear violation of civil rights.
Sue the bastards and shut ‘em down.
If you want to put it that way then the Trump supporters were free to express their support of Trump and the restaurant owner was free to express their displeasure with Trump by telling them to leave.
By the wearing of those shirts and hats, they were exercising their constitutionally protected right to campaign/”speak” for their candidate.
And they can continue to do so. Just not at that restaurant.
Would they have been so treated had their worn “Vote for the tax increase for the new animal shelter?” Of course not.
Probably not. But if they had and had been refused service would you be complaining about it?
Remember, at law, Constitutionally protected speech is far beyond just the spoken word.
And remember that the First Amendment keeps the government from infringing on your right to free speech. It doesn't mean that ordinary people can't.
They were not compelled. They were permitted to wear Obama gear while waiting tables for the general public.
Patriotic gear would have been fine. This was disrespectful to some customers and would not be permitted in most businesses.
They may build a model JJ-3000 (Jesse Jackson) with simulated saliva to be used on robotically-determined caucasians
I suppose a clever plaintiffs' attorney could allege intentional infliction of emotional distress, but there is no valid constitutional claim. First Amendment does not apply to private parties.
Difference with "gay cake" type cases is that there were state statutes in those cases specifically granting homosexuals protected status. If there was a similar statute granting political expression protected status, there would be a case.
I’m (still) admitted in DC and VA.
If we agree that the conduct of the people at the restaurant was discriminatory, and it was, although perhaps not against against a constitutionally or statutorily protected class, it is certainly against against good order, fairness and I would allege public policy.
For that, the spotlight that can only be generated by media attention to litigation serves a public purpose.... (and paid my mortgage in the old days.)
Secondly, I would explore (after my daily golf game) if there is any interstate issue here, with the restaurant chain operating in so many states. For example, long before the CRA of 1964 was enacted, hotels, motels and restaurants attracting interstate business along the interstate highways were being sued for discrimination in interstate commerce.
Granted, it’s a reach, but that’s how Members get their names on the sides of law school walls (that along with large donations.)
Finally, assuming the facts are as presented, and you represented the restaurant chain, would you advise your client to work for a quick settlement, to include some low to moderate cash to the Ps, promises of some “inclusion training,” etc, or would you advise you client to fight it, including on the news some nights.
Again, assuming the facts as currently presented, if contacted by potential Ps, would you advise dropping the matter, or would you advise filing, as we have no way of knowing the “justice” of the matter unless we let a jury decide. (P.S. I have taken some hopeless cases, and won a few, but in every case, at least some small or large element of justice prevailed.)
If I was counsel for the Ds, I would hate to see this in the hands of some crazy jury.
If I was representing restaurant, I would advice them to immediately contact the rejected-patrons, apologize, and offer free meals. We agree that this is a PR disaster.
While I think the interstate commerce/public accommodations angle would give federal jurisdiction (see Ollies Barbeque), without some sort of government action (maybe having the cops remove Trump supporters?), it's difficult to come up with a constitutional claim.
Discrimination itself is not illegal; discrimination is only illegal when committed against protected classes.
And we Straight White Males are never a protected class....
Be well.
My thoughts too, mother and daughter were very gracious-considering.
Wow, that is news!
Spur of the moment refusal, by a server? Wonder where the manager was in all this- rights were violated!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.